<\/p>\n
Charles Dickens’ 1843 story “A Christmas Carol” has been adapted so many times we’ve actually lost count. It’s been retold with Muppets<\/a>, reworked\u00a0for the “Doctor Who” universe<\/a>, and it’s currently being refashioned with a\u00a0full horror angle thanks to Robert Eggers<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a> as “lacking spirit,” while the Wall Street Journal deemed it<\/a>\u00a0“joyless.” For many critics, the movie just lacked its source material’s warmth or spark.<\/p>\n The main exception here was Roger Ebert, the famed long-time critic for The Chicago Tribune. In his own review<\/a>, 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:<\/p>\n “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.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n