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 quite much liked this version. I know that the story of Ebenezer Scrooge has been filmed many times but I don't care about that because of the moral point of this story. And hey, how many Dracula movies are out there?

The old-time animation was excellent and invigorating as I am quite bored with many modern day dull computer animations.

Mice were an excellent spice in the story. It looks like that many hate those mice and that they're not part of the story but hopefully everybody remembers Charles Dickens' lines in the start of the movie that this is not a straight adaptation from the book. Perhaps he just added those mice while telling the story? To me, mice didn't steal the story to themselves. The moral story of the original book is still there. And there aren't a director who didn't add something to the movie nevertheless what book says.

The ghost parts of the movie were marvelously made (especially the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come -part).

All in all, a well-made animated movie.

Out of all the adaptations of this classic Christmas story by Charles Dickens, this is probably a really good one in my opinion! the story is really good though compared to the original novel; but of course in the novel Ebenezer Scrooge encounters Jacob Marley's ghost in his bedroom, but in this version it's in his office. plus the animation looks really decent and okay in my book though especially the backgrounds that look like something you see in a Christmas card or from Dicken's original illustrations to the novel that's based on the original novel, plus Simon Callow does a really good job voicing Scrooge and playing Charles Dickens in the live action segments as well as Nicolas Cage as Jacob Marley and kudos to Kate Winslet from Titanic (1997) voicing Scrooge's fiancé Belle. yet this movie has some dark moments along with some sad moments and I wouldn't call this a boring adaption, if your a fan to any adaptation to a Christmas Carol along with the Muppets version, check this one out if you have kids in your family!

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

I just want to start off saying I adore the story A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, it is timeless and alongside The Nutcracker it is for me the quintessential Christmas story. There are some good, great even, versions of this classic, the Alastair Sim film(up there with It's a Wonderful Life) as the ultimate Christmas film, the George C. Scott film and Muppet Christmas Carol.

I wish I could add this film to the list of great versions, but sadly, I can't. For me, this is the worst version. However, it is not a complete embarrassment. Simon Callow is good as Charles Dickens and as Ebeneezer Scrooge, and the live-action opening scene is one of two good scenes the other being the Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come sequence, Kate Winslet is charming and touching as Belle and of the soundtrack(which I quite liked) What If and the Charlotte Church song are the standouts.

I really wanted to like it, but I did wish Christmas Carol:The Movie- the ghastly, uninspired title alone is just one of the problems- wasn't so lifeless and dull. Two things especially made it so. One was the quality of the animation, the look of the film does look drab with flat colours, with the background art lacking fluidity and the character designs looking quite dated. The other is the storytelling despite the core of the story being there, the fact that there were changes didn't bother me actually, it's just that some especially the anthropomorphic mice were unnecessary, overly cute and interrupted the flow of the story far too much. The romantic subplot took too long to get going too, and the Walking in the air-like sequences are some of the film's better scenes visually but they too drag the story down to a lesser extent.

While there is the odd dialogue lifted from the book, most of it feels dumbed down and juvenile as if to appeal more to children or those who haven't read the story, which is what I felt similarly about most of the subplots. The voice cast Callow and Winslet aside are disappointing. They are talented but their dialogue is lacking. Jane Horrocks and Michael Gambon are fine actors and do fit into their roles well enough, it's just that the writing and storytelling disallows them into doing anything particularly special with them. The worst by far is Nicolas Cage, who doesn't work at all as Jacob Marley sounding very bored and monotone throughout.

In conclusion, two or three good things aren't enough to save this film. 3/10 Bethany Cox