Charles Dickens’ 1843 story “A Christmas Carol” has been adapted so many times we’ve actually lost count. It’s been retold with Muppets, reworked for the “Doctor Who” universe, and it’s currently being refashioned with a full horror angle thanks to Robert Eggers. The structure of the story is so straightforward that you can play around with the setting in all sorts of ways without ever losing its heart. That might be why people are generally down to watch yet another iteration of it, as well as why they might not respond well to the versions that play things too straight.
The 2009 Jim Carrey-starring, motion-capture animated “A Christmas Carol” is one of the most faithful film adaptations ever made of Dickson’s tale, but it’s also one that earned a mixed critical reception. The New York Daily News described it as “lacking spirit,” while the Wall Street Journal deemed it “joyless.” For many critics, the movie just lacked its source material’s warmth or spark.
The main exception here was Roger Ebert, the famed long-time critic for The Chicago Tribune. In his own review, Ebert described the film as “an exhilarating visual experience” that proved that director Robert Zemeckis is “one of the few directors who knows what he’s doing with 3-D.” Ebert concluded his review by writing:
“So, should you take the kiddies? Hmmm. I’m not so sure. When I was small, this movie would have scared the living ectoplasm out of me. Today’s kids have seen more and are tougher. Anyway, ‘A Christmas Carol’ has the one quality parents hope for in a family movie: It’s entertaining for adults.”
Read more: 15 Best Acting Performances By Musicians In Movies
Ebert admitted that the animation style of Disney’s A Christmas Carol wasn’t for everone
Scrooge riding the back of a carriage in A Christmas Carol (2009) – Disney
A big element working against Zemeckis’ adaptation was that it was made during an awkward stage in the history of 3D animation. It was a period where the potential for this new extra lifelike style was clear, but the technology wasn’t quite there yet to pull it off. The most infamous case of this in the 2000s was probably “The Polar Express,” another mo-cap animated Zemeckis movie that’s fun … so long as you can get past the uncanny valley feeling invoked by its characters’ faces. “A Christmas Carol” has a similar “not quite there yet” feel to its animation, which lends it a lingering creepiness, even in scenes that aren’t supposed to be creepy.
“I remain unconvinced that 3D represents the future of the movies,” Ebert admitted in his review, but he described Zemeckis as one of the few directors of the time who knew how to handle it well. Ebert also argued that the animation here was a step up from “The Polar Express.”
“[Zemeckis] seems to have a more sure touch than many other directors, using 3D instead of being used by it,” Ebert observed. “If the foreground is occupied by close objects, they’re usually looming inward, not out over our heads. Note the foreground wall-mounted bells that we look past when Scrooge, far below, enters his home; as one and then another slowly starts to move, it’s a nice little touch.”
Ebert gave “A Christmas Carol” a perfect 4 out of 4 stars. Not everyone could tolerate the uncanny 3D animation of the mid-2000s, but Ebert seemed to have no issue with it at all.
“A Christmas Carol” is streaming on Disney+.
If you’re looking for the easiest way to keep up with all the major movie and TV news, why not sign up to our free newsletter? You can also add us as a preferred search source on Google.
Read the original article on SlashFilm.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.yahoo.com ’
