Movie Review: A Christmas Carol: In 3-D!

[3113]

It's a little complicated to review this movie as it has to be reviewed in three ways: (1) as a movie, (2) as a version of Christmas Carol and (3) as a CGI/Cartoon/3-D movie. Let's start with the last. It's a 3D movie. And as in the 50's when they made 3D movies, they have to take advantage of that. Why make it 3D if you're not going to have things flying out or in or whatever? But if you do, then that's going to dictate the movie. This movie is no exception. It's not really a movie so much as a Disneyland ride of bird-eye roller coaster ride through London, moving-glass-elevator trip over people's homes and mouse's point of view racing through sewers. Fingers point out at us, snow drifts down in front of us, gates and doors swing in and out.

I sat there with my 3D glasses on and, well, enjoyed the ride. But it is a ride. And there are way too many times that you can tell the director said, "How an I give this ride a new twist to make them feel like they're flying/fall/spinning/speeding/dropping...." So, okay. Comes with the territory. But this does mean that dialogue does get truncated to make room for the ride. And sometimes, as with the mouse-view--it makes no sense at all.

Next, as a movie. Here's where the motion capture/cartoon part comes in. Too much of the time you feel like you're looking at mannequins or Disney robots. Scrooge actually works best because he seems a bit cartoonish, so we feel a little more comfortable with him. When we see pretty men and women the look like dolls. And when we see non-pretty, they often look disturbing. There's also a problem with how "real" the director wants to make it. Frankly, if I'm seeing something that's cartoon however close it is to live action, I want some fantasy to it. I don't want to see realistic pimples on these 3D faces. But here again is the problem with this sort of CGI. It allows for all kinds of details, so the director puts them in. Some are cool, but a lot are too much. It's really hard to like a character when their face is jutting out at you and you can see every CGI pore.

No one but Scrooge is all that endearing to look at. Scrooge gets pulled off in large part thanks to Jim Carrey, who is very good, and he saves the movie. But there's no warmth to this movie, no tears you're going to shed for Tiny Tim as he's doesn't look like a little boy--he looks like a doll. No surprise, therefore, that the movie is at it's best when it's being creepy and scary. This movie gives Xmas Carol it's due as a ghost story. Marley's ghost, for example is fantastic. Faithful to the book, the story moves along quickly, rather like through a revolving door. And it does benefit from the CGI and 3D in things like the the door knocker and putting a new twist on the the Ghost of Xmas Future.

Anyway, if you're thinking about seeing this movie, by all means, go 3D. It's a pretty good ride. Do not take little kids. It's waaaaay too scary for little kids. I mean it. Waaaaay too scary. And be prepared to be a little unsettled with the doll-like motion capture. Just imagine you're on a ride at Disneyland and it'll be fine.

 

[TE999]

It's a little complicated to review this movie as it has to be reviewed in three ways: (1) as a movie, (2) as a version of Christmas Carol and (3) as a CGI/Cartoon/3-D movie. Let's start with the last. It's a 3D movie. And as in the 50's when they made 3D movies, they have to take advantage of that. Why make it 3D if you're not going to have things flying out or in or whatever? But if you do, then that's going to dictate the movie. This movie is no exception. It's not really a movie so much as a Disneyland ride of bird-eye roller coaster ride through London, moving-glass-elevator trip over people's homes and mouse's point of view racing through sewers. Fingers point out at us, snow drifts down in front of us, gates and doors swing in and out.

I sat there with my 3D glasses on and, well, enjoyed the ride. But it is a ride. And there are way too many times that you can tell the director said, "How an I give this ride a new twist to make them feel like they're flying/fall/spinning/speeding/dropping...." So, okay. Comes with the territory. But this does mean that dialogue does get truncated to make room for the ride. And sometimes, as with the mouse-view--it makes no sense at all.

Next, as a movie. Here's where the motion capture/cartoon part comes in. Too much of the time you feel like you're looking at mannequins or Disney robots. Scrooge actually works best because he seems a bit cartoonish, so we feel a little more comfortable with him. When we see pretty men and women the look like dolls. And when we see non-pretty, they often look disturbing. There's also a problem with how "real" the director wants to make it. Frankly, if I'm seeing something that's cartoon however close it is to live action, I want some fantasy to it. I don't want to see realistic pimples on these 3D faces. But here again is the problem with this sort of CGI. It allows for all kinds of details, so the director puts them in. Some are cool, but a lot are too much. It's really hard to like a character when their face is jutting out at you and you can see every CGI pore.

No one but Scrooge is all that endearing to look at. Scrooge gets pulled off in large part thanks to Jim Carrey, who is very good, and he saves the movie. But there's no warmth to this movie, no tears you're going to shed for Tiny Tim as he's doesn't look like a little boy--he looks like a doll. No surprise, therefore, that the movie is at it's best when it's being creepy and scary. This movie gives Xmas Carol it's due as a ghost story. Marley's ghost, for example is fantastic. Faithful to the book, the story moves along quickly, rather like through a revolving door. And it does benefit from the CGI and 3D in things like the the door knocker and putting a new twist on the the Ghost of Xmas Future.

Anyway, if you're thinking about seeing this movie, by all means, go 3D. It's a pretty good ride. Do not take little kids. It's waaaaay too scary for little kids. I mean it. Waaaaay too scary. And be prepared to be a little unsettled with the doll-like motion capture. Just imagine you're on a ride at Disneyland and it'll be fine.

I'm going to see it on Thursday. I figured it'd be a 3-D thrill ride from the coming attractions clips I've seen. It may be high-tech and gimmicky, but it'll never come close to the 1951 film called 'Scrooge' in the UK and 'A Christmas Carol' over here in the US. Alistair Sim as Scrooge gives a bravura performance. Don't get the colorized version, watch it in the original black and white. You won't be disappointed.

 

[JamesSD]

From the trailers, this movie seems caught in Uncanny Valley.

Basically, what happens with robots or animated humans is as they become more like humans they become more charming. However, at some point they stop looking like a charming robot and become a disturbing, "not normal" human. This is instinctively off-putting. We want the face to respond like a proper human, but it ends up looking like a gharish parody.

Thanks for the bit about the 3D spectacle, that's something some of the mainstream reviewers seemed not to stress, instead focusing on Jim Carrey's roles.

 

[sr71plt]

I got tired of seeing remakes of "A Christmas Carol" a couple of decades ago.

 

[glynndah]

I'm going to see it on Thursday. I figured it'd be a 3-D thrill ride from the coming attractions clips I've seen. It may be high-tech and gimmicky, but it'll never come close to the 1951 film called 'Scrooge' in the UK and 'A Christmas Carol' over here in the US. Alistair Sim as Scrooge gives a bravura performance. Don't get the colorized version, watch it in the original black and white. You won't be disappointed.

That's the best one! Our local television station used to play it every Christmas Eve. The copy was so worn out and crackly, it was like watching one of those old news reels instead of a movie. Perfect!

 

[TE999]

That's the best one! Our local television station used to play it every Christmas Eve. The copy was so worn out and crackly, it was like watching one of those old news reels instead of a movie. Perfect!

I had a VHS tape of it for years and bought it on DVD last year at Best Buy. Amazon.com has it too. It's a classic. No one can do a costume drama like the Brits.

 

[3113]

Alistair Sim as Scrooge gives a bravura performance.

Indeed. I'm a Christmas Carol aficionado and have seen most of the films, which is why I decided to see this movie even though I haven't liked Zemeckis' motion capture films at all.

But I can't resist seeing "Carol" whoever does it, which makes me hyper-critical, of course, as I know what's missing, and I know what they added that wasn't there (sometimes this works, sometimes not), and I also know if they did something right (IMHO) or wrong. As Scrooges' go, Carrey is no Alister Sim--I don't think anyone will ever be able to match or top his performance if only because no one has that voice, that modulation, that ability to say "Humbug" in so quietly a dismissive fashion.

But Carrey did a far better job than I thought he'd do. Really quite excellent. He really did save the movie from being just a visual ride.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I grew up on Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol and when I became an adult, Scrooge McDuck's. Disney should have stuck with the winner they had.

 

[3113]

I grew up on Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol and when I became an adult, Scrooge McDuck's. Disney should have stuck with the winner they had.

Hey, it's a winner so far. #1 at the box office. It'll undoubtedly get knocked off by 2012, but it will probably get repeats up through the Christmas Holidays. If it's a good ride, people will go on it a few times, right?

 

[Verdad]

I can say with a lot of certainty I won't be seeing the movie. On the one hand, I'm so not in the mood for Xmas mania this year that already the subject makes me groan, and on the other, from what you say, the movie confirms to a t everything that's wrong with motion capture. It doesn't seem to be so much that we feel revulsion toward the characters, as the uncanny valley hypothesis would suggest—it's more that we just don't feel much of anything for them, and so they fail to hold our interest. I was trying to express that the other day, but you've nailed it just right. Thanks for the very informative review!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I got tired of seeing remakes of "A Christmas Carol" a couple of decades ago.

Nods*

I got tired of Jim Carry a few decades ago, as well.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The Mask was funny. Carry isn't.

 

[jomar]

I'm looking forward to James Cameron's Avatar. His goal is to make the 3D effects recede into the background so the movie is simply lifelike, not gimmicky.

 

[3113]

I'm looking forward to James Cameron's Avatar. His goal is to make the 3D effects recede into the background so the movie is simply lifelike, not gimmicky.

I wouldn't bet on that. I saw a preview for Avatar and it's premise looked gimmicky and tired to me....

 

[jomar]

I wouldn't bet on that. I saw a preview for Avatar and it's premise looked gimmicky and tired to me....

Did you see the preview at the theater with 3D glasses?

Might be gimmicky, but I read or heard that his goal is to use 3D to make the movie more like real life, to have the 3D effects look more natural rather than to just have things just pop out at you. I thinks he's 'inventing' new tech for it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm looking forward to James Cameron's Avatar. His goal is to make the 3D effects recede into the background so the movie is simply lifelike, not gimmicky.

Oh, the one where white kids were cast as all of the heroes-- all of whom are specifically ethnic-- and the only ethnic kid in the cast plays the evil villain?

Yeah... not.

 

[TE999]

Hey, it's a winner so far. #1 at the box office. It'll undoubtedly get knocked off by 2012, but it will probably get repeats up through the Christmas Holidays. If it's a good ride, people will go on it a few times, right?

From what I hear, '2012' stinks on ice. It's all special computer effects, improbable scenarios and mediocre acting. Methinks 'A Christmas Carol' will surpass it by a hefty margin.

 

[3113]

Did you see the preview at the theater with 3D glasses?

I did. And I didn't see anything that impressed me as "more real" or less pop. I mean, if you're saying that he does less of the finger pointing and extreme angles, yes, it looked like he wasn't doing as much of that. But there are aliens on flying, er, dragons, and you get that soaring bit just like with Xmas Carol. There is this element to 3D of "Let me take you on a tour of this fantastic landscape so you can ooo and awww."

The story, from the look of it, is a cross between Aliens II (by that I mean that you get the space marines as central characters with the usual ethnic mixes and such) and Dances with Wolves (one of us goes among the natives and, after finding out how wonderful they are, goes native himself and helps them fight his own kind).

I don't know how well the movie can be judged from what I saw. I could tell that the characters were still motion capture most of the time. And I didn't get any feelings of warmth from them--but then, that might have been the premise. Making something so realistic you can't tell it's cartoon doesn't mean that the story and acting and such will be compelling.

I don't doubt Avatar do well as 3D movies seem to be doing well, but I'm skeptical of it being as groundbreaking and different and unique as you think. It would really have to go to an extraordinary place to transform what looks like a simplistic plot with cardboard stereotypes into something special.

But hey, Star Wars did it. So who knows?

 

[jomar]

Oh, the one where white kids were cast as all of the heroes-- all of whom are specifically ethnic-- and the only ethnic kid in the cast plays the evil villain?

Yeah... not.

Um...are we talking about the same movie? See below...

I did. And I didn't see anything that impressed me as "more real" or less pop. I mean, if you're saying that he does less of the finger pointing and extreme angles, yes, it looked like he wasn't doing as much of that. But there are aliens on flying, er, dragons, and you get that soaring bit just like with Xmas Carol. There is this element to 3D of "Let me take you on a tour of this fantastic landscape so you can ooo and awww."

The story, from the look of it, is a cross between Aliens II (by that I mean that you get the space marines as central characters with the usual ethnic mixes and such) and Dances with Wolves (one of us goes among the natives and, after finding out how wonderful they are, goes native himself and helps them fight his own kind).

I don't know how well the movie can be judged from what I saw. I could tell that the characters were still motion capture most of the time. And I didn't get any feelings of warmth from them--but then, that might have been the premise. Making something so realistic you can't tell it's cartoon doesn't mean that the story and acting and such will be compelling.

I don't doubt Avatar do well as 3D movies seem to be doing well, but I'm skeptical of it being as groundbreaking and different and unique as you think. It would really have to go to an extraordinary place to transform what looks like a simplistic plot with cardboard stereotypes into something special.

But hey, Star Wars did it. So who knows?

Oh well, I'll probably enjoy it more if I don't expect "the next big thing."

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Saw it last night, and enjoyed it, with reservations. A bit too (that's an understatement) much of slapstick chase in the Christmas Future sequence, and a few other rough points. There were some good ones too, I felt. The addition of the passing of Christmas Present, for example, was successful, though my work may bias me towards enjoying a body laughing its way through decomposition to skeletonization in the time of a clock sounding the bells of midnight.

Overally, though, this version could only make sense to someone familiar with the story, and particularly with the Alistair Sim classic interpretation of it. (And Carey is only passable as old Ebenezer; his best is when directly emulating his masterful predecessor). This version lacks much of the plot and character development that makes sense of the story; I take it as an eye-candy offering to those who know what they're looking at.

In the end, worth seeing, but best without great expectations and on a half-price night.

 

[3113]

A bit too (that's an understatement) much of slapstick chase in the Christmas Future sequence

Oh, gosh yes. 3-D for 3-D sake, which they did with every ghost (and I get that--you make use of the tech to find unique ways of presenting each journey), but they wasted the most time on it with Future, and to no good purpose.

I'm not in full agreement with you on Xmas Present's fading away. It was cool, but it really didn't serve any purpose but to be cool and it, too, took time away from the real story to do that.

Overally, though, this version could only make sense to someone familiar with the story, and particularly with the Alistair Sim classic interpretation of it.

Nice point. And you're right. The most outright Alister Sim's steal was the charwoman, yet in Sim's version she seems relevant. In this version she seemed tossed in for the hell of it.

This version lacks much of the plot and character development that makes sense of the story; I take it as an eye-candy offering to those who know what they're looking at.

Agreed. Judging it from a purely "Carol" point of view, I find that it's both too reverent to the original, and showing off that faithfulness (for example, making Scrooge look almost exactly as he did in the original Leech drawings), and too enamored of what it can do to play with the original. For instance, I get that being 3D and knowing kids will be brought to see it, it had to have some slapstick, but it's really uneven.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I'm not in full agreement with you on Xmas Present's fading away. It was cool, but it really didn't serve any purpose but to be cool and it, too, took time away from the real story to do that.

Granted. I said my enjoyment was idionsyncratic, related to some of my work. And, given that nothing in the film really addressed the story, I found it an interesting scene, perhaps part of a different story.

And my god yes! Scrooge's transformation is given flesh by Mrs. Dilbert, most clearly in the Alistair Sim version; she got short shrift in the 3-D, much to the film's loss. As an additional note there, the failure to follow the turkey to Cratchit's house left the whole transformation falling flat.

 

[3113]

the failure to follow the turkey to Cratchit's house left the whole transformation falling flat.

Agreed! That's one of those things that isn't in the book and doesn't need to be (as we're always in Scrooge's pov), but always enhances movie versions of the story.