LoginI love animation and I love Christmas films. Not to mention that I adore Dickens' story. 2009's A Christmas Carol mayn't quite be a classic for the Yuletide season, but it is a worthy film and one of the more loyal adaptations of the story, maintaining not just the details but the spirit as well.
CONS: There are few cons actually here. I did feel the film was too long, I personally think 80 minutes is a perfect length for telling the story, this was nearly 100 minutes. In order to do this, while they were musically and visually stunning, there were two scenes that didn't quite work for me and could have been omitted, one being the extinguishing of Ghost of Christmas Past, the other being the carriage chase. As impressive as they are, they don't enhance the storytelling much and feel odd in their placement too. The film does occasionally drag as well, particularly towards the end.
PROS: However, there is much to enjoy here. The story has a classic feel in how it is told, and it has the heart and sentiment of the original story. The dialogue is delightful and almost word-from-word from the original story as well. There are three outstanding things though. One is the vocal cast, Gary Oldman is excellent as is Colin Firth, but it is Jim Carrey's show all the way, while his distinctive acting style is here it is also naturally understated. Two is the score, I like Alan Silvestri a lot, and his score here is beautiful and compliments the spirit and meaning of Christmas wonderfully. Most impressive are the visuals, which in the colours, backgrounds, 3D effects and character designs are outstanding.
So all in all, while not a movie to treasure perhaps, it is definitely worth watching. 7/10 Bethany Cox
A Christmas Carol Reviews
A Christmas Carol review
Posted : 2 years, 1 month ago on 20 March 2022 02:41
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A Christmas Carol review
Posted : 3 years, 5 months ago on 27 November 2020 11:27
Appropriately enough, to explain the plot of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol to someone is tantamount to taking them on a journey of their own past. It is a story woven into the foundation of our modern traditions. It's become synonymous with the holiday (not to mention general human morals) ever since its release, and rightfully so. Now, imagine all you knew about it confoundingly gutted from it and the quivering, steaming remains covered in resplendent clothing to simulate the idea of life. Now you begin to understand what Robert Zemeckis' adaptation of the tale for Disney feels like.
Zemeckis had made much ado about his, at the time, dedication to motion capture technology and its potential applications to liberating the mind and capabilities of the director. With both "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf" he seemed to begin to scratch at the surface of justifying these claims, despite struggling with issues surmounting the uncanny valley. "A Christmas Carol" might have been the piece to bring his point home, with its use of a familiar and beloved story that had imagery ripe to explore. Alas, it might be the piece that soundly put his desire to make motion capture animation the next big thing to rest (the next time he would use it would be in a much more subdued manner in the disastrous failure "Welcome To Marwen").
Of course, Zemeckis has brought us much wonder and awe in his lifetime with classics like the "Back to the Future" trilogy, "Forrest Gump", "Contact", and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". His adventurousness with the art is admirable and he's certainly more than earned his respect but one wonders exactly what he sought to earn by taking all the meaning and character out of such a well known story.
"A Christmas Carol" could have been well regarded (as are several of the previous adaptations) rather than best forgotten if he had balanced his obvious want for something visually lush with something with a semblance of a heart and humanity. In short, his take relies heavily on spectacle rather than story. You are bounced around from scene to scene in tiresomely long, overly effects-laden (even for a movie that is purely made of effects) sequences that could have better been used to spend time getting to know characters and situations.
Indeed, why should we care about the life-changing journey of the curmudgeonly and rapacious Scrooge if we are shown so little context to his life? Worse, what little we do see is so bereft of life and gravitas that you wonder why anyone would make any of the decision Scrooge would make. We get but the briefest of glimpses into his past, present, for future in a breakneck mad scramble of scenes that come and go so quickly that they almost seem confusing, but surely feel horribly unimportant, in the long run. None of these feelings should crop up while watching something so familiar to western culture.
Make no mistake, either. This is not the result of a new vision for the material. Sure, there is a darker air to things here but style over substance is all it amounts to. The source material certainly lends itself to a little creative exploration with its darker elements and Zemeckis plays with these (albeit like a furtive child that played with his food rather than eaten it) but to no substantial avail.
Scrooge has always been at the core of the story but those around him make his journey meaningful. Well, strap on for a soulless ride, boys and girls. You'll only get to know the people around him for the briefest and most insignificant amounts of time. A character piece this is not.
If this movie had one saving grace it's Jim Carrey's dedication to portraying the lead role. You could easily see his take transplanted into a better adaptation and finding a home there just fine. However, you mostly wonder how much more he could have done had the script not limited him so much with its overreliance on being an effects extravaganza.
This film was intended to be shown in 3D and, while we don't get an uncanny amount of objects flying at the screen, we do begin to understand why some scenes play more like a showcase rather than a performance. The sad part is that this movie doesn't even impress on an effects level. The character designs are hideous (Bob Cractchit is a monstrosity) or downright laughable (that copy-pasted face on the Ghost of Christmas Past) and the descent into the uncanny valley turns into a full-throttle plummet.
The ending and the beginning feel like they are a completely different movie. The longer middle, on the other hand, feels overstuffed with superficialities and anemic in validity or meaning. You think you'll care about it as it begins, then you realize you're in a roller coaster of images that numbs you into apathy, and then the end comes and you kind of feel angry that they try to make it seem like something cathartic truly happened here.
"A Christmas Carol" is an abomination. It is godawful as an adaptation, it is godawful as something that tries to be new, it is godawful as a feast for the eyes, and it is lacking in everything that it should not be lacking. I give this film 1/10.
Zemeckis had made much ado about his, at the time, dedication to motion capture technology and its potential applications to liberating the mind and capabilities of the director. With both "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf" he seemed to begin to scratch at the surface of justifying these claims, despite struggling with issues surmounting the uncanny valley. "A Christmas Carol" might have been the piece to bring his point home, with its use of a familiar and beloved story that had imagery ripe to explore. Alas, it might be the piece that soundly put his desire to make motion capture animation the next big thing to rest (the next time he would use it would be in a much more subdued manner in the disastrous failure "Welcome To Marwen").
Of course, Zemeckis has brought us much wonder and awe in his lifetime with classics like the "Back to the Future" trilogy, "Forrest Gump", "Contact", and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". His adventurousness with the art is admirable and he's certainly more than earned his respect but one wonders exactly what he sought to earn by taking all the meaning and character out of such a well known story.
"A Christmas Carol" could have been well regarded (as are several of the previous adaptations) rather than best forgotten if he had balanced his obvious want for something visually lush with something with a semblance of a heart and humanity. In short, his take relies heavily on spectacle rather than story. You are bounced around from scene to scene in tiresomely long, overly effects-laden (even for a movie that is purely made of effects) sequences that could have better been used to spend time getting to know characters and situations.
Indeed, why should we care about the life-changing journey of the curmudgeonly and rapacious Scrooge if we are shown so little context to his life? Worse, what little we do see is so bereft of life and gravitas that you wonder why anyone would make any of the decision Scrooge would make. We get but the briefest of glimpses into his past, present, for future in a breakneck mad scramble of scenes that come and go so quickly that they almost seem confusing, but surely feel horribly unimportant, in the long run. None of these feelings should crop up while watching something so familiar to western culture.
Make no mistake, either. This is not the result of a new vision for the material. Sure, there is a darker air to things here but style over substance is all it amounts to. The source material certainly lends itself to a little creative exploration with its darker elements and Zemeckis plays with these (albeit like a furtive child that played with his food rather than eaten it) but to no substantial avail.
Scrooge has always been at the core of the story but those around him make his journey meaningful. Well, strap on for a soulless ride, boys and girls. You'll only get to know the people around him for the briefest and most insignificant amounts of time. A character piece this is not.
If this movie had one saving grace it's Jim Carrey's dedication to portraying the lead role. You could easily see his take transplanted into a better adaptation and finding a home there just fine. However, you mostly wonder how much more he could have done had the script not limited him so much with its overreliance on being an effects extravaganza.
This film was intended to be shown in 3D and, while we don't get an uncanny amount of objects flying at the screen, we do begin to understand why some scenes play more like a showcase rather than a performance. The sad part is that this movie doesn't even impress on an effects level. The character designs are hideous (Bob Cractchit is a monstrosity) or downright laughable (that copy-pasted face on the Ghost of Christmas Past) and the descent into the uncanny valley turns into a full-throttle plummet.
The ending and the beginning feel like they are a completely different movie. The longer middle, on the other hand, feels overstuffed with superficialities and anemic in validity or meaning. You think you'll care about it as it begins, then you realize you're in a roller coaster of images that numbs you into apathy, and then the end comes and you kind of feel angry that they try to make it seem like something cathartic truly happened here.
"A Christmas Carol" is an abomination. It is godawful as an adaptation, it is godawful as something that tries to be new, it is godawful as a feast for the eyes, and it is lacking in everything that it should not be lacking. I give this film 1/10.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Review of A Christmas Carol
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 15 March 2012 09:20
I can sum this up in one short phrase: "PG rated horror film." Let me make this clear, this is not a film for kids under 10, or really anyone that's easily frightened (or nauseated for that matter). I'm not saying it's a bad film, but this is not a film for small children.
This adaption of the Christmas Carol captures and fleshes out the creepy parts of the tale, leaving the warm and fuzzy parts a little under cooked. The creepy take on this classic is unique, and enjoyable. It's the kind of film that can be enjoyed by a wider audience than if this story had been left to the generic fuzzy ending that so many films have adopted.
The story sports more style than previous adaptions. More pizazz, more depth, and more scares. I won't lie, there were times when something startled me; this film is full of GOOD scares, not the silly excuse for jolts that are in so many kid's movies these days.
Even though this movie is over two years old, and motion capture has gotten significantly better (Tintin, anyone?), the animation looks great. Everything is well detailed, and everything feels real. However, there's still some stiffness in the moving, and there's one dance scene where gravity and physics are defied so many times, there's no doubt that even kids (kids that can take the scares) will point them out.
I mentioned earlier that this is like a PG rated horror film. I liked this unique aspect, but I thought you might like to know what's ahead of you: a pretty creepy scene where a talking corpse (in translucent ghost form) has a conversation with Scrooge, for one. The scene is surprisingly scary, and at one point, the corpse' jaw becomes disconnected when he screams. There's no gore, but it's pretty icky anyway. In addition to this, we see another corpse (it's played as a surprise for laughs), an old wrinkled head, a fat man who's skin blows off him like dust, and two vicious goblin creatures who are very reminiscent of Lord of the Rings.
The score is appropriately Christmasy, but it's not outstanding. It does a good job of setting the mood of each scene, though, but I've heard much better Christmas scores.
Jim Carrey does a hilarious job as Scrooge. He's grumpy and despicable, but because you recognize him as Carrey, you can't take him seriously. This isn't really a bad thing, but it might irritate die-hard Dickens fans.
There's also one boring, tedious, and completely unnecessary chase scene, that makes little sense, which was most likely added for the benefit of any kids in the audience (who, as I've made a point of mentioning, are brave enough to take the scares).
Also, the ending is incredibly corny (though we get the feeling that Carrey was overdoing it for his own entertainment), and little Timmy barely gets any mentioning.
Overall, this is an entertaining flick and even though flawed, is a fun and creepy delight. I recommend this film to anyone who likes Jim Carrey, The Christmas Carol, motion capture, or the creeps.
This adaption of the Christmas Carol captures and fleshes out the creepy parts of the tale, leaving the warm and fuzzy parts a little under cooked. The creepy take on this classic is unique, and enjoyable. It's the kind of film that can be enjoyed by a wider audience than if this story had been left to the generic fuzzy ending that so many films have adopted.
The story sports more style than previous adaptions. More pizazz, more depth, and more scares. I won't lie, there were times when something startled me; this film is full of GOOD scares, not the silly excuse for jolts that are in so many kid's movies these days.
Even though this movie is over two years old, and motion capture has gotten significantly better (Tintin, anyone?), the animation looks great. Everything is well detailed, and everything feels real. However, there's still some stiffness in the moving, and there's one dance scene where gravity and physics are defied so many times, there's no doubt that even kids (kids that can take the scares) will point them out.
I mentioned earlier that this is like a PG rated horror film. I liked this unique aspect, but I thought you might like to know what's ahead of you: a pretty creepy scene where a talking corpse (in translucent ghost form) has a conversation with Scrooge, for one. The scene is surprisingly scary, and at one point, the corpse' jaw becomes disconnected when he screams. There's no gore, but it's pretty icky anyway. In addition to this, we see another corpse (it's played as a surprise for laughs), an old wrinkled head, a fat man who's skin blows off him like dust, and two vicious goblin creatures who are very reminiscent of Lord of the Rings.
The score is appropriately Christmasy, but it's not outstanding. It does a good job of setting the mood of each scene, though, but I've heard much better Christmas scores.
Jim Carrey does a hilarious job as Scrooge. He's grumpy and despicable, but because you recognize him as Carrey, you can't take him seriously. This isn't really a bad thing, but it might irritate die-hard Dickens fans.
There's also one boring, tedious, and completely unnecessary chase scene, that makes little sense, which was most likely added for the benefit of any kids in the audience (who, as I've made a point of mentioning, are brave enough to take the scares).
Also, the ending is incredibly corny (though we get the feeling that Carrey was overdoing it for his own entertainment), and little Timmy barely gets any mentioning.
Overall, this is an entertaining flick and even though flawed, is a fun and creepy delight. I recommend this film to anyone who likes Jim Carrey, The Christmas Carol, motion capture, or the creeps.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A good movie
Posted : 13 years ago on 4 May 2011 01:25
Even though I never was really a fan of Robert Zemeckis’ work, there has always been something intriguing about his movies so I was quite eager to chek this one as well. Personally, I think it was not as good as ‘Beowulf’ which was easily the best of the motion-capture features he has directed but it still managed to be better than the creepy ‘The Polar Express’, and I honestly rather enjoyed this feature. Indeed, the animation was quite awesome (thank God, we didn’t see it in 3D which wasn’t yet compulsory at the time...), it looked really good to me and even the story was pretty entertaining. Jim Carrey also seemed to have fun with Ebenezer Scrooge. Basically, the only real issue I had was the fact that Zemeckis chose not only again another story based on Christmas but also one very old tale which had been told already in so many different versions. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of this classic story and since it was really faithful, there weren’t much surprises during the whole thing. Anyway, since it was already his 3rd underperforming effort using this technology, Robert Zemeckis seems to have dropped this genre (at least for now) and he was recently back with ‘Flight', a good old drama in live action this time. Anyway, even though it was nothing really amazing, it was still pretty impressive visually speaking and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Zemeckis’ work.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Flawed, but enjoyable and admirable
Posted : 14 years, 4 months ago on 18 December 2009 11:08
"If I could have my way, every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips should be boiled in his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart!"
It's doubtful that any Christmas story is as omnipresent as Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol. Since cinema's very inception, there have been tonnes of motion picture adaptations of this 1843 novella, as well as spoofs and updated variations (the Muppets, Mickey Mouse and even Mr. Magoo have all tackled this Yuletide morality tale). In addition, the characters are ingrained so deeply in popular culture that one only has to utter the name "Scrooge", and the vast majority of the human populace will immediately conjure up images of a grumpy, miserable old curmudgeon who dampens the spirits of those around him. Therefore, it's logical to ask why the world needs another screen version of A Christmas Carol.
The answer is simple: Robert Zemeckis' 2009 picture is a Disney-branded, computer-animated spectacle (in 3-D) appropriate for the digital era. A Christmas Carol is Zemeckis's third attempt at reimagining page-bound stories with cutting-edge performance capture technology to turn flesh-and-blood actors into infinitely malleable digital avatars (his previous efforts being The Polar Express and Beowulf). It's hard not to be impressed with the top-shelf animation, but Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol is nevertheless flawed.
(Synopsis is mostly taken from my review of the 1984 version because I can't be bothered writing another synopsis of the same fucking story)
The embittered old Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is one of the cruellest men in London, and Christmas is his least favourite time of the year. With Christmastime upon him yet again, Scrooge could not care less; he's far more concerned with running his business and torturing assistant Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman). Upon his arrival home on the evening of Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his late business partner Jacob Marley (Gary Oldman again), who warns the old man that his miserly ways may lead to his soul being tormented for eternity. As the night wears on, Scrooge is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past (also Jim Carrey), the Ghost of Christmas Present (Jim Carrey again) and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (still Jim Carrey), who take the bitter man on a grim time-travelling journey.
Zemeckis' script is remarkably faithful to Dickens' original novella, down to insignificant moments and most of the dialogue. This fidelity instantly creates a problem, though. The Victorian English from the original text vastly differs from modern English in terms of grammar, words, syntax and rhythm. Hence, the dialogue here is quite dry, and children will no doubt have trouble deciphering what's being said. Dickens also used societal commentary in his story, which erroneously transfers to Zemeckis' adaptation. The most glaring example is an out-of-place digression in which Scrooge and the Ghost of Christmas Present take time out of their journey to discuss "Sabbatarianism" (the practice of closing businesses on Sunday). Presented in this flick without any specification as to what is being discussed more than a century after it stopped being controversial results in a huge "What the fuck?!" moment. Books should be altered for their translation to the screen. Take the 1984 version of A Christmas Carol - the makers changed the dialogue to give it an engaging new spin, and the result is both spiritually faithful to the novella and more comprehensible.
Sticking slavishly to Dickens' novella could have worked, but Zemeckis wasn't just aiming for a loyal page-to-screen transplantation; A Christmas Carol also aspires to be a flashy, adamantly Hollywoodised 3-D blockbuster with broad appeal. Thus, the film tries to have it both ways, with elaborate set pieces and moments of inane physical comedy. To pander to the 3-D gimmick, Zemeckis overplays the action a few times to underscore various things in an unnecessarily obvious, overdone fashion when a more low-key approach would have sufficed (an elongated chase through the streets of London is the most egregious - it's borderline painful). It's clear that this material is present to keep the kids awake, but the picture as a whole is too scarifying and dark for tots.
Oddly enough, however, A Christmas Carol still gels for the most part, as the most offensive action only occurs in the final third. Furthermore, director Zemeckis is astonishingly competent at staging expositional scenes, making the dry dialogue less of a problem. This is also a technically jaw-dropping picture. The film opens with a superlative tracking shot that takes us on an aerial tour of Victorian-era London. A Christmas Carol was released in 3-D, with extraordinary extra-dimensional effects. The glasses may be a nuisance, but the most memorable and enjoyable way to experience this picture is in 3-D. The score by the criminally underrated Alan Silvestri also deserves credit, as it encapsulates the flavour of the Christmas season (it even contains notes from various Christmas carols) on top of carrying a general old-fashioned 19th-century aura. On a less positive note, characters in motion capture movies are often plagued by "dead-eye syndrome", and (despite technological advancements since 2004's The Polar Express) A Christmas Carol cannot convincingly overcome this problem. It's getting there, but Zemeckis' technology has not come far enough to give his animated characters a soul. After viewing behind-the-scenes footage of the original performances, it also seems that the computers failed to replicate all the nuances of the performances.
Working overtime is star Jim Carrey, who plays several key roles here. Carrey is an interesting and unusual casting choice, given that Scrooge is defined by his bitter stasis, whereas Carrey is best known for his brand of comedic performance. Yet, as Carrey has proved in films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, he is hardly a one-trick pony. And fortunately, the actor does an admirable job. His voice for Scrooge feels lived-in, and, amazingly, Carrey successfully inhabits several different characters with different mannerisms and different voices. Meanwhile, the rest of the cast are uniformly impressive - the likes of Gary Oldman, Robin Wright Penn, Cary Elwes and Bob Hoskins all make appearances, and all of them fulfil their duties to a high standard.
Although this A Christmas Carol doesn't illuminate or expand upon Dickens' original story in any new or meaningful ways, it is a visually engrossing, atmospheric and, at times, emotive retelling. Perhaps the world didn't need yet another Christmas Carol movie, but Zemeckis' effort is not exactly undesirable - it has more heart and carries more weight than Hollywood's usual festive output. It's a shame that Zemeckis' script wasn't given a thorough makeover before the virtual cameras began to roll. Mark this one as "flawed but enjoyable and admirable".
6.7/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Finally! An awesome Zemeckis animated film!
Posted : 14 years, 4 months ago on 14 December 2009 10:20
I had both exciting and nervous feelings about seeing this one. I was excited because it is a Christmas film and I love Christmas! Also, it stars Jim Carrey and he is returning to a Christmas film. What I was nervous about was that Zemeckis has done a Christmas animated film before and it was quite disappointing. When I saw this film at the cinema, I thought it was an absolutely fantastic film! The 3D experience made it an even better film than it already was. I mean, in some scenes it felt like riding a rollercoaster because of some of the scenes within the film. I have always been a fan of Charles Dickens and I personally think that A Christmas Carol is his most famous novel. A lot of film adaptations of A Christmas Carol that have been made were all done in different generations but despite I haven't seen very many adaptations of the classic story, I personally think the 2009 version is the best one so far.
However, there was only one slight flaw that this film did have and that was I couldn't quite feel the Christmas spirit within the film. It didn’t feel as magical as I have seen in other Christmas films. It was like there wasn't a firm, binding connection between the characters and the Christmas season. That didn't affect my liking for the film despite that and I would still call it a Christmas film. A Christmas Carol is a children's book but I find it to be quite a disturbing and terrifying one which actually really surprised me. Mostly, because of the ghosts that haunt Scrooge on Christmas Eve night. Bit of advice: don’t take kids under at least 8 to see this because it did become quite scary on occasions and would be scary for little kids.
Set in the Victorian age of a bitter, grumpy old man called Ebenezer Scrooge who has hated Christmas since his partner Jacob Marley was buried on Christmas Eve and is usually loathed by the public for his cold attitude. Seven Christmas Eves later, he still is that cold-hearted man and that night after finishing his work, he is confronted in his home by the ghost of Jacob Marley. He tells Scrooge that he will be haunted by three ghosts: the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come (Future). When those ghosts approach him, he goes through his childhood and adulthood during Christmas and hearing the words about him from his nephew, work colleague and others, he begins to learn the error of his ways and discover who he really is and what the true meaning of Christmas is.
Jim Carrey's performance as Ebenezer Scrooge was absolutely fantastic!! Jim returns to another Christmas film playing a character who hates Christmas (he previously portrayed the Grinch in How The Grinch Stole Christmas). Ebenezer Scrooge is an absolutely typical Jim Carrey character because Jim really is that grumpy, cold type but can also be that hilarious and terrified type as well which is pretty much all of what Scrooge is in this film. His performance as The Grinch is unforgettable and so is his performance in this one. When I found out that Jim Carrey was playing Scrooge, I thought to myself "Why aren’t I surprised? We've already seen him as The Grinch! He’s bound to deliver another hilarious yet quite terrifying performance as Scrooge." Jim also plays Scrooge as a young man and as a little child and all three ghosts that haunt him. Gary Oldman plays multiple characters as well. He plays Bob Crachett, Tiny Tim and Jacob Marley. Cary Elwes, Colin Firth and Robin Wright-Penn have other roles in the film too and did pretty well.
Robert Zemeckis hasn’t been a huge director after Cast Away and has changed the style and genre of his films because he is now an animated filmmaker and the previous two he has done haven’t really been very successful although he did have experience with animation before the three animated ones he's done so far with Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. I am a big fan of Zemeckis and I have to say that A Christmas Carol is without a doubt his best animated film so far and his best film since Cast Away. I was worried that this was going to be too much like The Polar Express but it is very different! Yes, they’re based on the same theme but plot and character-wise theyre very different. The effects in A Christmas Carol are literally flawless. In my opinion, it is technically perfect! I am not sure what film Zemeckis is going to do next but I think it’ll be pretty hard to beat this one.
Overall, A Christmas Carol is a very successful animated film that I think should be appreciated more critically and publicly. Animation is top-notch, acting is brilliant, directing is great! I would definitely say it is something I would watch on Christmas despite the connection of the Christmas spirit isn't a firm hold but it is a brilliant, visually stunning, exhilarating, entertaining and surprisingly scary film to watch!
However, there was only one slight flaw that this film did have and that was I couldn't quite feel the Christmas spirit within the film. It didn’t feel as magical as I have seen in other Christmas films. It was like there wasn't a firm, binding connection between the characters and the Christmas season. That didn't affect my liking for the film despite that and I would still call it a Christmas film. A Christmas Carol is a children's book but I find it to be quite a disturbing and terrifying one which actually really surprised me. Mostly, because of the ghosts that haunt Scrooge on Christmas Eve night. Bit of advice: don’t take kids under at least 8 to see this because it did become quite scary on occasions and would be scary for little kids.
Set in the Victorian age of a bitter, grumpy old man called Ebenezer Scrooge who has hated Christmas since his partner Jacob Marley was buried on Christmas Eve and is usually loathed by the public for his cold attitude. Seven Christmas Eves later, he still is that cold-hearted man and that night after finishing his work, he is confronted in his home by the ghost of Jacob Marley. He tells Scrooge that he will be haunted by three ghosts: the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come (Future). When those ghosts approach him, he goes through his childhood and adulthood during Christmas and hearing the words about him from his nephew, work colleague and others, he begins to learn the error of his ways and discover who he really is and what the true meaning of Christmas is.
Jim Carrey's performance as Ebenezer Scrooge was absolutely fantastic!! Jim returns to another Christmas film playing a character who hates Christmas (he previously portrayed the Grinch in How The Grinch Stole Christmas). Ebenezer Scrooge is an absolutely typical Jim Carrey character because Jim really is that grumpy, cold type but can also be that hilarious and terrified type as well which is pretty much all of what Scrooge is in this film. His performance as The Grinch is unforgettable and so is his performance in this one. When I found out that Jim Carrey was playing Scrooge, I thought to myself "Why aren’t I surprised? We've already seen him as The Grinch! He’s bound to deliver another hilarious yet quite terrifying performance as Scrooge." Jim also plays Scrooge as a young man and as a little child and all three ghosts that haunt him. Gary Oldman plays multiple characters as well. He plays Bob Crachett, Tiny Tim and Jacob Marley. Cary Elwes, Colin Firth and Robin Wright-Penn have other roles in the film too and did pretty well.
Robert Zemeckis hasn’t been a huge director after Cast Away and has changed the style and genre of his films because he is now an animated filmmaker and the previous two he has done haven’t really been very successful although he did have experience with animation before the three animated ones he's done so far with Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. I am a big fan of Zemeckis and I have to say that A Christmas Carol is without a doubt his best animated film so far and his best film since Cast Away. I was worried that this was going to be too much like The Polar Express but it is very different! Yes, they’re based on the same theme but plot and character-wise theyre very different. The effects in A Christmas Carol are literally flawless. In my opinion, it is technically perfect! I am not sure what film Zemeckis is going to do next but I think it’ll be pretty hard to beat this one.
Overall, A Christmas Carol is a very successful animated film that I think should be appreciated more critically and publicly. Animation is top-notch, acting is brilliant, directing is great! I would definitely say it is something I would watch on Christmas despite the connection of the Christmas spirit isn't a firm hold but it is a brilliant, visually stunning, exhilarating, entertaining and surprisingly scary film to watch!
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Christmas Carol review
Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 27 November 2009 01:48
I went and saw this one at the IMAX and it looked incredibly cool but other than that it was pretty lame. I liked how they ripped it directly from the book as well but overall this movie just really wasn't the best. It's attempts at comedy were meager at best and Jim Carrey just gets really annoying throughout. The Ghost of Christmas Past was also very...disturbing. It sounded exactly like what I picture all child molestors to sound like.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A Carrey Carol.
Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 20 November 2009 11:44
''Humbug!''
An animated retelling of Charles Dickens classic novel about a Victorian-era miser taken on a journey of self-redemption, courtesy of several mysterious Christmas apparitions.
Jim Carrey: Scrooge
''I'm light as a feather!...''
Disney's A Christmas Carol is a solid adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic, although lacking sometimes in the emotional connection to humanity; inherent in some of other previous versions of this timeless story.
The plot of the film obviously comprises of the traditional story of Ebenezer Scrooge, the grouchy old miser whom is in turn visited by the Ghosts of his friend Jacob Marley, Christmas Past, Present, and Things Yet to Come. Thus all spirits proceed in giving him visions of his life and the consequences of proceeding in his greedy, unemotional way. One path being of financial materialistic glory, the redeeming road comprising of selfless acts; kindness and consideration for others less fortunate.
The legendary role of Scrooge is played by Jim Carrey (where as he also voices the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and other characters). I was a touched with Carrey giving this character life with his voice alone. With this being an animated film, his portrayal is a very faceted performance from Carrey, and were this a live-action adaptation, he would have truly breathed even more life into the main protagonist, with his inane comedic skills.
Gary Oldman provides his talented voice to Bob Cratchit, Marley, and Tiny Tim. Bob even looks like Oldman albeit a tad shorter and rounder than the master of change.
A Christmas Carol was directed by Robert Zemeckis, whom here continues to try and refine his favoured medium of production, animated motion capture. Disney's A Christmas Carol is on par, animation wise with his previous projects, The Polar Express and Beowulf, but it still doesn't manage to look as good as live-action would, nor as polished as other CG-animated products; though I will say in it's defense, there were certain shots where the lighting was so well designed that I was fooled momentarily believing some of the characters on screen were real.
Ebenezer Scrooge: What do you want with me?
Jacob Marley: You will be haunted by three spirits.
Ebenezer Scrooge: I'd rather not.
I saw this film in 3D, the first time I've ever seen a full feature length film in 3D at the cinema, and I came away impressed with certain aspects, while a touch frustrated with others. A simple dolly shot in 3D has a marvelous look resonating from it's use, simply beautiful and truly enticing me into this world, as well the depth of field in a simple shot where two characters are in frame is astounding, but then whenever a shot of someone's hand flying out toward the audience is shown, that impressiveness previously disappears.
Zemeckis has definitely made a visually intriguing film, a highly original take on this classic story, while also being faithful to the source, and there are many good times to be had within. I think the best way to sum up Disney's A Christmas Carol is that it's style over substance, often taking liberties with the story and skipping vital detailed parts like it's racing through Charles Dickens tale. The film seems to be more interested in being a showcase rollercoaster of impressive visuals rather than one of creating emotional connection with the characters. It's just, whenever a sequence begins to evolve really intriguing emotionally, it pulls away into another crazy storm of fast paced flying.
As a whole, Disney's A Christmas Carol is a jolly experience at the cinema, though it's less of a sentimental, character building piece of story and more of a high octane effects ride, valuing entertainment rather than Dickens story, but there again, isn't that why most go to the films in the first place? I know I certainly expect something deeper, meaningful usually but this being Disney and a family supportive project it succeeds in showing the children and even adults amazement visually.
''God bless us all...every one!''
An animated retelling of Charles Dickens classic novel about a Victorian-era miser taken on a journey of self-redemption, courtesy of several mysterious Christmas apparitions.
Jim Carrey: Scrooge
''I'm light as a feather!...''
Disney's A Christmas Carol is a solid adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic, although lacking sometimes in the emotional connection to humanity; inherent in some of other previous versions of this timeless story.
The plot of the film obviously comprises of the traditional story of Ebenezer Scrooge, the grouchy old miser whom is in turn visited by the Ghosts of his friend Jacob Marley, Christmas Past, Present, and Things Yet to Come. Thus all spirits proceed in giving him visions of his life and the consequences of proceeding in his greedy, unemotional way. One path being of financial materialistic glory, the redeeming road comprising of selfless acts; kindness and consideration for others less fortunate.
The legendary role of Scrooge is played by Jim Carrey (where as he also voices the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and other characters). I was a touched with Carrey giving this character life with his voice alone. With this being an animated film, his portrayal is a very faceted performance from Carrey, and were this a live-action adaptation, he would have truly breathed even more life into the main protagonist, with his inane comedic skills.
Gary Oldman provides his talented voice to Bob Cratchit, Marley, and Tiny Tim. Bob even looks like Oldman albeit a tad shorter and rounder than the master of change.
A Christmas Carol was directed by Robert Zemeckis, whom here continues to try and refine his favoured medium of production, animated motion capture. Disney's A Christmas Carol is on par, animation wise with his previous projects, The Polar Express and Beowulf, but it still doesn't manage to look as good as live-action would, nor as polished as other CG-animated products; though I will say in it's defense, there were certain shots where the lighting was so well designed that I was fooled momentarily believing some of the characters on screen were real.
Ebenezer Scrooge: What do you want with me?
Jacob Marley: You will be haunted by three spirits.
Ebenezer Scrooge: I'd rather not.
I saw this film in 3D, the first time I've ever seen a full feature length film in 3D at the cinema, and I came away impressed with certain aspects, while a touch frustrated with others. A simple dolly shot in 3D has a marvelous look resonating from it's use, simply beautiful and truly enticing me into this world, as well the depth of field in a simple shot where two characters are in frame is astounding, but then whenever a shot of someone's hand flying out toward the audience is shown, that impressiveness previously disappears.
Zemeckis has definitely made a visually intriguing film, a highly original take on this classic story, while also being faithful to the source, and there are many good times to be had within. I think the best way to sum up Disney's A Christmas Carol is that it's style over substance, often taking liberties with the story and skipping vital detailed parts like it's racing through Charles Dickens tale. The film seems to be more interested in being a showcase rollercoaster of impressive visuals rather than one of creating emotional connection with the characters. It's just, whenever a sequence begins to evolve really intriguing emotionally, it pulls away into another crazy storm of fast paced flying.
As a whole, Disney's A Christmas Carol is a jolly experience at the cinema, though it's less of a sentimental, character building piece of story and more of a high octane effects ride, valuing entertainment rather than Dickens story, but there again, isn't that why most go to the films in the first place? I know I certainly expect something deeper, meaningful usually but this being Disney and a family supportive project it succeeds in showing the children and even adults amazement visually.
''God bless us all...every one!''
0 comments, Reply to this entry