i love it but not enough.children should watch.it was really educational...

What was Zemeckis thinking?

Very weak for an animated film. I was expecting a lot more fun/excitement. It was a good treatment of the book, it actually felt like a book written hundreds of years ago, long wordy, and superfluous.

Nice try!

A great adaption of A Christmas Carol, but it can get pretty intense, wouldn't recommend for really young kids.

Way to scary for little kids. It couldn't keep my interest and Jim Carrey's multiple characters were all annoying.

hhccccceccchhhh -wretches-

Zemeckis' latest motion-capture CGI project capsizes Dickens' narrative power simply because the faces of the human simulacra are so utterly inexpressive and ugly.

Whilst this is a decent enough adaptation it fails to capture the emotion of the story in the way that others have. The animation is that almost but not quite life-like sort which just bears too much of a resemblance to waxworks for my liking.

Too scary and realistic to be considered a kids movie, too shallow to be considered a mature retelling of the classic Charles Dickens story. It swings both ways and as such seems to be a bit of an odd one. It's enjoyable, of that I'm sure but if you look passed the pretty pictures (which at times look frighteningly real) there aren't a whole lot of redeeming qualities left. Because of that this failed to leave me any lasting impressions... Other than that I won't ever show this to children!

70.000

I have a real soft spot for this particular Dickens tale, and because of that tend to enjoy most versions of "A Christmas Carol". This is far from my favourite, but as a whole I enjoyed this. The animation is at times outstanding, and there is some degree of faith to the novel in Zemeckis' retelling. It lacks a little spirit, and Carrey's voice is acting largely good bar his various accents faltering every so often. All-in-all however, despite some negatives, this is a nice adaptation.

Aside from some nice imagery, there is really nothing to take away from this. It wasn't a very good adaptation, mostly because it brought nothing new to the table. I also found it really slow, and boring in a lot of parts. Isn't this supposed to be for kids?

The creepy take on this classic is unique, and enjoyable. [Full Review]

[Full Review]

Zemeckis, what are you doing? Considering how wonderfully subtly a lot of these elements are handled in, for example, Mickey's Christmas Carol, it pissed me off to see Zemeckis juggle everything about just because juggling looks better in 3D. Probably the worst adaptation of Dickens' story I've seen, the acting is ridiculously unbalanced and over-the-top and our friend Zemeckis seems to have forgotten to direct. He needs to snap out of his crap-animation trance and make some real movies again.

I suppose it captured the story well but it wasn't as engaging as it could have been.

Refreshing take on an age-old tale.

"A clear step in the right direction for Zemeckis and his pet techno-project, the film nonetheless ultimately sabotages itself by prizing the hectic over the heartfelt." - Nick Schager

Disjointed. The overblown 3D animation distracts from the story rather than adding to it. That kind of poorly integrated showmanship could only appeal to children. Yet the use of some of the original text, tongue in cheek humor, and realistic style animation seem to be meant to appeal to adults while the ghost scenes would likely scare small children. On the whole this film does not seem know what audience it's trying to appeal to. The result left me sometimes bored, other times creeped out.

Eh, I didn't think it was that bad, it isn't great and doesnt really bring anything to a story you have seen dozens of times.