A Christmas Carol

This is a typical example that money and technology in the world of film don't mean everything. Zemeckis was enchanted by the special effects options and especially the technology of 3D filmmaking, so he paid more attention to bombastic visual effects than to the characters and story, and the touching Christmas story turned into a jet ride over the rooftops of Victorian London. There is a substantially more civilized, less elaborate, but emotionally stronger version called A Christmas Carol, which captures Dickens' original better. This film is more enjoyable for viewers who prefer an action-packed and popcorn-style film. The casting of Jim Carrey, moreover, with excessive makeup, shifted Zemeckis' version much closer to comedy than Dickens ever intended. Overall impression: 60%. (31/12/2012)

I watched A Christmas Carol once in the summer and the second time at Christmas. Already back then I said that the spirit of Christmas could work wonders for the film, and after watching the film during Christmas time, I have to apologize to all the Christmas films that I didn’t see at Christmas, because I must have been unfair to them. Just like it happened with this movie. It is not ordinary, quite the opposite. It’s scary, perhaps even scarier for children than the last Harry Potter, but as a result it dishes out a big lesson that each of us should remember at least during the Christmas holidays, when the spirit of Christmas is most intense. (24/12/2012)

Zemeckis may no longer be revolutionizing the film world overnight, but at this pace, I may find a new favorite genre in his animated tribute. While Beowulf was so intoxicated by its grandeur that it forgot about the viewer, there is no such risk with Ebenezer. Perhaps it is the unstoppable Jim Carrey, the improved longevity of the characters, or the captivating third-dimensional effect, but the three spirits have unexpectedly brought me a strong Christmas-winter magic, which was last achieved perhaps only six years earlier with Love Actually. (11/12/2009)

At first, it has the most Dickensian atmosphere I have ever encountered on screen. It is therefore a crying shame that ultimately the whole thing falls flat from lack of atmosphere. Because of all the running around, the atmosphere gradually disappears until it vanishes completely. Where the original leaves the right Christmas mood in the reader even long after reading, Zemeckis merely leaves excellent impressions of the almost unreal fidelity to the illustrations in the original edition and perhaps even better impressions as they are “pulled" into three dimensions. There’s just no trace of Christmas spirit. Unlike the original, this will not become a Christmas classic beloved by many generations, but hopefully it will make at least one Christmas more pleasant for you. Assuming you have a 3-D IMAX in your area. (23/11/2009)

There were definitely moments here that I remember, mainly because they had a great horror atmosphere. It was the third ghost that Jim Carrey really enjoyed, but he enjoyed playing all the characters that Zemeckis made in his favorite motion capture. I don't have to like these strange animated movies where it's too easy to see how they are still imperfect, but Jim's humor helped a lot, as well as some excellent scenes. However, it certainly doesn't show how animation will replace live actors. It won't. Not yet, for sure. (23/12/2013)