Disney's A Christmas Carol Movie Review

In the long string of adaptations of Charles Dickens' 1843 classic, possibly the greatest contribution of Disney's A Christmas Carol is that it reminds us that this is a dark and scary ghost story. Screenwriter and director Robert Zemeckis focuses on the personal horror of a miserable man, literally haunted by the prospect of living eternally in despair for his selfish choices.

That Zemeckis would focus on this should come as no surprise, given his history as a director and producer--What Lies Beneath, Death Becomes Her, The Frighteners, Th13teen Ghosts, Gothika, Ghost Ship, and The House on Haunted Hill. Now, his version of A Christmas Carol is easily the most unnerving of all the film adaptations of the story. Some of the movie's best moments involved the haunting of Scrooge--especially an early scene where Scrooge can only sit and wait as he hears the terrifying THUD-drag-THUD of something approaching in the dark.

Wait. Terror? Darkness? Isn't this a Disney film, starring a mugging Jim Carrey and directed by the guy behind the bright and fanciful ThePolar Express? Yes, but families should know this is a far cry from The Muppet Christmas Carol. It will scare the stockings off of little kids. Which is strange, because at times, it seems to be aimed at kids with gags and Polar Express-like action sequences (Scrooge shooting like a rocket into the starry sky, shrinking to the size of a rat, sliding down London's drain pipes, running from giant horses, etc). Families with young children will be better off renting the Muppet version.

OK, so it's not a kid flick. But how does it fare in adapting Dickens for other audiences? It's a mixed bag.

The good: Zemeckis nails the terror of revisiting one's painful and regrettable moments of selfishness with an understanding that it will doom your future. It excels in portraying a mean and horrible old man whose life is empty and sad because he's pushed everyone away from him. (In fact, this may be filmdom's most despicable Scrooge yet, as Carrey plays him so seething that any words he speaks to people seem to grind out with spite.) The film shows how a person's good nature, emotions and compassion are pushed down by hurt and greed.

But on the other side of the coin, Scrooge's redemption is not as convincing as in other adaptations. The reawakening of his spirit is far overshadowed by the darker end of the spectrum. While there is joy in this Scrooge's journey, it doesn't unfold naturally. I wasn't happy for Scrooge. I didn't feel his conversion; it just happened. While I felt his horror and misery, I didn't feel his victory. It lacked heart--which might be because it spends very little time on the story's lovable characters, like Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.

Still, this is one of the most (if not the most) faithful film adaptations of the story. While some visual bits and action sequences are added, almost all of the dialogue is verbatim from the book (which, incidentally, also includes a lack of focus on Tiny Tim). Zemeckis very much tells the story that Dickens told. So why is the triumph of redemption not as affecting?

I think it's because the computer animation dulls the message. It's like the difference between a live stage show and one acted out by Hall of Presidents-type automatons. Disney's A Christmas Carol seems lifeless at times because the motion-captured characters are lifeless. And yet the animation is hardly a failure; its vivid, three-dimensional look is rich and detailed. Key characters like Scrooge and the Ghost of Christmas Present are incredibly lifelike. The backgrounds are beautiful. The sweeping flight over London during the titles is gorgeous and fun. On the other hand, secondary characters have plastic faces and dead eyes, the big Fezziwig party looks like bad video game footage, and the Ghost of Christmas Past has a flame head with Jim Carrey's face superimposed over it. It's almost laughable but creepy--much like the baby-faced sun from the Teletubbies.

Still, because Zemeckis relies so much on Dickens' story and dialogue, there are some thought-provoking moments that many adaptations leave out. Most versions include the idea of living with Christmas in your heart all year, but this is the first one in which I was affected by nephew Fred's assertion that Christmas has done him well because it helps him view other people as fellow travelers and not a lower species unworthy of respect or fellowship.

This version also made me most clearly see connections to faith life of any other version I've seen. For instance, I'd never seen The Ghost of Christmas Present as a representation of Christ, but here, he had a mix of joy, truth-telling, charisma, teaching, love, and justified anger that I associate with Jesus.

Disney's A Christmas Carol also surprisingly contains some tough but important aspects of the book that most feel-good, family-friendly adaptations leave out. Zemeckis doesn't soften the terror of eternal damnation. The Ghost of Christmas Present tells Scrooge that many who claim Christmas actually know nothing of its real meaning. And then, Scrooge discovers two impoverished and creepy children, Ignorance and Want, living under the ghost's robes. The spirit tells him they belong to Man but are foolishly associated with Christmas. Zemeckis' loyalty to these Dickensian ideas is worthy of respect; these ideas need to be heard.

But they also contribute to the confusion. It feels like Zemeckis wanted to make one movie (a scary and socially relevant ghost story) and Disney wanted another (A Polar Express-type movie with an old man falling down a lot for laughs). Each different side works but the mesh doesn't. I left the theater feeling like I saw another walk-through-the-motions adaptation of this well-worn tale. It made me ask: Do we need more versions of this story? Is there anything left to add to A Christmas Carol? Can a filmmaker at this point do anything fresh and visionary with this story?