A Christmas Carol

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)

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)

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)

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)

To begin with, my biggest (and probably only major) reservation: Robert Zemeckis liked the freedom of the digital world too much for my taste, where he can run wild as he likes, and A Christmas Carol sometimes loses that beautiful Dickensian atmosphere (the biggest positive) because of the frantic "Oh, look, people, how it's throwing you around in the movie theatre seats" effect. Yes. I really have to say that many scenes are 100% atmospheric, some of them are downright deliciously horrific, the animation is much better and more vivid than in Beowulf (but of course it is not as perfect an illusion of reality as in Tintin), Ebenezer Scrooge has become a truly dramatic and believable character thanks to the mimicry lent by Jim Carrey's impeccable acting, one moment repulsive, the next moment moving you again, the next moment amusing you with some spitting through his teeth... Thanks to all this, the reasonable runtime and Silvestri's music, A Christmas Carol is one of the best versions of a beautiful classic story, which has the advantage of being classic, so nobody gets hung up on how simple and predictable it is. Because that would be a shame. (17/12/2011)

I find it commendable to try to translate the source material in all its obscurity into an audiovisual story intended to bring it more in line with contemporary audiences using the most modern technologies. The problem, however, is that it is not the source material but the production that is the cause of the most frightening experiences, which make it almost certain that anyone under the age of 12 who saw this film at the time of its premiere is no longer alive today. Visually it only looks okay in the foreground, please don't examine what's going on behind its shoulders until you see it. Dead faces, simple textures, repetitive objects, in short the things you tend to nitpick when you’re complaining about a computer game are ubiquitous here. When we see Tiny Tim's character with a deadpan expression and unnatural facial expressions, while the story informs us that the poor guy won't live to see next Christmas, it adds a more oppressive, unsettling atmosphere to the whole experience; I realize that, in the manner of Ebenezer Scrooge, I actually experienced an identical nightmare watching this film, which suggests to me that maybe I shouldn't sit so long and so often in the fake world of video games and visit my mother sometime to ask how she's doing. (25/06/2021)

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)