IMDb user comments for
A Christmas Carol (2009) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

59 comments in total

---

49 out of 79 people found the following comment useful :-
It's visually spectacular, but emotionally hollow: What a disappointment.!, 4 November 2009

Author: grantaubin from South Africa

Having just come from a preview screening of "A Christmas Carol" I can confirm the worst suspicions of genuine film lovers. And anyone who has an ounce of love for Charles Dickens.

The film is spectacular to look at and the kids will no doubt enjoy all the whiz bang action. Unfortunately this is the Disney and Robert Zemeckis' version, not the Charles Dickens' version we know and love. The storyline is the same but .............

Of course it will probably make a fair amount of money, but gosh it was unsatisfying.

The film has no soul, no beating heart, no emotional lift at the end. I didn't even have a lump in my throat when it was over. What a bitter disappointment. The magic is gone, to be replaced by an f/x laden thrill ride. Tiny Tim (Gary Oldman, I kid you not - he does three characters) has one line of dialogue. Thus the character of Tiny Tim is barely a factor in this version. Tiny Tin, who for me has always been the heart and soul of this wonderful story. Are Disney and Zemeckis crazy?. Or just greedy? Where is their spirit of Christmas?

But wow, we get to see Scrooge (Jim Carrey, who plays nine characters) fly to the moon and back in 10 seconds in 3-D. Visually dazzling, but emotionally bland and hollow would describe the film perfectly.

It is an understatement to say that the 1951 film starring Alistair Sim is a fifty times more effective - and affecting, experience.

Let me just add that while I certainly enjoyed aspects of the performances of Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Cary Elwes (also in multiple parts) and even Jim Carrey, the actors are not well served by this format of film-making. In fact, while their names will help sell the picture, their wonderful talents are dimmed here.

You must see what they do to poor Robin Wright Penn; she's been bland-ed out visually.

Really, how could they mess this one up.

---

27 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
not quite a Disney story, 3 November 2009

Author: Maria Ioana from Romania

Jim Carrey is full of surprises and the entire movie is a theatrical outburst of his talent, under the brilliant direction of Robert Zemeckis. Brilliant because it manages to make take the Dickens story and walk us through all its dimensions, without fear of sadness and, in the same time, he has the cold blood to use the magic wand for a happy end. I wasn't a big 3D fan until this movie, maybe because I didn't see any possibility to enrich the classical format, perfect as it became with the years... 'A Christmas Carol' gains a lot from 3D being a sensorial experience enhanced by IMAX technology.

All in all, it's not a story for kids, because it's rather disturbing and contemplative. Gary Oldman's pointing finger will stay with you for a while... It's an enchanting story and I encourage you to go and see it.

---

18 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Both children and adults will gain more from this experience than most family films., 6 November 2009

Author: Troy_Campbell from Sydney, Australia

After directing The Polar Express in 2004, Robert Zemeckis vowed to only make 3D movies using motion-capture technology from then on, never to return to traditional live action films again. What? How could he? Moviegoers everywhere were bemused at how the bloke who gave us Forrest Gump, the Back to the Future trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Contact and Cast Away could settle for some silly 3D business. Perhaps Zemeckis was smarter than us all though, his pledge to developing a decent 3D output coming half a decade earlier than most. It seems he was on to something.

It is credit to Zemeckis though that his use of 3D isn't the drawcard for this wonderfully told fable, it purely enhances it. The opening title sequence is one of the most breathtaking of the year, as we soar over - and through - the old Victorian town in which Scrooge inhabits in only one shot. It doesn't end there however, with no less than two more flying scenes and a splendid chase sequence on foot, which capably show what mo-cap and 3D are capable of. One small gripe, as was present with Up, the glasses still make everything darker and subsequently duller; especially as this picture is intentionally not well-lit to begin with.

We all know the famous Charles Dickens novel for which this is based on and Zemeckis stays faithfully close to it, unworried about making a family movie that has very few laughs. Let's face it, the story of Scrooge isn't meant to be a light-hearted laughfest. With demonic horses (complete with glaring red eyes), ghosts with broken jaws and men withering away to a skeleton, this is anything but a hoot. But is that a bad thing? Not at all. In fact it is a relief to see a movie for young (but not too young) and old that doesn't shy away from evoking feelings of fear and regret rather than always sugar-coating them with funny moments. If dealt with rightly, emotions like these can be healthy and will have a longer lasting effect on you and your kids than something that only makes you laugh.

Providing the voice of Scrooge from childhood to old-age, along with the three Ghosts of Christmas, Carrey does a fine job, even with his normal over-the-top voicing toned down a few hundred decibels. He is barely recognisable in all his parts - a result that I'm sure Zemeckis would have been aiming for - which allows the characters to stand on their own two feet rather than be a typical Carrey product. The experienced supporting cast of Oldman, Hoskins, Firth, Elwes and Wright Penn add a nice level of class to the proceedings.

The dark and morose atmosphere might at first shock, but ultimately both children and adults will gain more from this experience than most family films. See it on the big screen.

4 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)

---

13 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
A very disappointing carol, 6 November 2009

Author: rdfarnham from Manassas, VA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

WARNING--LOTS OF SPOILERS AHEAD.

I am somewhat of an aficionado of the Carol so I really looked forward to Disney's latest release. I had really hoped that Robert Zemeckis would work his magic but, unfortunately, like most adaptors of the Carol he felt the need to "improve" it. What he ended up doing was somehow removing most of the warmth and humanity from Dickens' well-loved story.

The movie starts by showing Scrooge removing the coins from the eyes of his late partner, Jacob Marley's, corpse. Yes, it shows that he is a miser it also shows he has no regard and almost contempt for the one man in his life who was probably as close to a friend as he ever had. This scene was totally unnecessary, the story is over 150 years old, and we all KNOW that Scrooge is a stingy miser.

The first part of the movie is lighted in an authentic manner giving everything a dark and gloomy look. Unfortunately this darkness pretty much negates the 3-D effect. In fact the 3-D effect is pretty much negligible throughout the film, adding little to it. The only time it is clearly in 3-D is when it is snowing and the snow seems to be landing in your lap.

I will admit that Mr. Zemeckis uses much of the original dialog from the book throughout this movie but most of the action is heavily modified or totally new, and are, to anyone who is familiar with the book, intrusive and irritating.

For example, in the book the door knocker changes into Marley's face and then disappears. Here it not only appears but also screams in Scrooge's face causing him to fall down the front steps.

When Marley enters the room he doesn't just enter the room, he throws several of the heavy boxes he is chained to through the door first.

When the ghost of Christmas Past appears he looks like a candle and his head is, in fact, a candle flame floating above his body. At the end of this session Scrooge jams the candle-snuffer over the ghost's head just as in the book. Unlike the book he holds on to the snuffer and it suddenly blasts off like a rocket taking him high into the sky, then disintegrating and leaving him flying. He sails past the face of the moon in a scene reminiscent of E.T.s famous scene then falls seemingly miles toward the ground before waking up on the floor beside his bed. The whole segment is gratuitous and, quite frankly, childish.

When the Ghost of Christmas Present appears the ceiling in Scrooge's room is suddenly about 50 feet high. The Ghost looks exactly like Jim Carrey with the beard and his expressions are the same smirking expressions that Carrey usually displays making the Ghost, at least to me, very unpleasant.

One of the things that made this segment so important in the book was that the Ghost took Scrooge around London and let him mingle with the people (albeit invisibly) to get a feel of the holiday spirit. Here, the Ghost apparently lifts the upper story from Scrooge's house and they fly around the city in it. Part of the floor becomes transparent and Scrooge observes everything as if on a television screen. Yes, he sees what's going on but, he does not mingle and there is no feeling of his gaining humanity.

At the end of this segment the Ghost says that he only lives for one season and abruptly ages, dies (while still laughing Ho, Ho, Ho) rots and turns into a skeleton, then disintegrates into dust and blows away.

The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come segment is, quite frankly, very frightening. Unlike most versions of the Carol the Ghost is mostly shown only in the shadow and becomes solid only rarely. There is a long segment which I found to be not only frightening to a younger child but totally outside the spirit of the book, gratuitous, and frankly stupid. The Phantom Hearse, mentioned only briefly in the book, chases a terrified Scrooge for what seems like miles. For some unexplained reason Scrooge suddenly shrinks until he is smaller than a mouse, he slides along a rooftop smashing into icicles, then falls off the roof and lands in the bag of the charwoman, Mrs. Dilber, who is taking Scrooge's belongings to sell. Scrooge witnesses her total lack of feeling for him and is aghast at how easily she stole things from him, still not realizing that in this future he is dead.

In the graveyard scene Scrooge, who is now again full size, is understandably terrified and, as in several other versions, he falls into his own open grave and he, and the audience, realizes that it ends in Hell. He is, of course, saved and reformed in the end but the feeling is not that he was reformed so much because of what he learned as that he is frightened into it.

Throughout the movie Scrooge is thrown, launched, battered and generally physically abused for no apparent purpose and with no apparent damage. The ghosts, up to and including Marley, do not seem to be the friendly, helpful and caring spirits of the book but seem, instead, to be enjoying making Scrooge suffer rather than helping him to learn.

Overall I found the movie to be cold, depressing and one of the least satisfying versions of A Christmas Carol that I have ever seen. I own more than 20 different versions of this story on tape and DVD. This version will NOT be part of my collection.

---

15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
A Fun Ride! - Must see in 3D, 6 November 2009

Author: lucas9109 from United States

A Christmas Carol was very entertaining and the animation was superb. You must see it in 3D! However, kids who go and see this movie probably won't understand the majority of the dialogue and will probably get lost. It has a lot of adult situations and the accents are pretty thick as well. Also, don't let the PG rating fool you. It's actually quite mature and in my opinion it's more suited for adults than kids as far as the dialogue and story goes. I think both kids and adults will love the animation and have a lot of fun - especially in 3D! Unfortunately, that might be the only thing the kids will like...Nonetheless, it's a great film and it's definitely Oscar worthy for the animation. I'll definitely be seeing it again in theaters and in 3D!

---

14 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
Boring and indigested over-than-perfection, 3 November 2009

Author: Mihnea the Pitbull from Romania

Robert Zemeckis lost his humanity. Led into temptation by the C.G.I., the SFX and all the awesomeness of modern movie-making technology, he is now devoid of all the emotion, freshness, thrills that made the fame and valor of his previous masterpieces, as "Back to the Future" or the unforgettable "Forrest Gump".

The danger was in air already since the tiresome and useless "Beowulf", but now it became plain for all to see.

"A Christmas Carol" is simply too perfect, in all its spectacular redundancy, to be able to express any feeling at all anymore. It's like a genetically modified tomato injected with steroids - huge and spherical and tasteless, with an eau-de-cologne flavor. It's so permanently over-the-top, that it becomes limp and boring.

Well, it's obvious that modern cinema moves on its way towards this key of expression, so the lesson to be gathered by all, out of Zemeckis' artistic passing away, is quite obvious: learn to become MASTERS of the new profession - not its SLAVES!

---

9 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
A mostly loyal, thus successful, adaptation, 6 November 2009

Author: GiveMeJustice from United States

Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is perhaps the most recognized story about the holiday within our culture and it's also one of our definitive tales of redemption regardless of season. Robert Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol is a fairly loyal film adaptation that succeeds, for the most part, because of exactly that. Dickens created an enduring masterwork that has the same amount of thematic resonance today as it did when it was originally published in the 19th century. Simply retelling this classic story will make for an enjoyable film. When Zemeckis stays true to the source material and tackles the themes of selfishness, regret, and, ultimately, redemption, the film works very well. The 3D animation is also truly stunning and allows the viewer to enter this beautifully crafted Victorian era world. However, the film does occasionally diverge from Dickens' story and becomes a rather crass corporate product. For instance, there's an unnecessary and tedious chase sequence towards the end of the film. Still, because of its mostly faithful treatment to the original work and the wonderful animation, this version of A Christmas Carol is quite satisfying.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Not great, but not bad...., 6 November 2009

Author: Bruce from Columbus, OH

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

A Christmas Carol – let's face it, this is one of the most powerful ever tales written, and has well withstood the test of time. With good reason, the story has been told many times both in live action and in purely animated forms (there is an animated version starring Mr. Magoo that is actually rather good in my mind). The challenge each time is to tell a story that follows the viewer's expectations of the story while trying to be fresh about it.

Thus, we have the most recent incarnation, done using motion photography of actors which is converted into animated video. So, how does this version stand up?

Well, it isn't the best, and it isn't the worst either. Zemeckis has taken an old story, stayed true to it, and created a somewhat unique version of it.

Now, I saw the 3D version of it. Frankly, with the exception of a couple of places, the 3D added a minor amount of interest to the story. To give Zemeckis credit, he generally didn't shove the 3D into the watcher's face.

Nevertheless, the problem with the film is that much time in spent in pure spectacle. Some was OK – when the Spirit of Christmas Past takes Scrooge back in time, the flying sequence is short, exciting and adds some interest. However, when the Spirit of Christmas Future takes Scrooge, there is a long chase sequence that is reminiscent of the 3 Stooges and Saturday morning cartoons. This disrupts the flow of what should be one of the most serious and scary parts of the film. Character portrayal was uneven. Certainly, Carrey's Scrooge is quite good, as was his portrayal of many of the characters. I will admit, Carrey has come a long way from such movies as Ace Ventura. He demonstrates a good range of acting in the portrayal of the various Dicken's characters.

But the portrayal of some of the other character's left me scratching my head. In particular, the animated version of Bob Cratchit reminded me of Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman for some reason. And the movie's end seems sudden and left some ends loose. For example, Scrooge sends a turkey to the Cratchit family, but then there is no follow-up – what happened when this massive bird suddenly appears at his doorstep?

So, overall, a decent enough film – but with flaws.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
a high-point for director Zemeckis, and a good step forward in motion-capture, 9 November 2009

Author: MisterWhiplash from United States

I wonder if Robert Zemeckis weren't a filmmaker if he would have become a pilot. Look at his films and you may find a recurring shot in them, if not all then at least a good lot of them: a shot up in the sky, flying around and bringing the audience along (i.e. the feather in Forrest Gump, the pull-back through the valley and mountains in Beowulf, Back to the Future with the flying Dolorean), and here too are shots like that, more than one in fact. It's exhilarating to see Zemeckis at a mastery of this particular shot, and in the full scope and awe in 3D it's even stronger to watch and wonder 'how did they do it(?)' With motion-capture, anything is possible... except, sadly, making one feel a true emotional connection to the material.

Oh, don't get me wrong. It's an improvement over The Polar Express, whose creepiness was more unto itself and jarring as opposed to serving the story, and one can already see advancements in the technology from Beowulf, which was also lots of fun and had an edge to it allowed only with the digital animation. But for some reason- maybe my heart is a lump of coal or I wasn't in the right Christmas spirit or something- the material in the film didn't connect with me, except those moments that were funny (intentionally or not, sometimes due to Jim Carrey's performance), and it became something peculiar. It's a story that is practically timeless, and the director is at the top of his game, almost at the same control of the medium for a particular story like Forrest Gump or Back to the Future - maybe more-so.

It's also still a WOOSH experience, not carrying the same time and effort for characters to really feel fully human before our eyes like, for example, Up did back in the summer. I mention all of this first since the story we all know pretty much (as an aside, I kept thinking back to the first incarnation of the story I saw as a child, the Muppet Christmas Carol, and marveled at how both that and this film kept much of the book's dialog and storytelling devices exactly), and it's almost pointless to recant it here. What is paramount to mention though is that Zemeckis, in keeping with the tone of the original Dickens text (and having the clout that he has), makes it a true Victorian horror movie.

It should be said also that children will be hit or miss with this version; while they'll delight and be awed by the animation and moments of craziness (my favorite being the scene with the ghost Marley and his entire presentation before Scrooge, unhooked jaw uneasily included), they may be put off by the "old" language, some of it in that olde 19th century English Dickens wrote in. Perhaps this is why, against his own better judgment, Zemeckis decided to add in a few scenes to change the very faithful adaptation, the key one being the chase through the streets of London in the Christmas-Future sequence. This is smack dab in the middle of what is the best segment of the film - seeing death as a silhouette with a bony finger and Scrooge's stark pleas is truly chilling - and it suddenly makes it also the worst. It kills the tension and makes a strange sensation: does one laugh at a tiny-voiced Scrooge running around like a mini Daffy Duck cartoon while he's supposed to be facing down his own demise? It's entertaining to watch, but awkward to behold at this point of the story.

That the motion-capture, for all of its beauty and detail in the faces and people and locations and dazzling set-pieces, doesn't engage on a purely spiritual level (not even to the extent that 'Muppet Christmas' did, that at least had the ghost of Henson on the production to keep things truly haunting), is somewhat forgivable for what Zemeckis does accomplish here. He puts a modern spin on a classic tale, makes it approximately dark and mostly uncompromising for all ages- adults will jump possibly more than the kids at the WHOA effects- and Jim Carrey is nothing short of astonishing.

Carrey plays Scrooge in such a bravura way that only calls attention to itself as a dramatic part (only toward the end, when he becomes "happy" Scrooge are there a few unintentional laughs), and it may even be the best Scrooge seen in many years in any medium. Added to this are his *other* parts in the film, as the ghosts of Christmas past and present, the former creepy just on the pronunciation of 's'. Others like Gary Oldman and Colin Firth come off more or less fine if not remarkable (Oldman as Marley is fantastic - as Cratchit, a Oldman-faced Hobbit, is another thing).

---

8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Lacking a bit of Spirit, 9 November 2009

Author: David Ferguson (fergusontx@gmail.com) from Dallas, Texas

Greetings again from the darkness. This is a stunningly visual film with animation that will take your breath away. My eyes could hardly keep up with the opening credits as we "flew" through the city. However, as amazing as the film looks and as wonderful as the Jim Carrey voices are, the film still lacks something.

What may have happened is that some of the Dickens story was cut due to costs and the desire to concentrate on Scrooge. I am not saying it was a mistake, it just prevents us from ever connecting to the plight of Cratchet (Gary Oldman) or Scrooge's nephew (Colin Firth).

One thing is for sure, the spirits are frightening. Marley's spirit will have kids running for the exits or hiding behind parents. That will probably hurt the film as it will need kids to build any type of box score.

Definitely worth seeing for the visuals, but certainly not in the top versions if you really want to capture the spirit of Dickens' novel.

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot synopsis	Ratings	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history