Le drôle de Noël de Scrooge

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.

After directing The Polar Express in 2004, Robert Zemeckis vowed to only make 3D movies using motion-capture technology from then on, never to return to traditional live action films again. What? How could he? Moviegoers everywhere were bemused at how the bloke who gave us Forrest Gump, the Back to the Future trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Contact and Cast Away could settle for some silly 3D business. Perhaps Zemeckis was smarter than us all though, his pledge to developing a decent 3D output coming half a decade earlier than most. It seems he was on to something.

It is credit to Zemeckis though that his use of 3D isn't the drawcard for this wonderfully told fable, it purely enhances it. The opening title sequence is one of the most breathtaking of the year, as we soar over - and through - the old Victorian town in which Scrooge inhabits in only one shot. It doesn't end there however, with no less than two more flying scenes and a splendid chase sequence on foot, which capably show what mo-cap and 3D are capable of. One small gripe, as was present with Up, the glasses still make everything darker and subsequently duller; especially as this picture is intentionally not well-lit to begin with.

We all know the famous Charles Dickens novel for which this is based on and Zemeckis stays faithfully close to it, unworried about making a family movie that has very few laughs. Let's face it, the story of Scrooge isn't meant to be a light-hearted laughfest. With demonic horses (complete with glaring red eyes), ghosts with broken jaws and men withering away to a skeleton, this is anything but a hoot. But is that a bad thing? Not at all. In fact it is a relief to see a movie for young (but not too young) and old that doesn't shy away from evoking feelings of fear and regret rather than always sugar-coating them with funny moments. If dealt with rightly, emotions like these can be healthy and will have a longer lasting effect on you and your kids than something that only makes you laugh.

Providing the voice of Scrooge from childhood to old-age, along with the three Ghosts of Christmas, Carrey does a fine job, even with his normal over-the-top voicing toned down a few hundred decibels. He is barely recognisable in all his parts - a result that I'm sure Zemeckis would have been aiming for - which allows the characters to stand on their own two feet rather than be a typical Carrey product. The experienced supporting cast of Oldman, Hoskins, Firth, Elwes and Wright Penn add a nice level of class to the proceedings.

The dark and morose atmosphere might at first shock, but ultimately both children and adults will gain more from this experience than most family films. See it on the big screen.

4 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)

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.

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.

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.