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.

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.

Out of all the adaptations of this classic Christmas story by Charles Dickens, this is probably a really good one in my opinion! the story is really good though compared to the original novel; but of course in the novel Ebenezer Scrooge encounters Jacob Marley's ghost in his bedroom, but in this version it's in his office. plus the animation looks really decent and okay in my book though especially the backgrounds that look like something you see in a Christmas card or from Dicken's original illustrations to the novel that's based on the original novel, plus Simon Callow does a really good job voicing Scrooge and playing Charles Dickens in the live action segments as well as Nicolas Cage as Jacob Marley and kudos to Kate Winslet from Titanic (1997) voicing Scrooge's fiancé Belle. yet this movie has some dark moments along with some sad moments and I wouldn't call this a boring adaption, if your a fan to any adaptation to a Christmas Carol along with the Muppets version, check this one out if you have kids in your family!

I've probably seen every version of "A Christmas Carol" ever done. It's probably my favorite story. It's about pain and suffering and redemption. It's a wonderful ghost story. It has great characters and a great deal of sentimentality. It take a really good actor to pull off the character of Scrooge. Alaister Sim and George C. Scott are my favorites. The character has to have a link to an unhappy past. Cruelty is one thing, but we need some humanity as well. If he is not complex, he is nothing. This had potential. It has very nice animation. The problem, for me, is that Scrooge is too young. He has the angular face of a forty year old. His lines are delivered without any underlying emotion. I don't think the people doing the voices did much homework. Also, what's wrong with the original plot. Do people change it so they can put their own signature on it. This one isn't too bad, but it's so wooden. Those mice are also really annoying. If one wanted to take this to its logical end, London at that time, was overrun with disease ridden vermin, which did decrease the surplus population. Now, I know that's really harsh to these two little guys, but I would imagine that Scrooge would have as soon flattened them with a boot as look at them. You either make a commitment to tell the story, or you throw the whole thing out an ignore the elements. The mice should go. There's also a group of social issues that are just dropped in. All in all, however, it seems so lacking in pizazz. There is supposed to be elation at the end; even giddiness. There is nothing giddy about this film.

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.