CGActor VS. Humans

This isn't really political and I may discredit myself by this article but, I have a bone to pick and so I must pick.

Tom Hanks, you got to love this guy. A great actor and an even better human being. So, why, you say, am I picking on him. I'll tell you: The Polar Express. A fun family film but not a very good film. Several reasons: The animation, though plesent looking, does not move with the flair we love in the Shrek movies. The facial expressions are lacking and the emotional mood is missing. Second, Mr. Hanks plays three roles, the boy, the conductor (who looks like him) and jolly ole' St. Nick. Now this might be fine for Eddy Murphy in a live action flick with the help of make-up wiz Rick Baker but Tom just doen't cut it. Now I'm not saying it is his fault I blame the technology. They used a computer to capturer his face and his movements a simular tech to what was used for Golum in LOTR. The diference is in LOTR it was needed to make Gollum work as he works in the books, here it was not needed and hurt the film as a result. I strongly believe that this film would have been a great had they used real actors on a "green screen" set like they do for the new Star Wars films but more like what they did for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Had they done that, the emotional content would have been felt and Tom would have delivered a power performance as the conductor or what ever role he would have played. The key word being "role".

I never like adults playing kids, the only time it worked in a film was Grease and that is simply because John Travalta in a convincing child even today he just has that loveable spirit. And no, I'm not forgetting about Big but, that was live action and Mr. Hanks was aloud the full power of his face which delivered the childness in all of us.

To sum this up, Hollywood is trying to find cheaper actors and it is abusing a new technology to do it and in the mean time making good movies instead of great movies.