Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001) User Reviews (23)

Charming and enjoyable recounting about unforgettable and inmortal Christmas story

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 17 December 2018]

Worthwhile adaptation about timeless and quintessential Christmas tale , it is definitely worth a look thanks to splendid animated images . It's fun , touching and different approach to the Christmas classic with acceptable effects by cartoon , dealing with the known story about an old bitter miser who makes excuses for his uncaring nature learns real compassion when three ghosts visit him on Christmas Eve . A Christmas Carol is an agreeable production , a wonderful and straight-forward approach to the Dickens's source material , being splendid but freely adapted . It stars with a live-action sequence set in Boston in 1857, the site of a live reading by renowned novelist Dickens played by Simon Callow. The production values & drawing are both adequate with just enough attractive to appeal to the tenderhearted , and with touching doses of horror , case of the potentially frightening elements the Ghosts of Past, Present and Future , adding sentiment ; all of them are blended into the mix , until , like a nice Christmas punch , the result appeals to all . Scrooge is a miserly old businessman in 1840's London . He displays no charity to mankind generally , and in particular , to his employee Bob Cratchett and his unfortunate son , Tiny Tim . One Christmas Eve he is visited by the ghost of Marley, his dead business partner. He is warned that he must change his miserly ways or face damnation . Marley foretells that Scrooge will be visited by three spirits , each of whom will attempt to show Scrooge the error of his ways . In Just One Night, He Has Seen His Past, His Present, And His Future. And They've All Come Back To Haunt Him Will Scrooge reform his ways in time to celebrate Christmas? . To his delight, the spirits complete their visits in one night giving him the opportunity to mend his ways. The first spirit, the Ghost of Christmas Past , shows Scrooge visions of his own past in which had spent much of his childhood neglected by his father over the holidays at boarding school until he was finally brought home by his loving sister Fan who died prematurely after giving birth to his nephew Fred . A past in which appears a young Scrooge and including a broken engagement to his girlfriend . In Just One Night , He Has Seen His Past, His Present, And His Future. And They've All Come Back To Haunt Him Will Scrooge reform his ways in time to celebrate Christmas? .

A marvelous recounting of a Christmas vintage classic , beginning with Dickens himself explains that the mouse, named Gabriel, carries a blaze of hope amidst the glaring co-existence of rich and poor in the streets of London in this retelling of Charles Dickens' immortal story . As throughout the subsequent unfolding of the famous tale a pair of mouse providing younger members of the audience with a point of childish style into the story . Decent and stirring rendition with top-notch animated drawings . Atmospherically, the movie is as comfortable and heartwarming as an old Christmas card , including potentially frightening aspects : the Ghosts of Past, Present and Future .The whole concept of looking at your life in the past, present and future is creative in and of itself . After watching the movie, you may look at your life from the same perspectives . And adding the pleasant voices from prestigious actors , such as : Simon Callow as Scrooge / Charles Dickens , Nicolas Cage , Kate Winslet , Jane Horrocks , Rhys Ifans , Juliet Stevenson , Robert Llewellyn and Michael Gambon who also played a Scrooge role in the Doctor Who (2005) episode and A Christmas Carol . Though most of us , if not all of us, have seen other adaptations in the past or read the story,and know already what to expect, director Jimmy Murakami manages to capture pure magic with this peculiar portrayal of main character Ebenezer Scrooge , and it is definitely worth a look . It's fun and different approach to the Christmas classic. A highly recommended film that nobody should miss it especially during Christmas time still ranks as one of the most enjoyable adaptations of the Dickens classic ever. This animated retelling of Charles Dickens' classic novel about a Victorian-era miser taken on a journey of self-redemption will appeal to Charles Dickens novel fans .

The motion picture was well directed by Jimmy T. Murakami . He was born on June 5, 1933 in San Jose, California, USA as Teruaki Murakami and died in Dublín , 2014 . He is known for his work on Breath (1967), Humanoids from the Deep (1980) , Heavy Metal (1981) , The Christmas Story Keepers (1998) , The Easter Story Keepers (1998) and Kate Bush: King of the Mountain (2005) . And When the wind blows (1986) that was his greatest hit along with a Sci-Fi movie titled Battle beyond the stars produced by Roger Corman .

Other versions about this stunning story courtesy of several mysterious Christmas apparitions are the following ones : The rather obscure 1935 version with Sir Seymour Hicks , the 1951 British production with Alastair Sim, Jack Warner , adaptation released by MGM in 1938 with Reginald Owen , Gene Lockhart , and the 1970 musical, with Albert Finney , Frank Finlay . Under the title of 'A Christmas Carol' a cartoon rendition (1997) by Stan Phillips and voiced by Tim Curry and another (1991) by Jimmy T Murakami with Simon Callow . The made-for-TV productions: 1984 with George C. Scott , 1999 with Patrick Stewart , Richard E. Grant , Saskia Reeves , Laura Fraser , Joel Grey and the 2004 musical, with Kelsey Grammer . Finally , ¨Robert Zemeckis's Christmas Carol¨ in which Jim Carrey demonstrates once again his versatility on screen ; it is given the full ¨Motion Capture¨ deluxe treatment in a superior film directed by Robert Zemeckis with Jim Carrey , Robin Wright , Colin Firth , Dominic West , adding stunning special effects with a nice little touch , but it is Carrey's interaction with the 'ghosts' and various characters that really steal the show ; including top-drawer effects by means of ¨Motion Capture¨, a technique developed by Robert Zemeckis in previous films as Beowulf and Polar Express .

A disappointing adaptation

[Rectangular_businessman · 5/10 · 25 December 2012]

Is hard to believe that this movie was directed by Jimmy Murakami, the same director of the marvelous animated film "When the Wind Blows", considering how bland and uninspired this film was.

The animation from this film was mediocre at best, with plain and inexpressive designs. On the other hand, the sceneries were quite beautiful and the atmosphere was more than appropriate for this kind of story.

If only the script wasn't so unconvincing, this would be at least something remotely tolerable. Too bad that this version of the story adds lots of unnecessary stuff that wasn't in the book and doesn't work here (Like the live-action sequences and the two annoying mice characters) Also, in this version Scrooge doesn't even look old.

While the music and voice acting from this movie were more than decent, and the beauty of the sceneries, this was a very disappointing animation, which was forgettable at best. But at least, it was better than the Robert Zemeckis' version.

It's Just So Lifeless

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 19 April 2006]

I've probably seen every version of "A Christmas Carol" ever done. It's probably my favorite story. It's about pain and suffering and redemption. It's a wonderful ghost story. It has great characters and a great deal of sentimentality. It take a really good actor to pull off the character of Scrooge. Alaister Sim and George C. Scott are my favorites. The character has to have a link to an unhappy past. Cruelty is one thing, but we need some humanity as well. If he is not complex, he is nothing. This had potential. It has very nice animation. The problem, for me, is that Scrooge is too young. He has the angular face of a forty year old. His lines are delivered without any underlying emotion. I don't think the people doing the voices did much homework. Also, what's wrong with the original plot. Do people change it so they can put their own signature on it. This one isn't too bad, but it's so wooden. Those mice are also really annoying. If one wanted to take this to its logical end, London at that time, was overrun with disease ridden vermin, which did decrease the surplus population. Now, I know that's really harsh to these two little guys, but I would imagine that Scrooge would have as soon flattened them with a boot as look at them. You either make a commitment to tell the story, or you throw the whole thing out an ignore the elements. The mice should go. There's also a group of social issues that are just dropped in. All in all, however, it seems so lacking in pizazz. There is supposed to be elation at the end; even giddiness. There is nothing giddy about this film.

Two or three good things can't save this film from being so dull and lifeless

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 29 June 2011]

I just want to start off saying I adore the story A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, it is timeless and alongside The Nutcracker it is for me the quintessential Christmas story. There are some good, great even, versions of this classic, the Alastair Sim film(up there with It's a Wonderful Life) as the ultimate Christmas film, the George C. Scott film and Muppet Christmas Carol.

I wish I could add this film to the list of great versions, but sadly, I can't. For me, this is the worst version. However, it is not a complete embarrassment. Simon Callow is good as Charles Dickens and as Ebeneezer Scrooge, and the live-action opening scene is one of two good scenes the other being the Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come sequence, Kate Winslet is charming and touching as Belle and of the soundtrack(which I quite liked) What If and the Charlotte Church song are the standouts.

I really wanted to like it, but I did wish Christmas Carol:The Movie- the ghastly, uninspired title alone is just one of the problems- wasn't so lifeless and dull. Two things especially made it so. One was the quality of the animation, the look of the film does look drab with flat colours, with the background art lacking fluidity and the character designs looking quite dated. The other is the storytelling despite the core of the story being there, the fact that there were changes didn't bother me actually, it's just that some especially the anthropomorphic mice were unnecessary, overly cute and interrupted the flow of the story far too much. The romantic subplot took too long to get going too, and the Walking in the air-like sequences are some of the film's better scenes visually but they too drag the story down to a lesser extent.

While there is the odd dialogue lifted from the book, most of it feels dumbed down and juvenile as if to appeal more to children or those who haven't read the story, which is what I felt similarly about most of the subplots. The voice cast Callow and Winslet aside are disappointing. They are talented but their dialogue is lacking. Jane Horrocks and Michael Gambon are fine actors and do fit into their roles well enough, it's just that the writing and storytelling disallows them into doing anything particularly special with them. The worst by far is Nicolas Cage, who doesn't work at all as Jacob Marley sounding very bored and monotone throughout.

In conclusion, two or three good things aren't enough to save this film. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Much better than one would expect

[missrljane · 7/10 · 4 January 2002]

There is nothing wrong with changing a story so long as you admit to it. So unlike many children's films where a classic is ruined and the child grows up in ignorance and never knows the difference, this film has the charming idea of having live action Charles Dickens go to America and tell the story to an audience explaining it isn't quite the same as how he wrote it in the book, thus growing curiosity and encouraging children to read the true classics of this world. The only real fault with this film is its ghastly title (and possible when the child of ignorance disintegrates, being too scary for children). I admit as a film student I had very low expectations of ANOTHER adaption of A Christmas Carol but was for once very pleasantly surprised and refreshingly, no one bursts into song and no animals talk in this film. The acting is very good and the voice talents obviously cared about this job. How Scrooge acts after the ghost of Christmas Future and how he makes the Christmas miracles are more realistic than I've seen in any adaption for a long time. Things don't happen with a snap of the fingers and this children's film truly does give hope to the most desperate of souls.

Christmas Carol: The Movie

[jboothmillard · 1/10 · 2 January 2008]

This was only the second version of the classic story by Charles Dickens I had seen, and sadly it turned out to be one of the worst. The film opens with a quick live action piece where Simon Callow as Charles Dickens begins the story of A Christmas Carol, and then obviously it goes to animated story itself. You probably already know it, Ebenezer Scrooge is the grouchy cold-blooded businessman who refuses charity and hates Christmas. He is visited by Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who warns him of the visits of the other three ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Sir Michael Gambon) and the silent Future/Yet To Come. After all this he obviously realises the true magic of Christmas, and promises to be nicer in future. The only changes I noticed to the story were Scrooge having mice as friends (a stupid idea), Scrooge's ex-love Belle (Kate Winslet) needing to see him to help at the orphanage, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing the two kids, "want" and "ignorance", Scrooge still gets haunted after being turned nice, and he's worried he can't keep his promise to stay nice. Also starring Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, Iain Jones as Scrooge's nephew Fred and Colin McFarlane as Fezziwig. The animation is not great quality, the actors have wasted their voices for a worthless piece of garbage. The only good thing that comes from this film is the good voice of Kate Winslet, singing the closing song "What If", as for the rest, it is just excruciatingly awful. Very poor!

Well done; a fresh approach to the classic

[vchimpanzee · 10 December 2007]

I have seen four movie versions of the great novel in as many years. Including one with Mr. Magoo! This one is a little different from most of those I have seen; Scrooge's former fiancée Belle is Tiny Tim's nurse. Because of their former relationship, Belle hopes to persuade Scrooge to go easy on her hospital, which owes a great deal of money to Scrooge's company. A lot of people are shown being taken away by the police because they can't pay their debts. "Old Joe" is Scrooge's collector (wonder what will become of him when Christmas Day gets here?).

The movie features a couple of other new characters: Gabriel the mouse is a friend to the children at Belle's hospital. I'm not sure, but he may be one of the two mice that befriend Scrooge. One of the mice actually turns the evil miser into a kind and caring person--but only to mice. This mouse accompanies Scrooge on his journeys and, after Cratchit is unable to do so, tries to persuade Scrooge to read Belle's letter. The mice don't talk, but they do seem intelligent, and the one with the letter knows it is important and carries it whenever he is in "the real world."

Marley is quite scary as he appears in the office, not Scrooge's home. He must struggle to keep from being dragged out the window by his heavy chains, and when he finally leaves, it is with a bunch of demons. Marley and the demons return later to carry Scrooge away.

Tiny Tim's role is a little different. He starts out in Belle's hospital but gets to come home. Then he is unlucky enough to be one of the carolers on whom Scrooge dumps a bucket of water. So he gets sick again. He never does say the words "God bless us every one" that are so much a part of the story, and he does not go to church with his father. Though Cratchit does mention carrying Tiny Tim on his shoulder.

We also learn how Scrooge became such an evil man--I can't recall any version of the story going into this much detail. I have seen these topics covered briefly; Scrooge did not seem to be loved by his father, but he was expected to do all that was required to succeed in business, and this drove him to care more about money than anything else--which lost him the love of his life. His sister Fan was disinherited for marrying a loser (this is probably new), and Scrooge, who had proved he deserved it, got everything in the will.

More differences from the usual: Scrooge does change after he realizes he was dreaming, doesn't he? Well, he is so relieved here that he goes back to his old ways after an apparent change of heart during the visit of the final spirit. For about five seconds, until he looks in a mirror and sees a disturbing image. And when he does meet Belle, she is not that quick to forgive. This threatens to disrupt the happy ending we have come to expect.

Simon Callow did a fine job, though he didn't make quite the impression of, say, Alastair Sim. I didn't see any live-action introduction with Charles Dickens himself, but there was a narrator with the animation.

Kate Winslet also did a good job. Rhys Ifans (as Cratchit) and Iain Jones (as nephew Fred) were so kind despite the way Scrooge treated them. Most of the characters were well-acted.

The animation and background art were well-done. Certainly a step above the usual Saturday morning cartoons.

The background music was sufficiently creepy where it needed to be. It could also be somewhat cheerful. I liked the carolers who performed as people would have in the time of Dickens. I will say "Bah humbug" to two songs which reflect the style (though they don't go overboard with the instrumentals) of today's soft rock, Contemporary Christian and country radio formats. One was used with the closing credits.

As to whether this is appropriate for children, I would say it just depends on how willing they are to be scared (or how willing their parents are to let them be scared). Scrooge curses at his younger self, but these days you can say what he did with a G rating. The V-chip rating was TV-PG.

Should there have been another version? This one gave us just enough new insights to be justified.

a Really Decent Adaptation of this Dickens Tale

[sandlot1992 · 6/10 · 19 December 2020]

Out of all the adaptations of this classic Christmas story by Charles Dickens, this is probably a really good one in my opinion! the story is really good though compared to the original novel; but of course in the novel Ebenezer Scrooge encounters Jacob Marley's ghost in his bedroom, but in this version it's in his office. plus the animation looks really decent and okay in my book though especially the backgrounds that look like something you see in a Christmas card or from Dicken's original illustrations to the novel that's based on the original novel, plus Simon Callow does a really good job voicing Scrooge and playing Charles Dickens in the live action segments as well as Nicolas Cage as Jacob Marley and kudos to Kate Winslet from Titanic (1997) voicing Scrooge's fiancé Belle. yet this movie has some dark moments along with some sad moments and I wouldn't call this a boring adaption, if your a fan to any adaptation to a Christmas Carol along with the Muppets version, check this one out if you have kids in your family!

Atrocious

[smerph · 3/10 · 17 December 2012]

Christmas Carol adaptations are ten-a-penny (or a "dime-a-dozen" since most are from the US) but it would be a challenge to find one as awful as this one. Only the Kelsey Grammar TV Movie is arguably worse.

In addition to the lifeless, uninteresting animation, we have a bunch of pointless additions to the story that do nothing except detract from the original ideas of the novel.

The film has a leisurely pace that will bore children (presumably the intended audience). It takes 30 minutes before the Ghost of Christmas Past turns up, the opening half-hour given to setting up characters such as Old Joe and a, frankly baffling, subplot about Scrooge's lost love Belle.

Yes, Belle (voiced by Kate Winslet) plays a much larger role in this film than other adaptation. Whereas it's assumed in other adaptations that Belle moved on from Scrooge, here she seemingly became a spinster and never really got over him; emphasised in the "What If" song, which appears, jarringly, towards the end of film.

It's a baffling decision, clearly made so as to give Scrooge a "reward" for his redemption (as if that isn't a reward in itself). It robs the story of the theme of "years wasted", to have Scrooge be given a second- chance at love with Belle.

Also strange, is how the visitation from Marley happens before Scrooge retires to his sleeping quarters. This also occurs before he's visited by the two gentlemen collecting money for the poor. This creates a odd sense that Scrooge isn't even perturbed by the visitation and is able to carry on his working day, despite having just been haunted!

However, perhaps the stupidest, most ill-judged part of this film, is when Scrooge throws a bucket of water over Tiny Tim, causing him to contract pneumonia again...leading, presumably, to his death. So in this version, Scrooge is *directly* responsible for the boy's passing. This film has the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Oh, and I haven't mentioned the mice! There's two anthropomorphic mice in this who Scrooge takes a shining too. And that's the pre-redemption Scrooge, by the way. The, supposedly, nasty man is perfectly civil to the vermin long before he's "scrooged".

Positives? Well, perhaps it's worth mentioning that Scrooge finds it incredibly difficult to change his ways on Christmas morning. It's perhaps a little jarring to see an adaptation take this route, but I guess it's realistic that, after a lifetime of miserly ways, Scrooge isn't going to turn into Santa Claus instantly (a mistake that the Albert Finney adaptation was guilty of).

But that's all I can say that is good about this. I'm at a loss as to how this insipid thing attracted so many star names to lend their vocals. While I can accept that Nicolas Cage (as Marley) will appear in anything these days, I can't really explain the presence of Callow or Winslet.

Incidentally, the film now seems to be doing the rounds with the live- action sequences removed. While these are, essentially, irrelevant to the story, the removal of them means that both the start and end of the film is amateurishly abrupt. If you really must watch this, ensure it's the "full" version.

A Christmas Parable And Prophetic Too

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 13 January 2006]

This starts off with a live action sequence where Charles Dickens played by Simon Callow attends a venue in Boston where he relates the story of A Christmas CAROL . I wonder if Callow could have believed that a few years later he'd be reprising his role as Dickens where he attends a similar type of speaking tour in Cardiff in 1869 where one of the audience is a corpse taken over by a gaseous alien race called The Gelth ? Check out The DOCTOR WHO story The Unquiet Dead to see what I'm blabbering on about . It's certainly very interesting to see how the scenes from the two are very similar in atmosphere

As you might expect this a straight forward retelling of A Christmas CAROL in animated form so if you're expecting lines like " Pity The Gelth - We want your flesh " you're going to be bitterly disappointed . Some people may complain that the story concentrates far too much on a social political subtext but Dickens didn't write A Christmas CAROL as a ghost story , he wrote it as a story of redemption and this shines through , though perhaps a little too obviously to be truly successful . My only real complaint is that the mice are a serious distraction to the story telling

Who thought this was a good idea?

[tsetatsuj · 1/10 · 2 January 2020]

This is the first review I have written here, and I was compelled to because this is such a horrible version, people need to be warned.

Who thought this POS was a good idea to make? I saw one review that claimed this was in the spirit of the original and a swan hidden among the geese. How absolutely ludicrous.

This is nowhere near the original Dickens nor any improvement over other, better known versions. This adaptation plays far too fast and loose with the story, some of which was playing down to children, but in other ways just messing with the tale in wholly unnecessary ways. It shows strong-arm ruffian police carting people to debtor's prison (which didn't happen that way in real life, even), an extended part for Belle that messed with the entire point of the story, a too-coincidental connection between Tiny Tim and a Scrooge debtor victim, and on and on. To top it off, they added mice characters who, while they don't actually talk, have super-intelligence and can manipulate/observe proceeding like small humans.

The only real saving grace is they tried to present the Ghost of Christmas past as closely to the novella as anyone could, and it was a valiant attempt, but that ghost - as written by Dickens - is unfilmable, even in animation.

Unbelievably bad. Avoid this version at all costs.

Nice movie of the well-known story

[TheLeglessScotsman · 8/10 · 25 December 2006]

I quite much liked this version. I know that the story of Ebenezer Scrooge has been filmed many times but I don't care about that because of the moral point of this story. And hey, how many Dracula movies are out there?

The old-time animation was excellent and invigorating as I am quite bored with many modern day dull computer animations.

Mice were an excellent spice in the story. It looks like that many hate those mice and that they're not part of the story but hopefully everybody remembers Charles Dickens' lines in the start of the movie that this is not a straight adaptation from the book. Perhaps he just added those mice while telling the story? To me, mice didn't steal the story to themselves. The moral story of the original book is still there. And there aren't a director who didn't add something to the movie nevertheless what book says.

The ghost parts of the movie were marvelously made (especially the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come -part).

All in all, a well-made animated movie.

What If.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 6/10 · 20 December 2015]

With Christmas coming up I started looking round for X-Mas movies to view.Checking a pile of DVDs,I spotted a rarely mentioned adaptation of A Christmas Carol which I had picked up from Choices Video Rental shop just before it closed 5 years ago!,which led to me deciding that it was finally time to hear this Christmas Carol.

View on the film:

Supplying a sweet song for the soundtrack,Kate Winslet (whose sister Beth also appears) gives a good performance as Belle,with Winslet's soft voice making Belle's humble roots shine.Joining Winslet, Nicolas Cage gives the film a touch of wild horror as Marley,whilst Simon Callow joyfully grumbles as Scrooge and Michael Gambon gives the title a touch of class as the Ghost of Christmas Present.

Taking a slightly different direction in their adaptation,the screenplay by Piet Kroon & Robert Llewellyn open up the events in Scrooge's childhood which led to him being filled with "bar humbugs." Although this does allow Scrooge to appear more human,it also stops the central melodrama threads from heating up, thanks to the additional flashbacks making the present Scrooge look surprisingly mild mannered.

Giving a glimpse at what the rest of the film should have been with a delicate kaleidoscope fly across London,director Jimmy T. Murakami sadly keeps the animation style blunt,which leads to all of the main characters being unable to display the dramatic levels of emotion that the story deserves.

Final view on the film:

A film which does not offer a full glass of Christmas cheer.

Why wasn't it real-people?

[HotToastyRag · 3/10 · 5 June 2019]

In this version of A Christmas Carol, Simon Callow plays Charles Dickens. He attends a reading of his classic story, and as he reads aloud to his audience, the film turns to cartoon. Simon lends his voice to Ebenezer Scrooge, and he's joined by Nicolas Cage as Marley, Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Michael Gambon as the Ghost of Christmas Present, Jane Horrocks as the Ghost of Christmas Past, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, and Kate Winslet as Belle.

If you're going to go with an animated version, go with Mr. Magoo's comedic version. If you want something a little more sophisticated, go with Jim Carrey's 3-D version. This version isn't atrocious, but it's also not very good. It'll draw in quite a few viewings because of the cast, but how much more fun would it have been if it was a real-people movie with the same cast? Maybe everyone signed on thinking that was the case, and maybe the beginning real-people section was only added to appease audience members who were under the same impression when they rented it.

A veritable Humbug.

[jgesselberty-1 · 3/10 · 10 December 2022]

If you are a fan of Dickens or just of "A Christmas Carol" you will be completely disappointed by this travesty. It uses the story of Scrooge as a framework to pin on stories about scampering mice, people being sent to debtors prision, and a narrative that is so poorly written that it contains not a single word of Dickens' original novella. The dialogue so cheapens the master of the English language as to make it laughable. Add to this, that, other than the useless mouse, it introduces characters and situations that are not in the original. Also, it mixes up scenes from the original. For example, we see the two gentlemen seeking donations, right after the visit from Marley. How ridiculous is that? As an amusement for small children, who know little of the story, it is passable. But, if you know Dickens at all, you will be more than insulted at what they have done to his marvelous story. There are far too many versions to waste your time on this drivel.

Where are Darcel, Pam, Beverly, Jamila, Cooley, Mark, Eileen and Nicole when you really need them?

[Victor Field · 22 December 2003]

Darcel, Pam etc are - or were - the Solid Gold Dancers ("Solid Gold" was an American pop music show in the 1980s); in the movie "Scrooged" six of them (guess which two were absent) made a cameo appearance as part of the cast of Bill Murray's TV version of the classic Charles Dickens story... and there's the biggest problem with "Christmas Carol: The Movie" right there. Not the presence of leggy, gorgeous American girls in skimpy attire - such a thing could only have benefitted this movie - but the stunningly definitive and frankly ignorant title; so all the other versions of the novel (and there have been quite a few down the years, featuring casts from Alastair Sim through Henry Winkler [in the TV movie "An American Christmas Carol"] to Michael Caine in "The Muppet Christmas Carol" - not to mention the musical "Scrooge," at least two animated versions, and countless episodes of TV shows borrowing the whole story, like "WKRP In Cincinnati" and "The Odd Couple" to name but two) don't count then?

For a movie to live up to such a title, it would have to be the best version ever, and this isn't. It isn't helped by having live-action bookends of the great man (played here by Simon Callow, also the voice of Ebenezer Scrooge) performing a dramatic reading of his book in Boston. Or by having a pair of mice throughout the movie as the closest things to soulmates the man has (cute animals should be left to Disney and Disney alone). Or by animation that's depressingly crude for the most part (it all looks like a poor 1970s TV show, with the exception of the journeys the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present take our "hero" on, where the movie really does come to life for a bit). Or by Piet Kroon and Robert "Kryten" Llewellyn's script, or Julian Nott's score (pains me to say it, but the songs from Kate Winslet and Charlotte Church are the highpoints).

And as for Nicolas Cage as Jacob Marley... not since the late lamented Lorenzo Music did Peter Venkman on "The Real Ghostbusters" has there been such a shockingly bad case of cartoon miscasting. And some people wonder why so many of us love Pixar.

Ask yourself why you are watching this- 2 reviews

[barrynof · 1/10 · 30 December 2013]

If you are watching this with your kids, then you will be fine. It is okay. A little dark until Scrooge becomes happier.

If you are watching this movie to compare it to the others. First, let's start out with the awful 1970s animation. Yes, I know that this film came out in 2001, but you wouldn't know it by the animation. Secondly, Scrooge was nice to mice? Scrooge!?! Really? I don't think so. Next, how could you have Scrooge throw a bucket of water onto Tiny Tim? Scrooge is a mean person, but an action like this would be out of character for him. He mumbles and grumbles, but he gets others to do the dirty work. Let's not even discuss the use of Nicolas Cage as Jacob Marley. Simply a horrible choice. You know, fifty years before this movie came out, the best rendition of this story was made with Alastair Sim as Ebenezer Scrooge. So, watch this one for your kids, then when they are old enough show them a GOOD movie like the 1951 Alastair Sim version.

It's not just bad, it's "Bah! Humbug!"

[cricketbat · 4/10 · 29 November 2022]

I suppose if Christmas Carol: The Movie were the only film adaptation of Charles Dickens' story, perhaps people might actually like it. But it's not, and it's pretty pitiful compared to any of the other movies. First of all, the animation is atrocious. It looks as if it were made on a shoestring budget in a foreign country in the 70s. And despite the intriguing cast, which includes the likes of Kate Winslet, Nicolas Cage, and Michael Gambon, this movie prefers to focus on pseudo-comic relief mice. It's difficult to hate any adaptation of A Christmas Carol, but this one is definitely the bottom of the barrel.

Animated version doesn't work with this classic story

[SimonJack · 4/10 · 20 December 2020]

One can only guess that the makers of this movie were trying to appeal to a very young audience. Many animated films have appealed to adults as well over the years, but it was because of their outstanding productions or, in more recent decades, with some witty and sassy dialog that would be over the heads of youngsters in the 20th century. But when it came to a making a cartoon version of a traditional classic - Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol," it didn't work.

In spite of a huge cast of big-name stars as voices of the characters, "Christmas Carol: The Movie," turns out to be little more than a long drawn-out, lifeless and sometimes dull mostly animated film. Oh, it has sentiment all right, but little else. Some other reviewers before me have observed that it misses the punch and emphasis of the classic story. I think that's due mostly to the nature of animation. While feature length films like "Bambi," "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," and others deal with emotions, the subjects of good and bad are subjugated to sentimentalism. There's little or no morale or deep substance to such films. And, because it is animated, one can see that this film is a nice little fairy tale, but not a classic morality tale as Dickens wrote it and as it has been read, told and retold and filmed many times since he penned the story in 1843.

This is not a Charlie Brown Christmas story, or a fairy tale that can be nicely done in animation. Generations have known and grown up with the story and, hopefully, know it as more than a sentimental fairy tale. My four stars are for the performers who voiced the roles. The film appears to have been a big flop at the box office.

Visually stunning despite the old-timer animation!

[Sherazade · 10/10 · 20 February 2006]

The classic Charles Dickens tale becomes an animation starring the voice talents of Kate Winslet, Nicolas Cage, Simon Callow and Beth Winslet et AL. Kate even provides a wonderfully haunting ballad which is used during the film and called 'What if' which is a song about lost love. There are two versions of the song, the film version and the music video version. The equally beautiful soundtrack is rounded out by the stunning vocals of Charlotte Church flanked by a full unison choir. You've never seen A Christmas Carol like this before, it's old fashioned, it's unpretentious, it's funny and it's sad all at the same time. A wonderful family experience.

A strangely sloppy and inconsistent take on the Dickens classic that doesn't add much to the crowd of adaptations

[IonicBreezeMachine · 4/10 · 6 December 2022]

Ebeneezer Scrooge (Simon Callow) is a cold hearted miser who makes no secret of his contempt for the holidays as he runs his moneylending services with no room for compassion or humanity. Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his deceased partner, Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who is now condemned to wander the Earth in the shackles he forged in life and tells Scrooge that a similar fate awaits him with an even longer and heavier chain. Marley offers Scrooge a chance to avoid his fate by telling him three ghosts, the Ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Michael Gambon), and Future who show Scrooge his long forgotten past, its effects on those in the here and now, and what may happen if he continues on his course unaltered.

Christmas Carol: The Movie is a 2001 animated adaptation of the Charles Dickens novella A Christmas Carol directed by Jimmy Murakami who'd previously worked as a supervising animator on the iconic short The Snowman as well as directing When the Wind Blows. The film was released in the UK in 2001 where it underperformed making a mere $200,000 against an estimated 6 million Pound budget and with the exception of Norway the film went direct-to-video elsewhere including the United States where it would be released by MGM in 2003 with little fanfare. What critics who actually bothered to see the film were primarily negative in their reception and to this day the film remains one of the more forgotten and obscure adaptations of this material as there's really not much here that wasn't done better in either prior adaptations or ones that came afterwards.

While there is a certain appeal to some parts of the animation per the standards Murakami set for himself in The Snowman and When the Wind Blows, the animation itself feels like it's slightly sloggy with the characters' motions often feeling as though they're in motion through molasses. There's also some instances where the character designs fall into the uncanny valley with some attempts to make the humans more realistic looking resulting in some really unappealing aesthetics such as with the ghost of Christmas Past. In terms of the writing, the film does hit many of the major beats of the story, but issues with the pacing, placement of certain scenes, or added elements end up undermining the integrity of the narrative. The movie takes a really long time before it actually even gets to the arrival of the ghosts with the opening 30 minutes dedicated to establishing what Scrooge's lost love Belle played by Kate Winslet is doing with a hospital, antics involving two mute mice characters to whom Scrooge is uncharacteristically nice to, and there's no real buildup to the appearance of Jacob Marley whose appearance now comes before the collectors for the poor in a strange decision. Once we go through the three ghosts everything feels oddly compressed and rushed but also like we're going nowhere as there's a lengthy bit of animation done in the same style as The Snowman flight scene where Scrooge and the ghost of Christmas present sprinkle goodwill from the ghost's torch rather than actually looking at the present. But easily the biggest failure of the film lies at the end where the cathartic ending where Scrooge mends his ways feels trimmed down considerably and is lacking in the jovial spirit one typically associates with that ending.

Christmas Carol: The Movie is a not particularly impressive take on this story and there's a reason most aren't even aware of its existence. Aside from the "wha?" factor of having Nicolas Cage voice Marley this version of A Christmas Carol isn't particularly well told or well-acted and the animation doesn't do much service to this material.

In the Spirit of the Original Tale

[ncleasure · 9/10 · 7 December 2018]

While this adaptation lacks the flamboyance of the Jim Carrey telling, it does do a better job of staying on message. Unlike in other versions we do get to actually see Scrooge in full view. Moreso than just, miser, spirits, redemption. In this particular telling, Scrooge is seen for the living being he is. He simply wasn't spawned from a log a conniving miserable jerk. He was treated as a second class boy by his father and his tutors. Despite this he was able to become a fine young man until the world that he lived in changed him into what he had become. "We are not responsible for this world." Said Scrooge laying his hat upon the writing desk. What he did not know as he said it, he was speaking inverse of the fact. Charles Dickens never intended for this to be a simple ghost story, or even a story of Christmas. And If I have to hear another bearded single-origin-coffee-drinking socialist bobblehead say this is a story of the virtues of communism I may jump of Tower Bridge. Dickens saw the result of the workhouses and knew that the government could not solve poverty, he stated as much. He knew that the freedom and capitalist philosophy and the donation of funds voluntarily in fact could. That is the moral of the story respect your fellow man both in a brotherhood and fiscal sense. Not once did he claim that the government should take your belongings by force. Don't believe me, rewatch act one, remind you of anything? Watch the film from the perspective of the true meaning of the story and you will find that this is what holds fast to that most important of themes.

Now as for the mechanics of the film. Yes, you could argue that the visual style is a bit dated, true, but MGM ain't Disney. To be honest the animation in the film is acceptable to me as it is hand drawn. There were no computer short-cuts taken. Most impressive are the selection of voice actors in this film. Greats the like of Simon Callow, Nicolas Cage, Kate Winslet, Rhys Ifans, Michael Gambon for crying out loud. It shows, these actors and actresses did a fine job and are proud of their work. I know I am going to catch hell for this, but I like the mice, I do. They may be a bit silly but they offer a bit more depth and a welcome comic relief at times. If don't like them, "Don't mind the mice Cratchit, they were here on time."

In short, this is a very well done and misunderstood swan among ducks as modern moviegoers desire flashy computer graphics and a sanitized message which must be approved by a comity of those of proper moral standing. You know, Jim Carrey and his ilk. Do yourself a favor, read the original text and match it to the films.

A top-notch adaptation of the Christmas classic

[ja_kitty_71 · 10/10 · 15 December 2008]

This film, to me, is one of the best adaptations of the Charles Dickens classic I have ever seen. Of course, the version from 1951 starring Alastair Sim is the one my family loves, but to me both versions are excellent. I was also shocked by the negativity I had heard on the web (as I have said many, many times). I had watched this version, and quite frankly, I found it awesome!

This animated adaptation retains the essence of the timeless tale while introducing some interpretations. A celebrity cast provides voices for the roles of Scrooge, Marley, and Belle (Titanic's Kate Winslet). Of course, Belle plays a big role in this version. We would see her and Ebenezer as kids, and she was also friends with Ebenezer's beloved sister Fan. We also heard that her dad worked as a coachman and that both he and his daughter lived in the coachhouse. And I do think he drank too-her dad, I mean. Now years later, after their heated break-up and working at the Alms Hospital for the Poor, she never forgot about Ebenezer. And, after Dr. Lambert was imprisoned for debt, Belle wrote a letter to Ebenezer's firm, hoping he'd remember her, wouldn't abandon her again, and would come to her aid-if he even received the letter.

I don't have a favorite scene because I love the whole film, and I would like to say that the voice-casting for the film is top-notch.