"The Polar Express" Review (Spoilers)
Mar. 24th, 2022 10:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matt_zimmerAlso reviews for the latest episodes of Star Trek: Picard, Superman & Lois, Naomi, and The Flash.
The Polar Express
Robert Zemeckis has always been a really frustrating director for me. Back To The Future is an undisputed classic, and I think Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of the greatest films in cinema history. And yet Forrest Gump is in the bottom five of all movies I've ever seen, and the second Back To The Future outright stinks. I think The Polar Express is also a misfire. I tried to be as fair as possible when watching it, and it's not a terribly put-together movie, but I tried to understand the reasons I didn't like it as it was going. I wanted to see if my built-in prejudices about stuff like this wasn't unfairly coloring my opinion.
For one thing, I did not see or review this movie at Christmas-time. I AM a great believer in the Spirit of Christmas. Is it possible I would view this movie more favorably if I were more in the spirit of things?
I also notice that I've been watching a LOT of movies on streaming lately. It used to be I almost always gave movies I viewed a positive review simply because I didn't see many of them. They were special so I always enjoyed them on some level. I saved my most scathing stuff for TV reviews. Is it possible in being able to watch so many movies at my fingertips, the magic and novelty of the experience has worn off?
I thought about both of these things, and I am pretty sure I wouldn't have loved the movie anyways. The subtext bugged me (which frankly is a weird complaint for a kids movie so maybe you shouldn't take that specific gripe from me too seriously). The bigger complaint is that the character animation looks super creepy and unnatural, and it looks SO bad that I never got past it. I think the characters from Avatar, a movie whose visual effects people swear by looks outright awful in this specific respect, so you can guess how disturbed I am by Zemeckis's early use of the motion capture technology if I thought Cameron's experienced hand did nothing but bad things with it. It looks really bad, and I had this creeped out feeling during the entire film. Especially creepy is that not every single kid is voiced by a kid. The Know-It-All is inexplicably voiced by Eddie Deezen, whose voice coming out of that specific character makes him creepier than all the other characters put together.
I mentioned I disliked the subtext.
I actually kind of dig movies based on faith and belief in the unknown. The problem is that the Santa Claus myth is a verifiable real-world lie, so there is no positive message in getting a skeptical kid on-board with it. In this movie's absolute defense, it at least didn't try to concoct elaborate-seeming ways the idea COULD be true. It's portrayed as magical nonsense, which is better than the level of "reality" the awful Arthur Christmas and Prep & Landing tried to give the scenario. But the truth is the only recent Santa story I've dug is Netflix's "Klaus" precisely because they don't attach any of the whys and hows to Santa's origin story. But this is definitely nowhere near as good as that. It's kind of cheesy and sucky.
I sort of appreciated the ticket being blown off the train and coming back, because it told us that nothing on this adventure is not going to go off as the Conductor and Santa actually planned. But while that's interesting (as is the Hobo on the top of the train finding Hero Boy's disbelief in ghosts "interesting") I think my problem is it sort of robs the movie of stakes a bit. Sure, Hero Boy doesn't know the game is rigged in his favor. But the life-threatening situations aren't actually tense if you know things are actually already being sorted out by a combo of Fate and Father Christmas.
Also nobody being really given proper names (except for Lonely Boy being Billy) is the kind of minutia that almost always bugs me. A movie has to be pretty far out there to make me forgive it (see "mother!"). Otherwise, I just find it pretentious. And if nobody knows anybody's names, they aren't really friends. If this experience really made them friends, they'd be exchanging names and phone numbers. Friends aren't really people you'll never, ever see again. By definition.
So that's my review of "The Polar Express", written after seeing it in March. Was I too harsh? Or does my lack of Christmas spirit simply make me see the movie clearer? I'm actually not really sure. **1/2.
Star Trek: Picard "Watcher"
I liked it but I had some concerns. Not unusual, even for seasons I like.
I like the idea of a cynical and broken Guinan, but I don't like the fact that they've broken continuity. Past Guinan has already met Picard. And while it might have been too expensive to de-age Whoopi Goldberg for this episode, she played an earlier version of Guinan in the 1800's in "Time's Arrow". In which she also met Picard. Learning his name is the thing that switches off the alarm bells for her here, so it might be able to fit continuity. But she should have mentioned she met the guy before. Unless Dulmer and Luclsy went back in time after that episode and erased her memory. There are ways to explain it, but it doesn't fit comfortably.
Laris? I have no idea what's going on there, or even if that IS Laris. I suppose we'll find out next week.
Q is having trouble with his mischief. That's good. The end scene hinted at what the time change is gonna involve (a woman we've never seen before) and I'd like to learn a little more about it next week.
Seven driving the cop car was fun, and Rios has turned into one of my favorite characters in this show. His outrage at the blatant racism and corruption of ICE is great because even in OUR era, most decent people would object to it. And also be aware that it's rampant. Guinan pointing out that people in the 21st Century who looked like her never got any breaks was great too, and also another counterpoint from her cultured mannerisms and reasoned debates with Samuel Clemens in "Time's Arrow". If any era of Earth's deserved to break Guinan's spirit and faith in humanity, it should have been post-Trump and Putin America. I think her saying the hoods were transformed into business suits was spot-on for that reason.
Even if the episode broke continuity (and it might have) I'd kind of be loathe to simply dismiss it and put it out of my headcanon, because for the first time ever, the show had a serious response for why the Picard family has English accents despite being French. The Roddenberry / Berman-era sort of snidely declared French a dead language, and made fun of the French because there was no trace of that culture left in Picard. And that was a mean, bigoted joke, that should not have existed in Star Trek. And it's a big reason I think Gene Roddenberry's accolades for equality and diversity are a bit misplaced. When it came down to it, Gene's era of the show was perfectly fine at punching down at the French. And that was obnoxious, and I thought that this show had a thoughtful, powerful reason for it instead.
Learning about the Ten Forward name is on some level cool, but I'm thinking doesn't track with Next Gen. I have misplaced my Enterprise blueprints, but I believe it was named that because it was the tenth deck at the very front of the ship. It's sort of a cute joke to say it's an old favorite name of Guinan's, but it doesn't track.
Agnes's scenes with the Borg Queen are still interesting, but they make me a bit uneasy just because I don't know where they are headed. But they worry me a little bit.
I'm giving that a positive grade but this was the first episode this season I had real concerns about. ****.
Superman & Lois "Into Oblivion"
That was a really good episode.
What Lucy pulled at the end, is in my opinion absolutely unforgivable. If either Sam or Lois have any sense they'll wash their hands of her entirely after this.
I like that Clark is trying with Nat, and making some progress. I take comfort in the fact that John being where he is in his friendship with Clark was actually unthinkable last season. You get to know Clark, you get to trust him. There is no other way, even though the Irons have a crazy circumstance and reason to hate him.
I like that Clark is still mad at Jonathan and Lois is right to tell him not to overdo it. They are both great parents.
I did not dig the Lana and Kyle stuff, because it was about the mayor nonsense, which is still stupid. The debate moderator is supposedly a hunting buddy of Dean's? And Lana was not allowed to object to this? That makes NO freaking sense, and is another example of The Arrowverse having an utterly messed up view of how politics actually work. It doesn't matter that this is usually a great show. Berlanti writers put zero effort into researching how political situations actually exist, and write whatever stupid stuff is in the writer's head. It's why when the rest of the episode is delivering the pathos, I cannot actually outright love it.
Everything but the Lana and Kyle stuff was pretty great. But the Lana and Kyle stuff was so bad I'm subtracting an entire star off the final grade. ****.
Naomi "Fellowship Of The Disc"
Pretty good.
Batman is a fictional comic book character in this world too, which suggests to me, that if Superman is real, he must come from a different dimension. Tyler Hoechlin appearing eventually doesn't actually strike me as the craziest idea ever anymore.
Lourdes really annoyed me with her attitude. I'm glad she came around at the end.
Zumbado's alliance with the good guys reminds me of where Smallville wound up taking Lionel Luthor. Smallville actually entirely botched that really cool plotline. I hope this show has a better handle on it.
I like Anabelle saying "Yeah, we were in a fight. A pretty traumatic one. That's what people do. They fight." Whatever else Anabelle is, she has a pretty healthy perspective on human friendships and relationships. And that's something Naomi desperately needs, and wasn't aware she needed it until it was said.
Pretty good, but the cliffhanger suggests this week was more about the set-up. I'll be able to more fairly judge it when I've seen the pay-off next week. ****.
The Flash "The Fire Next Time"
I kind of liked it. Sue me.
The premise struck me as extremely flawed, and a lot of the ideas were badly handled. But there was enough leeway in the fact that Barry was celebrating a sad anniversary, and the guy's outcry for his son reminded him of his father. Upon seeing the episode synopsis I was like, "The idea that Barry believes a guy is innocent just because he says he is is super shady." But the truth is when they superimposed the flashbacks with Henry, it made sense. The show also made his scene with Joe amazing, with Joe giving the keen perspective that perhaps Barry's experiences gave him an insight there nobody else had.
But the reason the premise struck me as flawed is because in real life, all criminals say they are innocent. It's only unusual in the Arrowverse. In the real world, if Flash were to zip in on a bank robbery, the crooks wouldn't fire at him. They'd drop the guns and loot and exclaim that this isn't what it looks like. Then they'd demand to see their lawyer. Superhero comics are very unrealistic is that the bad guys keep going even after they've been identified and caught by a superior superhero. And that's why the premise struck me as unlikely. If the show were being credible, every single villain would be saying that.
I also object to how they did the ID to the witness. They showed her a picture of the guy. Not in a photo array, not in a police line-up, just asking her if this is the guy. If Cecile were actually a competent lawyer, she should have gotten the entire thing thrown out by a judge as "fruit of the poisonous tree". But like politics, the law in the Arrowverse is not remotely credible, or written by people who know anything about it.
Two notes about Allegra's underling swearing to destroy her. I like that Allegra is not forgiven. I especially like that Allegra is outraged by that fact. "I apologized! What more do you want?" This is the rare instance of this franchise understanding that a damn apology is never actually good enough for the crap the characters often pull with each other. It's weird Allegra thinks she's entitled to forgiveness. That being said, as refreshing as it was, I was shocked Allegra did not just fire her on the spot for insubordination. She's her boss. She doesn't have to take that. Hell, if she repeated exactly what the girl said to her to Iris, Iris would not only believe her, but agree she deserved to be fired. Even when the show does something right, they mess something else big up.
Speaking of which, I was very unhappy that just because Drago was innocent, that meant that there was still a killer out there, and nobody seemed to care until the end. The cliffhanger said my outrage there was groundless, but I can't help feeling that a note of frustration and wariness should have been in the background of this supposed "Happy ending." My guess is the writers didn't want to step on Drago's toes. But that's not how that specific situation should have been treated. In fact, Drago's innocence being proved would still be a real conflict in the D.A.'s office simply because they didn't have another suspect. And despite his fire power working differently, he STILL had motive and opportunity in both murders. Add to that the act break where Drago confronts the witness who was later killed, and I have to say the writers weren't exactly playing fair with us.
But I still kind of liked it. It largely worked, even though parts of it messed up. ***1/2.
The Polar Express
Robert Zemeckis has always been a really frustrating director for me. Back To The Future is an undisputed classic, and I think Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of the greatest films in cinema history. And yet Forrest Gump is in the bottom five of all movies I've ever seen, and the second Back To The Future outright stinks. I think The Polar Express is also a misfire. I tried to be as fair as possible when watching it, and it's not a terribly put-together movie, but I tried to understand the reasons I didn't like it as it was going. I wanted to see if my built-in prejudices about stuff like this wasn't unfairly coloring my opinion.
For one thing, I did not see or review this movie at Christmas-time. I AM a great believer in the Spirit of Christmas. Is it possible I would view this movie more favorably if I were more in the spirit of things?
I also notice that I've been watching a LOT of movies on streaming lately. It used to be I almost always gave movies I viewed a positive review simply because I didn't see many of them. They were special so I always enjoyed them on some level. I saved my most scathing stuff for TV reviews. Is it possible in being able to watch so many movies at my fingertips, the magic and novelty of the experience has worn off?
I thought about both of these things, and I am pretty sure I wouldn't have loved the movie anyways. The subtext bugged me (which frankly is a weird complaint for a kids movie so maybe you shouldn't take that specific gripe from me too seriously). The bigger complaint is that the character animation looks super creepy and unnatural, and it looks SO bad that I never got past it. I think the characters from Avatar, a movie whose visual effects people swear by looks outright awful in this specific respect, so you can guess how disturbed I am by Zemeckis's early use of the motion capture technology if I thought Cameron's experienced hand did nothing but bad things with it. It looks really bad, and I had this creeped out feeling during the entire film. Especially creepy is that not every single kid is voiced by a kid. The Know-It-All is inexplicably voiced by Eddie Deezen, whose voice coming out of that specific character makes him creepier than all the other characters put together.
I mentioned I disliked the subtext.
I actually kind of dig movies based on faith and belief in the unknown. The problem is that the Santa Claus myth is a verifiable real-world lie, so there is no positive message in getting a skeptical kid on-board with it. In this movie's absolute defense, it at least didn't try to concoct elaborate-seeming ways the idea COULD be true. It's portrayed as magical nonsense, which is better than the level of "reality" the awful Arthur Christmas and Prep & Landing tried to give the scenario. But the truth is the only recent Santa story I've dug is Netflix's "Klaus" precisely because they don't attach any of the whys and hows to Santa's origin story. But this is definitely nowhere near as good as that. It's kind of cheesy and sucky.
I sort of appreciated the ticket being blown off the train and coming back, because it told us that nothing on this adventure is not going to go off as the Conductor and Santa actually planned. But while that's interesting (as is the Hobo on the top of the train finding Hero Boy's disbelief in ghosts "interesting") I think my problem is it sort of robs the movie of stakes a bit. Sure, Hero Boy doesn't know the game is rigged in his favor. But the life-threatening situations aren't actually tense if you know things are actually already being sorted out by a combo of Fate and Father Christmas.
Also nobody being really given proper names (except for Lonely Boy being Billy) is the kind of minutia that almost always bugs me. A movie has to be pretty far out there to make me forgive it (see "mother!"). Otherwise, I just find it pretentious. And if nobody knows anybody's names, they aren't really friends. If this experience really made them friends, they'd be exchanging names and phone numbers. Friends aren't really people you'll never, ever see again. By definition.
So that's my review of "The Polar Express", written after seeing it in March. Was I too harsh? Or does my lack of Christmas spirit simply make me see the movie clearer? I'm actually not really sure. **1/2.
Star Trek: Picard "Watcher"
I liked it but I had some concerns. Not unusual, even for seasons I like.
I like the idea of a cynical and broken Guinan, but I don't like the fact that they've broken continuity. Past Guinan has already met Picard. And while it might have been too expensive to de-age Whoopi Goldberg for this episode, she played an earlier version of Guinan in the 1800's in "Time's Arrow". In which she also met Picard. Learning his name is the thing that switches off the alarm bells for her here, so it might be able to fit continuity. But she should have mentioned she met the guy before. Unless Dulmer and Luclsy went back in time after that episode and erased her memory. There are ways to explain it, but it doesn't fit comfortably.
Laris? I have no idea what's going on there, or even if that IS Laris. I suppose we'll find out next week.
Q is having trouble with his mischief. That's good. The end scene hinted at what the time change is gonna involve (a woman we've never seen before) and I'd like to learn a little more about it next week.
Seven driving the cop car was fun, and Rios has turned into one of my favorite characters in this show. His outrage at the blatant racism and corruption of ICE is great because even in OUR era, most decent people would object to it. And also be aware that it's rampant. Guinan pointing out that people in the 21st Century who looked like her never got any breaks was great too, and also another counterpoint from her cultured mannerisms and reasoned debates with Samuel Clemens in "Time's Arrow". If any era of Earth's deserved to break Guinan's spirit and faith in humanity, it should have been post-Trump and Putin America. I think her saying the hoods were transformed into business suits was spot-on for that reason.
Even if the episode broke continuity (and it might have) I'd kind of be loathe to simply dismiss it and put it out of my headcanon, because for the first time ever, the show had a serious response for why the Picard family has English accents despite being French. The Roddenberry / Berman-era sort of snidely declared French a dead language, and made fun of the French because there was no trace of that culture left in Picard. And that was a mean, bigoted joke, that should not have existed in Star Trek. And it's a big reason I think Gene Roddenberry's accolades for equality and diversity are a bit misplaced. When it came down to it, Gene's era of the show was perfectly fine at punching down at the French. And that was obnoxious, and I thought that this show had a thoughtful, powerful reason for it instead.
Learning about the Ten Forward name is on some level cool, but I'm thinking doesn't track with Next Gen. I have misplaced my Enterprise blueprints, but I believe it was named that because it was the tenth deck at the very front of the ship. It's sort of a cute joke to say it's an old favorite name of Guinan's, but it doesn't track.
Agnes's scenes with the Borg Queen are still interesting, but they make me a bit uneasy just because I don't know where they are headed. But they worry me a little bit.
I'm giving that a positive grade but this was the first episode this season I had real concerns about. ****.
Superman & Lois "Into Oblivion"
That was a really good episode.
What Lucy pulled at the end, is in my opinion absolutely unforgivable. If either Sam or Lois have any sense they'll wash their hands of her entirely after this.
I like that Clark is trying with Nat, and making some progress. I take comfort in the fact that John being where he is in his friendship with Clark was actually unthinkable last season. You get to know Clark, you get to trust him. There is no other way, even though the Irons have a crazy circumstance and reason to hate him.
I like that Clark is still mad at Jonathan and Lois is right to tell him not to overdo it. They are both great parents.
I did not dig the Lana and Kyle stuff, because it was about the mayor nonsense, which is still stupid. The debate moderator is supposedly a hunting buddy of Dean's? And Lana was not allowed to object to this? That makes NO freaking sense, and is another example of The Arrowverse having an utterly messed up view of how politics actually work. It doesn't matter that this is usually a great show. Berlanti writers put zero effort into researching how political situations actually exist, and write whatever stupid stuff is in the writer's head. It's why when the rest of the episode is delivering the pathos, I cannot actually outright love it.
Everything but the Lana and Kyle stuff was pretty great. But the Lana and Kyle stuff was so bad I'm subtracting an entire star off the final grade. ****.
Naomi "Fellowship Of The Disc"
Pretty good.
Batman is a fictional comic book character in this world too, which suggests to me, that if Superman is real, he must come from a different dimension. Tyler Hoechlin appearing eventually doesn't actually strike me as the craziest idea ever anymore.
Lourdes really annoyed me with her attitude. I'm glad she came around at the end.
Zumbado's alliance with the good guys reminds me of where Smallville wound up taking Lionel Luthor. Smallville actually entirely botched that really cool plotline. I hope this show has a better handle on it.
I like Anabelle saying "Yeah, we were in a fight. A pretty traumatic one. That's what people do. They fight." Whatever else Anabelle is, she has a pretty healthy perspective on human friendships and relationships. And that's something Naomi desperately needs, and wasn't aware she needed it until it was said.
Pretty good, but the cliffhanger suggests this week was more about the set-up. I'll be able to more fairly judge it when I've seen the pay-off next week. ****.
The Flash "The Fire Next Time"
I kind of liked it. Sue me.
The premise struck me as extremely flawed, and a lot of the ideas were badly handled. But there was enough leeway in the fact that Barry was celebrating a sad anniversary, and the guy's outcry for his son reminded him of his father. Upon seeing the episode synopsis I was like, "The idea that Barry believes a guy is innocent just because he says he is is super shady." But the truth is when they superimposed the flashbacks with Henry, it made sense. The show also made his scene with Joe amazing, with Joe giving the keen perspective that perhaps Barry's experiences gave him an insight there nobody else had.
But the reason the premise struck me as flawed is because in real life, all criminals say they are innocent. It's only unusual in the Arrowverse. In the real world, if Flash were to zip in on a bank robbery, the crooks wouldn't fire at him. They'd drop the guns and loot and exclaim that this isn't what it looks like. Then they'd demand to see their lawyer. Superhero comics are very unrealistic is that the bad guys keep going even after they've been identified and caught by a superior superhero. And that's why the premise struck me as unlikely. If the show were being credible, every single villain would be saying that.
I also object to how they did the ID to the witness. They showed her a picture of the guy. Not in a photo array, not in a police line-up, just asking her if this is the guy. If Cecile were actually a competent lawyer, she should have gotten the entire thing thrown out by a judge as "fruit of the poisonous tree". But like politics, the law in the Arrowverse is not remotely credible, or written by people who know anything about it.
Two notes about Allegra's underling swearing to destroy her. I like that Allegra is not forgiven. I especially like that Allegra is outraged by that fact. "I apologized! What more do you want?" This is the rare instance of this franchise understanding that a damn apology is never actually good enough for the crap the characters often pull with each other. It's weird Allegra thinks she's entitled to forgiveness. That being said, as refreshing as it was, I was shocked Allegra did not just fire her on the spot for insubordination. She's her boss. She doesn't have to take that. Hell, if she repeated exactly what the girl said to her to Iris, Iris would not only believe her, but agree she deserved to be fired. Even when the show does something right, they mess something else big up.
Speaking of which, I was very unhappy that just because Drago was innocent, that meant that there was still a killer out there, and nobody seemed to care until the end. The cliffhanger said my outrage there was groundless, but I can't help feeling that a note of frustration and wariness should have been in the background of this supposed "Happy ending." My guess is the writers didn't want to step on Drago's toes. But that's not how that specific situation should have been treated. In fact, Drago's innocence being proved would still be a real conflict in the D.A.'s office simply because they didn't have another suspect. And despite his fire power working differently, he STILL had motive and opportunity in both murders. Add to that the act break where Drago confronts the witness who was later killed, and I have to say the writers weren't exactly playing fair with us.
But I still kind of liked it. It largely worked, even though parts of it messed up. ***1/2.
