 |
||
If you've seen any of the ads (including posters/print) for Disney's A Christmas Carol (3D), you (and kids) would think that the film is a funny, slapsticky, action-filled Jim Carrey romp that makes dazzling use of the advances in performance-capture 3D/CG technology. And you would be wrong. Very, very wrong. Thanks to Disney's deceptive ad campaign, A Christmas Carol is going to be a surprise to most viewers. And not a happy one.
Despite the marketing, A Christmas Carol is actually very dark (in look and tone), menacingly scary at times, and almost never funny. And most amazingly, the film left me wondering why it had been made using 3D/CG in the first place, which is supposedly the film's main selling point.
Can you see why this movie might have problems?
Watch the deceptive trailer here
Instead of a re-imagining of the classic tale, A Christmas Carol plays out mostly like, well, a play that sticks closely to Charles Dickens' original novella. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but probably not what most kids are looking for. The film does open with a new scene of Ebenezer Scrooge at the mortuary plucking two coins from the dead eyes of his business partner, Jacob Marley. It's a good example of the film's un-Disneylike brand of "fun" that's likely to upset young children, especially if they've been unlucky enough to have attended a grandparent's open-casket funeral.
It's interesting that there was such a discussion about whether Where the Wild Things Are -- a film I loved that is aimed at both kids and adults -- was too scary for kids, while I found parts of A Christmas Carol -- which is being marketed exclusively to kids with Disney's promotional muscle -- to be much scarier and more upsetting than anything in WTWTA. The scenes with Marley's ghost (at one point his jaw grotesquely cracks apart), the children of Ignorance and Want who accompany the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the reaper-like Ghost of Christmas Future are particularly frightening. I think the filmmakers felt The Nightmare Before Christmas proved that kids want dark, scary Christmas stories, which totally ignores Nightmare's coup of making the macabre so adorable, funny, not at all scary, and eventually finding an audience amongst teenagers and adults.
Speaking of darkness, Carol's ability to portray dark, candle-lit interiors and the cold winter gloom of old England is perhaps the main/sole advantage of the film being made with computer animation. Other than that, I really couldn't figure out why this movie was made using CG at all, especially when so many films (not to mention a good portion of what's on BBC) have successfully recreated that era using a mix of real locations, sets, and selective CG for wider shots. And most modern sci-fi or action movies have shown that actors can be realistically placed in unreal environments.
The performance-capture technology used to digitally record the movements and expressions of actors, then transpose them onto CG characters has come a long way from Carol director Robert Zemeckis' previous much-derided CG efforts, the Polar Express and Beowulf, which were both criticized for their characters' dead eyes and languid faces. The face of Jim Carrey as Scrooge is impressively expressive and real-looking most of the time, yet it still fails to capture the countless tiny movements and details we expect from an actual human face. Unfortunately, the attention spent on Scrooge's face clearly wasn't extended to Carol's other characters, which again left me wondering why the film wasn't made using real actors. What's the point of having Bob Cratchit look like Gary Oldman, be voiced by Gary Oldman, but act like someone wearing a Gary Oldman mask? The same goes for Colin Firth as Scrooge's nephew, Fred. It seems like the main reasons for making the film in CG was to keep Carrey out of the makeup chair and allow him to play multiple characters, neither of which are worth sacrificing convincing performances. Zemeckis should really hang up the performance-capture suits after this one.
The use of 3D in Carol was largely consistent with my impressions of 3D in other movies -- it was by turns distracting, inconsequential, or used to justify pointless, tacked-on scenes to remind you why you shelled out the extra money. Coincidentally, most of the scenes used in Carol's marketing are from this last group, like when Scrooge zooms across England with the Ghost of Christmas Past, rockets into the sky on a giant candle snuffer, or snowboards on an icicle. Let's just say those scenes don't redeem the film.
While A Christmas Carol will probably do well in its first weekend, Disney's real Nightmare Before Christmas may be if the $175 million Carol gets pulled from theaters before Dec. 24 due to poor word of mouth. Then again, the Polar Express, which was awful, made $300 million, so you never know.
If you'd like to give kids a look at A Christmas Carol, I'd save your money and gather the tykes around the computer to watch Disney's wonderful Mickey's Christmas Carol (part 1, part 2, part 3), which also airs on TV every year. While this version is obviously Disneyfied, it retains the darker elements of the original story without being scary and arguably addresses the core messages of the story better than the 3D version.
Or you can always read Dickens' original novella, which can be found online for free. With the economy in the crapper, it's a good year to let some of our inner Scrooge shine through.
For more ReThink Reviews, visit ReThinkReviews.net.
Follow Jonathan Kim on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ReThinkReviews
Matthew Pearl: Are You Dickensian?
The world around us has become more Dickensian lately. At least that's how it seems by the way the word circulates.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
My teenage boys and I went and saw this film. They were just part of A Christmas Carol drama play presentation and can say most of the lines from the book by memory. We all loved it. Regardless of what the critics say, it was a unique and graphically beautiful retelling of a beloved tale with many deeply moving metaphors I have never seen in any other adaption. (I own most of them) For instance, what adaption has ever showed us what ignorance and want are? This one does...the
Further to my comment on the didactic nature of Disney's Christmas Carol, I am not living in the past - I meant to say: twenty first century translated Dickens, of course! (As one of my kids pointed out to me.)
A fantastic movie. On a day when my local community radio station, WMNF Tampa aired a discussion program around recordings of speeches from FDR in the forties, about the need for a second Bill of Rights enshrining rights such as the right to health and freedom from want, and the evening news reports that five Democrats plan to vote against the Health Reform bill in the Senate if it contains a public option, I just wish that we could get some of Marley's chains and immobilize those elected members of Congress, then play them the movie! Dickens was a didactic writer, and a clever one at that. He got some of those Victorians reading the story to their kids, only to open themselves to the truth of his words unwittingly. It is amazing to think that his message is still being transmitted through a different medium to unwitting parents today.
Sadly. nineteenth century Dickens, FDR and, I suspect, twentieth century translated Dickens will not change the world. I don't know the motivation of the makers of this movie, but I will generously assume that the highest motives, echoing Dickens, were at work, and say: Bravo Disney. Nice try!
Burnsey, I could not agree with you more. You're a man after my own heart.
(Continued from my last post...)
Perhaps if parents paid attention to the literature children's movies are being taken from, they would think twice before taking their child to the movies. I give you the opening paragraph of A Christmas Carol: "Marley was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner. Scrooge signed it: and Scrooge's name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to. Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Uh, morbid beginning anyone? "Dead as a door-nail.
Parents need to do some research before they take their kids to the movies. I found it silly that parents were worried about Where the Wild Things Are, which is a children's book, being too scary for their kids, but they weren't worried at all about A Christmas Carol, which is decidedly not a children's book, being to scary for their children.
If some people would practice common sense and consider the origins of the film, I feel a lot of trouble and scared children could be avoided.
Okay. Here are my issues with this article:
1.) What about that trailer made you think that this movie would be light and funny? This trailer was dark, and I think I half-smirked once - not laughed, not smiled, but smirked. And not even a full smirk.
2.) You're upset that this movie actually stuck to the book?!? Heaven forbid.
3.) I quote, "Instead of a re-imagining of the classic tale, A Christmas Carol plays out mostly like, well, a play that sticks closely to Charles Dickens' original novella." You then go on to talk about how dark, menacing and not kid friendly the movie is, and then end your article by saying, "Or you can always read Dickens' original novella...
So, let's not let our kids watch the dark, scary movie. Let's read them the dark, scary book instead.
This trailer is not the only trailer. The one they show in the theater during previews at "kids" movies WAS lighthearted and fun. It made the viewer believe that this was a "cute" Christmas movie for children. This is the argument, not the fact that we shouldn't stick to the book. I totally agree that it was well done, and the movie is a great version for the Dickens' book. We were well aware of all the details of the Dickens' novel and understood the moral of the story. The advertising for this movie is where Disney went wrong. They shouldn't be making light of such a dark movie during previews at a kids movie.
So you are upset that a movie is actually close to being what the original material was? Wow. As for the advertising, every ad that I have seen on TV, and I've seen a lot, has a disclaimer in fairly large lettering that says it may be scary to some children.
This, if it is close to the original Dickens Story, would be thrilling to know. This story has been bastardized and destroyed for years. I'm glad someone finally did the original justice.
Funny how so many folks complain that their favorite book was ruined when it became a movie, because they changed this or that aspect. Now they will complain because someone finally did the story justice, and they are upset because the main character isn't Scrooge McDuck. What a world.
My 13 year old daughter said it was very scary. Yes, very deceptive ads.
I saw the movie Saturday night with my sis-in-law and her sister. We are all over 50. Although I thought the movie was well done for the most part, I missed a lot of what was humorous and heartwarming in the original Alistair Sims version (i.e. When the ghost of Christmas present says - I bet you've never seen the likes of me, and Scrooge groans - No, and I wish the pleasure had been indefinitely postponed. The scene at the end of the movie when Scrooge dances around the room with his nephew's wife) - just two examples of what I thought were missing.
That said, there is NO way I would take any child under 10 to see this movie. VERY dark and depressing and too scary for children younger than 10. Sorry Disney, but I was disappointed. Not a movie I would ever want to see again, or buy for my DVD/Blue Ray collection.
Not for kids but 3D is good.
The English dialect was difficult for a seven year old to understand and it was very scary to him. Most of the movie was really creepy; not the joyful movie I was hoping for. Then there was a scene, Scrooge looking to his future at his funeral, men talking about his death and his money, a
wealthy man takes a vile from his pocket then "sniff sniff..." Am I missing something? Because it seemed reminiscent of the movie "Cruel Intentions" There are a couple cuss words direct from the original book, referring to Scrooge. Finally, a toast with shots using cordials. I consider myself reasonable and not easily offended, but children are different and it's a Disney movie. Help me if I'm missing something.
http://onl
I'm glad someone close to my age finally agrees with me on the severity of the scary parts of this movie. I believe it's a great movie to many people, just not for young children. I'm with you on the creepy part. That's exactly how I felt the whole time. Every movie is going to have mixed reactions and this is definitely one of them. Enjoyed reading your comments!
I had the opportunity to see the screening of Disney’s A Chrismas Carol and to interview Jack Rapke the Producer of the movie.
My mother forwarned me that Disney had said that some parts may be scary for kids…and there were times it was, and I closed my eyes as well during those scary scenes. But isn’t that what it was all about, when you go to the movies, to see the unexpected, to leave talking about it.
The movie brings a reality to a story of a man being haunted by the ghosts of his past, present and future. We must remember why he was being haunted, too, because he was miserable person, or dark as you might want to say. I believe Disney and ImageMakers Digital did an excellant job making this film. They did a fantastic job with the 3D and CGI effects.
Jim Carrey was brillant, Collin Firth, and Gary Oldman were excellant in there roles. As well were the other cast members.
As for laughing, there were many parts that were funny, even in the darkest moments of the movie, I found myself, my mother and the rest of the audience laughing.
Is this a movie I would recommend seeing, YES! In fact I am planning to see it again, and my mother is planning to purchase it when it comes out on DVD. This is going to be a Disney Christmas Classic despite what some of the critics may be writing.
This movie was fantastic. Felt like I was right in the middle of 1800's Christmas in England. True to the original story as written and loved all the 3D effects. The fancy colorful lifestyle of the rich versus the dark, cold simple home of the poor working man. I would recommend to everyone, except little kids. I took 7 year old nephew to "Bugs World" 3D at Disneyworld and much to my surprise he HATED it. Did some research and seems young kids have a hard time dealing with the 3D. He loved all the roller coasters and hated 3D movies. If you have never taken your kids to 3D movie, I don't recommend this as their first unless they're 10. Let's face it folks, I was scared to death of the Wicked Witch of the West and those flying monkeys, but that didn't stop OZ from becoming a classic.
I think the scary, gory comments are a bit over played here. Maybe you thought you were going to see Mickey Mouse and your expectations influenced your perception. The beginning to CSI, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, NCIS etc etc are a lot worse than a scary ghost door knocker. It was a fun ride and I laughed often.
It was fantastic and I recommend to everyone over 10.
This movie was def. too scary for children. Especially those under the age of 10. I was a bit disturbed by some of the scenes and I'm 25. It starts off with Marley in a coffin, and only goes down from there. Marley's ghost is when my godson began to become a bit unnerved and quite possibly was ready to leave. We stuck it out...I just figured PG...Disne
I couldn't agree more... I am only 28 and consider myself pretty liberal in general but not only did I have to comfort the majority, the rest of the time I had to explain what they were saying because of the dialect. Even the ghost of Christmas Present was scary.
Did you catch the scene of the three men in the scene after his funeral where a man pulled out a vile tube and put it up to his nose to sniff then nostril to nostril snorting? I haven't seen anyone comment on that yet...
It was snuff. So?
I disagree that Disney is being entirely misleading in its marketing. I saw the trailer for this with my 5 year old twins when we went to see another animated movie (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs I think). They were so scared by the trailer that they insisted they NEVER wanted to see this movie - too scary! they emphatically said. I think teens would be fine with it and I think its rated PG solely based on the ratings system they have set up for language, nudity and violence, which simply don't apply to tales from Dickens' era. But mere ratings don't control my choice of movie for my kids and Disney didn't hide any of the terrifying stuff in the trailer. It was scary enough for my twins to figure out right away this wasn't a movie for them!
It's good that you're warning parents, but on the other hand, the Dickens story is disturbing and for good reason. I've never been of the opinion that this story was written for young children (< 10). If anything, I've always been disappointed with the various versions over the years because I didn't think they were scary enough. My take: the story isn't broken, let's not fix it.
Frankly, I'm glad to hear this movie is scary. Disney's obvious mistake is their marketing towards young children and their parents, not the fact that this story is (and should be, imho) frightening and gloomy. I mean, come on, it's an indictment of the naked greed of 19th century capitalism! They should have been honest and given it a PG-13 rating from the get go. I doubt it would have hurt their numbers that much as a PG-13 rating would have simply captured a different demographic. Besides, I wasn't allowed to watch the Alastair Sim version until I was about 9 or 10. Why should this version be any different?
I just got back from seeing this with my 14 year old boy. Considering that it's a 14 year old boy who is saying the animation is awesome, anyone with young kids should definitely be running in the opposite direction of this film. Lots of very scary, realistic scenes that would have scared the you know what out of him 3 or 4 years ago. However, the film stuck very closely to the original story, and it was probably one of the best versions I have ever seen. It really made me think about the power of redemption. It was close, if not surpassing, the Alistair Sims version of it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
