Movie review: Disney's new Christmas Carol

[dreamflower]

This afternoon, the DH and I went to see the new Jim Carrey version of "A Christmas Carol". Of course, it's a story that everyone knows and that has so many versions already that you sometimes wonder why the heck anyone would make another.

I definitely had mixed feelings about this one... (Review behind cut, some mild spoilers.)

First of all, I have to say, I was impressed by the job Carrey did-- to my American ears, his British accent sounded fine, and he really captured that irascibility and sarcastic meanness that was Scrooge. He kept a pretty tight rein on his usual OTT tendencies, and it helped that though you could see a bit of him in the character, the animation made Carrey disappear into Scrooge.

The animation was beautiful, especially the aerial views of London. And I quite enjoyed the renderings of the various supporting characters.

There was a certain darkness to this version that is utterly necessary to getting the underlying message of the story across: that there are selfish and greedy people in the world, who by their behavior make life worse for other people, and who need to be taught a lesson. All of the best versions have capitalized on this darkness.

I was very impressed, for example, by the horror of Marley's plight-- one of the best handling of his many chains I've ever seen; the vision of the other condemned spirits which reminded me of a Heironymus Bosch painting of souls in torment; by the depiction of Christmas Past as a candle; and by the vision of Want and Ignorance at the end of Christmas Present. And the way that Christmas Present segued into Christmas Future was horrifyingly apt.

ON THE OTHER HAND: I thought the quality was very incosistent, partially because the filmakers wanted to capitalize on their 3-D effects. There was a lot of superflous swooping around, some bits of humor that were misplaced, and a totally unnecessary chase scene involving a carriage and a shrinking Scrooge (it was the only part of the movie where I thought of him more as Carrey than as Scrooge.)

I also thought that the Cratchit subplot was neglected in this-- I think there should have been a few more scenes of their homelife than we were given.

I'd say that of the many various versions and adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" I have seen over the years, I would rank it about fourth: the 1951 Alistair Sim version at number 1, the Albert Finney musical version of "Scrooge" at number 2, the 1999 Patrick Stewart version at number 3, and then this version to follow (supplanted George C. Scott). I'd say that of all the various animated attempts, this is by far the best animated version.

All in all, a pleasant afternoon at the movies, and a good way to kick off the holiday season!

Comments

[shirebound]

Did you see it in 3D? I've never seen a 3D movie (with the glasses).

[dreamflower]

No, actually. This small-town theater is not equipped for that. But I don't think it would have made much difference in my opinion, because the stuff for the 3-D mostly seemed extraneous to the plot.

[mews1945.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the review. I think I'll be missing this one. I will watch the 1951 version and revel in Alistair Simm.

[dreamflower]

We'll be watching Alistair Sim as well, and probably Albert Finney to boot, at some time during the season.

I am glad I went-- it's a story that can make you think, no matter how many versions of it there are-- but this one definitely had bad points as well as good.

[cairistiona7.livejournal.com]

My favorite has always been the Patrick Stewart one, but this one sounded intriguing except for the silly chase scene, which I heard another reviewer complaining about. I don't care for 3D... I wear glasses and although I can fit the 3D glasses over them, it's never comfortable and I come out with a headache. We'll probably wait and see this on DVD.

[dreamflower]

Well, we didn't watch this one in 3-D either; they didn't have it here. It was a pleasant movie afternoon, and looked nice on the big screen. But yeah, the chase scene was utterly silly and obviously only in there because of the 3-D thing. It was a waste of time that could have been spent expanding on the Cratchit subplot.

[claudia603.livejournal.com]

Interesting! I like the old school creepy versions, I'm afraid! :)

[dreamflower]

This one *definitely* has its share of creep! The scene at the end of Christmas Present, with Want and Ignorance was utterly creepy!

[x19narya90x.livejournal.com]

Oh, glad they put Want and Ignorance in there - too often in the versions more pitched at "families" they get left out.

[dreamflower]

It was done quite brilliantly, as well. Not just a glimpse of them beneath the robes! That sequence with the end of Christmas Present as it moved into Christmas Future was truly one of the most appallingly scary, yet right, moments in the movie!

[labourslamp.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the review. My family usually goes old school and listens to the Paul Scofield record, which is one of the most canonical adaptations I've come across--it even has Bella's daughter, and the summarized trips everywhere during Christmas present. Plus it's able to keep so many of the wondrous descriptions in that NO CGI will ever better. Dickens especially lends himself to reading aloud--which is often how he was experienced by families, especially of the lower class.

[dreamflower]

Like so many things, nothing can really beat the original medium. It's been a while since I read Dickens version-- two years, at least, maybe three. Perhaps I'll remedy that this season.

[piplover.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the review! I adore the Alistair Simm version, followed by the Muppet Christmas Carol. Laugh if you will, but neither version ever fails to leave me feeling warm and fuzzy inside. I think I'll see this version, but perhaps a bit closer to Christmas.

[dreamflower]

It is not a waste of money. As I said, it has some really amazingly good parts, but mixed in with some unfortunately not-so-good parts. But the interpretation of the message is quite brilliant in spite of that.

Do you know, I never got to see the Muppet version? I really have to remedy that!

[wizard42745.livejournal.com]

I vote for Alistair Sim, lol. Although I have the musical starring Kelsey Grammer,(Grammar? not sure of sp) which is pretty good, although the ending seemed somewhat rushed to me. I also like the version with Henry Winkler, set during the depression.

[dreamflower]

Alistair Sim definitely stays at the top of my list! I've never seen the Kelsey Grammer version--I'm not a huge fan of his, and there are hundreds of adaptations of the story, so it's no surprise there are a few I haven't seen. But I find it hard to imagine a musical version that tops the Albert Finney one. The songs are amazing.

I do like "An American Christmas Carol" with Henry Winkler; it was definitely one of better attempts to change the venue of the story. Another successful modernization was "Scrooged" with Bill Murray, although it was very much a comedy. But I've seen some dreadful ones as well-- there was a really awful one where Scrooge was a modern female executive. *shudder*

I've also read a wonderful fanfic version-- transferring it to LotR, and using Denethor as Scrooge! It really worked! I will have to see if I can remember the author and scare up the link!

[wizard42745.livejournal.com]

I hope you find it. I'd love to read it!

[gamgeefest.livejournal.com]

I abhor 3D movies. They work ok on the big screen, if you can stand wearing those stupid glasses for that long, but they don't transfer to tv screen well at all.

Glad you enjoyed the movie. I might check it out after Thanksgiving if they have a non-3D version.

[dreamflower]

Well, I think it depends on the theater they show it in. The one here did not show it in 3-D. But you could still tell which scenes were meant to use the effect-- all of that swooping through the sky!

I hate to tell you this, but we saw trailers for half a dozen or more movies before the show, and guess what-- I think nearly all of them were supposed to be 3-D! It seems to be the new standard for any movie with animation or a lot of action.

You could probably find it in a smaller older theater playing the non-3-D version.

[gamgeefest.livejournal.com]

If they made a non-3D version, then that would be playing at the same theaters with the 3D version. They did the same thing with UP!

[dreamflower]

Well, our theater here only has one screen, and only shows one movie at a time, so I'm fairly sure it was the non-3-D version-- no "magic glasses" were offered to us at any rate!

[gamgeefest.livejournal.com]

If there was no distortion of the image, then it was not 3D. 3D works by layering the picture (or portions of it) on top of itself. I'm sure it will still be playing after Thanksgiving. I might go check see it in between all the Black Friday shopping. :)

[febobe.livejournal.com]

I will say that overall I agree with you on most points except that I liked it BEST of the versions I've seen. I felt it put the feeling back in it for me. That said, I saw it in 3-D, and the swooping and spirits are much creepier and more enjoyable in that experience, as was the lovely preview for Tim Burton's delightful-looking "Alice in Wonderland" with Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. Whoa. :D That's all I can say. Through the looking-glass indeed!

I did not know whether I would enjoy myself with it being 3-D and all, but I had quite a grand time and would strongly rec it, though, as you say, a little more Crachit screen time would've been a nice thing to see.

But oh! What a nice afternoon it made! :)

[dreamflower]

Well, perhaps its nostalgia, but the black-and-white Alistair Sim version simply stays at the top in my mind--it *was* the first version I ever saw and it made a big impression on me.

I think what kept it from being at the top for me were the occasional flashes of inappropriate humor. He would be in a really scary position, and suddenly there would be a pratfall or a "cartoon-like" moment right out of left field. It wouldn't last but a second, yet it broke the mood for me. (I'm remembering blinking twice where he's running for his life, and then suddenly he's on his back, spinning a beer keg with his feet! And there were others as well--it's like reading a really good angsty fic, and suddenly seeing Frodo say "OK, no problem!" It just jolted.) That said, there was much less of an attempt to bowdlerize the story for the kiddies-- the darkness that makes the story great was definitely there. And there were some really *good* humorous moments as well. And I LOVED Christmas Past being a candle flame--what a perfect metaphor!

And yes, it made a very nice afternoon indeed!

[surgicalsteel.livejournal.com]

Hm. I'll have to consider this one - doesn't sound worth a trip to Bangor to go and see.

[dreamflower]

Well, of course, the story can hardly be "spoiled", since practically everyone and their dog already knows it, LOL!

I don't think we'd have made a special trip to see this one-- we drove 23 miles to Stillwater to see the last HP movie--but this was playing at the only theater in Cushing. ( The one here is a true small-town movie theater, it's really old, and only has one screen and shows only one movie at a time.)

If you happened to already *be* in Bangor for other reasons, though, and had a couple of hours to kill, it's a pleasant enough experience!

[lily-the-hobbit.livejournal.com]

I've seen it yesterday as well and I really don't like how filmakers now focus on the 3D effects. If you watch a 3D version, ok, but what about those of us who prefer 2D?

I was a bit confused by the chase scene myself, but other than that I really enjoyed it.

[dreamflower]

A lot of people will be seeing it in 2-D, just like we did. I noticed among the trailers, that there were a bunch of 3-D movies coming out in the next few months. *sigh*

That chase scene was ridiculous. It did not in any way further the plot of the story, and it took away from a lot of the eerie mood the filmakers had been at pains to build up before that. A very bad decision.

Overall, though, it *was* a very enjoyable movie.