Scrooge: A Christmas Carol

Homage to Roald Neame version of Scrooge, it is , for CGI more, a seductive animation inspired by the classic novel. And, sure imaginative at whole, reminding the good tastes of the fascinations specific to childhood.

I like Prudence , against the strange idea about a Scrooge as owner of a pet, I admire the scene about connection , in past, between Robert Cratchit and Ebenezer, like the inspired option for Jonathan Pryce for ghost of Jacob Marley, remembering the old beautiful work of Alec Guinness in the original version.

It is unfair to critic it . First, because it is a new demonstration of hard work with a not significant budget and about large possibilities offered by technology today. Second, because i am too old for critics. My favorit options are in the past . And this correct , imaginative, seductive Scrooge, like a noble hommage to work for 1970 Scrooge, has the beautiful virtue to remind, in fair manner,the splendid art of leslie bricusse.

What. The frick. Did I. Just. Watch.

This is a supposed remake of the brilliant and beautiful and loveable 1970's version of "A Christmas Carol" with Albert Finney. This completely desecrated said movie and the whole beautiful tale of "A Christmas Carol".

First of all, it is canon that Scrooge is NOT a victim of circumstance. He is an absolute miserable old miser, a crotchety old man and completely unlikeable. This Scrooge was a strange silver fox and completely TOO likeable. Scrooge is an OLD DUDE, NOT A HUNK OF BURNING LOVE. The whole point of Scrooge's character is the hope of redemption/repentance and of hard change. Not the easy "Oh wow yeah I can change" that this movie portrayed. There was no great gradual change, no resolution with Cratchit and Fred (who, for whatever reason has a totally different name??? Wth was up with that????)

Wtf is up with the dog??? There was no point. Absolutely none.

Background work? Totally lazy. Like the animators said, "oh we didn't render that so we'll just go to Doctor Strange's Astral Plane".

Also, the ghosts. Past? Annoying AF. Sweet mother of potatoes my ears are BLEEDING. Why does she repeat everything, and why does she look like a giant pile of nacho cheese? AND WHY DID SHE STEAL THE DOCTORS ICONIC PHRASE?! Uh uh, honey. Absolutely not. Why was Christmas Present so freaking WEIRD???!? And why does he directly quote the Cave of Wonders? Ghost of Future was NOT scary. He looked like a weird scarecrow, and the costume came straight from Party City.

The songs were so cringy, especially the repeated ones from the Albert Finney. Especially "Thank You Very Much" - I feel physically ill. Just use different songs, OR sing them like they were meant to in the original movie. For the love of Christmas, don't modernize it.

AND STOP TALKING DOWN TO THE AUDIENCE. WE GET THE SYMBOLISM. YOU DONT HAVE TO SHOW US EVERY FRICKIN THING AS A PARALLEL IN THE SKY.

Pros: Luke Evans has a very pleasant, beautiful voice.

Cons: everything else. I am Scrooge. Humbug.

The animation and cinematography in this movie is very good. The way they frame the pictures and what they include and exclude top notch.

Is the story the same...... essentially. But it leaves a lot to be desired since the essential cues created by Charles Dickens are all but completely void. This is like reading "The Message" bible - a paraphrase - rather than the word for word text itself. A pity because Dicken's original wording is immaculate. There's a reason that his book sold so well and touched so many, because they way he wrote it only added to the story and made it moreso.

The songs? Okay. Nice.

The length? Shouldn't really be a factor when telling a good story, but... fine.

The animators made everyone look like a Ken or Barbie Doll - painting a picture that is devoid of reality. But it was made for kids. A sort of introduction to "A Christmas Carol" for children who are not yet old enough to think.

There was backstory added (which I won't divulge) that was NOT part of the original, that DID add to the story and lend a little push to the original story. This story is warmer than the original story's. A "feel-good" kiddie version.

All in all, I like it. Not sure if it will be added to collection thought. Have let my Wife, the "Boss", give her opinion first.

It was NOT an "excellent" movie, but it sure blew away the Jim Carrey version (that was pure rubbish)!!!

Yet another film transposition of one of the most beautiful and iconic Christmas stories of all time and I can say by heart that this is the ugliest and least faithful of all, even if the film itself is not bad but when compared to all the others done so far this is the worst done. The main problems of the film are two, one is the dog that has absolutely nothing to do with it and is just annoying for most of the film and the other is the fact that the film is too childish, denaturing the more adult part of the original work in favor of an audience of small children, thus taking away a lot from the original teaching of history to make it more likeable.

I am one of those people that can love movies solely on the artwork and music. This movie served several, strong music "reveal" moments. I would compare it to how you felt the first time you watched "Show Yourself" and/or "Rewrite the Stars." So many of those moments. Also, I found it to be hilarious. If you're big on the traditional Dickens style, this may not be the movie for you. Because it's loosely comparable. CAN BE SCARY FOR SOME KIDDOS. The ending is a little darker than maybe some of the other adaptations. I would say it's similar to the Moana ending. All in all, I wept through the whole thing, lol. My Spotify playlist gained nearly the whole soundtrack!