A Christmas Carol

I took my grandson to see this, but I was dreading it. I'm not a Jim Carrey fan but it's a Christmas movie, after all , so I bit the bullet and we saw it at the IMAX in 3-D.

The visual effects are great, even though a lot of it was :"Look, we have 3-D!" They stayed very close to the original story, though they added a miniaturization segment that was unnecessary. Carrey was muted and did a great job with some occasional clowning around. It was actually scary in some parts, as it should be, but not overwhelmingly, and there were some laughs as well.

I have always enjoyed this story, because it's one of redemption, and there is no better time than Christmas to tell it. It shows people being compassionate, even in the face of someone as seemingly heartless as Ebeneezer Scrooge. I was first exposed to this story as a little boy watching the animated version with Mr. Magoo that came out in 1962 and is shown every year on TV. There are many such movies that define the season and I truly expect this to be one of them, along with Christmas Story, Home Alone, Miracle on 34th Street, and It's a Wonderful Life.

Like the Macy's Parade, we all have our list of must-see holiday movies, no matter how many times we have seen them. I really expect this to make this list, with one caveat- I'm not sure how well the non 3-D version will translate to the TV screen. But the story is timeless and this movie does a good job of telling it.

This is a review for the 3D version of A Christmas Carol. I was astounded by the 3D in the film and I would recommend it because seeing it in 3D is worth the experience.

The only other 3D film I've seen is Journey to the Center of the Earth and there is no comparison. Director Robert Zemeckis seemed to have a handle on how to effectively use 3D and not let it get in the way of the story. A few scenes got "oohs and aahs" from the audience. I thought the CGI in the film though was uneven. Some of the scenes, the closeups with Jim Carrey and some of the other characters, looked very realistic. But others, such as the chase down the streets at the end looked flat and unrendered. I suppose it could have to do with technical limitations. Anyway, there are enough visuals in the film to please most anybody. Seeing it snow in 3D was worth it. Based on this movie I am definitely going to see more 3D films in the future.

As for the content of the film itself, everyone has probably seen A Christmas Carol before and the story is the same as it always has been. Jim Carrey plays many roles including Scrooge and all three of the ghosts. He manages to have his humor come through even though he is mostly CGI. The "candle" ghost is particularly amusing as is the ghost of Christmas present. Gary Oldman and many other well known actors are in the film but it is hard to tell who they are because of the CGI and effects.

The film showed previews for two other 3D films that looked spectacular: Avatar and Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton.) I think I've just seen the future of films and it's 3D. It's only a matter of time before someone makes a great work of art using 3D. It may take a few decades but it will happen. One other thought: if someone makes an R rated horror film in 3D it will probably give people heart attacks. The 3D effects are just too realistic and they are right in your face. I'm not sure I would want to see one of those.

From an artistic viewpoint, the new Robert Zemeckis film from the man who gave us THE POLAR EXPRESS, is another of his animated features using the motion picture capture technique that allows the actors to play several roles. The cinematography is exceptionally well done.

JIM CARREY, as miserly Ebenizer Scrooge, looks nothing like his real self. He's a perfect Scrooge, using his voice and mannerisms to great effect, never overplaying the role as you might expect he would.

The visit from three spirits is more frightening than usual, since Zemeckis decided to throw everything he could into startling special effects--sometimes with very gruesome results. The sight of Marley's Ghost with a flapping jaw that has to be realigned by Marley is just one of the "extra" touches. Some of the "spirit" scenes are too intense for small children, more likely to frighten them than anything else.

There are times when the story remains very faithful to the Dickens book, sometimes even word for word. But when Zemeckis decides to show off that the camera can do with flying aerial scenes zooming over Victorian London, it begins to stray a bit. Biggest stray is a chase scene that has a miniature Scrooge going through drain pipes to escape an oncoming coach and horses trying to run him down.

The lovely score by Alan Silvestri blends perfectly with the on screen action and includes a number of traditional Christmas favorites. GARY OLDMAN and COLIN FIRTH do well in key supporting roles but it's really Carrey's show all the way. He plays several main characters with great skill.

Not quite as festive as you might expect, it's a darker version of Scrooge, handsomely executed so that many of the scenes look like Victorian illustrations from the novel.

Warning: This is not a child's version of the tale. Parents should be advised that some of the content is too gruesome for young kids.

I read that this film has been labeled by parents as a "Disney Bomb" because it's too scary for their young children. Parents who take kids to see any movie need to be aware of something: if it's rated PG there are likely going to be scenes that your six year old will not enjoy -- even if the name Disney is attached to it. The cutesy versions of A Christmas Carol (The Muppet Christmas Carol and Disney's own Mickey's Christmas Carol for example) have little in common with the classic, and sometimes very scary Charles Dickens story. The plot should be familiar to just about anyone who has been alive sometime during the past 150 years, and the fact that there are spirits (ghosts) in the story should also be a red flag to parents. Especially since two of them are downright frightening in just about any version of the story.

The truth is that this is one of the most beautiful and faithful remakes of the Dickens classic. The dialogue is taken nearly word-for-word from the book, and the look and feel of the film brilliantly capture what you would imagine wintertime in London in the 19th century to be like. A few of the special effects are a bit over-the-top, but most work well and add enough pizazz for cynical modern-day audiences. The scenes featuring the Ghost of Christmas Present are worth the price of admission alone.

Once every few months I'm dragged kicking and screaming to see a new film. I can't stand wasting my hard-earned dollar on the crap Hollywood throws at us these days, but every once in a while I'm pleasantly surprised and thoroughly enjoy a movie. This was definitely one of those rare times.

I wonder if Robert Zemeckis weren't a filmmaker if he would have become a pilot. Look at his films and you may find a recurring shot in them, if not all then at least a good lot of them: a shot up in the sky, flying around and bringing the audience along (i.e. the feather in Forrest Gump, the pull-back through the valley and mountains in Beowulf, Back to the Future with the flying Dolorean), and here too are shots like that, more than one in fact. It's exhilarating to see Zemeckis at a mastery of this particular shot, and in the full scope and awe in 3D it's even stronger to watch and wonder 'how did they do it(?)' With motion-capture, anything is possible... except, sadly, making one feel a true emotional connection to the material.

Oh, don't get me wrong. It's an improvement over The Polar Express, whose creepiness was more unto itself and jarring as opposed to serving the story, and one can already see advancements in the technology from Beowulf, which was also lots of fun and had an edge to it allowed only with the digital animation. But for some reason- maybe my heart is a lump of coal or I wasn't in the right Christmas spirit or something- the material in the film didn't connect with me, except those moments that were funny (intentionally or not, sometimes due to Jim Carrey's performance), and it became something peculiar. It's a story that is practically timeless, and the director is at the top of his game, almost at the same control of the medium for a particular story like Forrest Gump or Back to the Future - maybe more-so.

It's also still a WOOSH experience, not carrying the same time and effort for characters to really feel fully human before our eyes like, for example, Up did back in the summer. I mention all of this first since the story we all know pretty much (as an aside, I kept thinking back to the first incarnation of the story I saw as a child, the Muppet Christmas Carol, and marveled at how both that and this film kept much of the book's dialog and storytelling devices exactly), and it's almost pointless to recant it here. What is paramount to mention though is that Zemeckis, in keeping with the tone of the original Dickens text (and having the clout that he has), makes it a true Victorian horror movie.

It should be said also that children will be hit or miss with this version; while they'll delight and be awed by the animation and moments of craziness (my favorite being the scene with the ghost Marley and his entire presentation before Scrooge, unhooked jaw uneasily included), they may be put off by the "old" language, some of it in that olde 19th century English Dickens wrote in. Perhaps this is why, against his own better judgment, Zemeckis decided to add in a few scenes to change the very faithful adaptation, the key one being the chase through the streets of London in the Christmas-Future sequence. This is smack dab in the middle of what is the best segment of the film - seeing death as a silhouette with a bony finger and Scrooge's stark pleas is truly chilling - and it suddenly makes it also the worst. It kills the tension and makes a strange sensation: does one laugh at a tiny-voiced Scrooge running around like a mini Daffy Duck cartoon while he's supposed to be facing down his own demise? It's entertaining to watch, but awkward to behold at this point of the story.

That the motion-capture, for all of its beauty and detail in the faces and people and locations and dazzling set-pieces, doesn't engage on a purely spiritual level (not even to the extent that 'Muppet Christmas' did, that at least had the ghost of Henson on the production to keep things truly haunting), is somewhat forgivable for what Zemeckis does accomplish here. He puts a modern spin on a classic tale, makes it approximately dark and mostly uncompromising for all ages- adults will jump possibly more than the kids at the WHOA effects- and Jim Carrey is nothing short of astonishing.

Carrey plays Scrooge in such a bravura way that only calls attention to itself as a dramatic part (only toward the end, when he becomes "happy" Scrooge are there a few unintentional laughs), and it may even be the best Scrooge seen in many years in any medium. Added to this are his *other* parts in the film, as the ghosts of Christmas past and present, the former creepy just on the pronunciation of 's'. Others like Gary Oldman and Colin Firth come off more or less fine if not remarkable (Oldman as Marley is fantastic - as Cratchit, a Oldman-faced Hobbit, is another thing).