Christmas Carol: The Movie

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'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.

Darcel, Pam etc are - or were - the Solid Gold Dancers ("Solid Gold" was an American pop music show in the 1980s); in the movie "Scrooged" six of them (guess which two were absent) made a cameo appearance as part of the cast of Bill Murray's TV version of the classic Charles Dickens story... and there's the biggest problem with "Christmas Carol: The Movie" right there. Not the presence of leggy, gorgeous American girls in skimpy attire - such a thing could only have benefitted this movie - but the stunningly definitive and frankly ignorant title; so all the other versions of the novel (and there have been quite a few down the years, featuring casts from Alastair Sim through Henry Winkler [in the TV movie "An American Christmas Carol"] to Michael Caine in "The Muppet Christmas Carol" - not to mention the musical "Scrooge," at least two animated versions, and countless episodes of TV shows borrowing the whole story, like "WKRP In Cincinnati" and "The Odd Couple" to name but two) don't count then?

For a movie to live up to such a title, it would have to be the best version ever, and this isn't. It isn't helped by having live-action bookends of the great man (played here by Simon Callow, also the voice of Ebenezer Scrooge) performing a dramatic reading of his book in Boston. Or by having a pair of mice throughout the movie as the closest things to soulmates the man has (cute animals should be left to Disney and Disney alone). Or by animation that's depressingly crude for the most part (it all looks like a poor 1970s TV show, with the exception of the journeys the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present take our "hero" on, where the movie really does come to life for a bit). Or by Piet Kroon and Robert "Kryten" Llewellyn's script, or Julian Nott's score (pains me to say it, but the songs from Kate Winslet and Charlotte Church are the highpoints).

And as for Nicolas Cage as Jacob Marley... not since the late lamented Lorenzo Music did Peter Venkman on "The Real Ghostbusters" has there been such a shockingly bad case of cartoon miscasting. And some people wonder why so many of us love Pixar.

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.