Christmas Carol: The Movie

There is nothing wrong with changing a story so long as you admit to it. So unlike many children's films where a classic is ruined and the child grows up in ignorance and never knows the difference, this film has the charming idea of having live action Charles Dickens go to America and tell the story to an audience explaining it isn't quite the same as how he wrote it in the book, thus growing curiosity and encouraging children to read the true classics of this world. The only real fault with this film is its ghastly title (and possible when the child of ignorance disintegrates, being too scary for children). I admit as a film student I had very low expectations of ANOTHER adaption of A Christmas Carol but was for once very pleasantly surprised and refreshingly, no one bursts into song and no animals talk in this film. The acting is very good and the voice talents obviously cared about this job. How Scrooge acts after the ghost of Christmas Future and how he makes the Christmas miracles are more realistic than I've seen in any adaption for a long time. Things don't happen with a snap of the fingers and this children's film truly does give hope to the most desperate of souls.

I've seen a repeating pattern when it comes to reviews of this movie, the animation's bad, mice are evil, it's different from the original.

For being different from the original, A Christmas Carol stands as one of the most adapted works out there, least it feels like it with how many we got. It wouldn't hurt to try and change things up just to stand out, otherwise people would say it brings nothing new to the table. Guess this film was gonna lose no matter what.

The mice, most I can say scenes centering on them were to pad out the runtime, At the very least they don't talk and thus don't become horribly unbearable.

The animation... I guess after seeing so many works by Don Bluth and at Disney standards had grown. The animation here is otherwise acceptable, nowhere near as terrible as people make it out to be though still not great. But it does stand out to me, whether against some beautiful storyboards. It fits the narrative and tone, so to speak.

Course you may be asking, what could be worse than this adaptation?

Bah Humduck, which hits two of the three same sins as this film, only difference is that their liberties cripple the original tale way worse.

In this version of A Christmas Carol, Simon Callow plays Charles Dickens. He attends a reading of his classic story, and as he reads aloud to his audience, the film turns to cartoon. Simon lends his voice to Ebenezer Scrooge, and he's joined by Nicolas Cage as Marley, Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Michael Gambon as the Ghost of Christmas Present, Jane Horrocks as the Ghost of Christmas Past, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, and Kate Winslet as Belle.

If you're going to go with an animated version, go with Mr. Magoo's comedic version. If you want something a little more sophisticated, go with Jim Carrey's 3-D version. This version isn't atrocious, but it's also not very good. It'll draw in quite a few viewings because of the cast, but how much more fun would it have been if it was a real-people movie with the same cast? Maybe everyone signed on thinking that was the case, and maybe the beginning real-people section was only added to appease audience members who were under the same impression when they rented it.

I quite much liked this version. I know that the story of Ebenezer Scrooge has been filmed many times but I don't care about that because of the moral point of this story. And hey, how many Dracula movies are out there?

The old-time animation was excellent and invigorating as I am quite bored with many modern day dull computer animations.

Mice were an excellent spice in the story. It looks like that many hate those mice and that they're not part of the story but hopefully everybody remembers Charles Dickens' lines in the start of the movie that this is not a straight adaptation from the book. Perhaps he just added those mice while telling the story? To me, mice didn't steal the story to themselves. The moral story of the original book is still there. And there aren't a director who didn't add something to the movie nevertheless what book says.

The ghost parts of the movie were marvelously made (especially the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come -part).

All in all, a well-made animated movie.

This starts off with a live action sequence where Charles Dickens played by Simon Callow attends a venue in Boston where he relates the story of A Christmas CAROL . I wonder if Callow could have believed that a few years later he'd be reprising his role as Dickens where he attends a similar type of speaking tour in Cardiff in 1869 where one of the audience is a corpse taken over by a gaseous alien race called The Gelth ? Check out The DOCTOR WHO story The Unquiet Dead to see what I'm blabbering on about . It's certainly very interesting to see how the scenes from the two are very similar in atmosphere

As you might expect this a straight forward retelling of A Christmas CAROL in animated form so if you're expecting lines like " Pity The Gelth - We want your flesh " you're going to be bitterly disappointed . Some people may complain that the story concentrates far too much on a social political subtext but Dickens didn't write A Christmas CAROL as a ghost story , he wrote it as a story of redemption and this shines through , though perhaps a little too obviously to be truly successful . My only real complaint is that the mice are a serious distraction to the story telling