tjveil
Joined Feb 2016
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
tjveil's rating
If this had been shot and performed for public access TV, you might be tempted to at least give it an E for effort.
But this "Christmas Carol" was obviously shot on a minuscule budget. Lots of still images, shots of skies, amateur acting and directing...you do have to ask, what was the point of this, when there are tons of versions of the story that are much, much better?
The description claims this is the darkest version of "A Christmas Carol" ever, but that actually belongs to FX's adaptation, which displays all the talent and creativity that are not found here.
Oh, and be suspicious, very suspicious, of the reviews here. Many of them contain the exact same passage:
"This is the darkest, most ghostly version of this story ever made. It stays true to the original feel of the Dickens story, while turning up the creepiness."
No it's not. Not by a long shot. But when you see that boilerplate inserted randomly in half the reviews you read, you know you're dealing with reviewers with an agenda.
I get no joy out of pillorying this movie, but I can't really say anything good about it. I wanted it to be a lot better than this. Check out the FX version if you want to see a dark adaptation done 100x better. (And no, I don't have an agenda for that movie; it just impressed the hell out of me.)
But this "Christmas Carol" was obviously shot on a minuscule budget. Lots of still images, shots of skies, amateur acting and directing...you do have to ask, what was the point of this, when there are tons of versions of the story that are much, much better?
The description claims this is the darkest version of "A Christmas Carol" ever, but that actually belongs to FX's adaptation, which displays all the talent and creativity that are not found here.
Oh, and be suspicious, very suspicious, of the reviews here. Many of them contain the exact same passage:
"This is the darkest, most ghostly version of this story ever made. It stays true to the original feel of the Dickens story, while turning up the creepiness."
No it's not. Not by a long shot. But when you see that boilerplate inserted randomly in half the reviews you read, you know you're dealing with reviewers with an agenda.
I get no joy out of pillorying this movie, but I can't really say anything good about it. I wanted it to be a lot better than this. Check out the FX version if you want to see a dark adaptation done 100x better. (And no, I don't have an agenda for that movie; it just impressed the hell out of me.)
Prior to seeing "Cats" on HBO the other day, all I knew about it was that it was a successful stage musical, but got savaged as a movie. That never made sense to me.
It still doesn't. "Cats" is a lively, endearing, sung presentation of T. S. Eliot's poems explaining the different personalities of cats and why they do what they do. There's a through plot about the group of cats known as Jellicles gathering together to see which one will be chosen for rebirth. You'll meet characters like Asparagus (aka Gus), a theatrical cat past his prime; Mr. Mestoffelees, a magical cat; Macavity, a devious cat who's meant as a clear analog to Professor Moriarty; Victoria, the cat who gets taken in when she's dumped by her owner; and of course Old Deuteronomy, the venerable cat who has final say on who goes to their heavenly reward and comes back.
Andrew Lloyd Webber's songs are as good as you'd expect, particularly the upbeat "Mr. Mestophelees", Jennifer Hudson's "Memories", and a funny, jazzy show stopper piece about the nefarious Macavity.
Two of the actors in particular should be praised. Francesca Hayward as Victoria delivers a beautiful, sensitive performance as our eyes into the cat world. And Dame Judi Dench...is there nothing she can't play? She doesn't get to do much for the bulk of the film, but makes up for it with a touching, big-hearted turn as wise Old Deuteronomy. The two of them at the end of the film are wonderful together.
Now, if you need to be convinced that so many of the bad reviews are just trolling, consider how many of them are rated 1. There is way too much good music, talent and beauty in this movie to rank it that low--especially when it's in many ways identical to the hit play from which it derives.
Some of the complaints I've seen (on YouTube and other places) are just ridiculous. With the possible exception of the opening scene where Victoria is dropped off on the street, the CG is fine. It's not supposed to be photorealistic, any more than the actors are supposed to spend the entire movie walking on all fours. The makeup work is far better than anything you'll see on the stage. And the silliest complaint of all? "Cats with breasts? LOL." Oh, give me a break. Like the stage version was performed by an all-male cast or something.
Give it a shot and see if you're not entertained. After it's over the song "Macavity" will be stuck in your head.
It still doesn't. "Cats" is a lively, endearing, sung presentation of T. S. Eliot's poems explaining the different personalities of cats and why they do what they do. There's a through plot about the group of cats known as Jellicles gathering together to see which one will be chosen for rebirth. You'll meet characters like Asparagus (aka Gus), a theatrical cat past his prime; Mr. Mestoffelees, a magical cat; Macavity, a devious cat who's meant as a clear analog to Professor Moriarty; Victoria, the cat who gets taken in when she's dumped by her owner; and of course Old Deuteronomy, the venerable cat who has final say on who goes to their heavenly reward and comes back.
Andrew Lloyd Webber's songs are as good as you'd expect, particularly the upbeat "Mr. Mestophelees", Jennifer Hudson's "Memories", and a funny, jazzy show stopper piece about the nefarious Macavity.
Two of the actors in particular should be praised. Francesca Hayward as Victoria delivers a beautiful, sensitive performance as our eyes into the cat world. And Dame Judi Dench...is there nothing she can't play? She doesn't get to do much for the bulk of the film, but makes up for it with a touching, big-hearted turn as wise Old Deuteronomy. The two of them at the end of the film are wonderful together.
Now, if you need to be convinced that so many of the bad reviews are just trolling, consider how many of them are rated 1. There is way too much good music, talent and beauty in this movie to rank it that low--especially when it's in many ways identical to the hit play from which it derives.
Some of the complaints I've seen (on YouTube and other places) are just ridiculous. With the possible exception of the opening scene where Victoria is dropped off on the street, the CG is fine. It's not supposed to be photorealistic, any more than the actors are supposed to spend the entire movie walking on all fours. The makeup work is far better than anything you'll see on the stage. And the silliest complaint of all? "Cats with breasts? LOL." Oh, give me a break. Like the stage version was performed by an all-male cast or something.
Give it a shot and see if you're not entertained. After it's over the song "Macavity" will be stuck in your head.