Warning: Spoilers.
Yesterday we went to see Jim Carrey's Christmas Carol. It was very disappointing. Given the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of a great book, and add something to the list of great movies that have already been made of this book, he chose instead to add one to the growing pile of cheesy renditions. This one was somewhere below the Muppet's Christmas Carol, although probably above the Jetson's Christmas Carol. Patrick Stewart is still by far the best.
When making a lengthy book into a movie, one has to adapt. That's obvious, I suppose. But the art is in deciding what to cut, and what to leave in. This requires that you actually know the story, and know what really matters in it. Carrey left out several of the most significant moments of the story, and altered a few of the other ones to the point of their being far less meaningful.
Some film makers choose to add stuff in, such as a cute animal companion, or an extra Marley. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. Hint: It works when it's clear from the start that you're not trying to do a faithful rendition of the original.
This is where the Carrey version fails, and fails hard. It's never completely clear whether he's trying to do a faithful rendition. Some places, it seems that he is. The multiple faces of Christmas Past was not only well done, but really the first time that's ever been done in a movie. The strict adherence to the script for the majority of the movie, occasionally translating phrases for an American audience, too, made it seem that he was indeed trying to be true to the book.
But then inserted here and there were things either wildly outside of the book - such as a lengthy chase scene, and a rocket trip to the moon. (Huh!?!) And also things were inserted that simply undermined the feeling that we were really visiting Scrooge's past, such as Mrs. Fezziwig suddenly taking flight during the dance. It's significant that the two scenes I hated the most from the movie are the ones most prominently featured in the trailers.
And the entire death scene of Christmas Present - well, I'm torn on that. It was a very interesting interpretation of something implied, not stated, in the book. Ignorance and Want were straight out of the 1938 Christmas Carol. But then it got positively weird.
Also missing: The scene where Christmas Present chastises Scrooge for presuming to judge who is the "surplus population."
Altered: Christmas Present blames the church, rather than Parliament, for attempting to keep places of business closed on Sunday.
And, really, Christmas Present was just ... creepy. In the book, Christmas Present is benevolent. Everything about him is benevolent. Yes, he laughs a lot, but it's jolly, whereas in this movie Christmas Present is, for most of his time on screen, just creepy. He laughs far too much, and at all the wrong times, and is more hysterical than benevolent. To be fair, it's hard to identify any movie that really gets Christmas Present right. Patrick Stewart does, and, strangely, the Muppet movie does.
While I was very pleased with the start of the movie - Marley was just about perfect - by about halfway through Christmas Past, I started feeling that this was just an opportunity to show off cool new technology. The technology (yes, the new 3D stuff is amazing) was the end, rather than a means to tell a classic story in a new way. And while I was initially fascinated with the rather unorthodox interpretation that the ghosts are just parts of Scrooge himself, this didn't work for me, and made me feel like they did this just because it's what they did in Polar Express.
I rather wish that we had gone to see it at the Movie Pub instead, so that instead of the gratuitous 3D, we could have enjoyed a meal.
I've been very apprehensive about this movie. My wife wants to go see, and thus we probably will, but I've been very worried about whether Jim Carrey could pull off a credible Scrooge. Everyone I know keeps pointing to "The Grinch" and I can't help but agree with them on that point. I still worry, and now it sounds like the worry might have been justified.
I find it ironic that my two favorite versions of "A Christmas Carol" are your top and apparently one of your less liked. I love the Patrick Stewart version. I really have yet to see someone else pull off Scrooge that well. Yes, and the rest of the story is well portrayed. My other favorite is "A Muppet Christmas Carol", and that's mostly because it's been my favorite Christmas movie, period, ever since it came out when I was a kid. It was the movie that made me interested in reading "A Christmas Carol" when I got older. It still doesn't feel like Christmas if I don't get to watch it. Then again, I can definitely agree that it is not the most accurate, so I can see where someone who loved the story before this movie might not like the movie. Still, I can never get over, and almost always cry at, the scene in that version when Scrooge loses Belle. Yet the Ghost of Christmas Present always manages to cheer me up. Anyway, having over-shared, I gotta say thanks for the review, hopefully it will help me brace for seeing it.
I haven't read your blog posting yet. I just wanted to let you know I was waiting for you to respond to the movie.
Now, i'll go and read what you have written.
I find the movie very faithful and close to the original book, and less closer to any of the "cheery" adaptations made over the time. It has its dark and dreary moments, and this Scrooge is just as miserly and contemptuous as Dickens had described him to be, and has not been toned or watered down.
Just as an example, and something I have been reading a lot: Many people pointed out their favorites as the muppets Christmas Carol. There is no comparison. As much as I love the muppets version and the versions that have been made over time, this version is the very different and very close to the book. Even many dialogues are the same.
I find it amusing the way many have been preparing themselves for Carrey to do some OTT work =P He was rather impressive in my opinion, and to those who it concerns, did not display much of his over the top antics.
Gary Oldman was very good too. I enjoyed his freaky Bob Marley work-- the ghost was just as creepy as Dickens had described him to be, and not a sugary lost spirit.
I scoffed at the idea that it might not be suitable for younger kids before I'd watched it, but I agree that kids under the age of 9 may be a bit freaked out.
I enjoyed watching the movie. Its best to have no comparison expectations when you get to watch this film-- it's a tale that's been made countless times, but this movie deserves a fair chance.
My wife and daughter (13) saw movie and did not enjoy it. With Jim Carey I thought there would be some funny parts but there were none. I would not recomend the movie.
Wayne, you expected funny parts?
Hmm. To me, that, all by itself, indicates what's wrong with this movie. The Christmas Carol was written by Charles Dickens in 1834. It was not written by Jim Carrey. It's not a funny story, although there are indeed funny parts, most of which were left in.
But Jim Carrey has pretty consistently done well in movies in which he can be himself, and not particularly well in movies where he tries to be someone else, but ends up being himself.
But the fact that folks expect the latter - that is, that they expect Jim Carrey playing Ebenezer Scrooge to be more Carrey than Scrooge - seems to be a pretty significant failing on Mr. Carrey's part.
But, then, as I mentioned, I'm something of a Christmas Carol snob. I expect it to either be done well, or to be done as a sort of "inspired by" movie, like the Muppets or Jetsons. This was somewhere in the middle, unable to make up its mind which it was.
I don't think the story of A Christmas Carol is a "lengthy book." I have a copy of the Oxford Illustrated Dickens Christmas Books and it's only about 70 pages. It's really a short story. Truth is I liked the 3D version because it used the dialogue and did not sugar coat the story. I agree there were several departures in order to showcase technology but I was ok with that, it was expected. Also, there certainly is humor in the original story ("couldn't I take 'em all at once, and have it over, Jacob?") and at least some of that humor was included in the movie.
I've read all of your blogs on this movie and I must agree that as HUGE fan of Jim Carrey I kinda half expected him to put his own flair to Scrooge and make the movie his own just like he did with "The Grinch". But seeing the begining it looked like he was going to play true to the book. I was very disapointed when he took off on his own away from the book during some parts, and I might add I more than likly wont let my 4 year old neice watch it yet. But except for the ghost of christmas present becoming a laughing skeleton, I have to say i liked the movie in and of itself. Jim Carry did a good job. Oh and I'm a huge fan of "The Muppet's Christmas Carol".