The Polar Express (2004) review

The Polar Express (2004)

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis

Produced by: Steve Starkey, Robert Zemeckis, Gary Goetzman, William Teitler

Screenplay by: Robert Zemeckis, William Broyles Jr.

Starring: Tom Hanks, Daryl Sabara, Nona Gaye, Jimmy Bennett, Eddie Deezen

I have vague memories of being a kid and reading Chris Van Allsburg’s 1985 picture book “The Polar Express.” The story of a young boy who takes a mystical train to the North Pole on Christmas Eve night became a yearly bestseller, earning Van Allsburg his second Caldecott Medal, a prestigious honor in children’s literature, and is still recognized as a classic. Admittedly, it wasn’t one of my absolute favorites, but it was imaginative and mysterious, a perfectly wholesome Christmas story for kids. So you can imagine there was a lot of hype in 2004 when one of the most acclaimed film directors—Robert Zemeckis—came out with a theatrical adaptation. But this wasn’t like any movie that had come out before; it was full computer-animated motion capture. The most expensive animated film at the time, its ambition and themes are clear; however, its story and characters leave something to be desired.

On a snowy Christmas Eve night in Michigan, we meet a boy (Daryl Sabara) at the age where he’s doubting the existence of Santa Claus. His sleep is interrupted at the sudden arrival outside his house of a passenger train called the Polar Express; the strange Conductor (Tom Hanks) invites him on board, and he’s off to the North Pole with a bunch of other kids his age, which include a headstrong girl (Nona Gaye), a know-it-all boy (Eddie Deezen) and a lonely boy named Billy (Jimmy Bennett). They come across a series of various obstacles on their way to the Pole; one of their tickets goes missing, there’s engine trouble that causes the train to briefly go out of control, and the boy encounters a weird ghostly hobo (Hanks) that helps him directly confront his beliefs. Will the experience change his outlook on Christmas, and how bizarre will the animation look in the process?

Okay, I might as well start by talking about the visual style, as it’s worth mentioning for how much it works and simultaneously doesn’t work. By this time, CGI was common, and there had even been 3D-animated films from studios like Pixar and DreamWorks that had proven to be game-changers. But this was the first time an entire movie was crafted from motion capture, the art of recording physical performances and layering digital animation over them. There had been characters created with this technique, like Jar Jar Binks in “Star Wars” and Gollum in “The Lord of the Rings,” but never a whole film. So it's definitely commendable how much effort went into this, and it results in some terrific detail and niceties in the landscapes and angles. But with that said, there are a lot of distracting elements as well; the character designs are really a mixed bag, as sometimes they look good, but a good chunk of their movements, particularly in the face, are really herky-jerky and awkward. This is one of those movies that’s brought up in the “uncanny valley” discussion, where the attempt to make something look so photorealistic results in an alienating visual phenomena.

But with that said, where I think the aesthetics work best are in creating a sense of scale and wonder; you can tell that this was meant to be seen in an IMAX theater, as there are plenty of point-of-view shots that are genuinely thrilling, and must have looked massive on the big screen. However, while the majority of the colors and backgrounds are visually pleasing, the North Pole itself is pretty underwhelming. This is a story that so earnestly tries to sell the intangible magic of the holiday, but when they finally get to this location after so much build-up, it’s strangely lifeless; the only exception is in the scene just before Santa appears with his reindeer. The energy, motions and especially the music create an aura of pure spectacle, like meeting Santa is the biggest thing ever. Most of the songs you hear are ones that play on the radio, but the original tracks with grand instrumentals are pretty awesome; it’s dependably stellar work from composer Alan Silvestri.

It's an unenviable task taking a picture book that’s only 32 pages long and trying to adapt it into a three-act film, but even taking that into account, the story feels needlessly padded out. Unnecessary songs, over-the-top action sequences, and weird character interactions take an already thin premise and make it roughly 15-20 minutes longer than it needs to be. So although I admire a lot of things about the overall artistry of the movie, too often it’s just hard for me to latch onto what’s happening, especially since the characters aren’t very engaging. I like how they take the issue of meeting Santa Claus and turn it into a crisis of faith, presenting it in a way that acknowledges there are no easy answers. The Conductor also has an enjoyably unpredictable presence, but the kids range from bland to irritating, and that really takes away from something that’s supposed to speak to your inner child in a timeless manner.

Don’t get me wrong; “The Polar Express” is not a bad movie. There’s a lot of good going for it, and I appreciate the endeavor of a new art form; it’s just not one I find very appealing to create an entire movie. Zemeckis’s next couple of movies were made the same way, which eventually led to the box office disaster known as “Mars Needs Moms,” but that’s another story. Considering the number of films at the time with really bad CGI effects, I’m fairly forgiving towards this, and when you get right down to it, the story does translate the spirit of the book relatively well. I can understand why people might love this movie, and it’s certainly not devoid of talent; it just isn’t one I ever got into that much, but for the elements that work, I’d still say it’s worth your time.

My rating: 6.5/10