Disclaimer:

The film I’m reviewing this week is rated: PG

That may not sound like much, but there will be some disturbing imagery in this review.

I didn’t think I’d have to put a disclaimer before A Christmas Carol of all things, but here we are. That’s one of the main things I took away from this rendition of the classic Charles Dickens story: terror. While it’s not a straight-up horror film, it does still put an undue burden on the creepier aspects of the story while forgetting some of the genuinely heartwarming parts. Either that, or it goes too far into odd humor that it dilutes the message.

However, it’s my firmly held belief that you can’t kill a true classic. Does this movie set out to do that? I’d say no. While uneven, awkward, and tonally confused, it does still hold onto some aspects that made the original stand the test of time. Also, I’m sure the idea behind the film, along with most other adaptations of this story, was to give an alternative take on it we haven’t seen before. To the film’s credit, that is definitely what it is.

To be fair, it has been a hot minute since I saw this film. In fact, it’s probably been over a decade by now. So, does this movie hold up in ways I forgot about? Oh, y’all know the drill by now.

Let’s invite the three ghosts of motion capture back into our homes this week and take a look at Robert Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol (2009).

For this review, I read the original book for reference. While not something I often do, considering how much of a timeless classic this story is, I thought it was about time. Not only was I glad to finally understand the original context of the tale, but I was surprised to learn that this film is surprisingly faithful to it. The lines in the movie aren’t verbatim from the book, but they’re really close. Of course the motifs are straight out of the book and every other filmed version, but even the style and feel is pretty on point.

For example: the design of the Ghosts of Christmas.

The Ghost of Christmas Past.
While nightmare-inducing, it’s pretty close to the book’s description.

The Ghost of Christmas Present.
Another nearly direct translation from page to screen.

The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.
While not described as a shadow in the book, it is described as a heavily shrouded figure whose features can’t be discerned and never speaks, only points to things.

However, I still find myself torn on these details. Maybe it’s because I’m glad to see a faithful adaptation of a literary source after the wildly unfaithful one I reviewed last week. To that same end, these motifs and lines are present in several other filmed versions of this story I’ve seen. So, can I really commend a movie for doing what’s basically “the bare minimum?” Well, maybe it’ll become clearer in the way they handle the characters.

Of course, you know him, you hate him, it’s Ebenezer Scrooge (played by Jim Carrey [last seen on this blog annoying the citizens of Whoville to death in How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)]). He’s the same crotchety humbug you’d expect in any adaptation of the story, but Jim Carrey’s portrayal is actually much more restrained than you’d expect.

*Yet you don’t think* me ill-used when I pay a days wages for no work.

*Be here all the earlier the next morning*.

While Carrey does fine in the role, he definitely wouldn’t be my first choice for Scrooge. I can’t help but wonder if they picked Carrey only for his physical acting since this is a motion capture film. In fact, to give you an idea of what could’ve been, let’s take a look at the supporting roles. There’s Bob Cratchit, of course (played by Gary Oldman). Wait, Gary Oldman? Now I already want to see Gary Oldman play Scrooge. See what I mean?

Scrooge’s nephew, Fred, also makes an appearance (played by Colin Firth). There you go! Another actor I could easily believe as Scrooge.

Even for his relatively brief appearance, there’s this “Portly Gentleman” who tries to convince Scrooge to donate to charity, and he’s played by Cary Elwes (last seen on this blog relieving himself of unneeded appendages in Saw). Cary Elwes as Scrooge, that could work too, and is also something I’d like to see.

*Do I have the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge or Mr. Marley?*

This last one might be a bit of a stretch, but even during the Ghost of Christmas Past sequence, we see Scrooge’s old mentor: Fezziwig (played by Bob Hoskins). In a weird way, I also wouldn’t mind seeing Bob Hoskins as Scrooge, in a sort of American/New York Themed Christmas Carol. That could be an interesting alternative take on the story.

Bottom line: it’s not a good sign when the supporting cast would look better in the lead than the actual lead actor. Once again, I should be clear that I don’t think Jim Carrey is bad in this. Mostly, I just think that he has too much to fight against. As Scrooge: he has to do an old man voice, an English accent, speak an old version of his native language, and act underneath all the motion capture going on. It’s not an easy task, and I feel like the other actors I mentioned just would’ve been a better fit for the role.

Speaking of the motion capture as well, why exactly is this film motion capture? I suppose, if anything, it’s an excuse to get creative with the visuals, which, I will admit, can be cool at times.

Heck, *much* of the Ghost of Christmas Present sequence is visually stunning.

Part of this choice goes back to Robert Zemeckis. After it got to a certain point in his career, he believed that motion capture was the future of film-making and even created his own motion capture company to facilitate that. In case you’re curious, this film does have that company’s name attached to it.

I suppose I can’t blame the man for going all-in on something he truly thought was going to change the face of cinema, but I won’t act like the uncanny moments aren’t super uncanny. Then I guess I’ve made it to the point where I should discuss the Ghost of Christmas Past.

[echo-y Irish whisper] *I am the Ghost of Christmas Past.*
So **that’s** what you’re telling kids now?

I think it goes without saying, but the Ghost of Christmas Past is frickin’ hideous. It didn’t look good then or now, and I still have no clue why they bothered to give Christmas Past a face at all. If they’re going for the whole candle aesthetic, why not just have it be a flame? They didn’t give Christmas Yet to Come a face, so why Christmas Past? Despite my complaints, I like how the film has Jim Carrey play the Ghosts of Christmas. It helps add subtext that each of them represent a different part of Scrooge.

Although, the subtext can occasionally be muddled by abrupt tone changes. We catch our first glimpse of this when the ghost of Jacob Marley appears to Scrooge (also played by Gary Oldman…for some reason).

*In life, I was your partner Jacob Maaaaaarleyyyyyyyyy.*
…Ooooooookayyyyy.

Firstly, Jacob is very whiny in this version.

*Oh, woe is me!*
He **actually** says that.

To me, the most mature handling of Marley’s character would be to have him act serious yet resigned to his fate. In death, he understands why he’s being punished and has condemned himself to go about his afterlife paying for his living actions. He only decides to help Scrooge because he truly doesn’t want the same thing for his partner. I’d much prefer if the movie handled Marley like that, but instead he’s constantly moping about what he could’ve done and it’s kind of annoying.

*Oh, woe is me!*
He says that **twice**.

Second, this:

I saw this in theaters as a kid when it first came out.
I freaked out here.
While this *technically* happened in the book, **this** *defin*itely didn’t.

It goes from “baby Skye pees her pants” to “Halloween comedy routine” in a millisecond when Jacob tries to manually move his jaw to talk.
Not only does it not match the tone the movie **just set**, but it also makes it hard to understand him.
Since this was my first exposure to *A Christmas Carol* as a kid, I spent **so long** just trying to figure out what he says, and only after I read the book did I find out.

The Marley sequence also ends with Scrooge being bombarded with various ghosts roaming the streets of London which also wasn’t in the book and is very unneeded.

The only purpose it seems to serve is padding the runtime and trying to scare kids as much as possible. As a kid who was scared by this, I’ll tell you: mission accomplished. Speaking of unnecessarily scary moments: the end of the Ghost of Christmas Present sequence.

THE FU-!

Yeah, this movie seems to thrive on dark moments like this. The entire Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come sequence is nothing but this harsh tone from beginning to end. It goes on for so long it makes you forget this is supposed to be a Christmas movie until you see this:

Fa la la la la…Merry Christmas and ***die***.

At the same time, the jaded adult I’ve grown into respects how unrelentingly negative this adaptation is. Especially since most children nowadays don’t have much of a chance to see something this dark that’s not rated PG-13. I also like how it’s a somewhat unconventional Christmas story as well. While most stories about the holiday are overwhelmingly positive, this one doesn’t care and doesn’t feel ashamed to jump headlong into twisted moments that kids will never forget. I know I didn’t.

On the subject of unforgettable moments, I have to go over my favorite scene in this movie. It’s this one:

During the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come sequence, Scrooge sees a vision of the Cratchit family’s reaction to Tiny Tim’s passing. While Bob tries to keep it together for his family, he walks up the stairs (where Scrooge is sitting), briefly pauses, and lets out all his emotions.

Bob has no idea Scrooge is there, so he thinks he’s opening the floodgates for no one to see. Scrooge also has nowhere to turn. He has no choice but to sit and stare at the agonizing grief his faithful clerk is experiencing. Absolutely amazing! Even with this film’s uneven tone, awkward moments, and dated animation I’ve mentioned, this scene alone makes it all worth it to me. This also wasn’t in the book, but it feels like it could’ve been which is what you want in an adaptation.

Okay, so I know I’m going back and forth on my opinion of this movie. Should you see it or should you not see it? Well, I feel like it’s perfectly fine to watch it so long as you know what you’re getting yourself into.

This isn’t the feel good Christmas Carol you’re used to. Practically every moment of this movie has a dash of awkwardness in it that can be hard to ignore from the distracting mo-cap, the ridiculous Marley scene, the freaky-looking Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present being high on laughing gas, and the random action sequence (because that’s what A Christmas Carol needed: action).

As I mentioned before, this film was my introduction to A Christmas Carol as a kid. So, if I’m being honest, I have a bit of a soft spot for it. Despite its obvious flaws, the faithfulness, passion, dedication to darkness, and that one scene are what hook me.

Like in my intro, I still believe that true classics can’t be killed. Part of my issues with this movie stem from the fact that it feels like it’s trying to be the version instead of just a version. When it comes to this story, there is no such thing as the version unless you’re talking about the book. There will always be more Christmas Carols filmed and released in the years to come because the concepts presented in the original are just so thought-provoking. That’s what I mean when I say you can’t kill a true classic.

So, if you’re a true fan of the story, you might be able to appreciate this adaptation for the sheer amount of unconventional choices it makes, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. If you like the story and also hate this version, I totally get it. It’s hard to gauge my feelings on this personally since it’s so complicated.

All I’ll say is that if anything in this review has piqued your interest, feel free to take a look. If not, go ahead and forget this version exists. The world won’t fault you.

Since I’m rating this movie though, I think I’ll give it a 3/5 candlesticks. I thought for over an hour what I’d feel comfortable rating this film and I was torn for the longest time between a 2.5/5 and a 3/5. In the end I decided to go with a 3/5 strictly because of that one scene I mentioned that is very powerful and nowhere to be seen in any other version. Unfortunately I can’t rate the movie any higher on account of its other flaws, but hopefully this gives you an idea if this is the right Christmas Carol for you or not.

(I make no claim of ownership for any of the images used in this post)

(Each of them are owned entirely by their respective copyright holders, which are not me)

(I’m just a humble blogger who talks about movies, I do not make them)

(Yet)

A Christmas Carol (2009)

THE FU-!

Home Alone

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)