This is my favorite Christmas Carol adaptation and one of my favorite Christmas movies, period.

This is my favorite Christmas Carol adaptation and one of my favorite Christmas movies, period.
Every Christmas Carol adaptation has its own personality trait, and this early Code-era rendition is just so damn cheery.
What I knew going into this one is that it’s generally regarded as the most faithful to the Dickens text (which I am currently reading for the first time, so cannot comment upon yet) and that it’s not as visually rich as some other adaptations. I also knew George C. Scott’s turn as Scrooge had a pretty good reputation.
For the opening half or so of the film, my reaction to this one was pretty muted. The opening is slow, and the Christmas Past section is surprisingly low energy. It doesn’t help that the Ghost of Christmas Past played by Angela Pleasance is pretty lifeless, and the movie uses cheap transition effects to the past. (Gotta make budget cuts as a TV movie somewhere, I guess.)
The one early bright spot is Marley’s ghost, who is probably the creepiest version of the ghost I’ve yet seen, with otherworldly makeup and acting intensity by Frank Finlay.
I was also down on Scott as Scrooge during the opening half of the film. He’s a great curmudgeon, just a really shitty old man, but he was thoroughly passive and buttoned down during the Christmas Past segment. I always enjoy when Scrooge has a heightened reaction to seeing his past mistakes.
BUT this one takes a major turn for the better as it wraps up the Christmas Present segment. Scrooge’s vision of the poor that he condemned as “surplus population” is dark and freaky, and even that is hardly prep what comes next.
I can say without reservation that this is my favorite Christmas Yet to Come segment — Michael Carter is genuinely haunting as a death specter, and the gloom and dread of life wasted builds to the gut punch reveal of Scrooge’s tombstone.
I also quite liked the redemption segment. Scott really comes to life with an infectious smile and laugh. And his reunion with his nephew is the best that beat has ever been depicted — I was choking up at Scrooge’s remorse and cautious warmth.
So it’s not quite an all-timer, but the 1984 Christmas Carol is definitely a strong one that gets better as its runtime goes — and same for George C. Scott as Scrooge.
You may as well call it “A Tale of Two Carols” because I’m not sure any Christmas Carol adaptation has given me more whiplash between the two poles of its craft.
On the one hand, this is one of the best pieces of storytelling for most of its runtime among any of the Christmas Carol adaptations I’ve seen. It leans heavily on the Dickens text to great effect, using the reality-defying nature of animation to capture vivid details of the novella usually ignored on film.
And some of the visual designs are truly marvelous. It goes to show what a visionary director with a big budget and great team can create with the material. From the creepy door knocker and Marley ghost, to the sprawling dormitory at Scrooge’s school, to the streetlife panorama element of Christmas Present usually ignored in adaptations, to — most memorably of all — the half-shadow Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come — there’s so much I loved in this.
Truly, this film does exciting horror-tinged stuff with Christmas Carol material that has never been matched in other adaptations.
And yet…
It’s all packaged in the ass-ugly mo-cap CGI that looks like a PS2 cutscene. Some of these character models and textures are absolutely wretched to look at (the Ace Ventura-looking Ghost of Christmas Past might be the worst, but there are a lot of contenders).
More distracting still is that plenty of scenes are designed like a 3D thrill ride more than a piece of cinema. It’s extremely jarring to hop from a tense/moving moment to a wacky flight simulator. Why Christmas Yet To Come had to spend 7 minutes in a goofy chase scene, shrinking Scrooge to mouse size, I’ll never understand.
Scrooge himself looks quite good (you can tell they spent the time and technical budget on him), though Carrey’s vocal performance is mediocre, maybe approaching average.
The film starts promising and had me engaged, but gradually loses its emotional thread as the movie does more and more tech demo-type stuff. Alas, I’m left with quite a bit of cognitive dissonance about the whole thing and can’t give it a strong recommendation.
What did I just watch?
Mickey’s Christmas Carol makes an excellent way to introduce younger kids to the Christmas Carol story, but it’s honestly appealing to all ages.
I’m surprised that this is listed as a film in some databases. I always figured the line for “short film” was drawn somewhere before “YouTube video.”
There are two kinds of people: Those who love Natalie Morales and those who are not yet familiar with Natalie Morales. I’m in the former group, so it was an easy sell for me to track down Language Lessons.
Filling the tiniest of cracks of Frozen lore: What happened in the time between “Let It Go” and Anna/Kristoff bumping into Olaf in Frozen? What caused him to latch onto the notion of summer and warm hugs? Did he try to get a nose before Anna/Kristoff gave him a carrot?
My kids smiled, but at what cost?
This is among the lowest forms of cross-promotional entertainment, an annoying side character from one Disney movie giving annoying recaps of beloved Disney movies that inch just enough towards parody/deconstruction to act like it’s clever without actually being clever. (It’s a miniseries based on that one unnecessary but mildly amusing segment of Frozen 2 where Olaf reenacts Frozen 1.)
No interesting animation, no stabs at extended storytelling or creativity, just quickly presented and abandoned story points and musical lyrics from five movies you’ve seen.
Do you like Josh Gad singing intentionally badly? I sure hope so because you’ll be getting a heavy dosage of it here.
The only, tiniest saving graces in its favor are that I love seeing my daughters’ smiles, and the Marshmallow monster is charming.