A Christmas Carol 3D Blu-ray (2009) [Region Free]

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by Hydra Spectre

Yes.
Also, I was surprised that it was only rated PG.
I thought it deserved a PG-13 rating.
This is one of the few times when Disney actually branched out to making adult animation outside of Fox or that time when they localised and distributed Studio Ghibli's films in North America (Princess Mononoke, Tales from Earthsea, and The Wind Rises were all PG-13).

I watched the film again last night-- for the first time in two years and the first time since my double cataract removals. And the 3-D is even MORE spectacular than I thought.

I've kind of modified my view on the appropriateness of the film for the youngest of viewers. It is indeed "scary" as sin at moments ("Ignorance" and "Want" are terrifying even to adults!!) and could certainly unnerve the youngest of viewers. But there are plenty of versions of "Carol" that are appropriate for them and will lead them to this (and other) more complex versions as they grow older.

However, this is a rendering of the film that uses Dickens' (beautiful, needing NO "updating") roll-off-the-tongue English dialogue. The performances of the entire cast (especially the to-me usually annoying Jim Carrey and the always-brilliant Gary Oldman) is superb and the animation, color, and especially exciting 3-D, are captivating for the entire 90-minute running time.

As far as I'm concerned, this Disney-produced Zemeckis "A Christmas Carol" has joined the 1951 Alastair Sim version at the top of the list of a number of fine adaptations of the Dickens classic.

--OH! Just wanted to say that I had NO playback issues with this title and have never had.

[levcore]

Agreed, great movie. I love the Muppets one also.

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by ilovenola2

I believe this is the best and most faithful (dialogue and all!) adaptation of the Dickens classic, followed by the 1951 Alastair Sim version. There are some other good ones to be searched out..... Stewart, Denny, Scott, etc.
But this 3D adaptation really recreates the book and, I believe, is NOT "too scary" for youngsters old enough to comprehend the story.
Oh-- and the 3-D is spectacular!

While it's faithful to the basic events (and includes bits not found in other versions) it overdoes many of them to the point of not being accurate at all. In the book for example, Christmas Present grows older and says that his life will end at midnight. Unlike any other version, this film includes that - but it becomes this ridiculous horror scene where he clutches his heart in agony as the clock strikes, falls to the ground writhing and laughing as he dies and decomposes to a cackling skeleton! It's so grotesque that it ruins both the scene and Dickens' intent. Same thing with the ghostly children Ignorance and Want.

By the time you add in Scrooge flying around the moon, shrinking, surfing on an icicle or being menaced by a towering rat, the additions have done serious damage to the focus of the story. All the dialogue in the future sequence is lifted from the book ... but who hears it? It's in the background as our focus is on tiny Scrooge caught in the bed curtains or trying to avoid being crushed so the message is lost. What you remember is Scrooge running from a rat, not the lesson he learns.

The 3D is great, and some parts of the movie are truly excellent. I watch it most years (mostly for the 3D) but every time I do I end up thinking "If only ...". Parts of it get a A+ from me, but wretched excess takes it down to about a C+.

The less "accurate" but better focused Sim and Scott versions are vastly superior to me.

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

While it's faithful to the basic events (and includes bits not found in other versions) it overdoes many of them to the point of not being accurate at all. In the book for example, Christmas Present grows older and says that his life will end at midnight. Unlike any other version, this film includes that - but it becomes this ridiculous horror scene where he clutches his heart in agony as the clock strikes, falls to the ground writhing and laughing as he dies and decomposes to a cackling skeleton! It's so grotesque that it ruins both the scene and Dickens' intent. Same thing with the ghostly children Ignorance and Want.

By the time you add in Scrooge flying around the moon, shrinking, surfing on an icicle or being menaced by a towering rat, the additions have done serious damage to the focus of the story. All the dialogue in the future sequence is lifted from the book ... but who hears it? It's in the background as our focus is on tiny Scrooge caught in the bed curtains or trying to avoid being crushed so the message is lost. What you remember is Scrooge running from a rat, not the lesson he learns.

The 3D is great, and some parts of the movie are truly excellent. I watch it most years (mostly for the 3D) but every time I do I end up thinking "If only ...". Parts of it get a A+ from me, but wretched excess takes it down to about a C+.

The less "accurate" but better focused Sim and Scott versions are vastly superior to me.

I agree with you to some extent. I too think there is too much excess in the flying, chase sequences. But there is much more that I like.
Again I agree with you regarding the Sim version (which I think has never been equalled or topped) is the best of all. And I've never seen the Scott version (though I must at some point, just missed it). Now the impossible-to-find "solo" rendition of the novel, read "as Dickens" by the brilliant actor Anton Lesser is a treat. Who needs cinematography or animation when ONE great actor can paint it all with a brilliant script and his major talent! Oh-- and don't forget "your IMAGINATION," something that has gotten away from later generations.

So let's agree to disagree here. I like the Zemeckis 3D version more than you but we agree completely on the best!

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by ilovenola2

I agree with you to some extent. I too think there is too much excess in the flying, chase sequences. But there is much more that I like.
Again I agree with you regarding the Sim version (which I think has never been equalled or topped) is the best of all. And I've never seen the Scott version (though I must at some point, just missed it). Now the impossible-to-find "solo" rendition of the novel, read "as Dickens" by the brilliant actor Anton Lesser is a treat. Who needs cinematography or animation when ONE great actor can paint it all with a brilliant script and his major talent! Oh-- and don't forget "your IMAGINATION," something that has gotten away from later generations.

So let's agree to disagree here. I like the Zemeckis 3D version more than you but we agree completely on the best!

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

You need to see George C. Scott - I can never decide for long which I like better between Scott & Sim - both great. The one-man version by Patrick Stewart was wonderful too - never saw it, but I had it on CD. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! Here's to better days in 2021

[dartfrog298]

One of my annual viewing pleasures. Love everything about this adaptation.

[Jbug]

Originally Posted by dartfrog298

One of my annual viewing pleasures. Love everything about this adaptation.

Same here.

[GreatGreg]

A great adaptation. The CGI really brings out the imagination in this film.

[Gizz]

Rewatched this classic last week and I still think that it is still one of the best 3D films out there.

[mar3o]

I just watched this again myself last weekend. I watched it with somebody who had never seen it before, and she enjoyed it. I still think the animation is superb and delightful. It's a bit dark tonally and visually regarding the character design, but this is one of the best versions I've seen in terms of making the ghosts seem actually frightening. Somebody previously in here said the animation has not aged well, and I disagree. He compared it to Avatar. Bad comparison. That film was trying to pass the cgi characters off as photo-realistic, and imo succeeded. This film was not trying to do that. It was clearly animated and never tried to hide that obvious fact. It was an animated film. Avatar was not an animated film - it used cgi for some of the characters. There's a difference.

I do think the chase scene with the horses and miniaturization is a mis-step, but it's otherwise a very accurate version, and it even covers a bit of dialogue I've never heard in any other version that does come from the novel. There are a couple bits that are not covered but they're the same bits most versions don't cover. It covers some stuff some versions commonly leave out, like "ignorance" and "want".

And the 3D is terrific.

[chucktatum]

I loved this version when I saw it in IMAX 3D in 2009 and my appreciation has only grown since. I now watch it at least once a year (in 3D, of course).

Other than some moments of less-than-great animation (namely Colin Firth's character), I LOVE so much about it: the 3D and camera movements, Doug Chiang's production design, the unabashed horror elements, faithfulness to the original story.

I would love to see Zemeckis do another full mo-cap Christmas film in the future to make it a trilogy.

[mar3o]

I do they they overdid things in general. The scene with Marley's jaw is a prime example. Yes, it falls off in the book, but Disney ramps it up by having it turn into a grotesque "comedy" moment where he still tries to talk with it, and then lifts his lip up over his face. Lots of moments that could have been dialed back for subtlety are instead ramped up to 10. The dialogue is often accurate but again a bit overacted too, not by Carrey, who is excellent, but by the additional characters and ghosts.

Disney needs to learn that sometimes less is more. Some scenes are very well done and subtle, yet others are just hammed up.

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I do agree they they overdid things in general. The scene with Marley's jaw is a prime example. Yes, it falls off in the book, but Disney ramps it up by having it turn into a grotesque "comedy" moment where he still tries to talk with it, and then lifts his lip up over his face. ...Disney needs to learn that sometimes less is more. Some scenes are very well done and subtle, yet others are just hammed up.

I agree entirely. One note though: Marley's jaw doesn't "fall off" in the book. When he undoes the cloth wrapped around his head his mouth drops wide open - presumably after being dead so long the muscles no longer hold it in place. Have you ever seen the animated 1971 version? His mouth drops wide open and stays that way, as Dickens described.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

I agree entirely. One note though: Marley's jaw doesn't "fall off" in the book. When he undoes the cloth wrapped around his head his mouth drops wide open - presumably after being dead so long the muscles no longer hold it in place. Have you ever seen the animated 1971 version? His mouth drops wide open and stays that way, as Dickens described.

I haven’t seen the 3D animated version, but Richard Williams’ (literally!) jaw-dropping 1971 animated short version, along with the 1951 feature version (Alistair Sim reprises his role from this in the 1971 animated version!), are gonna be awful tough to beat.

[Paul H]

Love it!
Dis Scrooge.jpg
Disney S.jpg

[Paul H]

In last years "FXs A Christmas Carol"
Scrooge grabbed the door-knocker in-panic and pulled off Marley's Jaw (Shown as metal).
Then when he hears noises in the house, finds the jaw on the floor (Shown as flesh).
Title.jpgDoor Knock.jpgKnocker piece.jpg
Found on Floor.jpgIn hand.jpg

Continued on next post

[Paul H]

Marley grabs the jaw and puts it back on.

Puts back in mouth.jpgAdjusts.jpg

[ryudoadema]

Just watched for the first time. As good as everyone says! Hits me right in the feels and tickles my 3d senses quite nicely! If I had to give a complaint, it's that it's mostly pretty dark. That lends to the atmosphere, but detracts slightly from the 3d.

[recS-12]

Gave a 1st time viewing today. Really good 3D. Scene where Young Man Scrooge and his love interest are dancing has great depth! Snow falling throughout the scenes was also done well. My 12 yr old kept remarking how cool it looked.

[Jbug]

I remember when this was in a theater parents were complaining about the movie being "too scary." Someone brought up that Zemeksis added the jaw and icicle shots to lighten up the story for children.