Charles Dickens’ 1843 story, “A Christmas Carol,” has been adapted so many times we’ve lost count. It’s been revived with the Muppets, reworked for the “Doctor Who” universe, and it’s currently being remade with a full horror angle thanks to Robert Eggers. The story structure is so simple that you can play with the setting in all sorts of ways without ever losing your heart. This may be why people are generally willing to watch another iteration of it, as well as why they might not respond well to versions that play things too straight.
The 2009 motion-capture animated film “A Christmas Carol” starring Jim Carrey is one of the most faithful film adaptations ever made of Dickson’s tale, but it’s also one that received 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 film simply lacked the warmth or spark of its source material.
The main exception here was Roger Ebert, the famous, longtime critic of the Chicago Tribune. In his own review, Ebert described the film as “an exhilarating visual experience” that proves director Robert Zemeckis is “one of the few directors who knows what he’s doing with 3D.” Ebert concluded his review by writing:
“So, should you take the kids? Hmmm. I’m not so sure. When I was little, this movie would have scared me. Kids today have seen more and are tougher. Either way, ‘A Christmas Carol’ has the one quality parents hope for in a family movie: it’s entertaining for adults.”
Ebert admitted that the animation style of Disney’s A Christmas Carol wasn’t for everyone
An important element that worked against Zemeckis’ adaptation was that it was made at a delicate stage in the history of 3D animation. This was a period when the potential for this new, more realistic style was clear, but the technology was not yet there to make it happen. Probably the most infamous case in the 2000s was “The Polar Express,” another mo-cap animated Zemeckis film that’s fun… as long as you can get past the eerie valley feeling evoked by its characters’ faces. “A Christmas Carol” has a similar “not quite there yet” feel to its animation, giving it a lingering horror even in scenes that aren’t. supposed be scary.
“I’m still not convinced that 3D represents the future of cinema,” Ebert admitted in his review, but he described Zemeckis as one of the few directors of the era 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 surer touch than many other directors, using 3D instead of being used by it,” observed Ebert. “If the foreground is occupied by nearby objects, they usually rise inward and not above our heads. Note the wall bells in the foreground that we are looking at when Scrooge, far below, enters his house; as one then the other 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 weird 3D animation of the mid-2000s, but Ebert seemed to have no problem with it.
“A Christmas Carol” is streaming on Disney+.
