Scrooge - Canto di Natale

What. The frick. Did I. Just. Watch.

This is a supposed remake of the brilliant and beautiful and loveable 1970's version of "A Christmas Carol" with Albert Finney. This completely desecrated said movie and the whole beautiful tale of "A Christmas Carol".

First of all, it is canon that Scrooge is NOT a victim of circumstance. He is an absolute miserable old miser, a crotchety old man and completely unlikeable. This Scrooge was a strange silver fox and completely TOO likeable. Scrooge is an OLD DUDE, NOT A HUNK OF BURNING LOVE. The whole point of Scrooge's character is the hope of redemption/repentance and of hard change. Not the easy "Oh wow yeah I can change" that this movie portrayed. There was no great gradual change, no resolution with Cratchit and Fred (who, for whatever reason has a totally different name??? Wth was up with that????)

Wtf is up with the dog??? There was no point. Absolutely none.

Background work? Totally lazy. Like the animators said, "oh we didn't render that so we'll just go to Doctor Strange's Astral Plane".

Also, the ghosts. Past? Annoying AF. Sweet mother of potatoes my ears are BLEEDING. Why does she repeat everything, and why does she look like a giant pile of nacho cheese? AND WHY DID SHE STEAL THE DOCTORS ICONIC PHRASE?! Uh uh, honey. Absolutely not. Why was Christmas Present so freaking WEIRD???!? And why does he directly quote the Cave of Wonders? Ghost of Future was NOT scary. He looked like a weird scarecrow, and the costume came straight from Party City.

The songs were so cringy, especially the repeated ones from the Albert Finney. Especially "Thank You Very Much" - I feel physically ill. Just use different songs, OR sing them like they were meant to in the original movie. For the love of Christmas, don't modernize it.

AND STOP TALKING DOWN TO THE AUDIENCE. WE GET THE SYMBOLISM. YOU DONT HAVE TO SHOW US EVERY FRICKIN THING AS A PARALLEL IN THE SKY.

Pros: Luke Evans has a very pleasant, beautiful voice.

Cons: everything else. I am Scrooge. Humbug.

Did we need another A Christmas Carol film? No, probably not.

Was this worth it? Just for Luke Evans vocals alone I'd 100% say yes. Some of the songs were spectacular.

The animation was great, with exciting new imaginations of scenes. I think it was a successful modernisation of an over saturated film and will definitely get younger kids enjoying it, but maybe not enough to stand out alone if it wasn't a musical. There wasn't enough emphasis on some of the other characters stories, so you don't build much of an emotional connection with them. Some of the accents were pretty bad, and parts of the original script and wording is lost, which is important to its essence.

Despite that, it's enjoyable, and after all it's a children's film. I will be going back to replay Luke Evan's singing solos on repeat.

The animation and cinematography in this movie is very good. The way they frame the pictures and what they include and exclude top notch.

Is the story the same...... essentially. But it leaves a lot to be desired since the essential cues created by Charles Dickens are all but completely void. This is like reading "The Message" bible - a paraphrase - rather than the word for word text itself. A pity because Dicken's original wording is immaculate. There's a reason that his book sold so well and touched so many, because they way he wrote it only added to the story and made it moreso.

The songs? Okay. Nice.

The length? Shouldn't really be a factor when telling a good story, but... fine.

The animators made everyone look like a Ken or Barbie Doll - painting a picture that is devoid of reality. But it was made for kids. A sort of introduction to "A Christmas Carol" for children who are not yet old enough to think.

There was backstory added (which I won't divulge) that was NOT part of the original, that DID add to the story and lend a little push to the original story. This story is warmer than the original story's. A "feel-good" kiddie version.

All in all, I like it. Not sure if it will be added to collection thought. Have let my Wife, the "Boss", give her opinion first.

It was NOT an "excellent" movie, but it sure blew away the Jim Carrey version (that was pure rubbish)!!!

Yet another film transposition of one of the most beautiful and iconic Christmas stories of all time and I can say by heart that this is the ugliest and least faithful of all, even if the film itself is not bad but when compared to all the others done so far this is the worst done. The main problems of the film are two, one is the dog that has absolutely nothing to do with it and is just annoying for most of the film and the other is the fact that the film is too childish, denaturing the more adult part of the original work in favor of an audience of small children, thus taking away a lot from the original teaching of history to make it more likeable.

I'm a bit of a Scrooge-a-holic, always looking for new versions of the classic tale. While the animation here was quite striking, what they did with it added little to the story. A Christmas Carol is a story of redemption. This Scrooge is terrorized by the characters he encounters. After seeing his headstone, he falls into a kind of hell, ending up in his bedroom. Was this a story of redemption or an ugly assault on the senses. Because all the children looked bright eyed and healthy, even Tiny Tim, I couldn't buy into the pathos. Dickens meant the world to be a dark one because it reflected what many in Victorian England faced every day: poverty, hopelessness, and fear. Scrooge, in the original, propagated that through indifference and inaction. By the way, I found the nephew absolutely insufferable and Cratchit way too insignificant. We get little character development and some of the best parts of the story are glossed over or treated without foundation. I also found the dog silly and unnecessary.