Un chant de Noël

There is nothing wrong with changing a story so long as you admit to it. So unlike many children's films where a classic is ruined and the child grows up in ignorance and never knows the difference, this film has the charming idea of having live action Charles Dickens go to America and tell the story to an audience explaining it isn't quite the same as how he wrote it in the book, thus growing curiosity and encouraging children to read the true classics of this world. The only real fault with this film is its ghastly title (and possible when the child of ignorance disintegrates, being too scary for children). I admit as a film student I had very low expectations of ANOTHER adaption of A Christmas Carol but was for once very pleasantly surprised and refreshingly, no one bursts into song and no animals talk in this film. The acting is very good and the voice talents obviously cared about this job. How Scrooge acts after the ghost of Christmas Future and how he makes the Christmas miracles are more realistic than I've seen in any adaption for a long time. Things don't happen with a snap of the fingers and this children's film truly does give hope to the most desperate of souls.

I've probably seen every version of "A Christmas Carol" ever done. It's probably my favorite story. It's about pain and suffering and redemption. It's a wonderful ghost story. It has great characters and a great deal of sentimentality. It take a really good actor to pull off the character of Scrooge. Alaister Sim and George C. Scott are my favorites. The character has to have a link to an unhappy past. Cruelty is one thing, but we need some humanity as well. If he is not complex, he is nothing. This had potential. It has very nice animation. The problem, for me, is that Scrooge is too young. He has the angular face of a forty year old. His lines are delivered without any underlying emotion. I don't think the people doing the voices did much homework. Also, what's wrong with the original plot. Do people change it so they can put their own signature on it. This one isn't too bad, but it's so wooden. Those mice are also really annoying. If one wanted to take this to its logical end, London at that time, was overrun with disease ridden vermin, which did decrease the surplus population. Now, I know that's really harsh to these two little guys, but I would imagine that Scrooge would have as soon flattened them with a boot as look at them. You either make a commitment to tell the story, or you throw the whole thing out an ignore the elements. The mice should go. There's also a group of social issues that are just dropped in. All in all, however, it seems so lacking in pizazz. There is supposed to be elation at the end; even giddiness. There is nothing giddy about this film.

Darcel, Pam etc are - or were - the Solid Gold Dancers ("Solid Gold" was an American pop music show in the 1980s); in the movie "Scrooged" six of them (guess which two were absent) made a cameo appearance as part of the cast of Bill Murray's TV version of the classic Charles Dickens story... and there's the biggest problem with "Christmas Carol: The Movie" right there. Not the presence of leggy, gorgeous American girls in skimpy attire - such a thing could only have benefitted this movie - but the stunningly definitive and frankly ignorant title; so all the other versions of the novel (and there have been quite a few down the years, featuring casts from Alastair Sim through Henry Winkler [in the TV movie "An American Christmas Carol"] to Michael Caine in "The Muppet Christmas Carol" - not to mention the musical "Scrooge," at least two animated versions, and countless episodes of TV shows borrowing the whole story, like "WKRP In Cincinnati" and "The Odd Couple" to name but two) don't count then?

For a movie to live up to such a title, it would have to be the best version ever, and this isn't. It isn't helped by having live-action bookends of the great man (played here by Simon Callow, also the voice of Ebenezer Scrooge) performing a dramatic reading of his book in Boston. Or by having a pair of mice throughout the movie as the closest things to soulmates the man has (cute animals should be left to Disney and Disney alone). Or by animation that's depressingly crude for the most part (it all looks like a poor 1970s TV show, with the exception of the journeys the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present take our "hero" on, where the movie really does come to life for a bit). Or by Piet Kroon and Robert "Kryten" Llewellyn's script, or Julian Nott's score (pains me to say it, but the songs from Kate Winslet and Charlotte Church are the highpoints).

And as for Nicolas Cage as Jacob Marley... not since the late lamented Lorenzo Music did Peter Venkman on "The Real Ghostbusters" has there been such a shockingly bad case of cartoon miscasting. And some people wonder why so many of us love Pixar.

Ebeneezer Scrooge (Simon Callow) is a cold hearted miser who makes no secret of his contempt for the holidays as he runs his moneylending services with no room for compassion or humanity. Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his deceased partner, Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who is now condemned to wander the Earth in the shackles he forged in life and tells Scrooge that a similar fate awaits him with an even longer and heavier chain. Marley offers Scrooge a chance to avoid his fate by telling him three ghosts, the Ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Michael Gambon), and Future who show Scrooge his long forgotten past, its effects on those in the here and now, and what may happen if he continues on his course unaltered.

Christmas Carol: The Movie is a 2001 animated adaptation of the Charles Dickens novella A Christmas Carol directed by Jimmy Murakami who'd previously worked as a supervising animator on the iconic short The Snowman as well as directing When the Wind Blows. The film was released in the UK in 2001 where it underperformed making a mere $200,000 against an estimated 6 million Pound budget and with the exception of Norway the film went direct-to-video elsewhere including the United States where it would be released by MGM in 2003 with little fanfare. What critics who actually bothered to see the film were primarily negative in their reception and to this day the film remains one of the more forgotten and obscure adaptations of this material as there's really not much here that wasn't done better in either prior adaptations or ones that came afterwards.

While there is a certain appeal to some parts of the animation per the standards Murakami set for himself in The Snowman and When the Wind Blows, the animation itself feels like it's slightly sloggy with the characters' motions often feeling as though they're in motion through molasses. There's also some instances where the character designs fall into the uncanny valley with some attempts to make the humans more realistic looking resulting in some really unappealing aesthetics such as with the ghost of Christmas Past. In terms of the writing, the film does hit many of the major beats of the story, but issues with the pacing, placement of certain scenes, or added elements end up undermining the integrity of the narrative. The movie takes a really long time before it actually even gets to the arrival of the ghosts with the opening 30 minutes dedicated to establishing what Scrooge's lost love Belle played by Kate Winslet is doing with a hospital, antics involving two mute mice characters to whom Scrooge is uncharacteristically nice to, and there's no real buildup to the appearance of Jacob Marley whose appearance now comes before the collectors for the poor in a strange decision. Once we go through the three ghosts everything feels oddly compressed and rushed but also like we're going nowhere as there's a lengthy bit of animation done in the same style as The Snowman flight scene where Scrooge and the ghost of Christmas present sprinkle goodwill from the ghost's torch rather than actually looking at the present. But easily the biggest failure of the film lies at the end where the cathartic ending where Scrooge mends his ways feels trimmed down considerably and is lacking in the jovial spirit one typically associates with that ending.

Christmas Carol: The Movie is a not particularly impressive take on this story and there's a reason most aren't even aware of its existence. Aside from the "wha?" factor of having Nicolas Cage voice Marley this version of A Christmas Carol isn't particularly well told or well-acted and the animation doesn't do much service to this material.

This starts off with a live action sequence where Charles Dickens played by Simon Callow attends a venue in Boston where he relates the story of A Christmas CAROL . I wonder if Callow could have believed that a few years later he'd be reprising his role as Dickens where he attends a similar type of speaking tour in Cardiff in 1869 where one of the audience is a corpse taken over by a gaseous alien race called The Gelth ? Check out The DOCTOR WHO story The Unquiet Dead to see what I'm blabbering on about . It's certainly very interesting to see how the scenes from the two are very similar in atmosphere

As you might expect this a straight forward retelling of A Christmas CAROL in animated form so if you're expecting lines like " Pity The Gelth - We want your flesh " you're going to be bitterly disappointed . Some people may complain that the story concentrates far too much on a social political subtext but Dickens didn't write A Christmas CAROL as a ghost story , he wrote it as a story of redemption and this shines through , though perhaps a little too obviously to be truly successful . My only real complaint is that the mice are a serious distraction to the story telling