Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Polar Express (IMAX and regular 35mm)

This is topic The Polar Express (IMAX and regular 35mm) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000852

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-06-2004, 08:04 AM:

I wasn't sure if I should just start a regular Polar Express review, or make this the IMAX 3D specific one; but since a lot of what I have to say deals with the 3D, I'll leave it to others to start a regular one if enough people were lucky enough to see the IMAX version and cared to post here. (If people just want to review the regular version here, I'll adjust the title.)

I wasn't looking forward to this movie and had no real desire to see it. However, I really liked it. It wasn't as slap-you-across-the-face with all the "believe, and everything will be right" stuff that I expected. The sentiment behind that kind of stuff takes a backseat to the main drive of the plot: it's a good, adventure-type, holiday-driven movie. The ending, unavoidably, gets slighly sappy; but that's alright.

It took almost 20 hours to assemble this thing, and every frame I caught of people's faces just creeped me out. However, on screen, the characters were a bit more natural and more "fluid". It's not perfect, but it's not stiff either. Some things were awkward, but the direction worked. Lots of subtle body language movement detail; in some cases, perhaps a bit more distracting than necessary.

I was really impressed with the 3D. Since the original approach to the movie was probably not to showcase 3D, there are no obvious "look, here's something coming at you, this is 3D!!!" shots. Instead, the effect is just to drop you right there and let you Experience the action. The background details are worth looking at all the time. Snow flurries, reflections, anything flying through the air, really: it looks great.

There are lots of quick action sequences: the sliding train, the "roller-coaster" first-person perspectives, and some interesting "camera" fly-by's; which work extremely well in 3D. I would say they out-do all the "roller-coaster" CGI ride movies that IMAX has done before.

The movie does not fill the full aspect of the screen. I'm positive it wasn't DMR'd; it was re-rendered explicitly for 15/70 3D. But it maintains the "scope" matting that all the other Warner Bros. DMR's had. Still, this movie doesn't need to fill all your peripheral vision to be effective. The image is VERY crisp (with NO film grain or digital artifacts that Matrixes or Spiderman 2 had) and brighter on screen than I anticipated, considering the 3D glasses and polarizers which greatly reduce light output.

Very catchy, infectious, typical, holiday-oriented music. I enjoyed the score. Since I watched from the booth I didn't get to experience the sound mix and surround effects as well.

Tom Hanks did a good job, voicing pretty much all the adult male characters (so it seemed), which nicely illustrates the "story-telling" aspect of the book adaptation, in a subtle way.

Anyway, we've got a sneak preview of this later today. Hopefully people will be legitimately impressed, as I was, and hopefully the movie will do well in IMAX.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-06-2004, 01:00 PM:

I don't care how big it is, the movie still sucks! I saw it at Show East and most of the exit commentary was that the kids looked creepy.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-06-2004, 07:31 PM:

But the train was wonderfully accurate. Have you no sense of priorities? Who cares about people? People suck.

[Doing my best Joe. R.]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2004, 07:43 PM:

That's a really bad Joe R. I'd do my best Steve Kraus but I can't be that boring.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-07-2004, 12:16 AM:

Obviously, the train is the reason to see the movie (both for the sight and the sound). Why do you think they made the train the biggest thing on the poster and titled the movie after it? Because trains are cool!

My wife gave me the Polar Express train set (Lionel) for my birthday. I expect I'll enjoy the train set as much or more than the movie.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-07-2004, 07:12 AM:

We had our public sneak preview, and people seemed to love it! (A crowd of maybe 250 to 300 people.) It went really well, and the presentation went off without a hitch. It got a round of applause at the end (which, I know, doesn't necessarily mean much, but it's refreshing to get a reaction from the crowd). My GM was legitimately impressed with the presentation, having never witnessed IMAX 3D before. And the overall sentiment was that it was one of the best Christmas movies in quite a long while.

On a second viewing, I did happen to catch some aliasing here and there, but nothing that most people would notice.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2004, 05:37 AM:

This movie is retarded and a huge waste of time. Despite minor things like terrible continuity (for example, note how many cars the train is pulling as it is sliding on ice, and then note the massive quantity of cars the train is pulling as it rolls on into the North Pole), not to mention the poor facial animation vs. the way the dialogue is being voiced, there are other stupid things such as why the passenger cars are suddenly curved when the train goes up a circular mountain, how can the train steer when it is skidding on ice, how did the train magically lock every single car back on the tracks perfectly at the end of the ice scene, and so forth and so on. Now I didn't walk into this movie looking for whether things were "real" or whether the movie was well animated, but by the time I started getting bored with it, that's what I started paying attention to.

Also, with this movie being animated, there is no excuse for it to not have a fantastic soundtrack...but it didn't. It was frequently just loud and sloppily thrown together. I expected more from the mix, but it just had a "Klipsch" sound to it, with no real low end, lots of muddy upper bass and no true clarity. (And no I was not screening this film in an auditorium with Klipsch speakers...it was the same auditorium I screened The Incredibles in with a great sound system.)

It's not a terrible film, and there will be tons of families who will flock to see this film (if for no other reason that there are so few "safe" films to take the family to), so it will certainly do well at the box office. But as for this being a great or even good film, it just isn't there.

2 stars out of 5

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-10-2004, 01:21 AM:

Totally Lame. With all the hype about the risks WB supposedly took making this movie I was expecting much more. I may see it on Imax just to see if the roller coaster scenes are any good.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2004, 01:37 AM:

I refuse to see this movie due to the disturbing-looking characters and the gawd-awful animation. It's like the faces only have 2 muscles operating them or something. Tom Hank's dialog in the trailer and the animation on his character's face did not match the tone of the voice or even sync well. The animation looks very disturbing and this movie would give me many nightmares if I were to view this as a child. It's like I'm watching lifeless zombies or something which are trying to look real in order to catch and eat me. Eery.

All copies of this movie should be set on fire and the studio should be sent the bill. That is the only way my mind can be at peace after seeing these disturbing images.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-10-2004, 03:33 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
The animation looks very disturbing and this movie would give me many nightmares if I were to view this as a child.

That's what I thought based on the trailers alone. Like I said, I had no desire to see it. I'm sure I'll get sick of it soon enough but, after two full viewings, it didn't bug me like I thought it would.

As for all the valid gripes Brad had ... it's a movie about a "magic" train that shows up at your front door to take you to the North Pole! Sure, there are too many things to suspend disbelief over ... but, after all, the whole point is just to forget everything and just BELIEVE!!! Okay, that sounds really lame, I know. And in principle I should hate this movie, too; like I expected to. But I didn't. Go figure. Anything's possible.

[ 11-10-2004, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: Brian Michael Weidemann ]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2004, 05:07 AM:

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann
the whole point is just to forget everything and just BELIEVE!!! Okay, that sounds really lame, I know.

The reason why it sounds really lame is because it IS really lame. [Razz]

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 11-10-2004, 08:20 AM:

_________________________________________________________________

quote: Brad Miller
Also, with this movie being animated, there is no excuse for it to not have a fantastic soundtrack...but it didn't. It was frequently just loud and sloppily thrown together. I expected more from the mix, but it just had a "Klipsch" sound to it, with no real low end, lots of muddy upper bass and no true clarity

Isn't that just the way 35mm presentations usually are? At least all that I have seen. Maybe you should go see/listen in IMAX to compare. I think the 3D adds something to the film. I saw it in crappy 35mm and was bored with it but in IMAX I was not.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-10-2004, 11:41 AM:

I think the animation looks creepy because the rendering is so photo-realistic. I think if they ever figure out how to get all the muscles in the face moving somewhat randomly in little subtle movements the way all of your facial muscles are moving right now while you're sitting here reading this, then things will look pretty awesome. But right now, the rendered characters look creepy because they LOOK real, but they aren't moving like they're real. And it's not that they're moving too much, I don't think they're moving enough, and the movement they do have seems forced.

They should have used some motion capture, then concentrated on the facial expressions.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-10-2004, 12:15 PM:

I haven't seen this movie, and don't really have much desire to do so with what I've seen. I'm only just jumping in here to make what I believe is a valid point in criticism:

Why bother to do a CG based movie where the characters look photo realistic? What is the point? Why not just shoot live action? There's little point at all in making an artificial version of "reality" if you're not going to do too much to enhance it.

What that said, even movies like Final Fantasy seemed more justified in doing photo realitic CG people than this show. There was a lot of machinery and other stuff to justify an all digital method. Even still, the humans in Final Fantasy suffered from the same thing people are complaining about in Polar Express. The facial expressions just look dead.

Now compare this to "The Incredibles." You have characters that are supposed to be people, but they're not created in photo realitic form. Rather, they are exaggerated in methods similar to caricature. I think that method both allows for better character expression, as well as avoiding constant audience scrutiny on how "real" the characters look.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2004, 03:29 PM:

quote: Dan Suomi
Isn't that just the way 35mm presentations usually are? At least all that I have seen. Maybe you should go see/listen in IMAX to compare.

Please spare me the IMAX superiority bit. That's about as ridiculous as when a DM of Cinemark (back in my Cinemark days) told me that we were going to receive a circuited print from another Cinemark location and "that means it will be in perfect condition." HA! (The print turned out to be scratched and dirty.)

My point is that your post implies that every IMAX theater has a great sound presentation. Just like IMAX, 35mm presentations will vary depending on the theater design, sound tech and the operators running it. The auditorium I watched the movie in was well calibrated and a well mixed track such as the Incredibles sounds phenomenal. Polar's mixing just wasn't that good.

Need I remind you of how insanely shitty both of the Dallas IMAX theaters are in picture and sound??? Yet when I visited Adam Martin's IMAX booth in Sacramento, I got a great presentation. Mileage varies.

I'm sure it looks marvelous in 3D and I've heard great things about the presentation at the IMAX in Grand Rapids, but I have no intention of sitting through that turd again, 2D or 3D.

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-10-2004, 04:29 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
This movie is retarded and a huge waste of time.

Don't mince words, Brad. Tell me what you really think.

[Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2004, 06:13 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
why the passenger cars are suddenly curved when the train goes up a circular mountain, how can the train steer when it is skidding on ice, how did the train magically lock every single car back on the tracks perfectly at the end of the ice scene, and so forth and so on.

Well, it IS a "magic" train. [Big Grin]

The important thing is, are the KIDS going to like it? It is their movie, after all.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2004, 06:20 PM:

Not enough to recoup the $171 million it cost to make this turd. $171 million and they can't even do good graphics. Or sound, apparently.

Robert Zemeckis has proven that he has outlived his usefulness. He should be lobotomized, and the part of his brain that is removed should be fed to rabid, screaming monkeys as he watches.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-10-2004, 07:43 PM:

Aaalll a BORED!!!

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-10-2004, 11:45 PM:

I was doing a lot of passenger car counting today. MOST of the time the train has five passenger cars (plus the locomotive and coal car), but there are definitely scenes, especially when they get to the North Pole, that the number of cars exceeds eight or nine.

Even with a magic train, you would at least expect SOME things to be consistent.

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 11-11-2004, 11:08 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
I'm sure it looks marvelous in 3D and I've heard great things about the presentation at the IMAX in Grand Rapids, but I have no intention of sitting through that turd again, 2D or 3D.

Thanks, I try to give people what they pay for.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-11-2004, 11:35 AM:

This is one gigantic "chick flick". I found it a bit repetative (too many roller coaster moments) and a little sappy. Wife thought it was wonderful, and far better than INCREDIBLES. She liked the story, characters and, actually, just about everything about the movie. To her, the "message of Christmas" was the most important part of the film.

I thought the characters were rather creepy, especially the elves, and things were much too predictible. I enjoyed the music, but I thought it sounded a bit "flat"...those big Christmas numbers at the end should have boomed out in a full rich sound. (This could be a theatre problem...this was an AMC with a torus screen.)

I plan on seeing the 3-D version at the new Showcase Springdale Imax in Cincinnati in a few weeks.

Posted by Jeffrey Korns (Member # 2791) on 11-11-2004, 11:50 PM:

The characters are too creepy and dead faced. It should be called "Christmas Eve of the Living Dead" or "The Children of the Corn Pay a Visit to Santa's Workshop".
One guy called it a classic in the same tradition of "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians".
I knew I wouldn't like it when I saw the trailers, and I was proven right.

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 11-22-2004, 06:42 PM:

I found it to be boring as hell. But, I did like the 40s era look to it. Other than that, the characters kinda creeped me out. I can't see any little kids enjoying it. Too many animated films this month....I feel sorry for any parents having to take their kids to all of them. No money for Christmas presents!!

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 11-23-2004, 10:16 PM:

I don't understand why they didn't release all the prints in 3-D? They might have had more business with people running to see it just for the 3-D effects. And it could have capitalized on following right after the suceess of Spy Kids 3-D.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-24-2004, 04:37 AM:

As I recall, Spy Kids had that cheesy, old-school green/red 3D. It's a different kind of 3D system. The look of this film is very colorful and rich. The polarized 3D still retains the full color and contrast. The green/red 3D would have just ruined it, I think ... Not that the bad animation and horrid story (in some people's opinions) didn't do that already. [Razz]

Many employees at my theatre have remarked how good it looks in IMAX, then after watching part of the 35mm print (or even the digital; since we had it in our DLP auditorium, too) they say, flat out, "Oh, what's the point? It doesn't work at ALL in regular 35mm. How boring." And ultimately, I agreed. It fell flat. [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-30-2004, 07:20 PM:

I watched "The Polar Express" last night, mainly to check out the first stadium seated screening rooms to open at the local Carmike theater. The theater is in the process of converting all eight screens to stadium seating. The first three were finished and opened just a few days ago. Three other screens are now having the seats and carpeting ripped out of them as of this writing. I'm fairly impressed by the conversion. The results were quite a bit better than I had expected. Also of note, wheelchair access and seating position has been incorporated into this design to shut up some of those litigators out there.

Why didn't I watch the movies in the other two newly opened rooms? The Bridget Jones sequel and "Christmas With the Kranks" were less appealing.

Anyway, on to my opinion of the show. I actually liked "The Polar Express" more than I expected. That's not to say my take on the movie is entirely positive.

Here's what I liked. The storyline was simple and worked generally well. It was nice to see child characters looking out for each other and doing things with positive motives rather than behaving like little shitheads we see way too often in other films. The "hero boy" and "hero girl" characters take risks in making sure "lonely boy" doesn't get left out of Christmas. Overall, that gave the movie a positive and appropriate tone and theme. On the technical end, I really liked the attention to detail, modeling of objects and even the rendering style of the movie was outstanding. It didn't look like any other all-CG movie I've seen in the past. The look seemed more ethereal, which I guess works for a fantasy. The steam locomotive was really cool. Even the way the snow was handled seemed to break new ground.

Here's what I didn't like: the movie dragged at times and seemed a bit too dark and lonely at times as well. As much as the original children's book is loved, I don't know if some children might be wierded out by the vibe. And this is really where the facial animation of the characters makes it most negative impact. Just from hearing people talk about it, I thought it was a superficial argument. But the problem really does affect the whole tone of the movie unfortunately.

To be fair, I didn't see too many parts of the movie where the characters looked "dead." More often, however, their facial movements seemed stiff and almost like that of a manikin or animatronic puppet. I even chuckled a few times where "hero boy" looked as though he was on a quaalude high. The worst instance of facial animation, for me, was the hot chocolate sequence. You have all these waitors and chefs doing acrobatic leaps throughout this coach as they serve cocoa, but they're mostly doing this stuff totally stone faced. Really odd. The fat train engineer was one of the few characters that seemed to look more alive. With so much excellent work on all the other details of the movie, the shortcomings in facial animation are all the more glaring.

The look of the film was great, but the sound mix could have been better. I watched this in a newly set up auditorium, playing DTS, with new subwoofer drivers no less. The arrival of the train was impressive. But much of the mix sounded broadly spread across the surrounds. I was kind of surprised by that, considering Randy Thom was responsible for the mix. His work on "The Incredibles" was very aggressive. I'm sure "The Incredibles" may be another sound reference piece on DVD to go alongside "Toy Story 2".

For the other areas drawing complaints, mainly with the impossible feats accomplished by the train, that didn't bother me at all. When some 200 ton magic steam train is able to roll up the street where there's normally no rails at all, and its traveling off to a fictional place, I would not have been surprised to see the train fly at some point. Sure, the train on ice thing was a big stretch (and they tried to make it seem plausible with the throttle and brakes steering the train). I was also fully aware that there's no locomotive on the planet able to pull trains up some of the mountain sides shown in this movie, much less even some of the more mild grades depicted. But, again, this didn't bother me. It fits right along with Superman being able to fly high in public wearing his panties on the outside of his tights.

Now, do I recommend this movie? At best my opinion is mixed. Grade school kids will probably like it. And the show might be a treat for any stream train enthusiast. But I think the creepy and stoned looking qualities of the characters are going to turn off a lot of adults.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-12-2004, 10:36 PM:

We are playing this movie right now and I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but people are mostly totally loving it! This is the 2nd movie in a row we've had, where the media, critics and a few cranky Film-Techers have hated it, but audiences in general have loved it. Go figure.

We had a special show for the local grade school (K through 3) and they had a "Santa Claus" at the exit after the movie handing out silver-bells to every kid. Those kids were absolutely floating on the way out of here.

I think maybe WB knew it would get bad reviews based on the animation, so that's why they released it in November -- get the reviews out of the way before the Christmas season kicked in, and then on Thanksgiving weekend the word of mouth from "real people" would take over. If they'd released it in December, the foul reviews would've killed it. (This is just a theory of course, but the bottom line is it's doing nearly as well here as Incredibles did so there will be no complaints from me!)

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 12-14-2004, 05:24 AM:

I agree. That's a very plausible interpretation, Mike.

It's still doing great business for us here. We're STILL getting audiences applauding at the end. I've rarely seen that happen beyond a movie's first week.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-27-2005, 06:24 PM:

In an earlier review, I was strongly negative about this film. I have now seen it in 3-D. That is the ONLY way to see this film.

This is the best 3-D experience I have ever seen. It is crisp and bright and incredibly detailed.

The characters seemed to be "flat" (no pun intended there) in 2-D. In 3-D, the characters look more like those in the book. They seem to be a bit more rounded out.

The sound had much more punch with the Imax sound system. AMC Easton's system has a very strong (but now overpowering) low-end that delivers that chest-shaking thump when necessary. Dialogue is very clear and clean.

This is what 3-D should look like! It's full of 3-D gimmicks and its just a plain fun movie that is good for all ages. Lots of very young ones at my performance, and they loved every minute. Best behaved crowd of children I've seen in a LONG time.

AMC Easton 30 Imax is showing 1 show of Polar Express daily (twice this holiday weekend -- I went to the 11:15am Sunday Morning show) with HARRY POTTER 2D filling out the rest of the Imax day.

One comment for the folks at the AMC Easton 30 Imax. There were a lot of hairs and dirt particles on the right eye print during the HAPPY FEET trailer and part of the underwater film trailer (do we really need another Imax 3-D underwater film?) Very very distracting. The POLAR EXPRESS had no dirt or scratches.

If you hated this film in 2-D (and I really hated it!), I strongly suggest you give the 3-D Imax version a chance if it is showing in your area. I think you will be impressed.

I was skeptical about this doing any decent business, especially since the DVD came out this week. An over $18,000 average per theatre is quite good, especially since many places were only showing a few shows a day of POLAR.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-28-2005, 04:31 AM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
(do we really need another Imax 3-D underwater film?)

No, but Warner Bros. does, since they don't have one yet. [Wink]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-01-2005, 03:09 PM:

OK, finally saw this (IMAX 3D). The ONLY thing good about it was seeing it in IMAX 3D. It was boring and stupid.

Here's the lessons of the film.....

1) Santa doesn't like poor people so he doesn't bring them gifts.

2) Hey kids, if a magic train pulls up with a stranger running it, by all means get on board.

3) Santa has a freaky voyer setup at the north pole.

4) If a scruffy, sleazy looking bum talks to you he's probably a nice guy so sit down.

Back to the review. The story was incredibly stupid and made no sense. The songs were random and forced and stupid (Hot chocolate, hot chocolate, la la la). The characters looked freaky. The only thing remotely redeeming was the train and some of the backgrounds in 3D. Tom Hanks playing multiple characters didn't work either. They all sounded like Tom Hanks except sometimes he had a mouth full of marbles. Oh, why was it so important for the train to arrive on time but when they got to the north pole it stayed 11:55 for like an hour?

Rating because I saw it in IMAX 3D (2 out of 5)
Rating if I had seen it in 35mm or DVD (1 out of 5)

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 01-01-2006, 12:18 AM:

The Polar Express has returned to the IMAX Theatre in Melbourne for a summer encore season. Great turnout for a hot Saturday afternoon.

Despite all the bad press this has got I enjoyed it, I don't take these kind of films seriously. It's better or no worse than all over hyped Pixar crap that comes out. I don't really care much usually for Tom Hanks but here he is at his best and his animated!

The "Hot Chocolate" number was a hoot! Very funny. And Santa being this Maoist Godlike figure looming onto the crowd of elves... like I said a laughed a lot and so what if the kids looked creepy.

It was worth the $17 ticket, full price is $20!

In regards to the technical side, apart from the non-sync volume
a little too loud, but it was great music similar to the films soundtrack and that stupid voiceover at the end about the exits the presentation was 10 of 10 [thumbsup]

The print was perfect. Not a defect anywhere, as are all the presentations I've been to here. It's great to see such a sharp and bright image on a huge screen and clarity of the sound!!! [thumbsup]

If only presentations at Multiplexes where like this...