Short Take: The animation will leave you breathless, and the story is satisfyingly loyal

Director: Robert Zemeckis (Beowulf, Forest Gump)

Screenwriter: Robert Zemeckis, Charles Dickens (story)

Cast: Jim Carrey (Yes Man), Gary Oldman (The Dark Knight), Robin Wright Penn (State of Play), Bob Hoskins (Hollywoodland), Colin Firth (Love Actually)

Length: 1h 36m

Synopsis: A retelling of the Charles Dickens classic where when an old, greedy curmudgeon named Ebenezer Scrooge (Carrey) is visited by various spirits on Christmas eve who try to teach him the error of his ways in order to save his soul.

Analysis: Before anything else, I must make something perfectly clear: this film has the absolute best animation of any CG movie yet made. The artists at Imagemovers Digital have achieved a level of detail and realism that, thanks in no small part to new motion-capture technology, outdoes even the incredible animation of Pixar’s Wall-E. With the help of 3D technology the environments in and around Victorian London look real and genuine to the point where you would swear you could walk around and interact with them as if they truly existed. The same studio that brought us 2007′s Beowulf, Monster House, and The Polar Express, outdoes itself yet again, leaving us wonder how they can possibly improve their efforts for their next film.

That being said, there are other reasons to impart praise for this film. The story follows Dickens’ novel fairly closely, veering from verbatim only often enough so as not to make it a virtual regurgitation. For instance, the dialogue between Scrooge and the spirits (particularly the ghost of Christmas past) are shortened to include only what is vital for the film’s progression (Marley mentions but doesn’t explain Scrooge’s figurative chains; lovable shadow characters like Mr. Fezziwig are given almost no attention; Scrooge’s relationship with Belle is arguably told with efficiency more in mind than pathos). This “tell only what’s essential” approach is contestable for those who favor elaboration, however what the film doesn’t say explicitly it is able to show clearly. One can argue that the messages and meanings conveyed by the original story are still present and communicated.

Although the Ghost of Christmas Past and its shadows are shortened, the other two spirits and their time on screen are not. Why is this? The ghost of Christmas past serves to show us the audience, among other things, that Scrooge grew up as a normal person who just happened to have sorrowful events occur near Christmas that caused him to hate the holiday. It’s the chance to allow us to sympathize with Scrooge so that we don’t consider him a lost cause. Being that the story of A Christmas Carol is so popular, and has been retold countless times, director Zemeckis could have considered it redundant to spend too much time building a case for us to sympathize with a character that we have already come to commiserate before we even walked into the theater. What occurs as a result of this is that the episodes with the other two spirits stand out that much more, and thusly so do their messages.

For instance, the two children that the Ghost of Christmas Present presents to Scrooge at the end of their time together (named Ignorance and Want) illustrate today what they did in 1843. As the children of mankind, they remind us of what Jacob Marley relented – that the wellbeing of everyone should be our “business;” that ignorance, whether willful or otherwise, leads to the neglect of certain persons, and that these neglected persons are forced to know only their desire to have what they currently don’t (namely basic essentials, including love). They remind us that the unfortunate are not reducible to adjectives like “poor” or “ill-fated” but are people like you or I, and our actions (as well as inactions) affect them. The film pushes these ideas with fervor, begging the question of why Zemeckis felt it so necessary to do so. For many people A Christmas Carol causes them to reflect on themselves and their humanitarian involvement with society (or lack thereof). A strong suspicion is defensible that Zemeckis hoped that his version would spark such a reaction, which might be especially appropriate for a country enduring a recession going into the winter season. This is not to say that he focuses on the “gloom and doom” of Dickens’ imbedded warnings, but that he wanted to keep the story’s more timeless and significant messages (ostensibly) in order to keep things from being too child-oriented. This is a film that was made to be appreciated by all, not by just kids. That appreciation, Zemeckis might argue, should not to be had without the inclusion of Dickens’ criticisms as well as his admirations and optimism.

Rating: 7.5