A CHRISTMAS CAROL Post-Release

[Bitches Leave]

Yes let's not evolve at all and try new stuff. Next.

[Richard Dickson]

But it's evolution just for the sake of evolution. Sound, color and CGI added new dimensions to visual story-telling. Mo-cap just seems like a more difficult, expensive, and time-consuming way of doing things that can already be done. Adding roller coaster style chase scenes to A Christmas Carol isn't really advancing the craft.

[Merriweather]

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave

Yes let's not evolve at all and try new stuff. Next.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

[BobClark]

I still don't understand what you mean, BL. You say he's not striving for photorealism- but the proof is in the pudding. All three of these films absolutely strive for photorealism. I'm all for exploring new techniques, but if the results are ugly and ultimately detrimental to the story I'd say it's time to approach mo-cap from a new angle.

[BobClark]

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave

But the actors are only part of equation when it comes to Zemeckis motives.

That's probably true. I remember Jodie Foster was pissed off when he used CGI to change her facial expression in a key scene.

[Chris Allen]

Check out the Japanese trailer for this. It is decidedly different in tone. Gives you a better sense of what they are attempting story-wise, but there still is the rollercoaster stuff that really is out of place.

[FatherDude]

Originally Posted by BobClark

You say he's not striving for photorealism- but the proof is in the pudding. All three of these films absolutely strive for photorealism.

Baloney. All three films clearly have a visual style to them. The Polar Express tries, and succeeds, to look like Chris Van Allsburg's painting-like (and somewhat creepy) illustrations brought to life. Self-indulgent moments aside, the notion that The Polar Express could have been done the same way with live action is nonsense.

[Dan Benenson]

Wow, seriously? There are actually people willing to go to bat for the terrifying, dead-eyed living mannequins of The Polar Express movie? The internet never ceases to amaze.

Yes, there's a visual style to these movies. That visual style could be described as "CGI striving towards photorealism." Yeah, taking a painterly visual approach fits Polar Express, but the technology wasn't up to snuff yet. It's also "baloney" that you couldn't get a fitting look with live action, or better yet if you're really trying to do justice to the look of the book, why not cell animation? And there's nothing about the subsequent properties he's tackled that demands the same approach either. It's pretty clear at this point that Zemeckis continues to do his movies this way because it's just his thing now, not because it's necessary for the movies. I'm not necessarily saying that's a terrible thing but let's call a spade a spade.

[Episode29]

I actually quite dug this film. I liked how it wore it's Victorian origins on its sleeves and didn't try to modernize the dialogue and go for "hip" jokey humour.

It definitely lacks the emotional power of some of the other versions - due mostly to the short running time - and I wasn't a fan of the London chase sequence, but it had some truly great creepy scenes, beautiful images (minus some dead-eyes) and a consistently chilly and oppressive feel and tone up until Scrooge's revelation.

It's not a masterpiece, but I'd rank it at the top of Zemeckis' mo-cap experiments and unquestionably recommend to it to older moviegoers.

Families are really going to hate the shit out of it, though.

[Atomic Ross]

Originally Posted by Episode29

I'd rank it at the top of Zemeckis' mo-cap experiments . . .

We may as well start ranking our favorite sexual fantasies involving Larry King.

[FatherDude]

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson

It's also "baloney" that you couldn't get a fitting look with live action, or better yet if you're really trying to do justice to the look of the book, why not cell animation?

Have you even seen the book? Cell animation nor live action would have gotten you this. I can't be bothered to dig it out, but I'm pretty sure that image is lifted pretty much straight from the book.

Anyway, I just got back from seeing the flick this thread is actually about. Apparently I was the only one from these parts who went in expecting to like it. I did, though not as much as I thought I would. The sequences where the ghosts show Scrooge the different scenes from the past, present and future seem oddly rushed, causing a lot of the emotional resonance to be lost. Fan and Belle are footnotes, when in most versions they're the biggest indicators of Scrooge's humanity. In fact, the movie in general felt like it was happening a little too fast, as though the fact that we've all seen this story told before meant the movie didn't have to tell it right so much as in a way we haven't seen before. Even though the movie is comprised of lines that we've heard so many times that they're memorized, the actors seem oddly in a hurry to deliver them. It's not the runtime; 90 minutes is plenty. The film just has too much spring in its step to breathe in the moments that need breathing in.

I did like the fact that the movie totally captured the darkness of the book, and even had a downright macabre edge on top of that. The "thrill ride" aspects of the movie were way less offensive than the US trailers make out (this movie is going to freak kids the hell out), though they're still mostly unnecessary. Visually it's superb. I think all and all this will hold up as a memorable retelling of a classic tale, but when the tale has been told eight hundred billion times, being memorable may not be memorable enough.

[Greg Clark]

It's not memorable at all. I saw it on Monday and the only thing that stuck with me in the last 5 days was Tiny Scrooge surfing on an icicle.

As for Polar Express not being able to be done in any medium other than mo-cap and retain the look and feel of the book, horseshit. Nothing about the art in the book is beyond the abilities of a talented crew of ink and paint animators, and as for live action, well, look at Where the Wild Things Are. Lifted the creatures directly from the drawings and it connects more on every single level.

[Episode29]

Originally Posted by Atomic Ross

We may as well start ranking our favorite sexual fantasies involving Larry King.

Oh c'mon. Yeah, Polar Express was god-awful, but Beowulf was fun.

[Cylon Baby]

Very interesting discussion about a movie I'll never see.

We've now gotten to the point where there is a sub-culture of film geek who judges films based solely on "innovative technology" vs people who look at the film as a whole.

I've gone both ways. I happily own Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow on DVD as a great example of one of the first mostly CGI generated films. (It also leads me to fantasize about that movie's premise with Superman instead of Sky Captain).

But for the most part I want to see a good film: good story, characters, actors, decent production design (I can overlook a lot on that last, esp with low budget films I like).

[Atomic Ross]

Originally Posted by Episode29

Oh c'mon. Yeah, Polar Express was god-awful, but Beowulf was fun.

And from what I've read (and will find out for myself at the theater later today), Christmas Carol is fairly middling.

So saying "best of Zemekis' mo-cap movies" is a non-value. You've got a bad film, a needlessly rendered film, and a somewhat bad and needlessly rendered film.


Kudos to Zemekis!

[joeypants]

This thing is an utter fucking mess.

It actually starts off promising, but almost all the complaints, and especially Devin's review, are spot on.

Scrooge himself looks and comes off fantastic. I was actually pleasantly surprised that Carrey wasn't hamming it up more than he was. It's quite a leap from Beowulf. But almost all of the supporting cast outside of Gary Oldman, er, Bob Cratchit, still has the creepy, dead-eyed marionette thing going on.

And that IS distracting, when the characters in your film don't have the same level of visual consistency.

And I didn't really have a huge problem with the action/fly-over stuff until the 3rd ghost. It all felt as organic as one of these types of gimmick films can get until he goes on that stupid (and fucking BORING!) chase with the 3rd ghost.

I went to a late showing, and I came so close to leaving after that because I felt I had honestly seen enough and felt like I had been tortured by boredom. I usually don't leave movies, and I can't believe that was the first film to test me in many years. I stayed of course, but my god...

Said chase seriously would be high in the running for the longest and most utterly pointless sequence I've ever seen in any major film. And all that whipping around town, so to speak, had me quite literally dizzy to the point that I had trouble following the story when it finally settled down again. There were a few scenes, usually followed by one of those whiz-bang "rides" where it took a few moments to figure out, "ok, which dead-eyed puppet is this? I'm not sure who's talking and why it's important."


Zemekis, until I see proof otherwise, you've officially lost it, my man. ALL of it. Thanks for Back to the Future and all. Those were good times. Sorry to see you fall to this level. Ugh.

[Merriweather]

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby

We've now gotten to the point where there is a sub-culture of film geek who judges films based solely on "innovative technology" vs people who look at the film as a whole.

This. I'm fed up to the back teeth with media* and fan focus falling on the hot new 3D gimmick or the latest mocap breakthrough while genuinely great, original works like MOON, TIMECRIMES, SYNECDOCHE NY and so on struggle to find an audience. Even commercial stuff like TRICK R TREAT, pretty much the best holiday-themed movie since BAD SANTA, is starting to fall by the wayside. And the irritating thing is, it's not the general public who are stoking the fires the most. It's genuine filim fans, like those at AICN, or EMPIRE devoting a third of an issue to breathless hyperbole about the "future of film", or even Spielberg and Jackson talking more about the latest cameras they're using than the plot of their next damn film. These people should know better.

*not CHUD - more the assorted movie magazines over here in Blighty

[Cornelius Cardew]

Originally Posted by Merriweather

Even commercial stuff like TRICK R TREAT, pretty much the best holiday-themed movie since BAD SANTA, is starting to fall by the wayside.

[Merriweather]

Using "holiday" as a catch-all description, not Christmas-specific.

[Atomic Ross]

So I just got back from a screening, and I have to say that my low expectations were actually met, and even occasionally exceeded. There are some good things going on in this movie; unfortunately few of them are named Jim Carrey.

Carrey is my primary complaint. While his Scrooge is easily the most well-rendered of the mocapitronic characters, his playing of any of the characters was certainly not. There's nothing about his Scrooge that suggests an elderly and beleaguered miser, and from his vocal performance to his gyrational flailing about to his impossible-to-place accent (think of a New Zealander raised by American parents who went to school in Wales), nothing rang true about his Scrooge that was anything he imparted. There are at least ten actors off the top of my head that are more suited to this role, and most of them are no worse of a B.O. draw than ol' Rubberface.

Also, the movie moves quite briskly and well until the (now frequently cited) third act wherein Scrooge meets the Ghost of Xmas To Be. The prolonged chase through Victorian London is not only overlong and out of context with its slapstick, it's also pointless and directly contradicts Scrooge's character from just moments before the chase begins. It's the worst part of the movie, bar none.

Third and last, the dreaded mo-cap. As far as mo-cap goes, Scrooge and Bob Cratchit get off fairly easy (but not totally), but that's the end of it. Everyone else's character didn't apparently merit the efforts of the CGI crew, and it's dreadfully telling. A well-rendered Scrooge will frequently converse to a crowd of dead-eyed mannequins, or scold playful children who look more like garish hobgoblins than street urchins. The flashback to the dance at Fezziwig's is the nail in this coffin, however, as here Zemeckis seems to lose all pretense of these characters' reality and have them behaving like rubberized pinballs.

There a few more niggling bits that would barely rate mention in a better movie, like thin characterizations and a very flat and tired score from Silvestri, but the movie ultimately proves what I hoped it would not: its utter needless use of performance capture. Other than a handful of action shots (which surely do not total more than five minutes, combined), the use of CG rendering in this film is less than arbitrary and pointless, it's indulgent and masturbatory. It's sad to see such a talented task (and Jim Carrey, too!) go to absolute waste here, as Bob Hoskins, Colin Firth, Cary Elwes, Robin Wright, and a wonderful Gary Oldman are all basically put to pasture, some relegated to voicing mere nameless characters in the background. Prepare to stand riveted as Elwes performs as "Dinner Guest #3," and marvel at Hoskins' prowess in the role of "Soup Cook."

What saddens me most is how much I would like to see this movie fully realized by the actors already cast and beefier script. Zemeckis' London is already beautiful, I just wish it felt real.

[joeypants]

Almost forgot...

This movie would be significantly better if Zemekis would fucking show some restraint with zooming the camera all over the goddamned place! Jesus, that scene where the 2nd ghost starts to die had so many totally unnecessary zooms into someone's face from aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall the way across the room, it'd have been laughable if it didn't piss me off so much.