A Christmas Carol (Robert Zemeckis, 2009)

Disney’s A Christmas Carol

God Bless Us, Every Pixel. This computerized classic has real people as ghosts in the machine but not on the screen. Actors? Bah humbug!

One Word Movie Review: OKAY

Disney’s A Christmas Carol could have been a great movie but has been lacquered over with computer-generated pixels which mask all the emotion in favor of eye candy. Like most sugar treats, the initial rush fades quickly leaving you hungry for a real meal. Given the actors involved, cutting them loose with this sure-fire material would have produced an exceptional version of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. A human face speaks volumes compared to these smoothly-rendered simulations generated by the motion-capture technology championed by Director Robert Zemeckis in this and previous films (Beowulf, The Polar Express). If you add in the scenery seemingly taken from popular “Christmas Village” ceramic collections and the 3D technology thrusting every snowflake into your face and you have a technological marvel delivering this heart-warming story about the true meaning of Christmas. This is like trying to light a candle with a particle accelerator.

Although Zemeckis sticks closely to Dickens’ tale, his movie is battling another cross wind in today’s market. The recession and a chorus of Ebenezers on Wall Street who are choosing money over their fellow man while millions are unemployed make Scrooge the new business role model. We are still waiting for anyone who made millions in bonuses to repent and show some sympathy for the plight of all the poor Cratchits in America today.

The movie works best as a ghost story and it is scary in parts, using the same 3D effects you see jumping out at you in horror films. It reaches a peak of sorts as Scrooge is chased through the streets of London by the dark horses of the black-shrouded Ghost of Christmas Future, dragging the hearse from hell behind them. He escapes by shrinking down to the size of a mouse for some reason, becoming tinier than Tiny Tim with a squeaky voice to match. This allows Zemeckis to use the now-classic 3D effect of sliding down tunnels, used by every 3D movie this year from G-Force to Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.

The Story

The movie establishes the roots of the story with an opening shot of the Dickens book and as the pages open, we move to the face of death, resting peacefully in a coffin with eyes covered by shiny tuppence coins. We pull back to reveal the main character, Ebenezer Scrooge. His miserly character is established early as he steals the coins covering the eyes of the dead man, who we learn is his business partner, Marley. Fast forward seven years and Scrooge is older, richer and still working under the sign he shares with Marley’s name. Working beside him in the cold office is his clerk, Cratchit.

The city of London is spread out before us as we journey over roof-tops to witness charming street scenes during the festive Christmas season. Scrooge is the only one who’s miserable, and he becomes more so as he returns home to the scare of his life as his door knocker transforms to the ghostly face of Marley. From that point, the ghost story takes over and Scrooge has his three visits from past, present and future which serve to remind him of his lonely childhood, his abandonment of his dead sister’s child and
the dissolution of his marriage contract with his wife who leaves him, accusing him of loving money more than her. There are revelations of the Cratchit family, struggling to feed and care for their children, especially the crippled Tim. Worst of all, Scrooge’s nephew makes fun of him in front of his guests! Even with all these reminders, it is the vision of his death, alone and universally despised that turns the tide and makes Scrooge vow to become a caring, generous man and celebrate the Christmas spirit of giving to those less fortunate.

Although we get a satisfactory explanation for Scrooge’s miserable character flaws and take joy in his transformation after his ghostly wake-up ordeal, it is a logical progression without the emotional bond one feels with other versions using real actors on screen. It is not because these actors are not trying, but they are not real on screen, due to the CGI technique used to produce the spectacular images. Scrooge is exaggerated, with thin, spidery limbs and a face so full of sharp edges, it could slice a ledger in half.  However, the rest of the characters have no edges or character at all and the city of London has none of the grit and grime of Dickens’ time.

The Genre

The holiday standard is a producer’s nirvana, if one can create an “instant” classic. These treasured tales can be re-issued year after year to celebrate the season and charm a new generation. Scrooge is a Christmas tradition one can take to the bank and no doubt, this is the plan of the filmmakers, although their last Christmas effort, The Polar Express hasn’t transformed into a beloved tradition yet. A crude version of Tom Hanks stars in that feature and, even after a few years, the gap between real actors and CGI remains wide.

This version will not be watched by the whole family as the ghost segments are too scary for little kids.  Given a choice between Jim Carrey as Scrooge or the Grinch, most families will choose the Grinch to warm their hearths over the holidays. However, the sheer visual 3D extravaganza on display here will draw audiences to this movie for a long time to come.

The Overall Quality

For me, I bailed out of this movie during the tedious laughter of the Ghost of Christmas Present. This irritating laugh went on and on for no apparent reason and bugged the hell out of me. This may be just me and highlights a personal irritation but it soured me on the rest of the tale, even as the character reverted to skeletal dust at the end of his haunting (not soon enough for my taste). Jim Carrey played all three ghosts and tried to develop each one with a distinct voice but he missed badly with the Christmas Present ghost. Also doing extra duty is Gary Oldman as Cratchit, Tiny Tim and Marley. His voice work is excellent but the pixel rendering of his characters is uninspired.

Faring the worst in the rendering department is poor Colin Firth who is quite dashing in real life but looks like a puffy-cheeked half-shaved hamster in this movie. Although Scrooge looks the best of any character, I couldn’t shake the similarity between Scrooge and Quentin Tarantino’s face in some angles.

The music is uniformly predictable and oddly lifeless, especially the carols which you’d expect given the title. However, the biggest gripe I have with the visuals is the pristine rendering of London in the 1840’s when the book was published. It is like an extended Christmas card, with perfect snowflakes, textured brick walls and snow-covered streets without a speck of grime or coal dust; nary a spot’o black soot billowing from chimneys or a belching factory on the riverbank. Just glowing hearths and warm candlelight bathe our characters as they trudge through their part in the story. Once in a while, a fog rolls in to add some needed atmosphere but that’s about it. Otherwise, an army of brush-wielding scrubbers must clean up London every night before filming starts all over again in the farm of HP computer servers used to generate this fantasy world.

I was really looking forward to this movie, based on the trailers and the cast but a promising start wasn’t sustained and then it just got irritating until finally, I just wanted Scrooge to find his heart and get on with his new life of generosity.

Movie/Market Analysis

MarketBOB’s sentiment indicators, the GQS (Genre, Quality, Story) rate this movie an emotional BEAR. A Christmas Carol works on an emotional level, not a visual one. Dickens took great care in establishing the arc of Scrooge’s character from miser to generous patron of the downtrodden and you need to feel his journey, not as a spectator on a thrill ride, but as a shoulder to cry on as the old man realizes the folly of his values and the price he paid for wealth. This movie makes you believe he changed out of fear rather than feeling a true compassion for the plight of others. The change happens not from what he sees but what you see reflected back on his face. These expressions are beyond the capacity of the HP server farm.

Last updated: 2010-03-27 09:01:48 by user08

Disney's A Christmas Carol

"Disney's A Christmas Carol" is directed by Robert Zemeckis ("Back to the Future," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Forrest Gump," "The Polar Express," etc). The movie stars Jim Carrey ("The Truman Show"), Gary Oldman ("The Dark Knight"), Cary Elwes ("The Princess Bride"), Colin Firth ("Bridget Jones's Diary"), Bob Hoskins ("Hook"), and Robin Wright Penn ("Forrest Gump").

Since this is about the 87th time that Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol" has been adapted in some way, shape, or form, I am assuming that the majority of the human race knows the story. There really is no excuse to not know it...even if it's just "The Muppet Christmas Carol" version you're familiar with. But I guess I'll give a recap anyway since this is the section of the review where I usually talk about the plot. Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey plays Scrooge at every stage of life) is your generally unpleasant person who is obsessed with his job and money and hates everything about Christmas. And following with his nature, he treats his employee Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman) and just about everyone else horribly. Well, anyway, one night, Scrooge gets a visit from the ghost of Jacob Marley (Gary Oldman again!), Scrooge's old business partner. The ghost of Jacob Marley tells Scrooge that he will be visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future (Yep...all 3 ghosts are played by Jim Carrey...hmm this is kind of like when Tom Hanks played every single character in "The Polar Express" 5 years ago.) Well anyway, Scrooge is real scared and all since they are ghosts and everything...and...yeah...I won't ruin the end for the one person in the world not familiar with this story thats been around in various forms since 1843 when a man named Charles Dickens first wrote the book.

The voice cast for "Disney's A Christmas Carol" is great. I was impressed at how several of the voice actors were given multiple parts to play and everyone does it so well. I was just about to say how impressed I was with all the English accents then I found out everyone except Jim Carrey (who's Canadian if you ever wanted to know) and Robin Wright Penn are actually British...so that's really not special at all. Jim Carrey by far had the hardest job, voicing essentially 6 characters, if you count the younger Scrooges. And he took the challenge and succeeded. He was able to change the sound of his voice depending on the character so many times that it was hard to tell it was even him. His change as Scrooge from the beginning of the movie to the end was well-done and believable (well, I don't know if that drastic a change would actually happen...but who knows with 1840s London).

Although it has been while since I've read the book, I'm pretty sure that this newest adaption stayed very true to the book. The script was written by Robert Zemeckis and some lines are taken directly from Dickens's "A Christmas Carol." A couple parts I think might have been changed/added for this version but that is to be expected with each new adaptation to the classic story. The only part that I really didn't like was near the end where Bob Cratchit decides to talk to the audience. It feels very weird and unnatural and narration would have worked far better.

The animation in the movie was great. Motion capture was used to animate this movie. This is where the actors essentially have a body suit on and there are sensors all over it so their movements can be recorded. Then this information gets put on a computer and everything else is digitally added. For this reason the characters look like the actors that play them, to some extent. Jim Carrey is probably the most obvious...as his face shows up on a variety of characters. Although motion capture can look a little bit strange and not feel natural, I felt it worked here. The motion capture-animated characters looked better here than in "The Polar Express"...at least that's what I thought. The main area where the animation shines is in the depiction of 1840s London. There are some great scenes where the camera is just moving quickly all through London and it looks wonderful. The animation is just beautiful...and I am usually really judgmental about movies that aren't animated by Pixar. Texture and depth were definitely there throughout. I saw the movie in 3D so this was more evident. Although the 3D glasses dim the color a little bit, it was very well done, giving depth to the scenes, instead of just being gimmicky. 3D animation is definitely getting better...and many movies are using this technology.

Who would have thought that Jim Carrey would be joining the likes of Reginald Owen, Alastair Sim, Albert Finney, George C. Scott, and Michael Cane playing Ebenezer Scrooge? But he does and he is actually quite good...although not as memorable as the aforementioned actors. Robert Zemeckis's version of "A Christmas Carol" is true to the book and visually stunning. Overall just a good movie experience...3 out of 4 stars...and I would see it in 3D at least once...Disney Digital 3D is pretty great.

(Read Less...)

A Christmas Carol

Robert Zemeckis's version of "A Christmas Carol" is a faithful and jazzy update of the Christmas classic filmed in 3D. I am not sure the 3D effect is really needed because It think it would look better in 2D. It might be just me but I can't get comfortable looking at a 3D movie. It sometimes distracts me from getting involved in the movie. The movie though does look very beautiful and the motion capture animation is getting better and looks less creepy than it did in "The Polar Express". Jim Carrey is awesome as Scrooge and also as one of the three ghosts. He is somewhat the ideal choice to play Scrooge and is way better than he was in the other creepy Disney film "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas". The movie might be a little scary for young kids but kids have been watching other versions of the story for generations and it hasn't scarred them. There are a lot of cool special effects in the movie but I like that they stick with the meat of the story and don't let the effects take over. So this is a fun movie and it is a blast experiencing Jim Carrey do what he does best. I like the 50's version of "A Christmas Carol" better but this is a job well done and worth revisiting for Christmas.

Vincent Snavely

Moon Minis - A Christmas Carol (2009)

Dark, plodding retelling of the classic Dickens story in 3D animation. Robert Zemeckis is on top of his game here as well, surpassing The Polar Express in my eyes in both story and direction. The film tackles the story's themes with spot-on depth and affection, even utilizing Victorian speech to tell the tale.

A Christmas Carol captures the terrors of the novel perhaps better than any other adaptation so far. Full of visceral images and spooky ghosts, the movie may not cater well toward the children - they may find the animations a bit too scary and the dialogue difficult to understand - but it hits heavy in the hearts of adults. It may be a bit slow-paced, but that is made up for in the sleek animation, stylized 3D imagery, and sheer terrifying ferocity of some of the ghosts. The film is almost like a ride, a scary one at that. Also, one will find a less comedic side in Jim Carrey, and surprisingly less dialogue.

A Christmas Carol lends itself well to animation, where the dreamlike sequences can be rendered in childish style until the film's bleakness in the middle comes to bite at us with its sharp story. Allow yourself to be sucked into the world of the film and you'll find yourself absorbed with Scrooge's nightmares, terrified as if you were a child and didn't know about the real horrors of what it's like to have money - or lack it.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-01-17 04:05:17 by user01

A Christmas Carol [2009] — 8

This is my all time favorite Christmas story. It never grows old in any form. I love the story so much that I must watch about 3-4 different versions of the story every Christmas. With that biased opinion I continue.

Now I was honestly not expecting that much out of an animated version of this story, but boy was I wrong, it actually added quite a bit to the effect of the film. To begin with it allowed for some pretty intense effects such as The Ghost of Christmas future was nothing more than a shadow most of the time, only a few times does it actually manifest in a physical form. The other thing that makes it easy is the transition from one to another scene where effects are needed. Another note is with the Present ghost, the room he was in flew around and you could see through the floor. All interesting effects and those are just but a few. It was well worth watching for the effects alone.

Now what initially turned me off was the fact that Jim Carrey did the voice over for Scrooge. But after I looked on IMDB, he actually did most of the voices for the film. Kind of like Tom Hanks with The Polar Express. He did most of the voices for the entire movie. I didn’t know that like I did while watching this film though, so props to Jim Carrey for being able to confuse me that much. There were of course other Voice actors, but Jim Carrey still did most of the work for it.

The other thing that really got to me was the scene when Tiny Tim passed. I actually cried so hard it wasn’t even funny. I think this was the first time in my life that an animated movie made me cry that hard. It was so touching and hurtful to watch all at the same time. I have never seen Tiny Tim’s death ever portrayed as well as it was in this film. And again this was an animated film! It still catches me off guard.

All in all this was one of the better versions of A Christmas Carol I have ever seen. If you like the story then this film will keep you interested from start to end. I loved it.

Base Score = 8
+1 for Jim Carrey
+1 for excellent animation
+1 for making me cry
-1 for being a little bit on the scary side
-1 for not showing Scrooge in more happy scenes. There were only a few, and they could have easily put in more.
-1 for the music not being that great
=8/10

Last updated: 2010-01-12 01:38:36 by Tolll

A Christmas Carol (Robert Zemeckis, 2009)

“A Christmas Carol” is the first 3D movie I’ve actually watched in 3D, since it took a long while for Rio de Janeiro to implement the technology (and considering how gimmicky and overused 3D currently is, I can’t say I was looking forward to it). As you can probably guess, I’m not a fan of 3D. I find it to be the exact opposite of what it should be — it’s unnimersive.

The very composition of a shot is hurt by any foreground object calling too much attention to itself, and if a character points something at the camera, like a finger or a gun, instead of noticing the action you notice the way it seems to be jumping out of the screen — while what’s relevant is the action. Sure, this can be a matter of getting used to it, but I fail to see the point. I do not find it visually dazzling, I do not see many narrative opportunities for 3D and it doesn’t sit well with modern cinematic language, requiring a complete re-thinking on how to film — and why? Because people want to see more depth in the screen? Am I the only one who was perfectly happy with a 2D screen?

Once again, though, I must admit Robert Zemeckis is not the ideal director to introduce me to the world of 3D. Despite his genius, he is probably the guy who has the wrongest idea of how to use it. Before I really form my opinion on this technique/gimmick, I’ll have to wait for films like “Avatar”. After all, when a man of James Cameron’s brilliance decides to use 3D, there must be a good reason. And also, I’m told some films like “Coraline” have used 3D cleverly (the film has two worlds, and one of them was depicted in 3D, which is a simple, but rare narrative use for it — but the movie theatre I saw it in wasn’t equipped with the technology, and if I remember correctly, no theatre nearby was).

So, “A Christmas Carol”. I mentioned Zemeckis has the wrongest idea of how to use 3D. The reason for this is that, when given 3D, Zemeckis acts like a hyperactive child given a toy. He always was an inventive cameraman, but while this was motivated by narrative needs, in the latter stage of his career Zemeckis just started showing off. I loved “Beowulf” mostly due to the script by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, because Zemeckis’ direction, albeit full of inspired moments, also had its share of exaggerated camera angles, like the hideous moment a guard points a spear at us, and Zemeckis ridiculously pushes the depth of field back to make the spear jump out of the screen, then changing it abruptly to pan the camera to Beowulf’s face in that which must be one of the worst camera movements in Zemeckis’ career.

I had hoped he’d be more restrained in “A Christmas Carol”. Which just proves why I should give up trying to be an optimist.
He always finds some way to distract the viewer from whatever’s going on, like slowly moving his camera around a talking character until a lit candle appears on the foreground — a composition that not only calls attention to itself (especially in 3D), but makes no sense, because the character in the background is usually the bitter Ebenezer Scrooge — and showing him next to a warm candle kind of goes against the nature of the character as far as symbolism goes (unless the candle puts itself out eventually, but I cannot remember if it does — yeah, this movie left a strong impression on me, no doubt).

But that’s mild next to the way Zemeckis introduces the victorian London where the story happens, making his camera fly past chimneys and smoke at insane speeds, and never missing the chance to make something pointy jump out of the screen, like the only reason we put on those ridiculous goggles is for the illusion of having our face impaled.

Sadly, as a storyteller, Zemeckis doesn’t show much common sense either. I was, after all, under the impression this is a movie for children. And while I think children can be shown much more than they’re usually allowed to see, when the first image in your story is a rotting, pale corpse inside a coffin with a coin in each eye (coins which Scrooge promptly pockets to pay himself back from another debt), you kinda kickstart the movie on the wrong tone right away.

And yet, throughout the film, Zemeckis goes for a constant slapstick humor that makes absolutely no sense, considering Scrooge’s age. He’s portrayed as the most athletic old man ever, capable of falling on a set of stairs and just getting up, no harm done. Even worse is the moment a spirit dislocates his own jaw, making it hang from his face, and then uses his hand to move the jaw up and down as he speaks.

And wait until you see a fat guy being reduced to a skeleton while he laughs maniacally. This was the point where a kid started crying in the movie theatre, if memory serves. I thought I heard it sob “THIS IS — THE WORST — FILM I’VE — EVER — SEEN”, but probably just my imagination.

“A Christmas Carol” has a brief moment of inspiration, when Scrooge visits his old home from when he was a child, but that’s the only moment the film hits the right emotional note, getting everything else wrong. It’s particularly pathetic the way Scrooge becomes Mr. Nice after his experiences, laughing at everything and being so kind it was sickening. Apparently, the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future succeeded in turning the worst man in London into the stupidest man in London.

Visually, the film is a failure thanks to bad cinematography that forgot to take the 3D glasses into account. As a result, the entire film is so dark I felt tempted to try and watch it without the glasses, and man do I look forward to the day that choice will be actually possible. The animation achieved through performance capture is decent, but the moments the film relies on “handmade” animation (a ridiculously overdone dance sequence, for example) can be painfully obvious and mediocre. However, the art design is at least competent, from the depiction of London to the visual of the characters.

I can’t really comment about the performances because the session I went to was dubbed in Portuguese, despite the ticket stating very, very clearly it was only subtitled. But the film left me too bored to actually complain about it to the theatre staff, plus I was with my sister, who urged me not to, afraid it would result in confusion (which I doubt, I’m not the shouty kind, but I didn’t want to waste her time).

“A Christmas Carol” is an overdirected mess that never decides on a tone. Someone take the 3D from Robert Zemeckis before he remakes “Back To The Future” in depth-o-vision.

Written by André Navarro on November 20th 2009 

(Read Less...)

http://andrenavarro.wordpress.com/

Last updated: 2009-12-22 13:23:00 by andre_navarro

A Christmas Carol

A Christmas Carol has always been one of my favorite books. I’ve seen almost every version of this immortal story, and have to say that this is one of the best that I’ve seen.
Let me say that this is by no means the perfect interpretation of the book, but it is a very entertaining version. Before I go any further, let me say that normally I’m not a fan of 3D. These days it seems as though studios are just using it to jack up the prices of tickets, but it was actually worth it to see this in 3D. I can guarantee that when I see it on DVD in a few months, the experience won’t be the same. I still don’t think that 3D is all its cracked up to be, and definitely isn’t worth the extra money, but it is a different experience.
Many of the actors in this film lend their voices to numerous characters, not to mention their likeness. THe way these characters resembled their voices was scary. If I was an actor, I’d be wary of this technology. It could put me out of work.
Jim Carey really gets to show his voicing talent as Scrooge and the 3 spirits (only two of them speak). This is the kid of thing we expect from Carey, but Gary Oldman lends his voice to 3 people, as well. Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim, and Jacob Marley. I’ve often said that Oldman is very chameleon-like is his performances, but this takes the cake.
Speaking of Jacob Marley, his was kind of creepy at first, but once he jaw nearly fell off, it lightened the mood. Sort of in the same way Goofy does in the version with Mickey Mouse. I’ve always wondered why Marley has his jaw pulled up like that, and now I know.
The spirits are intriguing, as expected, but I would have never envisioned Christmas past as a candle, nor Christmas present as a giant who can’t stop laughing. Yes, that guy laughed the entire time he was on the screen. Every version of Christmas present has him as a jolly giant, but this one takes the cake. Its like he had some laughing gas before he came to Scrooge or something. Even when he was being serious, he was laughing. I didn’t know what to think.
It is quite obvious that studios are getting more familiar with this technology. The cinematography in this film, as well as the graphics proved that, especially in the scene with all the ghosts after Marley floats out of the window and the sequence with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Some live action films aren’t this good.
As I said before, this is one of the best version of A Christmas Carol. Personally, I prefer the George C. Scott or Mickey Mouse versions, but that could be because I grew up on them, and isn’t an indictment of this film. I’m just more comfortable with them. In time, I’m sure this film will find its place in the pantheon of Christmas films. In the meantime, with Christmas coming up, I can fully recommend this. Is it worth the extra few bucks for the 3D glasses? Yes, it is, especially since the experience you’ll get is so immensely different that what you’ll get when this is released on DVD, not to mention the fact that hey actually have parts of the 3D that could be scary to some.

http://thankyounetflix.wordpress.com