Le drôle de Noël de Scrooge

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).

In the Victorian era of the United Kingdom, the stingy and cranky Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) that hates Christmas and people loses his partner Jacob Marley in a Christmas Eve. For seven years, he runs his business exploiting his employee Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman) and spends a bitter treatment to his nephew and acquaintances. However, in the Christmas Eve, he is visited by the doomed ghost of the chained Marley that tells him that three spirits would visit him that night. The first one, the spirit of past Christmas, recalls his miserable youth; the spirit of the present Christmas shows him the poor situation of Bob's family; and the spirit of future Christmas shows his fate. Scrooge finds that life is good and God bless us everyone, changing his behavior toward Christmas, Bob, his nephew and people in general.

This dark adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens to the screen is one of those optimistic films that follows the style of Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" and it is impossible not loving it. The redemption of the mean Ebenezer Scrooge in a Christmas Eve is one of the most known worldwide novels and this animation produced by Disney Company follows the style of Tim Burton and may not be the best adaptation to the cinema, but it is indeed effective and a good family entertainment. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Os Fantasmas de Scrooge" ("The Ghosts of Scrooge")

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.

There have been many films based on Charles Dickens' Christmas carol and each one has their own way of telling it. This version is no different story wise (obviously). The only things changed were the visuals and tone. There was nothing I didn't like about this film but there were parts that make me question whether this movie was intended for children.

The voice cast to this story is pretty remarkable. Just like how Tom Hanks was able to do multiple voices for The Polar Express (2004), Jim Carrey plays Scrooge and various other characters throughout. Along side Carrey is Carey Elwes, Robin Wright, Bob Hoskins and much more. Surprisingly, the audience will be able to identify which actor/actress is doing the voice for whomever the character they are portraying. I suppose the voice characterizations were not needed to be enhanced. But it's blatantly clear whose speaking for whom.

Visually, the film's animation is nothing to scorn at either. Much of the characters, the backgrounds and lighting is accurately spaced, colored and shaded. Perhaps the most colorful spectacle is the transition between the spirits who visit Scrooge during his sleep. But what's extremely odd is how all the animated characters in this movie look like the actors who give them their voice; especially Scrooge! Look closely when he's on screen; Scrooge at the current time, looks like a weathered Jim Carrey and the younger version of Scrooge looks like Carrey as he is now. I'm curious if the animators knew this while making the film.

Nevertheless, I am leery about the reactions small children will have if they are given the chance to view this film. Scenes where Marley, Scrooges' partner, pays him a visit from hell, or when the ghost of Christmas present dies, is on the edge of being dark. Marley having a lazy eye, or dislocating his jaw? Ehh...not quite sure what those parts were put in for. Comedy? Or the dying ghost of Christmas present having a maniacal laugh? That kind of stuff could freak out a child. The ghost of Christmas yet to come is always a spooker for kids. I'm surprised Disney went through with it. It's not bad though. I liked the change, but it's not suitable for a child maybe under twelve.

Overall Zemeckis' take on Dickens' Christmas carol is visually intriguing and has a great voice cast. All the same, there are some elements in this film that are darker than usual and that's puzzling especially for Disney.