comment #1

TL says ...

Seriously, can somebody explain Zemeckis's fascination with this technology? I mean, I didn't like "Cast Away," but it at least seemed like something worth engaging with.

comment #2

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Agreed, TL. The 3-D is fine, but the motion-capture stuff... yeesh. Zemeckis needs to make a real live-action flesh-n-blood movie again.

comment #3

Eloi Manning says ...

At least in this one he made the characters look a bit cartoonish. There was really no point whatsoever in Polar Express or Beowulf, as all he did was try and digitally recreate the exact image of the actors doing the mo-cap. What is the point? Surely mo-cap should be used only when they're drastically changing the actors' appearances? From what I understand, this is the case with Tintin - all the characters will look like the drawings from the books. But it's sheer folly to spend millions filming Anthony Hopkins in a mo-cap suit, then digitally animate him to look exactly like Anthony Hopkins, but weird and computery.

comment #4

OtownRog says ...

I agree that the movie does not meet Zemeckis & Co.'s own "Does it NEED to be motion capture?" criteria. I kept thinking about that as I watched Digital Carrey stiffly do stuff the real Jim might have made interesting. It didn't need to be 3D, either.
Wooden faces, dead but moist eyes, Mo-cap really does mute the can't-miss Dickens-not-Disney moments in this, though the message and moral of it all still come through.

comment #5

Sean says ...

Live action, with the same cast, director, zany Raimi-style camerawork and, crucially, script, I think BEOWULF could have been the next EXCALIBUR.

I respect Zemeckis being an innovator who has to follow his inspiration where it takes him, but there's a price for that.

comment #6

Rich S. says ...

My question is, what's the alternative? There are clearly things in this version Zemeckis wanted to accomplish that he couldn't do with live action. So I guess you'd have to go the Sky Captain/Revenge of the Sith route, where the human characters are the only real thing in the film. But that's not wholly satisfying, either.

I'm not a big fan of motion capture, but I did enjoy Beowulf for what it was. Some of the scenes would have been very difficult to pull off with live action, and they probably would have had to use a digital substitute for the human characters anyway, as in Spider-Man. I at least give Zemeckis points for trying.

comment #7

actionman says ...

totally wish this was a live-action 3-d movie but i'll still check it out...looks like a wild ride.

zemeckis has always been one of my favorite directors. i loved the look and feel and the 3-d elements in The Polar Express but Beowulf left me completely cold.

comment #8

Scott Mendelson says ...

Re - Sean: Although I'm never read the version of Beowulf that Zemeckis's movie was based on, it sure seemed like a take on the Excalibur/Arthur legend to me.

I rather loved Beowulf. It was a genuinely exciting old-fashioned adventure epic that happened to be told with new toys. The acting is strong (Malkovich is great and Hopkins once again thrives in the realm of pulp fiction), the writing is thoughtful, and the action scenes are stunning. I've seen it in IMAX 3D and in 2D Blu Ray and it holds up both times as a just-plain great action picture.

It seems to be that when high-tech movies like this come out, the critics at large see only the bells and whistle, failing to see the character and storytelling at play. The joke comes when said film comes out on DVD and same critics watch it on a smaller TV and realize 'hey, there's a real movie underneath all the special effects!'. It happened with The Matrix and Beowulf, and I'd argue that was the source of much of the critical scorn for Speed Racer. They are all real movies that happen to have lots of special effects. That doesn't excuse critics from not noticing or caring about the writing/acting and then complaining that the film is just empty spectacle.

comment #9

Gogocrank says ...

I thought "Beowulf" was absolutely unwatchable on DVD in 2-D, and I really enjoyed the movie in theaters. Which underscored to me how much the film was carried by the effect/effects, and how the characters and "acting" (as such) was not enough to make up for the missing dimension.

comment #10

Jonathan Spuij says ...

How come the story never matches the effects? I mean the source material is excellent (so was Beowulf) yet it'll probably be dull as hell once the snow clears from the 3D mo-cap shock and awe.

comment #11

lazarus says ...

Zemeckis should have stopped with the CGI feather.

comment #12

DeeZee says ...

Jonathan: Too much pointless exposition, not enough bloody action.

Speaking of Zemeckis, from what I heard, the reason that South Park S.1 commentary was "sold separately" was because it trashed Contact.