blogspot
visitor
Christmas Carol, A Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

xmascarol3sm.jpg
Won’t Someone Think of the Children?


A Christmas Carol / Agent Bedhead

Film Reviews | November 9, 2009 | Comments (37)


Well, you didn’t hear this from me, but it’s really starting to look as if a bunch of Hollywood producers and directors met up at some sort of illicit meeting, where these nefarious types get together to scare the living hell of your children. The poor things have barely just recovered from Spike Jonze’s Wild Things adaptation, and now Robert Zemeckis has whipped up a 3D motion-capture film (his third, after Beowulf and The Polar Express) that will not only make the kiddies’ hair stand on end but also cause it to flee back into follicle-land. So, do enjoy your bald kid, but let me also emphasize the seldomness with which I specifically mention my own daughter’s opinion on movies because, as most parents can probably attest, kids dig almost everything that’s tossed their way in the theater. None of us exactly begins life with impeccible taste (with the exception of Lil’ Pajiba, who, presumably, sleeps underneath a Ryan Reynolds poster and has been righteously schooled on the relative merits of “Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pizza Place”). Hell, my daughter had the audacity to enjoy a certain Tyler Perry movie (the sitter crapped out on me that day, which meant a lovely discussion about racism and sexism during the car ride home) merely because, after two hours of boredom, it ended with a dancing scene. A few years later, things have gotten a bit better, and, when it comes to the subject matter of this review, my daughter is already familiar with the original Charles Dickens tale in its printed incarnation, and she’s seen a few of the existing movie adaptations. Even so, I witnessed a certain nine-year old covering her eyes at least a dozen times while watching Disney’s (yes, that Disney) version of a A Christmas Carol.

Most (if not all) post-puberty moviegoers already know the story of Ebeneezer Scrooge, so spoilers are really a non-issue here. What matters is how well the story is portrayed, how well the motion-capture technology works, and whether the well-known cast carries their end of the deal. To be certain, this isn’t your typical saccharine-laden Disney flick, which tends to cheerily obliterate original subject matter, and there’s a lot to be said for breaking that Disney mold. Still, it seems that Zemeckis, while adapting the screenplay and directing, never really stopped to contemplate his intended audience. Don’t get me wrong though—this is a truly spectacular film and, arguably, the most faithful adaptation of Dicken’s 1843 novella in terms of spirit. However, this is an alarmingly frightening movie for its (presumably) intended Disneyfied audience, and parents should be strongly cautioned for exposing any child under the age of twelve to this flick.

Visually speaking, A Christmas Carol is what critics would describe as breathtaking, particularly during Scrooge’s flights with the Ghost of Christmas Past. Of course, Dickensian London is a largely coal-coated, filthy, and wretched sight to behold, and, despite the Christmas Eve setting, none of the gloom or poverty are played down here, nor should they be. A Christmas Carol is not a warm and fuzzy tale, nor is it filled with characters with whom you’d grab Sunday brunch. Throughout his career, Charles Dickens excelled at capturing the grotesque realism of life, and Zemeckis has taken great care to replicate this vision; but it’s not a terribly pretty process, and things become downright horrifying when the supernatural arrives at Scrooge’s gloomy manor. When old business partner Marley arrives, he is proceeded by the rattling of chains that are soon flung mercilessly into the audience (if you’re doing the 3D thing), and, in a grisly spectacle, his seven-year-dead jaw actually becomes unhinged while warning Scrooge of his impending visitors. The respective ghosts also contribute their own respective creepiness into the mix, and while the Ghost of Christmas Past appears as a cute flame-headed candle, things quickly take a more ominous turn with the Ghost of Christmas Present, who starts out as a jolly old Santa Claus type but devolves into a malignant, laughing menace who not only reveals two feral children beneath his robes but then dissolves into a shrieking skeleton. This horror is amplified by Ghost of Things Yet To Come, a shadowy figure who merely points to indicators of doom, but then Zemeckis takes things further by shrinking Scrooge down to rodent size and forcing him to flee from a hearse, which is drawn by horses with frightening red eyes that resemble that of a Terminator. Scrooge’s tale is a cautionary one that dearly frightens him, and the film means to frighten its audience as well.

All of this is done in an extraordinary manner, and, quite clearly, Zemeckis has steadily improved upon his motion-capture obsession, in which the actors are filmed before getting tweaked into animation oblivion. Some actors draw a better hand than others, and Jim Carrey, who not only plays Scrooge at all ages but also the three ghosts who torment him, is visible in all of his incarnations. Slightly less lucky is Colin Firth, who looks quite botoxed but still recognizable as Scrooge’s optimistic nephew, Fred. Poor Gary Oldman though, in his turns as the ghost of Marley, Cratchit (Scrooge’s long-suffering clerk), and Tiny Tim (Cratchit’s son), is another matter altogether and ends up looking like a damn Hobbit. Oddly, in a bit of a A Princess Bride reunion, both Robin Wright Penn and Cary Elwes pop in for a few bit roles, but the focus is far removed from these players and, instead, centered upon Scrooge. Of course, not even Scrooge exists to be analyzed as a full-fledged character, and comparing him to today’s excessively captialistic villains — say, Kenneth Lay or Bernie Madoff — would prove to be a fruitless exercise. Similarly, any other meaning-seeking questions are rather irrelevant here, and we needn’t wonder why Scrooge gets a second chance to right the wrongs set in place by a life of bitterness, while so many spirits are doomed to haunt the Earth. What we have here is a ghost story, no more and no less, and that’s how Dickens wrote it, and if you think Scrooge’s sudden change of heart is supposed to make sense, well, you’d be wrong about that. Overall, this version of A Christmas Carol takes us back to where Dickens began, which is magnificent place to visit, that is, unless it scares the crap out of you.

Agent Bedhead lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be found at agentbedhead.com.


Pajiba Love 11/09/09 | The Best Werewolf Movies of the Last 30 Years





Comments

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Sounds like one bad ass Santa, I'll rank with Zim (bow down before jolly boots of Doom) Santa and Futurama Santa.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 9, 2009 3:13 PM

The only version of the Christmas Carol that I'll watch is the Muppet Christmas Carol.

The rest is CRAP! CRAP I TELL YOU!

Posted by: Vi at November 9, 2009 3:18 PM

I didn't expect this, but it's still terrible that they marketed it as a kids flick. Maybe I'll see it on cable, though, as that stop motion effect should be reserved for videogames, and nothing else.

Posted by: George at November 9, 2009 3:19 PM

how well the stop-motion technology works

Do you mean motion capture? Gumby, Rudolph, and the Hoth battle in Empire Strikes Back were stop-motion.

Posted by: pissant at November 9, 2009 3:21 PM

Mr. Magoo's "A Christmas Carol" was responsible for frightening a young Spender. I can't imagine being six years old and being subjected to this film.
As a grown up, I'll likely see this one... despite my loathing of Jim Carrey.

Posted by: Spender at November 9, 2009 3:29 PM

So ghosts=scary. Huh.

Posted by: laredo at November 9, 2009 3:41 PM

Kudos to pissant and Lucas for doing what I couldn't: finding non-snarky ways to point out the stop-motion/motion capture slips in today's program.

Posted by: laredo at November 9, 2009 3:58 PM

i'm afraid it's Scrooged or bust for me, but glad to hear it's not total shite.

(well okay, the muppet version's pretty good too. and the george c. scott one. but that's it!)

Posted by: emily at November 9, 2009 4:02 PM

laredo,
Oh, my tongue is bleeding. And, yet, it has not been corrected...

Posted by: pissant at November 9, 2009 4:32 PM

Damn, I almost forgot something: am I nuts, or did Zemeckis throw in, during the visit of the Ghost of Christmas Present, a little suh'um suh'um new about how maybe not all religious folks are necessarily entirely always on the up and up? SPICY!

Posted by: laredo at November 9, 2009 4:38 PM

Nope, It's Alastair Sim or bust.

Posted by: BWeaves at November 9, 2009 4:40 PM

Anybody catch Patrick Stewart's 1 man show of 'A Christmas Carol?'
Genius.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 5:40 PM

Wait, this doesn't suck?

This AND "The Box"?

*rereads "Scathing reviews, bitchy people" and wonders what happened to the Pajiba he used to know*

Posted by: , (TCFKAB) at November 9, 2009 5:46 PM

Zemeckis has steadily improved upon his stop-motion obsession

Come on, guys, ya got one of 'em.

Posted by: pissant at November 9, 2009 5:49 PM

Is there anyone else besides myself who fundamentally loathes Dickens' writing style? I wanted to cry when I was finally able to manage my way through A Christmas Carol and don't even get me started on the drawn-out, adjective-dependent, bore-fest that is "Great Expectations", IMO of course...I'm with the peeps that say the Muppets are the only ones who made the material fun.

Posted by: california angel at November 9, 2009 5:54 PM

I was so impressed by this movie. I went into it with "eh, it's Disney" expectations but was blown away. I loved the relentless creepiness and its refusal to compromise the original story's tone for cheap laughs and/or sappy holiday cheer. The scene with the "shrieking skeleton" ghost of Christmas Present was one of the most disturbing things I've seen in film lately.

This definitely was not targeted toward kids though, holy cow. I made the mistake of bringing my 7 year old sister (again, Disney) and she spent a good portion of the movie with her face buried my shoulder. Shit, during a few scenes we were both shrinking into our seats. It was kinda awesome.

Posted by: Dingles at November 9, 2009 6:13 PM

california angel:
Who reads this shit? We watch the damn movies! :-}

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 6:28 PM

But how does Zemeckis' film compare with arguably the most successful adaptation of this material; 'Ghosts of Girlfriends Past'?

Posted by: Daniel Hall at November 9, 2009 6:44 PM

What??? It's good????

*faints*

Posted by: Janey at November 9, 2009 8:02 PM

Don't ask me why, but I swear the intro pic over at AB made me think of Hugh Hefner.

Posted by: jmflynny at November 9, 2009 8:24 PM

Helloooo the only version worth watching is the Muppets.

Posted by: grace b at November 9, 2009 8:28 PM

california angel: I could never get through any Dickens book except A Tale of Two Cities. I found everything else profoundly boring.

Posted by: figgy at November 9, 2009 9:43 PM

BWeaves, I love you for that Alastair Sim comment.

Posted by: The Wanderer at November 9, 2009 10:40 PM

Huh. I completely expected this to suck enormously. I don't think I ever saw the actual trailer for this, but based on the TV spots it looked like it was going to be 90 minutes of slapstick Jim Carrey and 3D gimmicks. Not my idea of a good time, especially since I love the Patrick Stewart made-for-TV version of A Christmas Carol. I make a point to watch it every year.

But after reading this review I may have to tone down my initial dislike of the movie and give it a try.

Posted by: giovanni at November 9, 2009 10:59 PM

"...forcing him to flea from a hearse" do you mean flee? And by the way fleeing from this site that thinks kids movies can't be scary may be what I need to do in order to stop the insanity. First you act like the wild things should have been a happy happy affair and now you think Scrooge shouldn't scare? wtf. Kids can handle the scary parts of life, they do it every day and are much more aware than many seem to realize.

Posted by: clarity at November 9, 2009 11:52 PM

Haha Gary Oldman plays Tiny Tim. I agree with clarity, this site kind of underestimates kids sometimes, kids like scary movies and the best kids films are the scary ones.

Posted by: Steph at November 10, 2009 10:03 AM

Is there anyone else besides myself who fundamentally loathes Dickens' writing style? I wanted to cry when I was finally able to manage my way through A Christmas Carol and don't even get me started on the drawn-out, adjective-dependent, bore-fest that is "Great Expectations", IMO of course...I'm with the peeps that say the Muppets are the only ones who made the material fun.

Posted by: california angel at November 9, 2009 5:54 PM
------------
His shorter works, (like "A Christmas Carol" are fine. In fact, I love it and I read it around Christmas time more years than not.

"Great Expectations", however, I agree totally about. "Oliver Twist" was tough, but I didn't have to finish it once I realized how awful it was. "Great Expectations" was required reading in my high school, and I nearly ended up gouging out my eyes to avoid having to finish it. You can tell he was being paid by the word with that one.

Of his long form stuff, "A Tale of Two Cities" is the only one I was ever able to finish, mainly because it is awesome multiplied by awesome. If you understand the culture he was writing about, many of his jokes are hilarious, and many of his characters are interesting.... but stylistically he's uneven at best.

As for the movie... I'm shocked. I expected this to be utter dreck. For me, it's Patrick Stewart > Bill Murray = Alistair Sims > all, up to this point. I expected this to slot in handily at the back of the pack.

While I'm mentioning Patrick Stewart.... do we have any Brits in the house? And if so, did any of you see Stewart and Ian McKellen doing "Waiting for Godot" (I guess it was this past spring)?

Posted by: ZombieScientist at November 10, 2009 11:10 AM

whoever said the muppet christmas carol rules the day was spot on. i don't want to be creeped out on christmas.

halloween? creep me out.

thanksgiving? feed me food.

christmas? make me happy.

see? it's just so easy.

Posted by: jimmy at November 10, 2009 1:03 PM

This guy had an interesting take on the story: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4045

Posted by: babysledge at November 10, 2009 1:44 PM

' Anybody catch Patrick Stewart's 1 man show of 'A Christmas Carol?'
Genius.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 5:40 PM '

Yes, yes, YES! Also, if I remember correctly, it seemed to be a pretty faithful rendition as well. On the Hallmark Channel no less. Is it me, or did a piece of sky just fall down?

Posted by: TweeBubblyKlutz at November 11, 2009 8:46 AM

Also, no offence to those complaining about Dickens' writing style, but... what are ya', a bunch of crybabies? Honestly, people, you crack me up. English is not my first language, heck, it's not even my second, and lemme tell you, Shakespeare is just not the same translated. And yes, I've read his complete works. In Elizabethan English. Dickens too, only his was Victorian English. Loved them both. Didn't think it took anything away from the stories but added to them, in a good way. Stop whining!

Posted by: TweeBubblyKlutz at November 11, 2009 9:05 AM

Disliking a writing style is whining? I can say honestly that I'm probably one of the better read cats you will ever meet. I'm not limiting myself. I simply don't like his style.

Shakespeare works better in older forms of English, because the puns and jokes come through better, and he was simply an absolute master of the language. It's actually a bit of a tragedy that it is now standard to perform his plays in a stilted Victorian vernacular than in the original Elizabethan English. I think that's part of the reason so many high school kids find it incomprehensible.

Dickens was not comparable, really. His characters were excellent. His language was decent. Witty at times, with a good ear for turns of phrase, but often his wit was swallowed by cumbersome wording, which is most notable in the serialized works that he was paid for by the word. Structurally, many of his stories are a mess, for the same reason. Remember that most of his works were not published as books until much later. They were originally published in magazines as serials. Structure that works in a serial does NOT necessarily work in novel form, and he was trying to game the system by fluffing the word count.

He was a very skilled writer in a lot of ways, but there were many occasions where he was deliberately padding his own work with extra words and repetitive clauses to drag the story out and collect more paychecks. It's impressive, in a way, that it remained intelligible, but it is not as enjoyable to read, in my opinion, as it would have been if he had a better editor.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at November 11, 2009 9:57 AM

Irony mode engaged: that post could really have used an editor.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at November 11, 2009 9:58 AM

No irony, you're absolutely right. I know that, and I was just as aware of it hours ago when I posted said comment. I wasn't drunk, so that excuse is no good. I may be a bit rusty. And your comment is more than pertinent. Mine was a rather uninformed and subjective opinion.
Does waking up on the wrong side of the bed qualify as an excuse? Although it's not entirely accurate, so that won't get me off the hook either. Well at least NOW I'm genuinely drunk, so that's that.
Fuck it, I was a bitch for no reason at all.

All that aside, will you marry me, I'm pretty sure I'm crushing on you?!

Posted by: TweeBubblyKlutz at November 11, 2009 9:26 PM

Heh. I was actually referring to my own post needing an editor. I have some missing words and a couple of those sentences had a Dickensian problem with extra clauses, which is all ironical, since I had my rant on about Dickens.

As for the bitchiness... no worries. If you hadn't been bitchy, I wouldn't have had a reason to run my mouth off, and I love me an opportunity to run my mouth off.

Also, I am very flattered, but for any and all marriage proposals, I refer you to my agent, Mrs. ZombieScientist. I cannot guarantee anything with regard to how she will receive the idea.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at November 12, 2009 5:31 PM

Well, that's what I love about being 'slightly' drunk. Next day you can always blame any and every thing on those couple of drinks, or just claim with the utmost innocence ( puppy dog eyed and all, you know the kind ) that you don't remember anything, yet still swear on Leonard Cohen's music that it would not, could not, and it most definately had not been you. Oh, darn, that was Shaggy, I always get the two of them confused. :D

Posted by: TweeBubblyKlutz at November 18, 2009 4:40 AM

Oh, and as for your post needing editing, I already do that with all the comments on this site, because for some reason, no matter what computer I'm on, most rows are cut off, and I'm always trying to figure out the missing words.

Posted by: TweeBubblyKlutz at November 18, 2009 4:43 AM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment:



Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.