Print Page | Close Window

A Dickens of a MESS?!?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: Disney's A CHRISTMAS CAROL
Forum Discription: Jim Carrey as Ebenezer AND All Three Ghosts?? We say, "BAH! HUMBUG!!"
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3945
Printed Date: October 30 2014 at 7:41am


Topic: A Dickens of a MESS?!?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: A Dickens of a MESS?!?
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 6:33am

IN the SWEEPSTAKES for the TITLE of "2009's LEAST  ORIGINAL MOVIE," http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/movieconnections - a 62nd REMAKE of A CHRISTMAS CAROL DEFINITELY HAS a LEG UP on the COMPETITION.

ADD in http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481369/awards - 2007 WORST ACTOR NOMINEE JIM CARREY as the VOICE of NOT ONLY EBENEZER SCROOGE BUT ALL THREE GHOSTS of CHRISTMAS WHO HAUNT the OLD MISER...and the FACT THAT http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000709/ - THIS FILM's DIRECTOR HAS GONE from CAREER HIGHS THAT INCLUDE http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096438/awards - WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT , the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099088/movieconnections - BACK TO THE FUTURE TRILOGY and the OSCAR® WINNING BEST PICTURE http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/awards - FORREST GUMP to HIS RECENT RUN of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338348/ - POLAR EXPRESS , http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/ - BEOWULF and THIS, and YOU CAN CERTAINLY SEE WHY THIS VERSION of http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=395 - CAROL  MIGHT LOOK to US LIKE a RAZZIE® CONTENDER...

TWO MINOR POINTS in the FILM's FAVOR:

1)  ITS RUNNING TIME APPEARS to be UNDER 80 MINUTES, MEANING DICKENS' ORIGINAL STORY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN as BLATANTLY DICKED WITH and "UP-DATED" as THAT AWFUL http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0170016/ - GRINCH  MOVIE CARREY ALSO STARRED IN... 

2)  PERHAPS "HONORING" the ORIGINAL AUTHOR -- OR MAYBE HOPING to SPREAD the BLAME AROUND IF IT BOMBS -- THE PRINT ADS for CAROL ACTUALLY DO INCLUDE the PHRASE "BASED on the CLASSIC STORY by CHARLES DICKENS."  SO, IF OL' CHARLIE DOES END UP SPINNING in HIS GRAVE at WHAT THEY'VE DONE with HIS NOVELLA, HE'LL BE ROTATING with a MOVIE CREDIT to HIS NAME!

OKAY, BELOW IS YOUR CHANCE to ADD YOUR OWN "BAH! HUMBUG!!" to the CHORUS of NEGATIVITY WE EXPECT WILL GREET EBENEZER's LATEST EXHUMATION...OR DEFEND the FILM.

EITHER WAY: READY, SET...GO!

MARLEY: "Ebenezer Carrey, your career will forever be haunted by the ghosts of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0170016/ - HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS , http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0339291/ - LEMONY SNICKET and http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=179 - THE NUMBER 23 ..."



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 7:43am

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! This is where I draw the line. This actually looks good!

And so was "The Polar Express".

Geez, all of a sudden HeadRazz is becoming Mr. Scrooge with the Christmas classics bashing. "Christmas movies of new and 'ole. Bah! Humbug." 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am not Christmas Classic "Bashing," I am objecting to this particular version of the best known story by my Berry Favorite Author, Charles Dickens. If you had read the brilliant books on which the http://www.imdb.com/user/ur4423150/comments - LEMONY SNICKET movie was based -- and realized the utter contempt shown them by Jim Carrey's movie adaptation -- you might undertand my trepidation about this Carrey version of a beloved book.

And if you actually liked http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/6165819/review/6636947/polar_express - POLAR EXPRESS , with its creepy zombie-eyed CGI kids, its obnoxiously over-bearing Santa and its diabetic-shock-inducing treacly sappiness, then you and I have completely different opinions as to what consititutes worthwhile holiday entertainment.

As for my supposedly being Mr. Scrooge, I annually watch several holiday favorites, among them the 1951 British version of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044008/ - CHRISTMAS CAROL , 1984's  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1004151-christmas_story/ - A CHRISTMAS STORY and the original 1945 version of  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1004141-christmas_in_connecticut/ - CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT ...


 



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 8:24am

I think this movie looks good.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I think this posting has just made my point...

 



-------------


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 9:00am
Polar Express: never watched it and have no intention to.

Grinch: I liked it, but I think Carrey saved it from being a disaster.  Maybe if they had it in CGI, they could have done more...

Lemony Snicket: I never saw it, but reception from RT crix and IMDB voters is that it is a decent movie.  Why is this "haunting" him?

The Number 23: never watched it, but THAT bombed!  Wasn't Carrey playing a serious role?

------------------

As for the new Scrooge (Turds-mas Present), I think it is going to lean towards The Number 23 (Turds-mas Past) in terms of reviews.  I don't see it pulling off another surprise like Horton did.  As for the Ghost of Turds-mas future...I don't know.


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 9:59am

You should watch The Polar Express. It's a breathtaking film. I was very shocked that it wasn't nominated for Best Animated film and Shark Tale did. That made me furious! 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I agree with you about http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shark_tale/ - SHARK TALE not being a worthy Best Animated Film Oscar® nominee...but obviously, I don't agree that http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/6165819/review/6636947/polar_express - POLAR EXPRESS deserved its slot instead. By the way, I totally agreed with the final choice for the 2004 Animated Film Oscar®: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/incredibles/ - THE INCREDIBLES ... 

 



-------------


Posted By: JoBloMovieGoer
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 12:04pm

I gotta disagree with all those Forum members defending this film. Its ads on TV are wall-to-wall with stuff obviously conceived to promote that the film is in 3-D, rather than staying true to Dickens' original text.

And after his recent track record with both critics and at the box office (he hasn't had a genuine runaway box office hit since 2003's BRUCE ALMIGHTY) Jim Carrey is more desperate than ever to make a comeback. Having seen how out-of-control/in-your-face "manic" Carrey was when his  career was going well (I, too, loathed LEMONY SNICKET) I can only cringe in anicipation at how much "more so" he's likely be in this -- possibly his last chance at redeeming his film career before being reduced to doing a sitcom on the CW...

 



Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: November 01 2009 at 4:30pm

61 times is more than enough for anything to be remade. Why not just reissue either the MGM, Alastair Sim or George C Scott versions, all of which which were wonderful?   

As for this remake, the casting could have been worse--they could have cast Mike Myers, Adam Sandler and Mr. T as the ghosts, Chris Elliot as Bob Cratchit and Spencer Breslin as Tiny Tim...

 



-------------
2014 Pic: LEFT BEHIND Actor: NICHOLAS CAGE Director: VIC ARMSTRONG, DAMN THIS SHOULD WIN EVERY RAZZIE!!!!!


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 02 2009 at 1:23am

If you think this movie looks good, fine, but I hope to Jebus you don't think this movie needed to be made. I'm pretty sure there's a rule that if the Muppets have done a cover of something, it doesn't ever need to be made again. That goes for the eventual remake of Treasure Island, too. (There isn't one in production that I'm aware of, but I have noticed that mentioning stuff like this on this forum
tends to get them made. So perhaps I should stop talking now...and end this parenthesized sidebar)...



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 02 2009 at 2:01am
Overall, this movie is listed here for two reasons: Jim Carrey is in it, and his career has been in a rut as of late, and because it's the the millionth adaptation of "The Christmas Carol". Come on, H-Wood, let this tired story die!


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: November 02 2009 at 2:35am
I don't want Dickens story to die. But what I would want to die is the idea that we need a new adaptation of this nearly every year, whether it's a theatrical film or television special.

That being said, I saw a stage production of it last year, and it was quite nice.

But I agree with whoever said that they really didn't need to do this remake. Though it'll make tons of money, I'm pretty sure of that. Expect it to top this weekend's box office...

-------------
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com - Movies and Other Things


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 02 2009 at 10:22am

Did this movie need to be made? No..there are way too many adaptations already and Mr. Magoo already set the standard for an animated Scrooge several decades ago. Nonetheless, new adapations of this movie will continue to come out through at least a couple of sitcoms per year and a new full length feature at least every couple of years.

I was among this movies strongest critics when discussion of it first began here, but after seeing the trailers, I'm willing to give it a chance. I'm sure the regulars here are well aware that I'm no fan of Jim Carrey and I restate that the world doesn't necessarily need another adaptation of this story, but it is just barely possible that this could end up being worthwhile. After I see it, I'll either offer it whatever praise it deserves or burn it to a cinder. I am, however, a bit worried after seeing MWG's endorsement.  

And....just for whatever it is worth...I kinda liked The Polar Express.

Allow me to note, however, that A Christmas Carol doesn't come close to being the movie I am most looking forward to in the coming weeks. That would be a toss-up between Invictus and The Blind Side, both of which I believe will be strong Oscar contenders.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 02 2009 at 12:36pm

Okay, I'll reword ... I want this tired story to die, as in no more adaptations ... ever again! There's nothing more that can be done with it, and nothing new that can be added to it...    

Originally posted by Julianstark

I don't want Dickens story to die. But what I would want to die is the idea that we need a new adaptation of this nearly every year, whether it's a theatrical film or television
special.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: November 02 2009 at 1:50pm
Right wing web sites now have another new version--with President Obama as Scrooge   

-------------
2014 Pic: LEFT BEHIND Actor: NICHOLAS CAGE Director: VIC ARMSTRONG, DAMN THIS SHOULD WIN EVERY RAZZIE!!!!!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 02 2009 at 2:35pm

Ah, right-wingers, such morons! First they bury their heads up the ass of one of the worst Presidents of all time, who's sending the country into a downwards spiral. Then they have nothing positive to say about our new President, who hasn't done anything seriously wrong yet. Simply because he's of the opposite party than the right wingers, he has to be their punching bag.

Politics is so retarded like that.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 02 2009 at 3:22pm

If there was ever a human being that sorely needed to be visited by three ghosts, permit me to introduce you to Dick Cheney. Even Ebenezer Scrooge never shot a guy!

I used to pity the political right for being sadly misinformed. More and more I am realizing that they are just dangerously (and willingly) ignorant.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: November 03 2009 at 11:45am
OK, it's time to cut out the politics and focus on the current Jim Carrey and Jim Carrey and Jim Carrey and Jim Carrey movie.  And JoeBacon, you forgot to include Rob Schneider in the list of horrible cast members...but that's for the Risible Remake category.

-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 03 2009 at 1:55pm

People who's live action work I have absolutely detested have done serviceable work in animated voiceovers, which is why I'm not really ready to flush this one just yet. It is also worth pointing out that despite the several dozen previous stabs at this story, it does not necessarily follow that the definitive work has been produced. I'm just thinking that this one is probably not in our arena, which doesn't necessarily mean it is going to become a holiday classic either.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 03 2009 at 3:25pm

I'll be watching this one on an IMAX screen this Saturday if everything works out.  After having seen clips and the trailers, I feel this is going to be one of those movies that's well done, yet leaves you feeling flat.  I have to take back all my previous predictions.  This movie is going to be more like the book than I'd imagined.  It's probably going to fall short of being great, but I'm guessing it won't be anywhere near bad enough to even make the Razzie nominating ballot this year.

One of the unique directions they are taking the story is a return to what the Ghost of Christmas Past originally looked like.  In all stage and movie productions, the Ghost of Christmas Past is a woman with a light on her head, and so it never made sense why she would be carrying around a huge candle snuffer, let alone why Scrooge would use the candle snuffer on her.  In the book, the spirit apparently resembled an anthropomorphized candle, which is what we will see in this movie. 

You know, I just realized that, despite my age, I have yet to actually read the book.  I'm going to have to fix that this year.

 



-------------


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 1:42am
I think the reason they chose Jim Carrey for the part of Scrooge is because he's portrayed someone who hated Christmas in the past (the Grinch).  The reason he's portraying the ghosts is not quite clear, but the technique of one actor playing several characters was used before in The Polar Express with Tom Hanks portraying the conductor, the hobo, Santa Claus, and the boy's father.  Furthermore, just like The Polar Express, Robert Zemeckis is making this film look like a roller coaster ride.  And just like The Polar Express, the film uses performance capture technology.  As of right now, the film holds a 63% rating on RT and a 62 on Metacritic including 4 stars from Roger Ebert.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 2:54am
I just thought they hired Jim Carrey because he can change the pitch of his voice and he already has a very animated face.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 10:24am
I don't think I have ever seen one adaptation of A Christmas Carol in my entire life. I'm vaguely clear on what the actual story is even about. Is there something wrong with me?


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 11:01am
Whoa! Sitting at 53% at RottenTomatoes doesn't necessarily make this a God-awful film. What about that new film that Milla Jovovich is in: The Fourth Kind, which is at 22%. That film should be the the Worst of the Weak, as far as I'm concerned.

-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 1:22pm
I'm going to see A Christmas Carol on Sunday, if everything goes as planned. I'm still pessimistic about this film, but it seems like I may have to eat my words on this one.

-------------
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com - Movies and Other Things


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 3:08am

I consider it impossible to be unfamiliar with A Christmas Carol, seeing as how there are about a thousand different adaptations of the story in just about every medium of entertainment -- and more than half of them are showcased annually come holiday season.

Saying you have never seen any of these adaptations is like saying you live in New York, and have never seen the Empire State Building!   

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I don't think I have ever seen one adaptation of A Christmas Carol in my entire life. I'm vaguely clear on what the actual story is even about. Is there something wrong with me?



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 6:19am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I don't think I have ever seen one adaptation of A Christmas Carol in my entire life. I'm vaguely clear on what the actual story is even about. Is there something wrong with me?

Too easy!

Meanwhile, with over 100 reviews posted, RT has this one at 56%. Westword, an alternative paper here in Denver that usually posts pretty good reviews noted that this one is visually striking but rather emotionally vacant, something several of us have already predicted.

As to why Carrey portrayed both Scrooge and the ghosts in this film that answer seems rather simple: money. I suspect that a lot was invested in the visual qualities of this film, and if you can cast 4 roles for the price of one, why not? In all probability, Carrey  made more for the 4 roles than he would have for the single role, but I doubt that he got anything close to what it would have cost to cast all 4 roles.

Something that should be noted, and this is coming from numerous sources: This version is evidently considerably darker and more frightening than most of the previous adaptations, so it probably isn't appropriate for younger children.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 07 2009 at 3:45pm

I saw this in 3D on IMAX, and it was visually stunning.

There were many times that the performances pull you into the story.  When I took the Christmas Carol train tour when it started in LA, I recall Zemeckis saying that he was going to concentrate on passages in the book that have never been filmed or staged before, and indeed, there were many parts that sounded like Dickens that I never heard before now.  The Ghost of Christmas Present rendered as a human-like candle was effective and made me wonder why no one had ever tried it before now (because no one actually reads the book anymore?). 

SPOILERS FOLLOW

However, there were a few scenes that were false turns.  Such as Jacob Marley (Christopher Lloyd) yelling so loud his lower jaw comes unhinged, so he has to turn around, tie up his cloth so his lower jaw swallows his upper lip, and then loosen it when it comes back together.  Or a hearse (the original kind that was drawn by horses, for those too young to know) chasing Scrooge through the streets of London.  Yes, it was cool, and yes, it was thrilling, but Zemeckis failed to tie it into what was going on with the story.  The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come wants Scrooge to repent, not to just be scared.  If they wanted simply to scare Scrooge, I would think nightly visits by Jacob Marley would be enough.  And the way Scrooge's transformation is handled, he comes across as more like someone who had lost his mind than someone who came to his senses.  Having as much money as Scrooge has accumulated, someone is likely to have him declared insane, send him to bedlam to die and take over his estate. 

Perhaps not, though.  I could see the judge asking, "So, he danced with his maid, gave his employee a raise and a turkey, gave a large sum to charity and sings with the carolers?  It would be to the betterment of mankind if more people descended into such madness."

Seven out of ten.  No Razzie recommendations.  My favorite version of A Christmas Carol remains the one starring George C. Scott.

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 2:26am

My words, it's all there!  Mind you, I've only read the first part of the book, and Zemeckis did add things, but not nearly as much as other directors have added to past versions of A Christmas Carol.  But most of what Zemeckis did add, or subtract as the case may be, came from the original text itself.  Scrooge signing Marley's will?  In the book.  The guide dog dragging its blind master out of Scrooge's way?  In the book.  Bob Cratchett sliding down an ice hill where a bunch of boys were playing?  All in the book!  And what about the rebuke of Cratchett for using coal, or his going over to the exchange where he had the conversation with the charity raisers?  Not in the book, because, as Zemeckis showed it, the coal bin was in Scrooge's office under his sight (although Zemeckis locked it up), and the charity fundraisers came to Scrooge's office to have that famous and portentous discourse about the surplus population. 

The Internet is amazing, by the way.  All the books that are public domain, instead of buying a cheap copy at the bookstore like we used to, or buy a copy to read on your Kindle like they do now, you can instead read them online for free.  http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm - Here's A Christmas Carol, courtesy of Stormfax .

By the way, Cratchett is unnamed in this first section, and apparently a lot younger than even in Zemeckis' version, judging by him sliding down an ice slide 20 times and then running home to play Blindman's Bluff.  He's not a boy though, because it says he did it only in honor of Christmas Eve.

And, with all the other scary things Zemeckis added, why didn't he add Scrooge seeing a "locomotive hearse" going up the grand stairway before him as he was going to bed?  That would explain why Scrooge searched every room to make sure everything was safe and double-bolted his own bedroom door.  Oh, well, you only have so much time and so much money to do things.

 



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:03am

The Ghost of Christmas Past is neither a woman with a bright light on her head or a human-like candle.  It's something that is weirder, something I have difficulty imagining.  Here's how Dickens describes it:

It was a strange figure -- like a child: yet not so like a child as like an old man, viewed through some supernatural medium, which gave him the appearance of having receded from the view, and being diminished to a child's proportions. Its hair, which hung about its neck and down its back, was white as if with age; and yet the face had not a wrinkle in it, and the tenderest bloom was on the skin. The arms were very long and muscular; the hands the same, as if its hold were of uncommon strength. Its legs and feet, most delicately formed, were, like those upper members, bare. It wore a tunic of the purest white, and round its waist was bound a lustrous belt, the sheen of which was beautiful. It held a branch of fresh green holly in its hand; and, in singular contradiction of that wintry emblem, had its dress trimmed with summer flowers. But the strangest thing about it was, that from the crown of its head there sprung a bright clear jet of light, by which all this was visible; and which was doubtless the occasion of its using, in its duller moments, a great extinguisher for a cap, which it now held under its arm.

I'm not sure why Zemeckis, after talking about how different the original Ghost was from all its staged and movie depictions, would then create a whole different creation from either one.  It sounds like a hippie in a white dress covered with flowers whose appendages vary at random, whose head doubles as a searchlight and who holds an oversized candle snuffer with the intials "ES" scrawled on one side.

Maybe I can imagine this Ghost.  Okay, now I'm scared. . . .

 



Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 10:28am
Until today, Shakes the Clown was the last movie I walked out of. This
bastardization of Dickens book is so dreadful it deserves as many RAZZIE
nominations as it can gather. Worst Actor, Worst Supporting Actor, Worst
Screen Couple are absolute locks. with Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst
Remake and Worst Screenplay deservedly bringing up the REAR!

A new category should be established for Worst Effects, because that
deserves a nod too! There are just so many CGI effects one can take before
ODing with retinal hemorrhages!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 1:35pm
Originally posted by JoeBacon

Until today, Shakes the Clown was the last movie I walked out of. This
bastardization of Dickens book is so dreadful it deserves as many RAZZIE
nominations as it can gather. Worst Actor, Worst Supporting Actor, Worst
Screen Couple are absolute locks. with Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst
Remake and Worst Screenplay deservedly bringing up the REAR!

A new category should be established for Worst Effects, because that
deserves a nod too! There are just so many CGI effects one can take before
ODing with retinal hemorrhages!

You are seriously exaggerating how much you loathed this movie. Like it or not, it won't be nominated in every single category. It has decent reviews and audiences went to see it.


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 4:48pm
I saw the film today...

It's not bad...

I have to eat my words and say...

"This. isn't. Razzie worthy"

With that confession out of my system, it actually wasn't
bad. It's not the best movie ever, though. Decent at
best, with some fun moments and great visuals. Carrey is
actually very good in the film, in all of the roles...
but it was pointless to have Gary Oldman do the part of
Tiny Tim. His "motion-capture" in that role was so edited
that they should have saved the money and got a real kid
to play the part

-------------
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com - Movies and Other Things


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 1:14pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy


You are seriously exaggerating how much you loathed this movie. Like it or not, it won't be nominated in every single category. It has decent reviews and audiences went to see it.

With all due respect, he very well may be completely sincere in his dislike for this movie, and he is well within his rights to express those feelings. I had a very similar reaction to District 9. I didn't walk out, but I was certainly close. It may well be that you liked this movie, MWG, but at least respect an honest and well expressed difference of opinion.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 2:51pm

Ok. You're right. I'll respect his/her opinion until Michaels respects mine.

But anyway, which is the best movie version of the Christmas Carol story? I heard the 1951 version is the best. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Since it is the most faithful to Dickens' original text -- And Alistair Sim perfectly captures the before-and-after versions of Scrooge -- I would concur that http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044008/ - the 1951 British remake of A CHRISTMAS CAROL is the best done so far. The worst would have to be one of the Hanna Barberra animated ones -- Either  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290683/ - A JETSONS' CHRISTMAS CAROL or  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0193164/ - A FLINTSTONES CHRISTMAS CAROL , both of which were done as holiday TV specials decades after the original shows left the air...

 



-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 4:04pm
There are so many filmed incarnations of this story that asking 10 different people here is apt to yield 10 different answers. For my money, scrap all the filmed versions and read Dickens words.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 8:36pm

I'm reading Dickens words right now. . . .

It's interesting to find that different scenes from the book have been depicted in different movies.  For example, the men shoveling snow off their roofs throwing snowballs at each other is unique to this film.  It's also interesting to find other scenes which have never yet been filmed as far as I recall.  For example, in the book, the Ghost of Christmas Past grows noticeably older before Scrooge's eyes as the day goes by, and the hand of the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is a spectral hand, not a skeletal hand.

And there is no horse-driven hearse chasing Scrooge through the streets of London.  Apparently, Zemeckis took the hearse that went up Scrooge's staircase at the beginning of the book and converted it into a chase scene later in the movie.  Now, I wouldn't nominate the movie for any of the usual Razzies, but if I could nominate a single scene from a movie, this particular scene is bad.  It has nothing to do with the story, it kicks up my disbelief (rather than suspending it) it borrows from Lewis Carroll to shrink Scrooge (for some odd reason) and it is ridiculous.  It is as preposterous as the scene of stampeding brontosauruses in Peter Jackson's King Kong.  I know I'm in rare company around here for liking that movie, but the brontosaurus stampede was ridiculous and should have been re-thought and re-done if not completely cut out.  The same goes for the hearse scene in this movie. 

So, I propose this year's "Nuke The Fridge" award, in honor of Spielberg and Lucas giving us such a ridiculous movie scene, goes to Robert Zemeckis for the hearse chase scene in A Christmas Carol.

 



-------------


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 7:29am

This movie is now one of the 20 qualifying films in the running for the Oscar as Best Animated Feature. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Here is a http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20091111.html - LINK to check out the actual press release, as posted today on the AMPAS web site, announcing the 20 qualifying titles... 


 



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 5:46pm

I hope to see Coraline, 9, Ponyo and Up among the 5 Little Gold Naked Men nominees for Best Animated Feature.

And I hope to see Alvin & the Upchucks 2 among the Big Gold Naked RAZZberry nominees. . . .   

 



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 9:51am
I'm actually hoping UP to be nominated for Best Picture and not Best Animated Feature. Family Guy did that with the Emmy's.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 10:14am
This year, for the first time in quite awhile, there are actually a lot of quality films in the running for Best Picture. I admired Up, but I don't think that outside of the animated category, it is even in the top 10.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 2:05am

"Up" would be the ultimate dark horse for Best Picture. "Beauty and the Beast" was the one and only animated feature to get a nod for Best Picture, and no other animated film has been nominated before or since. The Oscars are known for liking live action, so don't get your hopes "up" ...no pun intended. 

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 2:26pm
I'm curious about The Fantastic Mr. Fox... Wes Anderson has been really hit or miss lately, but it seems like it should be good. Of course, Transylmania is going to win the Best Picture Oscar, as anyone with a brain should know.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 27 2010 at 7:49pm
When this movie was first released, I thought this movie looked bad. While it's by no means among the best films of 2009 or any of the best Christmas movies ever, it's far from being really bad. It's been virtually disbarred from the 2009 RAZZIES, and the reviews were mixed, about 30% positive, 20% negative, and 50% of them average.
 
Perhaps the worst thing about this film is that it provides more questions than answers. The biggest question is: If the first weekend of November is usually 7 or 8 weeks before Christmas, why release it so soon if most movies can't spend that long in theatres?


-------------



Print Page | Close Window