Since iceage there have talks around whether computer graphics have reached/will ever reach the level of reality that you won`t be able to tell the difference between a film done by living actors and a film created entirely in a computers lab. Being a born sceptic I usually spend a lot of time trying to convince every living soul that computer animation sucks and that no polygons will ever be as pretty as the rear of JLo (although I wouldn`t be surprised if her butt was surgically improved after all) but since I`m trying to be a different kind of myself this time I`ll critisize "Polar Express" for completely different reasons. After all, you don`t dislike Salvador Dali for his pictures not looking real enough but you dislike him for being an asshole. PE could have been a brilliant cartoon had it been circa 25 minutes long, but as a normal length feature film it just doesn`t have the story to back the visual setting up with. A little boy without a name doesn`t know whether to continue believing in Santa Clause or is it time to accept the truth that there is no Easter rabbit. As he is full of doubt he gets an opportunity to go on a train to North Pole to see Santa. So he does. And he finds enough belief for his whole life. End of story. Tom Hanks speaks most of the voices behind the characters and, if I got it right, he also does the motions of most of them (which explains which children move quite creepily in this film).