Related Sections: Animation Movies Reviews
Spooked by A Christmas Carol's creepy CGI? Get over it.
In spite of the many complaints and criticisms lobbied by viewers of The Polar Express, I liked it, and here again with a growing tide of dissenters, I like A Christmas Carol as well. I say this not to position myself as some sort of maverick, but to acknowledge that there's something about these motion-capture CGI movies that works for me.
Whether it works for you, however, is another matter; but while director Robert Zemeckis' technique is but the most obvious of the obstacles audiences will face when watching the film, A Christmas Carol is a remarkable and effective adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel that manages to overcome the familiarity of its source material and become something more fulfilling.
Jim Carrey plays Ebenezer Scrooge, the iconic miser visited by three spirits on Christmas Eve after a life largely bereft of generosity and happiness. The first spirit, the Ghost of Christmas Past (also Carrey), shows him his lonely childhood and the end of his relationship with Belle (Robin Wright Penn). The second, the Ghost of Christmas Present (Carrey again), reveals the feelings of Scrooge's current employee, Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman), and of his nephew Fred (Colin Firth). But the third, the Ghost of Christmas Future, confronts him with the disturbing and inevitable possibility of a dim and lonely end to his life, inspiring him to reconsider his spendthrift and inhospitable ways and invite friends and family into his life before its ends, sadly and unceremoniously.
The Polar Express already felt like Robert Zemeckis' attempt to create a modern-day Christmas Carol, so in a way it's unsurprising that he would eventually adapt the actual story into a similar film. At the same time, however, there's no getting around the fact that Dickens' story has been adapted and updated more than almost any in movie history, which begs the question why now is the right time to do it again, and with this technology. Cynically, it seems like Disney probably wanted a new "definitive" adaptation for their catalog of titles (their previous version was a 1983 animated adaptation starring Scrooge McDuck), and Zemeckis was the obvious choice for director since he could bring a sufficient amount of energy and technical prowess to such an effort.
Unsurprisingly, however, even if that was the reason, Disney was right: While there's certainly a contemporary, kinetic energy Zemeckis brings to the film, he also gives it emotional depth, thanks also to Carrey in the central role. In particular, Zemeckis seems to enjoy trampling the line between kid-friendly and just plain freaky entertainment, and he renders a journey for Scrooge that's extremely intense; the flying sequences, much like the theme-park segments of Polar Express, are dizzyingly exhilarating, especially writ large in 3-D on a massive IMAX screen, and the Ghost of Christmas Future is genuinely terrifying, even for adults. At the same time, he manages to make the character's cathartic transformation rewarding and powerful, at least in the way that we feel compelled to share in his newfound exuberance and generosity, and manages not to succumb to treacle even in a story that is exceedingly susceptible to it.
Carrey clearly relishes the opportunity to play so many different roles in one movie, and he makes the most out of each characterization. That said, my favorite is his flame-headed Ghost of Christmas Past, who impishly flickers and dodges just like a real candle, except with Carrey's complete, hilarious self-awareness at the center of its febrile unpredictability. But the film gains a fascinating momentum as the story proceeds, jumping from one set piece to the next, evolving in its visual and conceptual complexity, and Zemeckis' steady hand is the main force that keeps it from becoming too wild, too weird or just too familiar.
For example, during the "Christmas Present" sequence, the floor of Scrooge's house essentially turns to glass, rising into the air and hovering ominously over the locations where lessons will eventually be imparted; it's comforting and unnerving at the same time, but completely unique visually. And even though Scrooge's transformation into a dormouse-sized fugitive being hunted by Christmas Future and its black mares occasionally veers into unnecessarily volatile action, especially for a Dickens adaptation, the spectral physicality of the ghost is ominous and menacing, but it shapes and steers Scrooge's eventual realization rather than merely being an empty action set piece.
As for folks who still have issues with motion capture and the glazed look in characters' eyes, much of that has long since been resolved, and even though there are certainly some occasionally inauthentic gestures and behavior, the textures and movement are truly better than ever. But ultimately, A Christmas Carol manages to be more than a technical achievement; even if it's not the watershed moment in moviemaking that its predecessor was, it's worthwhile entertainment. Moreover, it's one of the more remarkable adaptations of this particular Dickens work to date, which is why it should win you over whether you think that the story has been sapped of its effectiveness or still has life left in it to explore.
By divephotog at 10:26 AM ON 11/06/09
Truthfully, I look forwards to it for the cast, heck if it is CGI or pencil drawn work... -kh
By Zaphod at 10:49 AM ON 11/06/09
With both the Reginald Owen and Alistair Sims version out there, why bother remaking it over and over and over...
Especially with Jim Carrey.
By ken at 11:07 AM ON 11/06/09
Nice article! I too believe that people should quit crying over the fact that performance capture doesn't look 100% like live action. Remember, the technique was INVENTED in 2004 with Polar Express, so obviously there's room for improvement. John Lasseter, from Pixar studios, always said a movie should be judged "by the story" and not by the animation alone. I hope Christmas Carol does spectacular in the box office.
By sto2000 at 11:30 AM ON 11/06/09
Spooked by the obvious crappy CGI? Well get used to it! With all the work CGI work being done in Taiwan, Korea, and now China (who's doing it basically for freeto get a stranglehold on the market;) NOTHING CGI wise is done in the US anymore! So what if its crap, and cheap looking!
By xadrian at 11:59 AM ON 11/06/09
I wrote a review of ACC a few days ago and touched on this specifically. The problem with the creepy or well done CGA is that it pushes right up to being almost real but is just a little off. So our brains think it's real some times and not others and it gives us an innate sense of being wrong but we can't tell why. It's the Uncanny Valley and it's nothing to do with whining or crying about it, it's a cognitive dissonance we don't have much control over.
That said, the movie is really top notch. The animation and perf. capt. are really high quality. The only time, for me, that it was hard to deal with was the Fezziwig dancing. It was ok for the spirits to be fantastical, but when people leave the ground dancing, it looked wrong.
Good film. Would go again.
By jrkroll at 12:02 PM ON 11/06/09
NO Thanks.. can't anyone get rid of this freaky ride..i'm tired of movies be referred to as roller coasters of action..if i wanted a roller coaster i would ride one.
By Watch Free Movies at 12:51 PM ON 11/06/09
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.
By FresnoTimeLord at 12:54 PM ON 11/06/09
I loved Polar Express! Its amazing how they got it to look just like the movie.
As for the Christmas Carol. How many versions have we seen. Black and White, Colour, 2d cartoon, Muppet...Why not do a CGI Version..And it looks really good.
Why do people have to be such shrills when it comes to CGI! As long as we still have people doing 2D Animaiton movies..I say bring on more CGI movies like this!
It's Just art.
By FresnoTimeLord at 12:56 PM ON 11/06/09
Ooops..I mean to say:
I loved Polar Express! Its amazing how they got the movie to look just like the "Book"!
By macmikey at 1:04 PM ON 11/06/09
"But the third, the Ghost of Christmas Future, confronts him with the disturbing and inevitable possibility of a dim and lonely end to his life, inspiring him to reconsider his SPENDTHRIFT and inhospitable ways and invite friends and family into his life before its ends, sadly and unceremoniously."
spendthrift:
–noun
1. a person who spends possessions or money extravagantly or wastefully; prodigal.
–adjective
2. wastefully extravagant; prodigal.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spendthrift)
Perhaps "miserly" is what you meant?
5th Captcha.
By Robert Barnett at 1:17 PM ON 11/06/09
What I would like to know is why we needed another version of this old, tired, used and abused to death long ago turned boring story again.
Can they do something different?
Robert
By surfdude at 1:52 PM ON 11/06/09
The reviewer missed the 1992 classic 'The Muppet Christmas Carol' which is actually Disney's most recent Scrooge catalog title (and IMHO one of the best adaptations of Dicken's novel.) A truly creative, fun, warm family film with Michael Caine and those clasic muppets. Both films use new artistic techniques but this latest CGI incarnation will have a tough time upping the Muppet classic.
By z18 at 2:54 PM ON 11/06/09
I don't have a huge issue with the CG, but question whether we really need another Christmas Carrol adaptation.
My personal favorite has always been the Muppet version.
By jimspar at 6:01 PM ON 11/06/09
I don't care what it looks like, I am as tired of the story as a lot of you are. The Muppet's and Scrooged are the best.
By Carole Ford at 6:40 PM ON 11/06/09
Looking forward to seeing it! I'm always up for a new version of A Christmas Carol
By REDante at 8:19 PM ON 11/06/09
I dont really see anything truly wrong with the CGI, I think in the end its all about the business. I mean the polar express wasnt the most successful. It do well when it came to money but is by far not considered a classic CGI movie compared to others.
And everyone has seemed to forget to mention Beowulf. That movie also used the same CGI, and even if it did well finacially, again it seems like a very forgettable movie. The reviewer didnt mention and not many of you mentioned it.
So Im sure that a movie like this will be a finacial success, will it be revered as a classic, comapred to other Chrimast Carols, compared to other CGI movies......we'll see.
Compared to Beowulf and the Polar Express Im sure itll be the more successful of the 3. Will it have the same impact as previous CGI movies, such as UP, Wall-E, Kung-Fu Panda, Finding Nemo, FFVII Advent Children....meh personally I think not. But let's see how it goes.
By hair salon london at 12:57 AM ON 11/07/09
The polar expressed is amazing.... i really like it.
By Sean Huxter at 9:31 AM ON 11/08/09
As a pinko commie liberal left-winger, this story means more to me than any other story written in the English language, and woe betide anyone who messes with it. I hold its truth to be self-evident - that I am involved with mankind, and will not ask for whom the bell tolls, because I know it tolls for me.
And it is with that said, that I now say, this was probably the finest adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" I've ever seen, and I've seen them all.
Until tonight, Alastair Simm was the only Ebenezer Scrooge. Others hoped to be, but failed. Even Bill Murray, who I admit came close, pales when seen in the brilliant light of Alastair Simm.
And it's fortunate that Jim Carrey studied that man's performance and did a fine version of it.
From the opening scenes of one long several-minute seamless shot flying over London Towne to the final frame of Tiny Tim astride Scrooge's shoulders, this was a masterpiece of visual perfection and probably the closest adaptation of the book yet done. Line by line it was almost perfect with an occasional embellishment thrown in.
I was made somewhat uncomfortable, however, by the audience, many of whom were laughing at inappropriate moments, moments that, if you really understood the story, they should have been crying. (I was.) This is not really a kids' film. Not for very young kids anyway. And for them there are many reasonably-aimed adaptations they can watch. This one set out to be correct, to do the story justice, and it succeeds.
I will say, though, that there were about 6 minutes I would have cut out completely, and those are the minutes I feared existed, and fortunately most of them are in the trailer, so once those are gone, they're gone. They serve not to forward the story one jot, but rather to slam the brakes on, and all in the name of some visual roller-coaster-ride for the kids. And since it's for the kids, I'll forgive it, because otherwise, this is one dark, serious tale, and it's told for the most part straight, without unnecessary addition or subtraction.
Marley's haunting was near perfect. Line by line from the book, Marley spoke as if he felt the pain of humanity on his soul, and dammit you believed it.
The first spirit was a master work. The flaming candle that showed Scrooge his past in detail that probably even succeeds better than the book. The one or two head flips he does for effect can, again, be forgiven, in light of the fact that it was for the kids.
But again, comic relief is not required. This story is a deep, hard story to take in if told straight, and it should be. Its lesson cannot be conveyed in an atmosphere that is light and jolly. While moments must be light and jolly (including the nostalgic exaggeration of the dancing at Fezziwig's) to contrast it with the black-heart of Scrooge's soul, it is the darkness and despair we must feel to believe Scrooge's miraculous redemption.
The second haunting was nearly perfect as well, the spirit is a boisterous, jolly man, which belies the condition of many of those celebrants of Christmas this year as best humanized by the plight of Bob Cratchet and his dark, cold, house that while bereft of luxuries, is filled with love.
The third haunting was where the trouble began, sadly. This held most of the minutes I would have cut from the film. But we eventually got to the point - the fact that none would mourn Ebenezer's death, and in fact, the only positive feelings come from a couple who are glad he's dead as their debt to him may now get transferred to someone not nearly as miserly, heartless and cruel.
Even Ebenezer's caricatured face didn't make it a cartoon. From Scrooge's first growl you believed him as a solid, real person. And when his inevitable turnaround happens, again, you're right there with him.
Unlike the nasty effect that haunted Zemeckis's last CGI effort - "The Polar Express" - whose CGI characters were so close to reality but so far that they fell into the "uncanny valley", (that creepy feeling that something that attempts to so closely mimic reality that it fails completely because it isn't 100% perfect) this film easily vaults over this valley with an effect that is nigh perfect, especially in the main character.
"Mankind was my business", laments Marley, dead these seven years. This timeless lesson has been given a new lease on life thanks to the team that produced this piece.
A second lesson can be learned this season - that yes, a CGI adaptation of a classic story can be nearly perfect, if given over to people who care, and if this story means as much to you as it does to me, then you must see it, and see it in 3D wherever possible.
My hat is off and I'm giving a standing ovation to all involved in this film.
By TheVok at 10:13 AM ON 11/09/09
"Get over it"?! Uh, no. Movies are a visual medium ... and the stills you've posted with this review are more than sufficient to let me know I'd be completely put off by the visuals of this movie.
I'm not going to begrudge anyone for enjoying this movie (I'm glad it sounds like the source material was taken seriously), but please don't tell those of us disgusted by Zemeckis' hideous mo-cap imagery to just 'get over it.'
By scubafiend at 1:50 PM ON 11/11/09
I found Polar Express a little disconcerting at first, but I'm hopeful that Christmas Carol will show a little better facial expression. I will not miss this film and suspect it may end up on my iphone each holiday season. I am hopeful!
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
scubafiend:
I found Polar Express a little disconcerting at first, but I'm hopeful that Christmas Carol will show a little bett...More »