Comments on: ‘A Christmas Carol’ Review

By: Brent

Brent — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:06:19 +0000

My teenage boys and I went and saw this film. They were just part of A Christmas Carol drama play presentation and can say most of the lines from the book by memory. We all loved it. Regardless of what the critics say, it was a unique and graphically beautiful retelling of a beloved tale with many deeply moving metaphors I have never seen in any other adaption. (I own most of them) For instance, what adaption has ever showed us what ignorance and want are? This one does…they develop and mature right before your eyes. We talked for a long time about the meaning of all the interesting graphic interpretations and twists they put into the movie. I think this stuff went right over the critic's heads. If you are a deep thinker or a philosopher you will enjoy this movie. It will be a favorite for our family for many years.

By: Misti

Misti — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:39:17 +0000

I have to say that I agree with the author of this article. While watching it, I was definitely impressed with the animations. There were times when some of the characters and settings looked absolutely realistic. At one point, when Belle is in Scrooge’s office building sad about him choosing money over her, I had to second guess myself as it seemed as though they put a real actress in! I actually somewhat hoped that they had…
These animated characters are pretty impressive but there is always that certain thing missing from them that even cartoon characters don’t seem to lacking too much. Maybe it’s because your brain wants to interpret what’s on the screen as human but can’t quite do so.
And I definitely agree with what he said about the ghosts. I couldn’t wait for the Ghost of Christmas Past to shut up. He talked slow, whispered like a creep and drew his “s’s” out in a very over-exaggerated way. And the Ghost of Christmas Present was ridiculous too. As he showed up on screen, I figured I’d like him enough. But then he laughed…and laughed…and laughed…Nothing was even funny! The Ghost of Christmas Future was good, but only because he never talked, which has always somewhat annoyed me in any of these movies, but I understand why he doesn’t. I did feel that the horse scene was overly long and boring and unnecessary and by that point, I wanted the movie to be over. Or did that feeling come one while the Ghost of Christmas Present was dying? What a creepy scene!
I didn’t feel any connections with the characters. And just like the author, if I had never seen any other version of the movie, I really wouldn’t have cared about Tiny Tim at all. Why would you in this version? Fred got more screen time than he did!

By: Jenai

Jenai — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:38:58 +0000

I most definately found myself -watching- A Christmas Carol, as I spent the majority of the movie geeking out over the textures and the realistic way that light bounced off of different materials. The fabric in Scrooge’s chambers especially appealed to me – both the curtains and bedcurtains, so when they came up later in the film I recognized them and wondered how Scrooge who was surrounded by them every day could be quite *that* much in denial. I nitpicked at the more unrealistic pieces like his old porriage in the bowl, and was back again to wondering over the beauty of hardwood floors and footprints in the snow. The environments were amazing, and I would have watched the show just for those.

Unfortunately, the characters were not so well done. They were very hit and miss. I liked Scrooge although he moved a bit oddly under that nightgown, and I believed his nephew – but I had now emotion whatsoever for Cratchett and other characters in town or in his past were done so stiffly or with so much exaggeration that I could not connect with them. Tiny Tim was a huge dissapointment, as I could not even feel sad for him – I had a lot more sympathy for the more likeable daughter Martha and the other sister whose name I never caught than I did the empty Tim who had a crutch but nothing to recommend him to my heart. And the ghost of Christmas Past? Creepy!!! I liked the twitching head, but that was certainly a bad character design. Present was annoying, but I went with it, because it was interesting, and future was very well done (although definately not for little kids. I was actually scared, even while I was pretty good about guessing what would happen next during those scenes)

The biggest failure for me though was in the heart of the film. I never once got misty eyed or felt true connection with the story – yet I usually feel a bit involved even with the most low-budget play I’ve gone to see. Scrooge’s motivations were so convoluted and unclear, the scenes he saw haphazard rather than compelling, and it felt like he changed in the end simply because he was supposed to change. I had no idea why he suddenly felt sorry for Tiny Tim when he saw him. The few moments in his past or present that I would have liked to stay or explore were moved on from before I could feel for Scrooge in order to reach another sweeping CG movement scene or have a talk with a spirit.

So while I might give Christmas Carol great points in graphics, I would say it missed the whole point of the story – or even of making a movie. If you can’t get your point across, if the audience can’t -feel- the story, then it’s a waste of money on a pretty package.

(I would probably watch the ‘making of’ several times if it came out though.)

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:25:05 +0000

I completly agree with you on the ghost of Christmas past it was completly unnesessary, and all the characters quirks like random twicthing and lisp were riduclously random.

By: garyoldmanfan

garyoldmanfan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:08:16 +0000

I can see what you mean when you say that it may have seemed just plain dumb to you, but it IS Disney…

AS for the “too scary for kids” part, I have to say I agree. When I saw it, I screamed and laughed when the horse just kinda…BAM! IT’S RIGHT THERE! OMG! RUN ,OLD GUY, RUN! if I were a kid, I would have been crying. Espeacila with Marley. Gary Oldman did that part very well in my opinion! It was pretty funny, but I did think to myself…did Dickens have help from Edgar Allen Poe when writing this?!?! lol! I thought it was very good, but not very…Disney

By: INK

INK — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:28:39 +0000

@ Skwerl

Comparing this film to Pinnochio, Bambi, etc. is ridiculous. And “nobody said it was for kids”? You can’t honestly believe that statement. It’s A Christmas Carol, it’s Disney, who were they marketing it too? Like i said my daughter didn’t really have a problem with it but I am sure some youngin’s would and/or did. This was a more frightening movie than “Where the Wild Things Are”.

BTW we saw it in 2D so I imagine the 3D version may have even been a little more disturbing to kids. I’ll ask anyone who saw the 3D, how was it? We didn’t see it in 3D because I refuse to pay $2.00 more per ticket for 3D then be asked to “recycle” the glasses so they can charge people to rent the same glasses again. I would rather take the glasses over to the trash can and throw them away as they watch me.

By: Lolyen

Lolyen — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:56:55 +0000

This movie cannot be compared to Bambi, Pinocchio, or Bambi. It is terrifying and derseved a PG-13 rating. Granted, there was no nudity, profanity or blood and gore. But the scare factor alone should have been factored in. I have never had an issue showing my children a PG movie. This terrified them and they have made us swear to never rent it or mention it again. I was very disappointed in Disney for this one.

By: Skwerl

Skwerl — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:38:58 +0000

I went to see this as part of a class assignment. It was entertaining enough. I’m surprised by the number of people here who are complaining that it was too scary for kids. It’s a PG movie…nobody said it was for kids. Does everyone remember what PG stands for?

I recall being a tiny little thing and being scared to death by the whale scene in Pinocchio. Parts of Dumbo made me cry, and so did Bambi. Christmas Carol was no worse. Stop blaming the industry and take responsibility for what your kids are viewing. And yes, I have children.

By: INK

INK — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:31:42 +0000

@Kahless

I think you are thinking of the ghost of christmas future. That is the one that doesn’t speak. But Christmas past in this movie was just disturbing.

Saw it with the wife and daughter (8) today. I thought it was OK. My daughter covered her eyes in a couple parts but wasn’t outwardly frightened.

I have one question: Zemeckis tries for all of this CGI realism but he has characters in his movies (Polar Express and Christmas Carol) do these ridiculous dances that have people defying gravity. It really takes the viewer, me at least, out of the “realism” of the movie.

BTW the CGI character that played Scrooges girlfriend looked the most real of ANY character on screen ever. She looked like a “live” actress was in the movie.

By: johnno

johnno — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:23:20 +0000

So I wasn’t the only one who thought this movie had a weird homosexual overtone!

Yes the sputty, fizzy, gay candle with Carrey’s face and voice was annoying enough, but this was nothing compared to the queer furry-bear bare-chested Ghost of Christmas Present – who laughed WAY too much (Santa Claus?), and light of this I thought his crown of thorns was pretty sacrilegious.

Also too much CGI sliding along icy streets, chimneys, icicles, etc. etc.

By the way, silly American writers, ‘clerk’ is pronounced ‘clark’ in Yorkshire, not ‘clirk’. Also, at the dinner where the guessing game is played to guess what kind of animal Scrooge is, the word that should have been used was indeed ‘Ass’ (a donkey), not what the Americans thought the English would say!

I don’t go and see blood-and-gore movies, but this one scared the living daylights out of me. And I’m 50 years old. Way too dark. Wrongly rated PG. It should have been rated ‘M’.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:45:52 +0000

I just got home from seeing this and I was honestly suprised. It followed the novel pretty closely and I really enjoyed that. Zemeckis added some of his own adaptations to it and it came out pretty good. I definately recommend to somebody that has read the novel and maybe some children. It had it’s fair share of scenes that may frighten some kids, and it also had the 1800’s dialouge which could confuse some.

By: Fenix

Fenix — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:57:00 +0000

Tom Bombadil would have been awesome to see in LOTR! One of the tightest characters

By: Gab

Gab — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:52:22 +0000

This isn’t really my (sentimental) imagining of this story, but I guess it works for a new generation…. My 7yr.-old enjoyed it, so that’s what counts most for a family holiday film!

See his review at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzVaMjdohuI

By: John "Kahless" Taylor

John "Kahless" Taylor — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:51:31 +0000

Wait a minute, the ghost of Christmas past spoke? I thought one of the appeals of that ghost was his silence. Did this ghost speak in the novel?

By: 790

790 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:58:27 +0000

Jim Carrey has lost me as a fan.
Lately he seems to take on these fairy tale demented makeup driven roles like there some sort of addiction or part of his twisted mentality. It all seemed to happen after “Liar,Liar.”

I find him disturbing, at this point and avoid his films,,,

By: JJ

JJ — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:39:43 +0000

One thing special about this version of the story is just how literal it is … to a fault. Entire chunks of dialog are lifted from Dickens’ novel, regardless of how well it jives with modern audiences. For example, there is a scene where Scrooge and one of the ghosts talk about Sabbaticalism — the practice of stores not opening on Sundays. Dickens was opposed to this because Sunday was the only day the working poor had off. Why did Zemeckis put this in his movie? Sabbaticalism hasn’t been an issue anywhere in more than half a century! Imagine if Peter Jackson had tried to put Tom Bombadil in his adaptation of Fellowship of the Ring and you’ll see the problem.

By: Vic Holtreman

Vic Holtreman — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:32:32 +0000

Yeah, for a while there PG was OK for most younger kids but just like they’ve done by pushing PG-13 towards R they’re pushing PG further away from G.

Vic

By: Nelson Murray

Nelson Murray — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:11:52 +0000

For those of you that took young children, do you not look at ratings? The Film is rated PG that tom gives a warning :::Check this out before taking young children:::just the trailers looked too dark for a lower rating.

By: Weekend Movie News Wrap Up: November 8, 2009 - Screen Rant

Weekend Movie News Wrap Up: November 8, 2009 - Screen Rant — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:08:27 +0000

[...] Box OfficeChristmas came early for Disney with A Christmas Carol. The motion capture Jim Carey film managed to snag around $31 million over the weekend.Michael [...]

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:38:54 +0000

This movie was not for children under 12. It lacked comedy and music, overly concentrating on the 3D affects. This Christmas Carol was a disappointment in comparison to Carrey’s Grinch. If you want a heartwarming and funny Christmas Carol, I recommend Hallmark’s, A Christmas Carol, with Kelsey Grammer. The special affects alone are worth watching and more enjoyable than this Disney movie.