[Apple Pro Underwear]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi...ess/index.html

This movie has never impressed me. Compared to straight 3-D animation or live action, i'd choose either one to this.

Tom Hanks in 5 roles does not impress me either. I would rather have the right voice / actor casted rather than some egotistical stunt by an actor.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Ya I was wondering how well an all motion capture movie would turn out. Guess I know now.

[E's Lil Theorem]

The SF Chronicle liked it (my emphais):

But really, there are too many joys here to enumerate, a 90-minute piling on of eye-grabbing visuals and inventive sequences. The depiction of animals is particularly effective: the herds of caribou blocking the train tracks and the reindeer kicking hard to gain altitude. But with this movie, one can single out almost anything for praise. "The Polar Express," at least on first glance, looks like a classic.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Ya I was wondering how well an all motion capture movie would turn out. Guess I know now.

I knew after I saw Final Fantasy. There's enough motion capture in that to make you think the entire population of Hawaii had come down with a rare tropical disease of little white dots plastered all over their bodies.

Ebert liked Polar Express, though. I have to see it in 3-D Imax.... that's gonna be really cool.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi...ess/index.html

This movie has never impressed me. Compared to straight 3-D animation or live action, i'd choose either one to this.

Tom Hanks in 5 roles does not impress me either. I would rather have the right voice / actor casted rather than some egotistical stunt by an actor.

Have you even seen the film?

It's gotten mostly positive reviews. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/polar_express/

I suspect you are just a Pixar fanboy and expect nothing less.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Have you even seen the film?

It's gotten mostly positive reviews. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/polar_express/

I suspect you are just a Pixar fanboy and expect nothing less.

67% positive so far.

[brapper]

trailer looks good in my opinion.
the book is incrediible.

[Joshua]

I just saw it this afternoon; it's good. I thought the animation was superb on everything but facial expressions; those do come off a bit wooden / Children of the Corn-esque, but I stopped noticing after the first twenty minutes or so.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Joshua:
I just saw it this afternoon; it's good. I thought the animation was superb on everything but facial expressions; those do come off a bit wooden / Children of the Corn-esque, but I stopped noticing after the first twenty minutes or so.

You'd think that would be the most important thing about animation.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
You'd think that would be the most important thing about animation.

What? Finish a sentence for once.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
What? Finish a sentence for once.

Read the quote above it genius or else I'll come over to your house and

[olePigeon]

It's a sad attempt for Christians to counter all the evil Harry Potter movies.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
It's a sad attempt for Christians to counter all the evil Harry Potter movies.

What?

[Xeo]

I'll probably be going to see this with my family after Thanksgiving. I don't know if it'll be any good, but we always go to Christmasy movies on the day after Thankgiving. They will enjoy it at the least.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
It's a sad attempt for Christians to counter all the evil Harry Potter movies.

Funny.

Back on topic: In the stills I have seen in the paper of the film, it appears that all of the characters are animated in a way that it looks like they are all looking about 3 inches above what they were intended to be looking at. Maybe it is better in the actual film, but if you look at the stills it looks like their eyes are off their marks.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Read the quote above it genius or else I'll come over to your house and

Seriously, that made me laugh really hard.

[Kilbey]

A slight side note and a little bit of trivia: The engine that the Polar Express is based upon is only about 12 miles from my home in a museum in Owosso, Michigan. The author once lived in Grand Rapids, Michigan. And he attended Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan,which is about 30 miles West of me. The engine was once displayed on Michigan State U.'s campus and the author climbed aboard it long before he ever wrote a book about it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
I would rather have the right voice / actor casted rather than some egotistical stunt by an actor.

One of my favourite movies of all time, Dr. Strangelove is.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
One of my favourite movies of all time, Dr. Strangelove is.

Peter Sellers is an exceptional exception.

Why Tom, why?

[ASIMO]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Read the quote above it genius or else I'll come over to your house and

Wit.

You canucks are good for something.

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by ASIMO:
Wit.

You canucks are good for something.

lol ... anyways .. I'm interested in see'ing it .. the book was one of my favorites as a kid ... and i love his artwork too. i wonder how they are going to stretch a juvenile picture story book into a full length movie ... i hope they show it in december cause i dont wanna watch anything christmassy until after thanksgiving

[CaseCom]

The Wall Street Journal also rips it a new one:

"The Polar Express," an animated feature starring Tom Hanks and directed by Robert Zemeckis, is a train wreck of mind-numbing proportions. This big-and-bigger screen version of the children's book by Chris Van Allsburg is emotionally inert, visually unsettling when it isn't flat-out creepy, and dramatically -- well, there is no dramatically, because there's essentially no story or character development, notwithstanding frenzied musical numbers, manufactured crises, multiple roller-coaster rides and several would-be smash endings that rise to Christmas-crushing levels of false jubilation. The only thing to be said in the film's favor is that it functions, at least for grownups, as a sort of life-extension program, making 97 minutes feel like three hours.

The New York Times earlier this week:

"The Polar Express" is a grave and disappointing failure, as much of imagination as of technology.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
It's gotten mostly positive reviews. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/polar_express/

I suspect you are just a Pixar fanboy and expect nothing less.

I've seen quite the opposite.

http://chud.com/reviews/426

I haven't seen it, but I really have no desire to. The previews looked like crap, and the reviews I have seen have been pretty bad.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

the first paragraph had me crackin' up

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
the first paragraph had me crackin' up

the line before it had me at hello.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Turias:
I've seen quite the opposite.

http://chud.com/reviews/426

I haven't seen it, but I really have no desire to. The previews looked like crap, and the reviews I have seen have been pretty bad.

It looks like a children's movie. I have no problem with that. Supposedly there is an iMax 3D version coming out which I believe will be more interesting.

I suspect most here would be spooging in their pro Apple underoos if Pixar's name were attached to it.

Steve Jobs could sell you baked sh*t and you would be first in line to lap it up even it meant you complained about it afterwords.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
It looks like a children's movie. I have no problem with that. Supposedly there is an iMax 3D version coming out which I believe will be more interesting.

I suspect most here would be spooging in their pro Apple underoos if Pixar's name were attached to it.

Steve Jobs could sell you baked sh*t and you would be first in line to lap it up even it meant you complained about it afterwords.

Ummm, I haven't even seen it, so I really can't bash it that much. All I said is that the previews look like crap and the review I posted branded it as such.

I mean, really, the animation does look creepy. It's hard to get humans to look right unless you veer away from reality and portray them more like comic book characters. As it stands, the characters all look like haunted shells of humanity.

And leave Pixar out of this. It has nothing to do with Pixar. In fact, you are the ONLY person in this thread to mention them.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
I suspect most here would be spooging in their pro Apple underoos if Pixar's name were attached to it.

Steve Jobs could sell you baked sh*t and you would be first in line to lap it up even it meant you complained about it afterwords.

Why don't you go out for awhile and give everyone a break from your bitter and witless insults.

Contrary to your redundant trolling about Pixar-worship, you might take a look in the Lounge for a thread about "Cars". Lots of people not too excited about that one, so I guess your theory is shot. But don't let that stop you from making an ass of yourself.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
I suspect most here would be spooging in their pro Apple underoos if Pixar's name were attached to it.

Unlikely. After 124 reviews:

Percentage positive: 60% (And dropping. At 59% it is officially called "rotten".)
Average Rating: 6.6/10

The New York Times says, "this computer-animated feature is a grave and disappointing failure, as much of imagination as of technology".

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Unlikely. After 124 reviews:

Percentage positive: 60% (And dropping. At 59% it is officially called "rotten".)
Average Rating: 6.6/10

The New York Times says, "this computer-animated feature is a grave and disappointing failure, as much of imagination as of technology".

So have you actually seen the movie?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Why don't you go out for awhile and give everyone a break from your bitter and witless insults.

Contrary to your redundant trolling about Pixar-worship, you might take a look in the Lounge for a thread about "Cars". Lots of people not too excited about that one, so I guess your theory is shot. But don't let that stop you from making an ass of yourself.

We're talking about 90 second previews. How can you say a movie is good or bad based on that?

Maybe if others left this forum every once in awhile the quality of posts would rise above "I farted and put a plastic bag over my head" or "CNN pans newest non-Pixar film."

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So have you actually seen the movie?

No, nor am I in a big rush to, based on the reviews. That's what reviews are for after all.

BTW, I like Shrek quite a bit. I guess that blows your Dreamworks-hating theory out of the water... yet again.

Originally posted by Evan_11:
We're talking about 90 second previews. How can you say a movie is good or bad based on that?

Maybe if others left this forum every once in awhile the quality of posts would rise above "I farted and put a plastic bag over my head" or "CNN pans newest non-Pixar film."

I agree. You first.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So have you actually seen the movie?

Have you?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
No, nor am I in a big rush to, based on the reviews. That's what reviews are for after all.

BTW, I like Shrek quite a bit. I guess that blows your Dreamworks-hating theory out of the water... yet again.


I agree. You first.

No but I respect the work put into making a film. Much more than I respect the opinion of Elitist Mac Nerds who could use a PC for 99% of what they use a computer for.

Shrek is fine if you accept it for what it is which is massive cross-promotion with very little story or lasting appeal.

Don't worry I don't expect you to ever leave.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
No but I respect the work put into making a film. Much more than I respect the opinion of Elitist Mac Nerds who could use a PC for 99% of what they use a computer for.

Then what are you doing here? And what does using a Mac have to do with watching a movie in the theatres anyway?

P.S. This is being typed on a PC.

Shrek is fine if you accept it for what it is which is massive cross-promotion with very little story or lasting appeal.

Go away you Dreamworks-hating phreak.

[DeathMan]

I don't get what evian is getting so worked up about. Someone said the motion capture looks creepy, which it does. Many reviews give it low marks. Everything I've seen of it so far looks scary, and it has Tom hanks in it 5 times.

You don't think this is enough information to have a negative opinion? Compare this to Incredibles reviews, trailers, and first impressions. That is a movie to get excited about. It has nothing to do with the company who made it, or who the CEO is.

I don't really like Nemo (probably cause its my little girls favorite and i"ve seen it over a billion times), and I can't say I'm looking forward to Cars. But I'm going to maybe rent Shrek 2 tonight, cause even though I heard its over the top on pop references, and has no real plot, I've heard enough good things about it to try it out.

Take a kick boxing class. Geez.

Of course you can do most things on a pc as a mac. Duh. But macs are better for graphics.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
Of course you can do most things on a pc as a mac. Duh. But macs are better for graphics.

I have heard that Apples are good for graphics too.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
No but I respect the work put into making a film. Much more than I respect the opinion of Elitist Mac Nerds who could use a PC...

Yeah, we could use a PC and we could watch crappy films, but we'd rather not. Why would you? I cry for the money and time wasted on movies like this. All of that could have been spent on something much better.

Originally posted by Evan_11:
We're talking about 90 second previews. How can you say a movie is good or bad based on that?

Previews show the movie at its best and almost always make it look better than it really is. If this movie is actually worse than those previews then the worst reviews it got are generous. I had to get up and hurl halfway thru the trailer and come back for the second half on an empty stomach. When was the last time Tom Hanks was in a good movie anyway? 1992? How much longer can three mediocre Oscar winning movies maintain his rep as some kind of great actor? At least he is humble... he gives himself a "C" as an actor.

[MacGorilla]

The Polar Express just didn't look that good to me. Filmmaking aside, what is the plot/purpose of this film?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
The Polar Express just didn't look that good to me. Filmmaking aside, what is the plot/purpose of this film?

purpose = make money

plot = based on a 30 page children's book

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
After 124 reviews:

Percentage positive: 60% (And dropping. At 59% it is officially called "rotten".)

59% now after 129 reviews.

[Hawkeye_a]

Seen the trailer and it looks pretty interesting to me. Isnt it made by the same folks who made Forrest Gump and Cast Away ? if so,Forrest Gump is still my favorite movie to date, and cast away was awesome as well. I'd give this one a shot. I gave up on movie reviews when Titanic came out to rave reviews....i'll save my judgement and opinion on it till after ive seen it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Seen the trailer and it looks pretty interesting to me. Isnt it made by the same folks who made Forrest Gump and Cast Away ? if so,Forrest Gump is still my favorite movie to date, and cast away was awesome as well. I'd give this one a shot. I gave up on movie reviews when Titanic came out to rave reviews....i'll save my judgement and opinion on it till after ive seen it.

No, reviews are not perfect, but Titanic actually had pretty mixed reviews from the big guys. Overall favourable, but not great. I still don't understand its Best Picture award though.

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
<snip>
But I'm going to maybe rent Shrek 2 tonight, cause even though I heard its over the top on pop references, and has no real plot, I've heard enough good things about it to try it out.
<snip>

I don't care about Bi-Polar Express. Instead, I'd rather rant about Shrek 2.
Bought Shrek 2 for my daughter. Liked Shrek. Entertaining show. Nice change of pace from pixar's saccharin. Thought Shrek 2 couldn't be that bad. Watched it. Put forks in my eyes afterwards, it was so bad. At best pedestrian humor. Constant film reference sight gags. The syncing of the voice acting with the animation was so bad at times, I thought Ashley Simpson was in charge of production. By the end of the show, I wanted all the characters to die a hideous and painful death. I think I chuckled twice during the whole crapstravaganza.

Bi-Polar Express can't be any worse.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by Rev-O:
At best pedestrian humor.

I agree, and i must say that's a cool way of stating it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Rev-O:
I don't care about Bi-Polar Express. Instead, I'd rather rant about Shrek 2.
Bought Shrek 2 for my daughter. Liked Shrek. Entertaining show. Nice change of pace from pixar's saccharin. Thought Shrek 2 couldn't be that bad. Watched it. Put forks in my eyes afterwards, it was so bad. At best pedestrian humor. Constant film reference sight gags. The syncing of the voice acting with the animation was so bad at times, I thought Ashley Simpson was in charge of production. By the end of the show, I wanted all the characters to die a hideous and painful death. I think I chuckled twice during the whole crapstravaganza.

Bi-Polar Express can't be any worse.

I must say I found Shrek 2 amusing. Shrek was much better, but I didn't regret seeing Shrek 2. I will also see The Polar Express, if only to see the technical aspects, but at least it can't be worse than what I saw in the Without a Paddle trailer. Just that trailer made me want to poke my eyes out.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
59% now after 129 reviews.

So it's 1 good review away from being considered fresh. How does that make this a bad film?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underoo:
purpose = make money

plot = based on a 30 page children's book

Most films are based after two sentence pitches.

Of course if you spend $150 million your goal is to make money.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
The Polar Express just didn't look that good to me. Filmmaking aside, what is the plot/purpose of this film?

It's based after a children's book. The purpose is to entertain. I don't think it involves politics or any of that drivel so you're out of luck chump.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So it's 1 good review away from being considered fresh. How does that make this a bad film?

Actually 2 good reviews away, and hey, it's rated significantly worse than Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. But then again, HAKGTWC was pretty damn funny.

So have you seen The Polar Express my friend?