User reviews

"The Man Who Invented Christmas" is a fictional biographical look at famed English author, Charles Dickens, and the circumstances of his life and time that led to the writing and publication of "A Christmas Carol." The full title by Dickens then was "A Christmas Carol in Prose: Being a Ghost-story of Christmas." Dickens first published it himself in 1843, after a falling out with his regular publishers.

From start to scratch, it took Dickens just six weeks to give the world what would become one of the great classic stories of all time. At least, that's the premise of the film, which itself is based on a 2011 novel of the same title by Les Standiford. The book's subtitle explains a little more, lest there be any confusion regarding the much older Christmas origins of St. Nicholas and of the birth of Jesus. It's about "How Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol Rescued His Career and Revived Our Holiday Spirits."

According to some reviews, Standiford did considerable research for his book. The background on Dickens's family, his writing to that time, and his precarious financial situation then is likely in public records. Still, much of that part of the story is interesting and probably not that well known by most people, including fans of Dickens books. The very colorful segments of imagination in this movie are another matter. How much of that may have been able to be traced to notes by Dickens himself, or to other sources, is uncertain. But, this serves as a very good technique for the author, and the filmmakers, to get across to a non-writing public how a great story teller may come to the plots and characters of a book he or she will write. After all, who can't remember a time as a child when one's thoughts roamed freely into a world of make-believe?

So, what we would come to call day-dreaming, is a very likely and real way that Dickens, and some other authors like him (surely, the great story-tellers, at least) would have thought up and developed their plots and characters. And, the interplay of the hero's daydreams here, with constant interruptions from family and friends, helps one understand the frustrations and difficulties Dickens had as he hurried to get out a Christmas book in time - something his publishers deemed would not fly. Of course, everyone knows the outcome, but this story is well done, and the film is very good.

The acting is mostly superb throughout "The Man Who Invented Christmas." Dan Stevens gives believable life to the character of Dickens. He even looks very much like Dickens from a portrait of the author around that age - 31. Justin Edwards is very good in the role of Dickens's friend, John Forster. Forster was himself a writer, and it was his 1872-74 biography of Charles Dickens that is the best and most authoritative source on Dickens. Moryfdd Clark plays Dickens's wife Kate, and Jonathan Pryce plays Charles's father, John Dickens. Christopher Plummer plays the character of Scrooge in Dickens's daydreams. That and some other small parts lend some humor to the story.

There are some small deviations in the script from the real background in Dickens's life. For instance, it implies that he didn't like reporting or journalism work and calls it names. In real life, he was a reporter, general writer and editor of newspapers and magazines. One interesting thing to note is that this film was shot entirely in Ireland. The cast is mostly made up of English and Irish actors, with an occasional Italian or French actor here or there. And, while they aren't mentioned in the movie, the three "flops" alluded to, for which Dickens was now in dire straits, would be: "Nicholas Nickleby" of 1838-39, "The Old Curiosity Shop" of 1840, and "Barnaby Rudge" of 1841. Of course, all have been published since then, and none are considered flops.

"A Christmas Carol" must top any serious list of Christmas movies, and there are a number of variations with prominent actors playing the different roles over the ages. This film, about the author and origin of the classic novella, is a very good and most enjoyable story to add to one's Christmas collection. An ideal family situation at yuletide might be to show this film first and then watch the favorite (or two) renditions of "A Christmas Carol" movie.

Of all the many versions of "A Christmas Carol" being made yet well into the 21st century, I don't think any can compare to the best films of the mid-20th century. At the top of my list is the 1951 film that stars Alastair Sim. Close behind that is the 1938 film that stars Reginald Owen and Gene Lockhart. The best TV film made so far, is that of 1984 that stars George C. Scott. And, for those among younger audiences who can't stand black and white films, the 1951 classic with Alastair Sim has a colorized version.

But, whatever version or film of the Dickens classic one watches, it's sure to help take the humbug out of the Christmas season as it did in England on that Christmas of the mid-1800s.

Here are some favorite lines from this film.

Elizabeth Dickens, "No one is useless in this world..." Charles Dickens, "...who lightens the burden of another - I know." Elizabeth, "For all his faults, you won't find a kinder man." Charles, "Hmmm. How long he is growing up to be one."

Mr. John Dickens, "We must not disturb the poet when the divine frenzy is upon him."

Charles Dickens, "Oh, skittle shins to Mrs. Fisk."

Mr. John Dickens, stepping off the train in London, "Ah! Nothing like the air of the metropolis to put color in your cheeks, eh, mother?"

Mr. John Dickens, "Procrastination is the thief of time, eh Charles?"

Greetings again from the darkness. Most would agree there is only one Christmas story that surpasses the popularity and familiarity of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", and both have had numerous film and screen adaptations. Rather than offer up yet another film version of the Dickens novella, director Bharat Nalluri (MISS PETTIGREW LIVES FOR A DAY, 2008) instead uses the Susan Coyne screenplay adapted from the non-fiction work of Les Standiford to present the lively and entertaining tale of HOW Dickens wrote his iconic book.

Dan Stevens (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, 2017) stars as the esteemed writer Charles Dickens, and he bounds from scene to scene like a moody and spoiled Energizer Bunny. Attempts to capture the process behind creative writing usually falls into one of two buckets: dry and boring, or outlandish and over-the-top. Mr. Stevens easily fits into the latter, but as a testament to the strength of the story and supporting cast, we viewers are nonetheless quite entertained.

It should surprise no one that Christopher Plummer steals each of his scenes as Ebenezer Scrooge. What a delight to behold the talented octogenarian as he leaves us wishing for even more of the grumpy and miserly old former partner of Jacob Marley. Jonathan Pryce also excels as Charles' father John, a charming man who has never quite figured out the economics of life … and whose long ago debt sent young Charles to a work house mixing shoe black. Even as an adult, Charles had recurring nightmares of his time in child labor, and fortunately he was able to use those memories to create many long-lasting stories, each oblivious to generational change.

In 1843 London, the renowned Dickens is coming off three straight flops and experiencing financial woes that are exacerbated by his insistence on the finest materials for the large home he and wife Kate (Morfydd Clark, LOVE & FRIENDSHIP) are renovating. Dickens is in the midst of severe writer's block, and only the quiet strength of his wife and never-wavering loyalty of friend/agent John Forster (Justin Edwards) are able to keep in from sinking to even lower emotional depths. Screen veteran Miriam Margolyes plays the housekeeper, and Anna Murphy is Tara, the Irish nanny who serves as a muse for Dickens.

Having the characters of the story appear on screen and interact with the writer is a terrific way to explain how the creative mind works, although at times, the sources of ideas, characters and key lines seem a bit too convenient. We often get the feeling that perhaps too much was crammed into the run time, what with the conflicts over money, renovations, family matters, and publishing. The best parts are also the easiest with which to relate – those involving the characters and the story slowly coming together.

Simon Callow plays John Leech, the famed illustrator of the finished novella, and Miles Jupp adds a bit of twisted fun as Dickens' rival William Makepeace Thackery. There are some interesting lines that add color, such as, "People will believe anything if you are properly dressed", and "blood of iron, heart of ice". It's these pieces that allow us to view this as a journey of self-discovery for the author, and not just a famous story being assembled. The overall trouble with the film stems from that title. It seems we could have expected more than a tease of what Christmas was at the time, and more specifically how "A Christmas Carol" inspired a revolutionary new approach to the holiday. We are left to connect many dots. In fact, Dickens didn't so much invent Christmas as allow folks to re- imagine it.

Is "A Christmas Carol" the most famous Dickens story? Arguments could also be made for "Oliver Twist", "David Copperfield", "Little Dorrit", "Nicholas Nickelby", and of course, "A Tale of Two Cities". What can't be argued is the brilliance of the writer and the impact of his books. His passion is evident in his determination to self- publish at a time when such practice was a rare as it is commonplace today. The film is rated PG, but younger kids are likely to be confused with the frenetic approach; however, all ages will get a merry kick out of Mr. Plummer's Scrooge!

For me this is how you do a good biopic. Stay faithful to what happened but at the same time be creative with the way you tell the story. This is a mix of fairy tale and history, which is the exact formula needed to tell the story of the creation of A Christmas Carroll. The book is such an iconic piece of literature that helped reshape the way people in England saw Christmas, and the movie shows very well how that happened. The cast is good, headlined by the excellent Christopher Plummer playing a wonderful Scrooge. Good period recreation and well directed, this movie has little faults. For it to be a crowd-pleaser while also historically accurate is not an easy task and if I can find any flaw is that it plays a little too safe. Nevertheless, well done.

It actually took me a while to put this movie into a box. Is it a biography about Charles Dickens, or another version of the classic story being told? It's both.

It's actually like you watch a theater play that includes special effects you all have to imagine yourself during a play. You can clearly see the theatrical approach that the director wanted to take here. Christopher Plummer is an excellent Scrooge, the perfect fit! Even though this film throws in a good bit of comedy into the pot, it doesn't harm the story at all. If anything, it brings a little bit of freshness to the old classic of "A Christmas Carol".

I wouldn't describe it as a Christmas movie, or something that the whole family can enjoy for Christmas, but it certainly is a (long needed) new and modern approach to this story and that is still fascinating me, that this story indeed, never gets old.

By 1843 Charles Dickens (Dan Stevens) was a successful author known around the world, however he was in a funk. His last three books were flops and he was broke and well into debt. Out of ideas he is up against the wire knowing another flop could very well kill his career. When inspiration finally strikes, he is forced to publish the book himself because no publisher wants to do a Christmas book and he has to finish in just six weeks in order to release before Christmas.

When Dickens is writing, he sees his characters in the room with him and talks to them to develop the character. This is best done with his conversations with Scrooge (Christopher Plummer) a character he created as an amalgamation of London's snobby elite who helps he learn about himself as he writes. The story also dives into Dickens early life, especially his relationship with his father (Jonathan Pryce), which helps the viewer understand what drove and inspired Dickens.

This is definitely a movie that assumes familiarity with A Christmas Carol, since it constantly references the story. The title is also a misnomer of sorts, there is no real perspective as to what Christmas was like before A Christmas Carol. And while Dickens did shape a new form of Christmas, it is not the Christmas that is celebrated today. Dickens' Christmas was focused on charitable giving and coming together with loved ones, that Christmas has been lost for a while in favor of a more consumerist Christmas.

After missing this 2017 film, I agreed with my family: Considering the hot summer months and the rising political and social temperatures as well, an early visit to Christmas and the man who helped remind us what the holiday is all about was a pretty good idea (as in, why can't we think like this all year-round?).

"The Man Who Invented Christmas" revolves around Charles Dickens (played by Dan Stevens of "Downton Abbey" fame) and the personal and creative journey he took in writing his beloved novel, "A Christmas Carol."

Dickens, who wrote the book in 1843, intended it to "strike a sledge hammer blow" for the poor, an idea that sprang from a trek to Manchester, where he observed the plight of manufacturing workers, and from what he had seen at the Field Lane Ragged School.

History tells us that his characters leapt to life in his consciousness and that he became so engrossed he "wept and laughed, and wept again," and that he "walked about the black streets of London fifteen or twenty miles a night when all sober folks had gone to bed."

The film is sumptuous, the production values and photography lush and appealing and, when appropriately necessary, cautionary and convincing.

Stevens is excellent as the driven author, moving from warmth to near creative madness without overdoing either, but Christopher Plummer as the imaginary Scrooge he conjures in his mind nearly steals the show, trading barbs and supplying the logic of someone who has forgotten the meaning of love and life.

It's a special fascination to see how artists think and work, borrowing bits and pieces from the people and happenings around them to knit a separate entity that then stands alone by itself.

I didn't find the film preachy or message-driven, though it's impossible in the current climate not to think that some of what's going on here and across Europe may not have seeped into the production. Art usually reflects the fervor of its time.

Still in all, viewers across the political spectrum will find the film more than enjoyable and a welcome reminder that we should _ and can _ celebrate each other all the time, not just in advance of exchanging Christmas presents and knocking back a cold one.

Adding some spice to the film is some clever humor delivered by actors top to bottom who clearly have the training and experience to bring a funny line into the winner's circle.

It's said that "A Christmas Carol" reawakened the spirit of Christmas in both Britain and America.

I think watching this movie does the same thing for viewers too no matter the time of year, and considering what we're experiencing now, that ain't a bad thing.

This movie is a mad cap reconstruction of writing process that produced THE CHRISTMAS CAROL, probably as much fiction as fact, but spun together with all the frenzy of the creative spark. This scattered approach to storytelling is illuminated by some stellar performances, but, once again, Scrooge steals the show. Christopher Plummer🇨🇦 brings a startling depth to the Scrooge we know married with the Scrooge that is the catalyst for Dickens' imagination. This was an award worthy performance. I give this film a 7 (good) out of 10. {Historical Fiction}

This was my favorite Christmas movie of 2018. That said, you can watch this movie any time of year because it's not really solely a Christmas movie. It's about Charles Dickens trying to write and get "A Christmas Carol" published. So most of the story actually takes place in the fall as he struggles with writers block. It's more an inspiring story about a creative person struggling to accomplish something worthwhile, and because of the elements of the story he's writing, it has Christmas elements now. Save it for Christmas 2019, or watch it now. But just watch it!!!

By spinning the classic 'Christmas Carol' on its head and telling it through the lens of its author, this indeterminately accurate bio-pic transposes the core morals of Dickens' source story onto an entertainingly embellished yarn of his own life with a focus on how he came to craft the now well-known and seemingly obvious novella. While 'The Man Who Invented Christmas (2016)' does fall flat on the odd occasion that its sentimentality (or, indeed, its ham-fisted love for 'Christmas spirit') overthrows all else or when it seems to squeeze all life from its 'Dickens as Scrooge' metaphors, its a entertaining and endearing piece of work which is actually at its best when acting as a more traditional entry in its genre, showcasing the central author's passion for his craft and struggles with writer's block as he tries to write a story that's both deeply personal to him and important for the economic climate in which he finds himself. The piece can occasionally seem slightly 'TV-movie' and it's still pretty paint-by-numbers despite its unique premise and plot elements, but its flaws aren't all that noticeable thanks mainly to how charming and interesting it all is. Plus, Plummer makes a great Scrooge and Stevens is fantastic, too. 7/10.

This is a wonderful film and will be especially delightful for people familiar with "A Christmas Carol" and with Dickens in general, but you don't need any background to enjoy it. Basically the film tells the story of how Dickens came to write this classic. The writer's process imagined in this film is true to life for many of us who are writers, though it isn't the only way from pen to paper.

Great acting, good sets, and great music with an excellent script help make this a new classic. The only deficit I saw was the less than opulent sets, which is why I gave it a 9 instead of a 10.

The special gift in this film is seeing Christopher Plummer back on the big screen. Jonathan Price also stands out as Dicken's father.

Go see this film. Go see it especially at the Xmas season.

Now this kind of a movie is really a treat for book lovers in general and Dicken's fans all around the world. Why? Because it really shows you how an idea is conceived and how a writer struggles to put it on paper while dealing with the life that runs around him/her. This movie diligently explores the period of Dicken's life when he was suffering through a financial crisis too and was adamant to keep it hidden from his family while keep his extravagant lifestyle still in order. When he pitched his publisher the idea of The Christmas carol who was reluctant to invest on him anymore due to past few failed books, writing this became imperative not only because of the passion he felt for what was coming but also as this was his only way out. When the support of the publisher is ultimately denied, he decides to publish it himself.

The Man who invented Christmas beautifully depicts this journey of writing The Christmas carol. We also get a glimpse of the tragic and lesser known phase of Dicken's childhood where he was abandoned to work in labour factories due to his father's irresponsible ways. While reminiscing some of the most painful memories and trying to decode his fictional tale, dickens start writing the Christmas carol and healing some of his long hidden demons.

The screenplay is strictly kept in the confines as to understand the psychology of the writer who gave us one the best Christmas tales ever created. Charles Dickens is played with adequate charm and perseverance by Dan Stevens. The characters of the book are also provided a real presentation on screen as real people crowding Dickens at all times. I don't really need to comment about Christopher Plummer's acting because he is flawless and he so aptly portrays the role of scrooge that we only knew so well in our minds so far. He is dark, mocking and disturbs even Dickens while dealing with him on paper. His darkness is hard to break. But dickens wins at the end as the history says it all through the book's success.

All the supporting characters of the movie provide enough spine to keep the movie going without feeling lacking of a narrative. The old world charm is kept strong with a great production backing it up. Please treat your kids to this gem while keeping their innocence alive. Even with some depicted darkness, this will only be empowering to their minds as it wraps up really well.

Visit the Blog:- quickiereviewsmovies.blogspot.com

Or, more exactly, a wise one. because it has humor and drama and bitter scenes and hopefull scenes. it is a genesis fantastic sketch of an admirable book but, in same measure, it is not a biographic film about Dickens being one. it is easy to define it as a delight. but it is a remember. about the life of a great witer. about the roots of a sort of perspective about life and people. and good kick to discover, again, the freshness of a work. the film has many virtues. it could be perceived as a charming easy film, like a comedy or a film for young public, colorfull and seductive and little superficial and unconvincing. but it is a real good film for to give to the public what it deserves. a brilliant cast and good performances. the fictional history of classic book, the difficulties of the existence of the writer. and something else. out of words. an answer, maybe. to the crisis of our time. short, it is , maybe, not the impressive film who you expect. but it is an usefull one. and that is the most significant virtue of it.

Whitewashing his marriage--THE INVISIBLE WOMAN here's where he got the inspiration for this and that and that a bit of a dick

The timing of "The Man Who Invented Christmas" seems a bit unusual in that back only a few years before, the film "The Invisible Woman" came out and the latter film would seem to contradict much of the nice-guy image they created. So, in "The Invisible Woman", you learn that Charles Dickens had a wife who was perpetually pregnant with his children...only to be dumped by Charles for another woman. In "The Man Who Invented Christmas", you have a man who has some personal demons BUT who was essentially a nice-guy and who was a really swell guy by the end of the movie. Clearly, the latter film used a bit of artistic license!

The story is about the creation of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"...and the creative process going on behind the scenes. Some of this is clever but too much of it, to me, seemed like they were tossing in all sorts of references too often. Regardless, by the end of the story, Dickens is beloved and all is good.

If it sounds like I did not love this film, that's true. While the critics seemed to really like it, I felt that the story is pretty much one that Dickens fans would love...while others would like it as well IF they didn't know that the man was extremely flawed. Overall, watchable but also it's a film that tries too hard to make something special happen.

I wanted to love it,  I really did, but I didn't. The concept of watching what creative influence got Charles Dickens to create the timeless masterpiece that change the way people celebrated the holiday season seemed like an inspiring tale. I was energetic to see it.

It reminds me of a TV movie from the 80s or 90s called The Dreamer of Oz  in which John Ritter played the dude who wrote the Wizard of Oz and we saw how he drew the fantastic story from  his everyday life.

It's the same deal with the Man who Invented Christmas. As we learn about the life of Charles Dickens and get insight of what type of man he was. We also see where the bits and pieces of  A Christmas Carol come from, and when we starts to write the book, he lets his imagination go wild as the characters from the book come to life and somewhat haunt him like ghost until he gets the story finished. All the while the movie makes a claim of how the book itself somewhat mimics Dickens own life.

All of this sounds good in theory but it was a god awful job putting it all together. Trying to be both surrealistic and a straight narrative seem to be a hard task for the filmmakers and it made for a badly done effort.

I hate to be so harsh on a movie, but for the most part it was not the worse to sit through but it was not the most interesting of films.

I think they're versions of a  Christmas Carol better suited to watch this Holiday season way better than the version about the man who wrote it.

http://cinemagardens.com

Being a history buff and loving tradition I just had to take a look at this film "The Man Who Invented Christmas". And I must say it was an okay take at how the classic story of a Christmas carol came about. Even though the film is blended with dreams and foreshadowing, and flashbacks it still has enough drama and laughs to be entertaining.

Back in 1843 England a British novel writer Charles Dickens(Dan Stevens)has just come off writing some novels that haven't sold well and the town and his family start to have doubt about his ability to write. Yet Dickens has ideals to come to his mind from family and dreams as his seeing of an old man at the graveyard leads to his creation of a grump Ebenezer Scrooge(Christopher Plummer).

And thru this creation Dickens lets his mind wonder and with thought he comes up with the ideal to base his novel set around Christmas and a ghost like story to change the minds of all that read! Overall good little historical film that's a tease with dreams and wishes still it shows how the ideal for "A Christmas Carol" came about.

I was all set to dislike this. The title is so pompous that it's bound to fail. The thing is that there is enough factual biographical material to float the boat. Most of the major events did take place. What makes this work is the incorporation of characters from "A Christmas Carol" who play a role in his creative process. Christoper Plummer is excellent as the incarnation of Ebenezer Scrooge. Obviously, these are in the mind of the great writer and portrayed in a corporeal form in the movie. We see Dickens as a flawed man who overspends and over reacts. It is a fun film to look at as eighteenth century England is front and center. It was also neat to see some interesting angles relating to the book.

Possibly the best Christmas movie of the 20th century.

This may be a splendid film. With the storyline being the extraordinary journey of how one of the most classic works in literature came to life, it is a powerful and inspiring film for anyone to watch.

I myself am a writer (I mainly write short stories) and the adventure of how the literary characters came to life is astonishing. These kind of films are truly inspiring and has proven to have the power to make viewers create new ideas. Many generations of viewers can learn new things from biopics. I love biopics. Each cast member committed fully to their characters and to the storyline of the film.

I really enjoy watching biopics, and this film is one-of-a-kind. Although, with this film being all good, Christmas is a tormenting period for me. As a matter of fact, I hate Christmas. One experience can destroy something for someone, and that is exactly what happened to me. For years, it has haunted me.

I don't think we can avoid getting a filmed version of Dickens' immortal "A Christmas Carol" once every few years. It's a wonderful tale of redemption that fits perfectly within the larger Christmas narrative, and The Man Who Invented Christmas presents that with a unique twist. Unfortunately, the twist it gives it isn't nearly as strong as Dickens' tale itself. It's the "Saving Mr. Banks problem": wishing you were watching the subject of a film (the actual "Christmas Carol") instead of the film itself (Dickens' writing of it), which is as gentle and foggy as a London breeze, and very nearly as vapid. Acclaimed author Charles Dickens (Stevens) was coming off a 3-book slump when he had the inadvisable idea to self-publish a novel about Christmas, which (SPOILER ALERT!) became a huge success. This story is told through the compelling mechanism of Dickens imagining his characters to life and wrestling with their decisions face-to-face, giving us the unique perspective of how a writer creates. Unfortunately, there's little naturalism in any of it. His initial visions and ideas are (ridiculously) exactly as they appear in the novel, and the movie keeps desperately forcing us to make connections between Dickens' real life and his story. And Stevens doesn't help, giving a performance more akin to Chandler Bing than Alastair Sim. Sure, the production (sets, costumes) is beautiful. We're treated to gregariously be-wigged characters and smoggy old streets in this study of artistic inspiration and madness. Unfortunately, it's all stuck on top of a much-too-safe story on the plight of the rich man, that's just more proof that an artist's imagination is often more compelling than his life.