The Polar Express

The Polar Express (2004)

Warner Bros. presents a Robert Zemeckis film, starring Tom Hanks. Written by Zemeckis and William Broyles Jr., from a book by Chris Van Allsburg. 100m. G.

2 stars

Call me the Scrooge of performance-capture technology. But if this represents the future of filmmaking, I want no part of it.

The innovation is the centerpiece of the big-budget adaptation of “The Polar Express,” and allows accomplished actor Tom Hanks to simultaneously play five roles. Hanks was outfitted with hundreds of sensors and told to act out the individual parts while computers collected movement data for future rendering.

And while this is all well and good for video games, which try to work toward realism with unreality, the practice here makes for a film that continually reminds its audience of its artifice. One of its biggest detractions are the impossibility of using performance-capture technology on the human eye, making most characters seem uncomfortably eerie and soulless.

Another important aspect lost is the now-bloated story, which tells of a young boy (voice of Daryl Sabara) who is doubting the existence of Kris Kringle until he’s invited aboard The Polar Express. This magical train transports him to the North Pole, where he encounters “Mr. C” himself and receives the first present of the Christmas season. If you’ve read the 29-page book yourself or to your child, you know the gift is a bell, which rings only for those who keep the spirit of Christmas alive in their hearts.

It’s a wonderful short story that no doubt deserved some big screen treatment. But, like most films from director Robert Zemeckis, the technology overshadows the story.

Zemeckis has been at the helm of projects like “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” the first full-length to fully incorporate animated characters with live action (“Mary Poppins” only had short, but similar, vignettes). He also inserted Hanks into historical footage in “Forrest Gump.” In fact, most of his movies raise the bar on traditional means of telling a story.

In “The Polar Express,” he’s meddled with our senses, striving for authenticity in reality so much that it makes it glaringly obvious when our “suspension of disbelief” is trifled with. The standard production of a film comes with obvious limitations.

I’ve yet to see a traditional camera pass through the eye of a keyhole and back out with any conviction. I saw that - and a transparent look through a opaque page from a book - in “The Polar Express,” but was only reminded of the artificiality of both actions. Instead of astounding me, it jarred me out of the film and reminded me that what I was watching was created by a conglomeration of computers.

I think Zemeckis fully understand that bringing this technology to the table isn’t going to be received warmly at first, either by his filmmaking community or the general public.

“It’s got wonderful potential, but you still need the ... warmth of that human performance,” he told The Baltimore Sun. And while Hanks manages a courageous effort - trying out five voices for five similar-but-different characters - it doesn’t hold a candle to his roles in “Philadelphia” or Zemeckis’ own “Cast Away.”

All was not lost in “The Polar Express,” however. Although it contains a few frightening elements, the movie is my choice over “The Incredibles” for small children. It contains singing and physical comedy that’s appreciated by the elementary schooler, and the sights of Santa Claus, presents and a giant Christmas tree will delight anyone who still has the courage to believe.

And lest I be considered the Luddite of the film forum, let me say that I acknowledge how important the innovations of sound and picture were to the propagation of film as art. I’m even willing to give digital video and digital projection an honest shot. And while I’m all for performance-capture technology being part of the overall equation, I’m hoping it won’t get too popular. Because movies will lose their soul, and not just the ones our eyes can reflect.