servizio di LUCA SVIZZERETTO

(tratto da Nuovo Oggi di sabato 28 novembre 2009) – Il film Disney di questo Natale è firmato da Robert Zemeckis (Ritorno al Futuro). ‘A Christmas Carol’ ennesima trasposizione filmica del racconto ‘Il Canto di Natale’ firmato da Charles Dickens nel 1843. Una storia che da sempre accompagna piccoli e grandi nel periodo delle festività e che ricordiamo sotto le versioni più disparate. Da quella con Topolino, Paperino e Zio Paperone a quel ‘Sos Fantasmi’ con protagonista un allora giovanissimo Bill Murray.
Questa volta il protagonista è il ‘mutaforma’ Jim Carrey nei panni di Mr. Scrooge con al suo fianco un grandioso cast composto da  Robin Wright Penn, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Cary Elwes, Daryl Sabara e Bob Hoskins.
Ieri a Roma è stato presentato alla stampa e nelle sale uscirà il 3 dicembre per restarci probabilmente a lungo. Girato con la tecnica del Performance capture (una tecnologia che permette di riprendere gli attori con cineprese computerizzate che spaziano a 360° gradi per poi trasformarli in personaggi da animazione) e visibile in RealD 3D.
Il film è stato portato avanti dalla Image Movers Digital, creata proprio da Robert Zemeckis per sviluppare pellicole in 3d performance capture.
Tecnicamente la ‘terza dimensione’ con questo film raggiunge livelli mai visti prima, con i protagonisti che sembrano voler uscire dallo schermo e tutto assume un tono fantastico, perfino i titoli di testa e di coda.
Zemeckis ha deciso di attenersi al racconto di Dickens senza aggiungere nulla di suo e così ci troviamo davanti al più classico ‘Canto di Natale’ visto al cinema negli ultimi anni.
Una storia che ha sempre del magico, che aiuta a respirare al meglio l’atmosfera delle feste e che riesce sempre a smuovere gli animi sensibili.
Carrey non può deludere nei panni dell’icona dell’uomo avarissimo che finisce con il redimersi, grazie alle sue conosciute ed indubbie doti di trasformista. Proprio grazie a queste i ruoli interpretati dal bravissimo Jim sono in realtà ben quattro perchè i tre fantasmi del Natale (passato, presente e futuro) sono sempre farina del suo sacco. Il motivo lo ha spiegato il regista: “Considerando che i fantasmi sono tutti un’estensione di Scrooge, è naturale che abbiano qualcosa di lui in loro. Quindi era perfetto che Jim interpretasse tutti questi ruoli”.
Per il pubblico italiano poi c’è anche una vera chicca, infatti la canzone conclusiva del film ‘God Bless Us Everyone’ (Dio ci benedirà) è cantata dal tenore Andrea Bocelli, che ha contribuito a realizzarne una versione in lingua inglese, una in italiano ed infine una in spagnolo.
Consigliatissimo a ragazzi, adulti e famiglie, promette di divenire un classico che ogni Natale passerà nelle nostre televisioni come accade da anni con il Signor Scrooge.

SOMERS TOWN Independent British director Shane Meadows’ well-deserved reputation as a visionary film-maker is kept firmly on track with the gritty, unglamorous yet ultimately delightful (and relatively short at 68 minutes) SOMERS TOWN.

Set in the decidedly un-trendy inner city London district of the title Tomo (Thomas Turgoose) is a streetwise kid from the north of England escaping his grim surroundings for a possible shot at the big city dream.

Arriving at the huge St. Pancras railway station, he initially gets a bad taste of the capital after being mugged by three local lads before he ends up befriending Marek (Piotr Jagiello), the son of a Polish migrant working on the new Eurostar rail terminal.

The lonely young budding photographer takes pity on the rough Northern kid, and the two boys gradually bond after some petty criminal activity, and their shared infatuation with a French waitress Maria (Elisa Lasowski).

SOMERS TOWN is a small, yet perfectly formed, ode to friendship which here transcends culture, background and language (half the film is in Polish). The two young leads are both superb, and the minor characters all fit perfectly into the mix, especially Graham (Perry Benson), a dodgy Arthur Daly cheeky-chirpy Cockney type who runs a shonky business hiring out deckchairs and flogging off bootleg Arsenal Football Club shirts!

Director Meadows’ previous films include the acclaimed TWENTYFOURSEVEN with Bob Hoskins as the small town boxing coach, and the powerful THIS IS ENGLAND which also starred the charismatic Turgoose. Shot primarily in stark black and white SOMERS TOWN perfectly captures the dead end feel and atmosphere of the working class immigrant areas which are generally shunned by film-makers for the more colourful tourist friendly areas of England’s capital.

DVD extras: Theatrical trailer.

–> Interview with director Shane Meadows here

–> Article in Interview Magazine here

–> Somers Town is being distributed locally by Madman

MIKE CHILDS

Can anyone out there even remember how long it’s been since the original Mask film arrived in theatres? Well think of it this way. Jim Carrey was just starting to make a splash on the big screen and a little unknown actress named Cameron Diaz was cast as his love interest. The year was 1994.

Flash forward 11 painful years later and what are we left with. Probably the worst comic-book movie ever conceived and quite possibly the worst film I have seen in 5 years of covering the silver screen. It is that bad.

The sequel which bares little resemblance to the original finds Loki (Alan Cumming), creator of the Mask, banished to Earth to find his mask that has caused so much mischief. Loki’s father Odin (Bob Hoskins) is keeping a close eye on his disappointment of a son.

Meanwhile, cartoonist and would-be animator Tim Avery (Jamie Kennedy) is struggling to start a family with his eager wife, Tonya (Traylor Howard). Tim wants a big promotion at work before they have the baby Tonya has always wanted.

To make a long story short, Tim acquires the powers of the Mask and wows the big-wigs at work. After he scores big at work, Tim rushes home to make love to his wife but forgets to take off the mask. Thus we get “The Son of the Mask”.

Will Loki find Tim and his new son and finally regain his former glory and more importantly the mask? Will Tim ever find a happy ending?

Ok so the film has a plot, well, sort of.

What makes “Son of the Mask” so utterly painful to watch is how much it insults the audience that is watching this train wreck of a film. Every low-brow bathroom joke, bodily function and other things I don’t want to mention are passed off as rip-roaring comedy.

There is a sort of zany cartoon element to the child in the film who faces off against a “Mask-enhanced” dog for the father’s affection. But the whole scenario is so out of this world that it belongs in a cartoon. The scenario being played out in real-life and CGI just seems utterly wrong.

I can say for a fact there wasn’t anything I liked in this film. The acting was awful, the effects were in poor taste and nothing was funny.

I would suggest that if you have to relive the adventures of the Mask, stay home, lock the door, microwave some popcorn and rent the original. I shudder to think some people actually wanted to see this flick.

This is probably the worst film I have ever seen! And that includes all seven Deathstalker movies.

0 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Een hele tijd geleden zag ik ‘The Singing Detective’ op dvd, een collega had die serie nl. via internet besteld. De reeks was helaas zonder ondertitels, onlangs is hij eindelijk verschenen met Nederlandse ondertitels. Liefhebbers van fantastische tv-reeksen moeten dit absoluut gezien hebben, waanzinnig goeie Britse tv met een weergaloze Michael Gambon in de hoofdrol. Wellicht één van de beste dingen die er ooit zijn gemaakt!

Onlangs was ik op zoek naar meer van Dennis Potter, zo herinnerde ik mij dat ‘Pennies from heaven’ en recenter ‘Lipstick on your collar’ ooit op de Nederlandse omroep werden uitgezonden. De reeksen zijn ongetwijfeld op dvd verschenen, maar nog steeds zonder Nederlandse ondertitels. Dat zal binnenkort wellicht veranderen. Zo lang heb ik echter niet kunnen wachten, dus haalde ik ze allebei zonder ondertitels van internet af.

‘Pennies from heaven’ (1978) is één van de belangrijkste wapenfeiten van Bob Hoskins, later o.a. bekend van ‘Who framed Roger Rabbit’. ‘Lipstick on your collar’ is dan weer de eerste grote rol voor acteur Ewan McGregor.

CLICK FOR TRAILER

What?

A lethal virus spreads throughout a major country and kills hundreds of thousands. To contain the newly identified Reaper, the authorities brutally quarantine the country as it succumbs to fear and chaos. The literal walling-off works for three decades – until Reaper violently resurfaces in a major city. An elite group of specialists, including Eden Sinclair (Mitra), is urgently dispatched into the still-quarantined country to retrieve a cure by any means necessary. Shut off from the rest of the world, the unit must battle through a landscape that has become a waking nightmare.

Where?

Hotel Room…again.

With?

This time the girlfriend was awake.

Why?

I initially watched this last year, quite late at night and remembered enjoying elements of it but then ended up falling asleep. I had to bring the DVD back the next day so I never got to see the end of it, or in fact any of it whilst fully awake. I’m a big fan of Neil Marshall so I’m rooting for Doomsday to make it 3/3.

Worth It?

Well it wasn’t 3/3 but then it wasn’t completely bad either, merely a bit of a mess.

You could see where Marshall was taking his influences from and for a while (mainly the first 40 minutes) they were really working for him but by the end it was all a bit slapdash and confused. The performances were all adequate without busting a gut and the effects were pretty spot on but that was to be expected as it was the biggest budget he has handled.

I’m hoping Marshall can take the positives from Doomsday and build on them, whilst being able to identify where it went wrong, and then pushing his career forward to become a big name in genre pictures.

For now, it seems he is one or two movies off.

5.5/10

Doomsday è un film del 2008, film d’azione scritto e diretto da Neil Marshall. Il film si svolge nel futuro, in cui la Scozia è stata messa in quarantena a causa della comparsa di un virus mortale.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Neil Marshall | Malcolm McDowell | Rhona Mitra | Bob Hoskins | Alexander Siddig

Director Robert Zemeckis (THE POLAR EXPRESS) continues to work his holiday magic with A CHRISTMAS CAROL. This 3-D adaptation of the Charles Dickens classic will use the motion capture technology previously seen in the filmmaker’s BEOWULF.

Starring: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn, Cary Elwes, Fionnula Flanagan
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Screenwriter: Robert Zemeckis
Producer: Steve Starkey, Robert Zemeckis, Jack Rapke
Studio: Walt Disney Pictures

MOVIE TRAILER :

“A Christmas Carol” is the first 3D movie I’ve actually watched in 3D, since it took a long while for Rio de Janeiro to implement the technology (and considering how gimmicky and overused 3D currently is, I can’t say I was looking forward to it). As you can probably guess, I’m not a fan of 3D. I find it to be the exact opposite of what it should be — it’s unnimersive.

The very composition of a shot is hurt by any foreground object calling too much attention to itself, and if a character points something at the camera, like a finger or a gun, instead of noticing the action you notice the way it seems to be jumping out of the screen — while what’s relevant is the action. Sure, this can be a matter of getting used to it, but I fail to see the point. I do not find it visually dazzling, I do not see many narrative opportunities for 3D and it doesn’t sit well with modern cinematic language, requiring a complete re-thinking on how to film — and why? Because people want to see more depth in the screen? Am I the only one who was perfectly happy with a 2D screen?

Once again, though, I must admit Robert Zemeckis is not the ideal director to introduce me to the world of 3D. Despite his genius, he is probably the guy who has the wrongest idea of how to use it. Before I really form my opinion on this technique/gimmick, I’ll have to wait for films like “Avatar”. After all, when a man of James Cameron’s brilliance decides to use 3D, there must be a good reason. And also, I’m told some films like “Coraline” have used 3D cleverly (the film has two worlds, and one of them was depicted in 3D, which is a simple, but rare narrative use for it — but the movie theatre I saw it in wasn’t equipped with the technology, and if I remember correctly, no theatre nearby was).

So, “A Christmas Carol”. I mentioned Zemeckis has the wrongest idea of how to use 3D. The reason for this is that, when given 3D, Zemeckis acts like a hyperactive child given a toy. He always was an inventive cameraman, but while this was motivated by narrative needs, in the latter stage of his career Zemeckis just started showing off. I loved “Beowulf” mostly due to the script by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, because Zemeckis’ direction, albeit full of inspired moments, also had its share of exaggerated camera angles, like the hideous moment a guard points a spear at us, and Zemeckis ridiculously pushes the depth of field back to make the spear jump out of the screen, then changing it abruptly to pan the camera to Beowulf’s face in that which must be one of the worst camera movements in Zemeckis’ career.

I had hoped he’d be more restrained in “A Christmas Carol”. Which just proves why I should give up trying to be an optimist.

He always finds some way to distract the viewer from whatever’s going on, like slowly moving his camera around a talking character until a lit candle appears on the foreground — a composition that not only calls attention to itself (especially in 3D), but makes no sense, because the character in the background is usually the bitter Ebenezer Scrooge — and showing him next to a warm candle kind of goes against the nature of the character as far as symbolism goes (unless the candle puts itself out eventually, but I cannot remember if it does — yeah, this movie left a strong impression on me, no doubt).

But that’s mild next to the way Zemeckis introduces the victorian London where the story happens, making his camera fly past chimneys and smoke at insane speeds, and never missing the chance to make something pointy jump out of the screen, like the only reason we put on those ridiculous goggles is for the illusion of having our face impaled.

Sadly, as a storyteller, Zemeckis doesn’t show much common sense either. I was, after all, under the impression this is a movie for children. And while I think children can be shown much more than they’re usually allowed to see, when the first image in your story is a rotting, pale corpse inside a coffin with a coin in each eye (coins which Scrooge promptly pockets to pay himself back from another debt), you kinda kickstart the movie on the wrong tone right away.

And yet, throughout the film, Zemeckis goes for a constant slapstick humor that makes absolutely no sense, considering Scrooge’s age. He’s portrayed as the most athletic old man ever, capable of falling on a set of stairs and just getting up, no harm done. Even worse is the moment a spirit dislocates his own jaw, making it hang from his face, and then uses his hand to move the jaw up and down as he speaks.

And wait until you see a fat guy being reduced to a skeleton while he laughs maniacally. This was the point where a kid started crying in the movie theatre, if memory serves. I thought I heard it sob “THIS IS — THE WORST — FILM I’VE — EVER — SEEN”, but probably just my imagination.

“A Christmas Carol” has a brief moment of inspiration, when Scrooge visits his old home from when he was a child, but that’s the only moment the film hits the right emotional note, getting everything else wrong. It’s particularly pathetic the way Scrooge becomes Mr. Nice after his experiences, laughing at everything and being so kind it was sickening. Apparently, the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future succeeded in turning the worst man in London into the stupidest man in London.

Visually, the film is a failure thanks to bad cinematography that forgot to take the 3D glasses into account. As a result, the entire film is so dark I felt tempted to try and watch it without the glasses, and man do I look forward to the day that choice will be actually possible. The animation achieved through performance capture is decent, but the moments the film relies on “handmade” animation (a ridiculously overdone dance sequence, for example) can be painfully obvious and mediocre. However, the art design is at least competent, from the depiction of London to the visual of the characters.

I can’t really comment about the performances because the session I went to was dubbed in Portuguese, despite the ticket stating very, very clearly it was only subtitled. But the film left me too bored to actually complain about it to the theatre staff, plus I was with my sister, who urged me not to, afraid it would result in confusion (which I doubt, I’m not the shouty kind, but I didn’t want to waste her time).

“A Christmas Carol” is an overdirected mess that never decides on a tone. Someone take the 3D from Robert Zemeckis before he remakes “Back To The Future” in depth-o-vision.

In writer-director Neil Jordan’s haunting film, Mona Lisa, an uncommonly moral small-time hood is forced to reconcile his life with the all-too-common immorality of the big-time underworld. It is a convincing, delicately drawn crime-world story.

Movie Review – Mona Lisa (1986)
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=David_Wisehart]David Wisehart

Hollywood is in love with the small-time hood. Perhaps the industry is only looking after its own, but regardless of motives the crime milieu has been home to films running the gamut from the superb to superficial, from sublime to sordid.

In writer-director Neil Jordan’s haunting film, Mona Lisa, an uncommonly moral small-time hood is forced to reconcile his life with the all-too-common immorality of the big-time underworld. It is a convincing, delicately drawn crime-world story – and, it should be noted, it hails not from the jungles of Hollywood but from George Harrison and Denis O’Brien’s independent production company HandMade Films, which has been responsible for more than its share of quality films.

Bob Hoskins (The Long Good Friday, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Nixon) is George, an ex-con returning to the working-class London streets of his youth after serving seven years in prison. His wife won’t have anything to do with him, so he turns instead to his old buddy Thomas (Robbie Coltrane), who is fond of spaghetti art and detective stories, and to his old boss Mortwell (Michael Caine), who hires George to chauffeur one of his call girls, Simone (Cathy Tyson).

As George drives Simone to an endless series of midnight rendezvous, he becomes increasingly involved in the world of prostitution and pornography – and increasingly involved with Simone. When Simone asks George to find an old friend of hers, Cathy (Katie Hardie), a 15-year-old prostitute still on the streets, George descends into the dark inner belly of London like Dante descending through the concentric circles of Hell, where his deeply ingrained sense of personal morality will be attacked from all sides.

The true triumph of Mona Lisa lies in Bob Hoskins’ excellent portrait of the petty criminal George, who must keep his feet wet in the waters of the underworld in order to stay alive, but very nearly drowns in the process. It is the best role of his admirable career, a role for which he earned an Academy Award nomination and deservedly received the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival.

Neil Jordan (The Company of Wolves, The Crying Game, Interview with the Vampire) coaxes convincing performances from the remainder of his cast, as well. Michael Caine is simply sinister as the epitome of evil, Cathy Tyson (niece of actress Cicely Tyson) makes an admirable debut, and Robbie Coltrane is perfectly off-beat as the only stabilizing force in George’s life.

Jordan frames his film, beginning and end, with Nat King Cole’s enduring classic, “Mona Lisa.” And it is in Cole’s lush vocals that this film finds its meaning: “Are you warm? Are you real, Mona Lisa? / Or just a cold and lonely lovely work of art?”

Mona Lisa may, at times, seem cold and lonely. But it is also a work of art.

David Wisehart is the editor of The Wisehart Review – movies, books, and more! Visit http://www.wisehartreview.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Wisehart [http://ezinearticles.com/?Movie-Review---Mona-Lisa-(1986)&id=3209307 ]http://EzineArticles.com/?Movie-Review—Mona-Lisa-(1986)&id=3209307

The classic tale of Scrooge and his Christmas Eve visit from three ghosts.

Directed by – Robert Zemeckis

Written by – Charles Dickens, Robert Zemeckis

Starring – Jim Carrey, Steve Valentine, Daryl Sabara, Sage Ryan, Ryan Ochoa, Bobbi Page, Ron Bottitta, Sammi Hanratty, Julian Holloway, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Cary Elwes, Robin Wright Penn, Bob Hoskins, Jacquie Barnbrook

I’m starting this one with the one, giant problem I had with it. It is marketed in the completely wrong manner. Maybe I haven’t paid enough attention to the commercials but I got the impression that this was for the kids. It seemed like Jim Carrey would be in pure, over the top character throughout and I would be driven nuts having to see it with the kids. After watching it, I’m wondering where the fun is for the kids at all.

It’s intensely serious. The audience I saw it with only chuckled, and I mean chuckled and not laughed out loud, twice. My kids, although not known for their bravery, spent at least 20 mins of the movie with their ears covered and their heads buried in my arms. There were some genuinely scary moments. The kind of jump scares usually reserved for horror flicks. Creepy looking ghosts bursting out and screaming and the inevitable brush with Christmas Future at the end had my kids hiding.

The dialogue is all in old English so I’m not sure my kids even got some of it. There’s no sight gags or funny jokes and wasn’t much for the kids to really like here. With all that being said, I enjoyed it. As an adult, the performances were very well done and there were quite a few moments where the emotion was strong. Strong enough to bring some to tears I would imagine. Everyone knows the story and I’m sure we all know the parts that will bring the waterworks. Tiny Tim being a strong one in particular.

Scrooge meets his first ghost.

What surprised me most was the performance of Jim Carrey. I had expected a flashback to his early movie days of being a total ass and I wasn’t looking forward to it. What I got instead was an amazing performance. He does an amazing job and really brought alot of emotion to the movie. The end scenes of his visit from Christmas Future and his rebirth as a happy and loving man were actually moving. I totally believed in the character and the story and while much of this can go to the actors, alot of it must go towards the animation.

It is incredible. The slightest little twitch of an eyebrow or lip was there for all to see. There were some moments where you’d almost forget it was animated at all. The ghosts were even more incredible. Realistic enough to frighten both my kids and genuinely creepy looking at times. When Scrooge is visited by his old friend Marley you can see how much work has gone into the movie. The ghost is solid and yet transparent at the same time. I’m not sure that makes sense exactly but that’s how it made me feel. Like I could punch him but could still see everything that was directly behind him. The final ghost was also well done. Crawling out of shadows and becoming solid before sinking back into them to just become a flat shadow itself.

The ghost of Christmas Present. One of my favorites.

There’s many times throughout the movie where Scrooge is quickly whisked away, flying through the countryside and darting through trees. These scenes actually made my stomach churn and I had to turn away. It reminded me of being a small kid and going to see the huge IMAX movies at Ontario Place. It really felt like I was flying around, I’m sure intensified by the 3D, and it was killing my gut! HAHA!

Overall, this movie was very well done but I still don’t think it’s a very good kids movie which is how it seems to be advertised. I’m sure most kids won’t be frightened by it like mine were, but I don’t think they would find it all that interesting either. It’s a depressing story and it’s not dressed up to be pretty here. I was really impressed by all parts of this film, from its animation to its acting to its score. It’s a very well done movie. I just wish I hadn’t brought the kids to it, they were not impressed at all.

Under the mistletoe – Will

Los Fantasmas de Scrooge. A Christmas Carol. USA 2009

• Dir. Robert Zemeckis
• Reparto: Jim Carrey, Colin Firth, Gary Oldman, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn, Fionnula Flanagan

Calificación 4 estrellas

La técnica ya no es nueva para nosotros, pero no por eso deja de parecernos sorprendente.  Después que Zemeckis nos había mostrado las posibilidades del  soprendente motion picture en cintas como Beowulf y El Expreso Polar,  ahora nos muestra como no hay mejor camino para alcanzar la perfección que la práctica.

Basado en el archipopular cuento de Charles Dickens (Cuento de Navidad), que narra la historia de un viejo ávaro que recibe  la visita de tres espíritus para entender el valor de la generosidad y el verdadero espíritu de la Navidad, la película supera bien el reto de contar una historia que nos sabemos todos de una manera diferente.De verdad, aunque todos sabemos en que acaba, nos mantiene hipnotizados la caracterización y gesticulaciones de Jim Carrey, y el tratar de reconocer a los actores protagonistas, ya que en esta ocasión hay tomas directas a los rostros y las expresiones. Vemos a Carrey enojado, sorprendido y sobre todo muy aterrorizado.

Ese – el terror-  quizás el componente que permite volver a ver la historia con interés. Al parecer nadie había reparado en que estamos hablando de una historia que incluye elementos sobrenaturales y que la relación de los hombres con lo espíritus está marcada por el miedo a lo desconocido, y a la necesidad de responderse la pregunta que más ha  inquietdo a la humanidad: ¿qué es lo que sucede después de la muerte?

Y si bien Dickens usa el recurso como una manera muy extrema de dar un mensaje positivo, perosnalmente es la primera ver que veo a un Scrooge verdaderamente aterrorizado y un mundo fantasmal tan bien logrado.  Al final cantaremos villancicos, pero eso solo se logra después de haber visto el más allá con toda su crudeza. Una visión oscura del cuento que – eso sí- es toda una novedad en la revisitación de la historia

Lo mejor:

• A mi sólo me gusta Jim Carrey cuando no se parece a Jim Carrey. Y este es un perfecto ejemplo.  La caracterización vía el uso de la tecnología es sorprendente.
• Una enorme ventaja es que vemos a los actores como probablemente nunca podremos en la vida real. La agilidad de Bob Hoskins para el baile es sin duda un buen ejemplo.
• El diseño de los espíritus es sorprendente. El primero, por ejemplo es absolutamente perturbador. Una especie de llama de hablar pausado y mirada fija… seguramente le dará pesadillas a más de un niño.

Lo peor:

• Los niños pequeños se asustan mucho!! especialmente con el último espíritu parecido a la muerte. Niños llorando y padres que no entienden por qué la película es clasificación doble A
• Hay pasajes cruciales que pasan a segundo término, como ese de la antigua novia. Es importante para entender otras cosas y en realidad ocupa muy poca atención dentro de la trama.
• Personalemente, no me gusta la caraterización de Gary Oldman. Creo que no le hace justicia a un hombre que tiene una increíble capacidad camaleónica.

Robert Zemeckis is reunited with Disney for the first time since 1988’s Who Framed Robert Rabbit and is back with his motion capture animation technology previously seen in Beowulf and The Polar Express.  Zemeckis is back with another literary adaptation in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol and a very traditional and faithful adaptation it is too.  None of the imagery or characterisation will be particularly original but it is the motion capture technology and the performance of Jim Carrey in the central role of Ebaneezer Scrooge.

Carrey is made for motion capture with his range of facial expressions and ability for accents and his performance as Scrooge is a good one and unmistakeably Carrey with elements of The Grinch and Lemony Snicket thrown in.  Carrey also plays the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future with varying degrees of success.  His Christmas Present is a classic rendition but sounds uncannily like Geoff Boycott in full Yorkshire accent whereas his Christmas Past is somewhat offputting due to the Irish lilt Carrey employs. Other performers also manage to penetrate the motion capture to put their own spin on things, particularly Colin Firth and Bob Hoskins. 

Despite the fine performances, this film does have its problems and one of those is inherent in Zemeckis’ motion capture technique and has been present since The Polar Express.  That problem is that the way in which the technology captures faces.  Whilst A Christmas Carol is arguably better than both Beowulf and Polar Express in that regard with respect to the lead characters, there are still problems with the facial rendering of extras in shot and I found Gary Oldman’s Bob Cratchett to particularly suffer from creepy face syndrome.  On the other hand Scrooge and Jacob Marley looked superb so clearly the problem has been solved in part which suggests laziness on the part of the animators.  There is also a lack of weight to some of the animation and the perspectives occasionally make the characters appear to be floating as if in zero gravity.  The other problem is that the film suffers from being slightly dull and a bit staid – there is not enough to drive the story on and being such a faithful rendition, to the point that it takes some of its visual cues from previous incarnations of the story, you can’t help but feel you’ve seen it all somewhere before, even if the Gothic streets of Victorian London are nicely rendered.

I saw the film in 3D of which I am not a great fan.  I found the film perfectly fine in 3D although I am not sure it added much.  However, if you see the film in 2D, you may find some of the camera angles and shot choices feel unusual as they seem to have been tailored to giving some degree of depth.  The filmmakers using 3D need to remember that the film needs, first and foremost to work in 2D for a home audience to have a life on DVD after its cinema run and bear that in mind when shooting the film.  A final comment on the film is on its certificate – it’s rated PG in the UK and I would suggest that this is on the borderline of a PG/12A certificate.  Some of the imagery is quite creepy and scary – particularly the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come scenes.  I also worry that younger children will struggle to understand the film as it retains some of the Dickensian language and I felt it was overly wordy.

I’m not sure why this film was released as early as 6th November but it is a classic which has been classically rendered.  It does, however, lack the spark beyond Jim Carrey’s performance to turn it into a great film.

6/10

Data
Title: Brazil
Year: 1985
Length: 142 minutes
Director: Terry Gilliam
Writers: Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard & Charles McKeown
Starring: Jonathan Pryce, Robert De Niro, Katherine Helmond, Ian Holm, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, Ian Richardson, Peter Vaughan, Kim Greist
Music: Michael Kamen
Distinctions: currently #240 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a man in a bureaucratic dystopia obsesses over a woman from his dreams
How I saw it: on video several times (used to have on DVD), most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). I used to think this movie was great, but I can’t figure out why. Maybe it was just because I loved other Gilliam movies, so I thought I should love it. Or maybe it’s the same reason that every young person who hasn’t read too many books thinks 1984 is the best thing ever. In any case, I was pretty bored watching this yesterday. The visuals are great, but they rarely actually contribute to the storytelling. There are some great scenes, mostly when it’s being silly, and some great acting from Holm and Palin (meanwhile, De Niro is pretty bad), but the story just doesn’t make a lot of sense if you think about it too much.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good).

There have been a few good versions of A Christmas Carol over the years. Robert Zemeckis’ take on the Charles Dickens classic  is one of the best adaptations. Visually, the movie is an artistic masterpiece. Zemeckis’ seemed to be flaunting this in the opening  moments of the film, with everything from a one-shot swooping camera moving over and around the city and through the crowded streets to intense close-ups of the protagonist Ebenezer Scrooge.

This style of computer animation (the image-capture method), has come an extremely long way since Zemeckis’ first attempt at this in The Polar Express. The characters’ expressions in that one seemed lifeless and just weird.

Zemeckis, the man responsible...

Here you can really see the actors’ performances show through their animated avatars. You could also see the visages of the actors  on the characters that they played in some cases. Jim Carrey’s likeness is imbued onto Ebeneezer Scrooge and a lot of his mannerisms were also noticeable.

I recognized some other actors immediately, who I did not know were in the film. Bob Hoskins and Colin Firth were easy to spot and Oldman’s Crachit, although having a different body type , was a spot on caricature of him. Like several other actors in the film, Carrey and Oldman both played several other characters in the movie that they were a bit more disguised as.

There were some comments by critics that have said the film ‘lacked in spirit’, but I would completely disagree. I think a lot of the performances such as Carrey’s were deliberately  understated. I went into the movie thinking Carrey’s voice work was a little shakey, but just a few lines into it, I no longer had any reservations. He’s really a good actor, and fit right into a really great cast that included the aforementioned Oldman, Firth and Hoskins, along with Robin Penn-Wright and Cary Elwes who played 5 characters.

This form of animation is still a work in progress, but I don’t think the old arguments against it, resound so loudly, anymore. Sure there are some problems that haven’t quite been ‘fixed’ yet, such as when characters simply hop off of the floor. There were a couple of parts that reminded me of the same problem in another recent movie ‘Where The Wild Things Are’ when they had a Wild Thing leap. It just didn’t look natural. That seems to be more of a lack of understanding of physics and gravity on the animators’ parts, though. When they simply can show characters and objects flying around at high speeds; they excel.

I don’t think that this style of animation will ever take the place of real actors.  You still need  someone to bring a character from script to ‘life’, but I wonder (somewhere far down the line) in the future,  if the top actors are not animators, also. Sounds a little silly now, but it seems to make logical sense to me as CGI becomes more and more convincing.

I don’t think that I need to go too far in detail about the story. Scrooge is a descriptive term in most everyone’s lexicon. The story of the antisocial miser being visited by three Spirits on Christmas Eve to force him to reflect upon his life is a well known morality play and a good one. It’s timeless and it would be difficult for anyone to go wrong with the material that Dickens’ provided. The cast and crew don’t ‘drop the ball’. I though there was a  weight to the acting and emotional resonance even if I have seen many versions of the same story.

There were enough things added without altering the story that made the movie not completely unsurprising even to those who know the story. There were many little details and moments such as the Spirit of Christmas Past’s ‘head bobs’ that kept it entertaining even in the most sombre, serious scenes. One moment that I enjoyed in particular was when Oldman’s Bob Crachit and Scrooge pause on a staircase. Scrooge himself takes more punishment than in any other version of this story and there are surprises also in the relationships between he and the 3 Spirits.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie for a myriad of reasons. Being an artist I appreciate the work that was done here. The story is one of my favorites and it’s one of those that I can watch year after year without tiring of it. I also like the fact that they DIDN’T update /dumb this down with ‘modern’ dialogue and pop culture references. Updates of old material can sometimes succeed  or fail in  grand fashion. ‘Cutting edge’ remakes usually means characters that talk like rappers or surfers and me personally, I can’t stand that when the setting is in another era like the 1840s.

This will probably one I see again, especially when it gets closer to the actual Holiday. It’s also one that I will probably buy for the DVD library. It’s the proverbial ‘visual feast’ and a masterful effort of retelling a classic tale.  I give this one 4.5 out of 5 whatevers.

Not a whole lotta' humbug... It's a good movie.

Charles Dicken’s classic tale of Ebenezer Scrooge is given an animated Disney look, and if you so wish 3D (2D is still available). I just had to go for the 3D option in an attempt to try to make my mind up whether I like it better or not. Scrooge is taken on a journey of redemption by three ghosts, the ghost of Christmas past, present and future. Going  back looking at his life as it was, how it is today and how it will not be for very much longer. But can he be convinced to change his ways?

I want to start this off by stating that after watching this, my thoughts were this has to be one of the most remade/retold stories. In the classic and non-classic methods over the years as it always seems to become relevant. “Everyone knows a Scrooge” maybe not to the extend of the one in this story, but it is kind of Christmas thing if you do not get into the spirit you are Scrooge. But you really do not want to be compared to Scrooge (well maybe at the end) as it really is not the best thing to be.

Scrooge is a rich man, but will not help anyone with his money (back in the Victorian era, of work houses etc) and thinks poor people do not deserve to be in contact with him. This is one of the things that made him as bitter and twisted as we see him in the movie. But anyone who is that bitter and twisted must have a reason right? Of course they do, looking back into the past it is obvious to see that Scrooge realises his mistakes and the hurt of them still hurt watching it back, but also the joy he once lived also hurt, especially when he realised that he gave it away. You cannot help but think, imagine if that happened and I got to look at my past. The good and bad parts, which makes you want to make sure you make the most of today so your past will always look pretty good, or at least not bad. But that will never happen, you have to make choices all the time and who is to know when you will make a bad choice and when it will be a good choice? Only time can tell with that.

I actually think the present ghost is probably the scariest to look at, as this is what you have become and what you are at that very moment. Seeing how people feel about you, disliking a lot in Scrooge’s case this even hurt him a lot having to watch it. He had to be forced to watch it. Like Scrooge what if you do not like what you see? Will it be too late to change everything and it put it all right.

The ghost of Christmas future, does that mean you have one? In Scrooge’s case that is not really an option or is it? What if he changes and helps people out, those around him who have never been nasty or left even when he was at his meanest. But how the future goes, you can change it right? I guess so, but that means changing everything you have been doing in the present and maybe even correct events from the past as well.

Everyone loves a changed man at the end of such a story, and of course that is just brilliant. What is not to love about seeing an old man realise his mistakes and change himself and enjoy life again. Like he once would have done when he was younger. Seeing him grab onto the back of a horse and carriage like the children were doing the previous day, and slide on the snow/ice. Just brilliant.

While yes I know this story, it is still fantastic to watch in a different format and style. Such a tale of how you can change no matter how late you may leave it, everyone can still change and do things for others and better themselves. It really is heartwarming to this day, especially in times of hardship with money I think it makes it ever so relevant about how Christmas can still be a time to enjoy yourself with your family and friends.

Jim Carrey does quite a few of the voices, Scrooge and the three ghost. The Ghosts accents left quite a bit to the imagination as seemed to change throughout his lines, which was a little annoying. The Ghost of Christmas Past had an Irish accent which just kind of made me laugh. The Ghost of Christmas Present was Scottish or at least started out Scottish and drifted to the Yorkshire accent.

It is of course quite a serious movie, I have to admit a little scary/jumpy in parts (not one for really small children in my opinion) but also has quite a few funny moments to tie it all in very nicely together. The ghosts were quite graphic in parts, and tended to appear when least expected. Especially with it being in 3D parts kinda jumping out at you. But I would say this film should be for like 10+ really. As anyone younger would either get bored or a little scared. It is a very dark movie, and rightly so it is not “normal” Disney.

I still think it was released like 3 weeks too early, and probably would have had a much better opening weekend at the box office in a few weeks. Still we might just see this on for quite a while as it gets closer to Christmas I am sure people will be wanting to go and see it at the cinema. To you know get into the Christmas spirit, this has kind of made me want to watch more Christmas movies but I promise I am going to wait for a couple of weeks yet, as I do not want to sicken myself of them now. 

I am still not completely sure about the 3D, I mean the snow looks cool. But I do like this type of animation as you can kind of still see the actors faces in the animated character. Which really does amuse me, as I find it odd that the people look real but not at the same time. (However, having the “Alice in Wonderland” trailer on before this movie was well worth it).  

So are you a Scrooge?  or Are you planning on going to see Scrooge?

Like Beowulf, A Christmas Carol feels like a feature-length video game cutscene.

First off, I’m a bit unsure why this is already out. I know this is probably commonfare in the US (I’m guessing), and while stores are carrying Christmas products (candy and whatnot) as early as October here there is something truly bizarre about hearing this much Christmas music in early November. Possibly this would have been better served to premiere in early December. But that’s just my opinion, I’ll quickly confess to know very little about movie release-politics beyond the usual patterns of summer blockbusters/fall oscar bait/Christmas holiday films.

That said, let’s discuss A Christmas Carol. This story lies close to my heart mostly because of Mickey’s Christmas Carol which I used to watch time and time again when I was younger. One of the only things that is sure-fire to get me in the Christmas spirit is Mickey’s Christmas Carol. I do not know the original story (I’ve seen a few adaptations, but never read the original by Dickens), and I’ll admit that right off the bat. I will for obvious reasons be comparing this to the aforementioned adaptation.

To sum up my opinion of this as shortly as possible, I can probably count on the following relatively factual statement: Mickey’s Christmas Carol is 26 minutes long. A Christmas Carol is 96 minutes long. The latter includes a few things (possibly from the original Dickens story that were left out, I do not know) that the former did not include, but somewhat bizarrely manages to exclude a lot of things from the former as well. I can approximate that the latter has about 15, maybe 20% more content than the former. These are hindsightial approximations in no way based on scientifical measurements and should not be taken entirely seriously, but the point still stands. You will probably already see where I’m going with this: Even at 96 minutes this film is way, way too long. I do not believe this story is long or encompassing enough to be a feature film. At least A Christmas Carol does not exemplify it being long enough, because the gaps are more or less filled by, well, filler. Things are dragged on for way too long and the fact that nothing is happening is covered by showing off special effects. This is apparent throughout the entire film, long segments are spent with Ebenezer flying alongside a spirit through 3D environments, serving no purpose other than showing off the 3D effects, a particularly painful segment is the second spirit’s encounter, where he sits atop his food pile and laughs (very unnaturally) for what seems like minutes on end. Probably the entire plot could have been done in half the time if effectivity had been more important than showing off the effects.

And boy, does Zemeckis seem to love these effects. Why though? They’re not particularly great – it’s basically the same fare as Beowulf (also directed by Zemeckis), but where the style of animation fit very well for Beowulf, and outrageously epic fantasy adventure, it seems completely out of place in this supposedly charming Christmas film. I felt myself constantly longing for Mickey’s Christmas Carol and its simple yet effective animation – nostalgically, perhaps, but even so. This new adaptation seems to me to add nothing whatsoever, and rather subtracts from what was already there. Some of the most effective parts of Mickey’s Christmas Carol are removed completely, I suspect because they were just too effective for this film and it needed to fill time, so certain aspects are handled clumsily and in completely different ways just so they will last longer. Tim’s death, for instance, which is handled in Mickey’s Christmas Carol simply by Ebenezer witnessing Cratchit walking up to his son’s grave and placing his crutch upon it, is in this dragged out to a state of meaninglessness just to fill time, the original version completely abandoned for something which is did not provoke any emotion in me at all. It made me angry and sad considering how greatly and subtly some of the aspects in Disney’s previous short were handled to see Zemeckis juggle them about mercilessly just because juggling looks much better in 3D.

The acting doesn’t really work either, not by Carrey (who I usually like) whose over-the-topness fits none of the characters and his accents and intonations are incredibly rocky, not really by Oldman who isn’t given enough of a part to play, and not really by anyone else (even knowing from the start that Bob Hoskins is in it, I found it incredibly difficult to see which part he was even playing).

Zemeckis has thrown together a jumbled mess here. I know the man can make good movies (the Back to the Future trilogy is still amazing today and the same is true for Forrest Gump), but his recent infatuation with the animation technique he has utilized in his latest films seems to have lead him to forget that it is films he is making. With all the effort put into animation no thought is spared for a decent script or decent direction. I was really, really disappointed by this, it is probably the worst adaptation of Dickens’ story I have seen. Watch Mickey’s Christmas Carol instead this christmas, that way you’ll have had a better experience and you’ll have 70 minutes to spare.

1,5/5

]]> http://digiblues.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/la-voce-dellattore/ Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:35:05 +0000 digiblues http://digiblues.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/la-voce-dellattore/ http://videodromo.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/cuento-de-navidad/ Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:03:37 +0000 Alfie http://videodromo.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/cuento-de-navidad/

Esta semana se estrena uno de los largometrajes más esperados por todos los amantes del cine de animación. Se trata del nuevo trabajo del realizador norteamericano Robert Zemeckis, que en su primer fin de semana ha alcanzado sin problemas el primer puesto del ranking del box office norteamericano. Si con “Beowulf“ adaptaba una leyenda nórdica que no fue bien acogida ni por la crítica ni por el público. En este caso se atreve con todo un clásico de la literatura británica. Ha elegido una novela de Charles Dickens, y de la que hemos visto más de una adapatación, una de las más famosas la intepretada por Bill Murray en 1988 titulada “Los fantasmas atacan al jefe” dirigida por Richard Donner. Jim Carrey toma el relevo al mítico personaje ya que ha sido el elegido para interpretar el papel múltiple de Scrooge. Debido a la importancia de la película esta semana en la sección “la firma invitada” tenemos a toda una gran conocida de todos vosotros, se trata de mi estimada Cantal Ceña que ha ido a ver…

Y están aquí los primeros días de frío, se empiezan a ver las primeras calles adornadas con luces y en las tiendas ya se venden los primeros adornos de Navidad. Pero ¿qué falta? La película de Disney de todas las Navidades. Esta vez más acorde con las fechas que nunca. CUENTO DE NAVIDAD, adaptada y dirigida por Robert Zemeckis va más allá y pone al servicio del espectador un clásico mezclado con las nuevas tecnologías, porque se trata de un film en 3D. Una vez más, la modernidad se rinde ante lo tradicional.

El argumento es de sobra conocido, pero ahí va, por si aún queda algún despistado al que no le guste mucho la lectura… Comienzan las Navidades en Londres, en pleno siglo XIX. Ebenezer Scrooge es un viejo avaro que no se relaciona con nadie y desprecia a todas las personas que tiene a su alrededor, que se limitan a su fiel secretario y a su sobrino. Ebenezer odia estas fiestas tan señaladas, cree que celebrar la Nochebuena o el día de Navidad son paparruchas y un gasto innecesario de dinero. Pero el fantasma de su socio, ya fallecido, se le aparece para anunciarle la visita de tres espíritus, el de las Navidades pasadas, el de las Navidades presentes y el de las Navidades futuras. Con ellos emprenderá un viaje en el que abrirá los ojos y verá más allá de su habitual mezquindad, tacañería y soledad e intentará cambiar antes de que sea demasiado tarde. Si es que no lo es ya…

Como el buen argumento estaba cantado, destacaré que la primera buena señal de esta película, además de estar basada en una extraordinaria novela, es el nombre de su director. Robert Zemeckis ya nos había regalado joyas como Regreso al futuro (tengo debilidad por esta saga), Forest Gump o más en el mundo de la animación, ¿Quién engañó a Roger Rabbit? o Polar Express. Con este currículo no nos podía decepcionar y aunque no lo ha hecho del todo, sí que diré que según avanza el film, va perdiendo el interés. Lo cortés no quita lo valiente y la primera media hora de película enamora. El espectador, con sus gafas 3D puestas, se mete de lleno en las calles del Londres del siglo XIX, con los copos de nieve cayendo entre los transeúntes, gente cantando villancicos y niños jugando y riendo. Pero según va avanzando, empieza a flojear. Os diré que tiene mi aprobado hasta que llega el espíritu de las Navidades futuras. En ese momento se vuelve oscura, violenta y pierde el sentido romántico que tenía hasta esa parte. Lo que presagia este tercer espíritu no es que sean buenas noticias, pero no me resulta difícil de imaginar otra forma de plasmarlo en la pantalla.

Además de la calidad tecnológica, verdaderamente se disfruta viendo una película así en tres dimensiones (hasta el punto de que uno se olvida de que es animación), otro elemento que quiero destacar del film es la banda sonora. Dentro de lo agradable o más bien entrañable que resulta escuchar música que suene a Navidad (y el que no lo crea así, a ver si va a ser un poquito Scrooge…), en este caso aciertan completamente. El compositor, Alan Silvestri, que ya había trabajado con Zemeckis en numerosas ocasiones, hace un magnífico trabajo que remata con el tema final “God bless us everyone”, interpretado por Andrea Bocelli. Te vas del cine con el espíritu navideño a flor de piel…

La única recomendación que os hago, además de ir a verla con el chip navideño activado, es que si podéis, lo hagáis en versión original. Nada me pudo dar más pena que perderme las interpretaciones de Jim Carrey como Ebenezer Scrooge y también como los espíritus de las Navidades pasadas, presentes y futuras. Este actor es tan versátil que sin haberlo escuchado me atrevo a asegurar que lo ha hecho de sobresaliente. Y el resto del reparto también es digno de mención: Colin Firth, Gary Oldman o Robin Wright Penn.

En resumen, que no hay Navidad completa sin película de Disney y esta vez viene pisado muy fuerte. CUENTO DE NAVIDAD es un cóctel con ingredientes para todos los públicos: un clásico de la literatura, animación de última tecnología 3D y un director de Oscar.

The classic English novella written by Charles Dickens has once again been adapted into a film, this time by veteran director Robert Zemeckis.

A Christmas Carol follows the tale of Ebenezer Scrooge, a mean, old man, who frowns upon the less fortunate and who loathes the Christmas holiday. On Christmas Eve night, Mr. Scrooge is visited by a ghost of an old friend, who warns him of three more visiting specters: the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. The spirits take Mr. Scrooge on a journey to find out who he really is.

If you look back on Zemeckis’s previous entries into the world of motion capture and 3D, and compare them to A Christmas Carol, you can see how far the technology has progressed. Simply put: the film looks beautiful. There are instances where you think a character is real instead of computer generated; the same goes for the scenery. Sadly, there are some inconsistencies in this department: sometimes the animation looks outstanding and sometimes it looks quite spotty. Just like the recent re-release of the Toy Story films in 3D, the film’s use of the technology is subtle in some places and not so subtle in others. There are of course sequences where images pop out at the audience, but it makes the film even more enjoyable.

If you are expecting a comedy, you are out of luck. While humor does rear its head in the film, it is overall far more dark and grim. There are some images that could be disturbing to young children and there some depressing scenes. While I love dark and somber films, parents may want to see this before taking their little ones. Of the comedy that is present, it is quite humorous and well presented. However, there were instances when the audience I saw the film with laughed at inappropriate moments and that is a fault against the film; either the filmmakers’ deliberately added comedy where it should not have been present or they just screwed up.

A Christmas Carol tackles the theme of greed and what it can do to people: it can destroy relationships, strain friendships, and even make the person unbearable to be around. While the film explored this theme, I could not help but think of the current political debate occurring in America and how it is quite a coincidence that the film was released at the height of it. This is a testament to how Dickens’s tale is still completely relevant even in the 21^st century.

The cast is absolutely great. Jim Carrey stars as Ebenezer Scrooge, the ghosts of Christ Past, Present, and Christmas Yet to Come, and the younger versions of Scrooge. This is the second film where he has done voice work and he has proven himself capable of voice acting. You can see Carrey’s resemblance in every character he portrays and he does not look weird like Tom Hanks does in Zemeckis’s The Polar Express. The same goes for Gary Oldman, who was cast as Bob Cratchit, Marley, and Tiny Tim. Oldman too does a great job with the voice work and it is quite surprising that he voiced a little boy. Other cast members include Bob Hoskins, Cary Elwes, Robin Wright Penn, and Colin Firth, though they have minor roles.

Despite minor flaws, A Christmas Carol is a solid film. Will it get you in the holiday spirit? Of course not; it is a grim story and it is only November.

Domenica 1 e lunedì 2 Novembre Rai Uno ha trasmesso le due puntate della fiction Pinocchio, scritta da Ivan Cotroneo e Carlo Mazzotta e diretta da Alberto Sironi.
Cast quanto mai eterogeneo: Bob Hoskins-Geppetto, Alessandro Gassman-Collodi, Violante Placido-la Fatina, Luciana Littizzetto-Grillo Parlante, Maurizio Donadoni-Mangiafuoco, Margherita Buy- la maestra, Thomas Sangster -Lucignolo, Francesco Pannofino- il Gatto, Toni Bertorelli-la Volpe ed infine il dodicenne Robbie Kay-Pinocchio.
Come sostengono in molti, il libro Le avventure di Pinocchio andrebbe letto sfrondato da ogni interpretazione, per quanto valida, sociologica, pedagogica, psicoanalitica o addirittura religiosa per essere inquadrato essenzialmente in una dimensione di vivida scrittura al servizio di una ancor più vivida fantasia, espressione della più gioiosa libertà ed incoscienza, voglia di conoscere il mondo e di farsene beffa, con l’ingenuità propria di un fanciullo “grezzo”, come il ciocco di legno dal quale è venuto fuori, maturando man mano la consapevole necessità di divenire adulti, attraverso stadi evolutivi che prevedono fame, miseria, cattiveria umana, sofferenza, interventi salvifici da morte temporanea per poter rinascere a nuova vita.
La fiction affronta il tutto con toni da commedia, evita la pedagogia ma vi inserisce elementi sociologici e psicologici buoni per un salotto televisivo, con un capovolgimento dei ruoli: è più Geppetto ad evolvere come padre, con ovvi riferimenti all’attualità, che Pinocchio come bimbo responsabile, restando in fondo un ciocco di legno, gli manca l’anima, la materia di cui sono fatte le favole, parafrasando Shakespeare, quel misto di poesia e magia che qui è sacrificato lungo un percorso che si fa freddo, didascalicamente programmatico, tra omaggi al capolavoro di Comencini del ‘72 (il burattino che diviene subito bimbo) e palesi riferimenti al Pinocchio disneyano (l’onnipresente grillo parlante, una Littizzetto decisamente fuori parte, la Fatina di Violante Placido, misto di ingenuità e candido erotismo, la trasformazione in ciuchi con le ombre sui muri), di cui mantiene l’apparente fedeltà al testo, con qualche libero adattamento, e la stessa piattezza incolore. Hoskins appare sin troppo attonito (non si poteva trovare un attore italiano, magari con accento toscano?), la Buy si aggira spaesata, la figura di Collodi inserita per attuare un collegamento tra realtà e fantasia e viceversa appare alquanto forzata; infine riguardo Robbie Kay nei panni di Pinocchio, ho sperato che la sceneggiatura prevedesse che il pescecane fosse dotato di un veloce processo digestivo.
Gli ascolti elevati? Forse bisognerebbe rivalutare l’indice di gradimento, tanti televisori accesi nello stesso momento non sempre è sinonimo di qualità.

It just wouldn’t be the festive season without some Christmas movies to get us in the mood: early November might just be a little too early for some people to begin decking the halls, but the season is starting early with Disney’s presentation of A Christmas Carol, the classic tale written by Charles Dickens and now brought to the big screen by Robert Zemeckis.

Disney’s take on the fable is animated though uses a form of motion capture similarly to that previously seen in Zemeckis’ The Polar Express and Beowulf (although for this movie, the look is a lot smoother, embracing the fact that it is, ultimately, an animated film.) It’s a perfect opportunity for the multi-faceted Jim Carrey to play several roles, this time taking on Ebenezer Scrooge and the three ghosts who haunt him on a Christmas Eve night.

For a modern adaptation, A Christmas Carol is surprisingly faithful to Dickens’ source: set in an impressively realised Victorian London, the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge shows off just how miserable he can be when dealing with gentlemen seeking alms, his nephew Fred (Colin Firth) who invites him along for Christmas dinner and his own clerk Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman.) That night, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his old business partner, Jacob Marley (also voiced by Oldman) who pleads with Scrooge to recant on his greedy ways, telling him that he will have three visitors over the next two nights who will show him the folly of his ways. Those three visitors, as everyone should know, are the Ghosts of Christmas Past, of Christmas Present, and of Christmases Yet To Come.

As with most interpretations of A Christmas Carol, this film depends on Ebenezer Scrooge being a despicable man, but one who isn’t without salvation and one that viewers want to see redeemed by the end of the film. In such a role, Carrey is impressive: Scrooge’s voice fits into the London of the 19th Century, and Carrey’s capable of c0mmunicating not only meanness, but also fear and longing with his voice in the same lines of dialogue. As the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present, however, Carrey isn’t quite as successful: there’s a forced wackiness for Christmas Past, just as much in the animation as in the character’s portrayal, and the booming joviality of the Ghost of Christmas Present is just a bit over-the-top when juxtaposed with some of the film’s more touching scenes (not to mention a cringeworthy Irish accent.)

While the film is entertaining, it doesn’t turn its back on some of the more serious messages of Dickens’ tale, and although this is a family movie, parents of young children might want to consider the story before bringing their kids along: the poverty of the Cratchit family may be underplayed in favour of their warmth and care, but it’s there nonetheless, and the ghosts live up to their name as spectres of death. There’s some terrifying imagery, in particular related to the rotting chained body of Marley and the shrouded-Death-like figure of the Ghost of Christmases Yet To Come that will scare some adults, never mind young children accompanying them, and while such scares are in keeping with the film’s fantasy theme, and are probably no worse than can be seen in similar films, they are indicative of the darker elements of A Christmas Carol.

But this isn’t a film purely about darkness: it isn’t much of a spoiler to say that Scrooge discovers the true meaning of Christmas by the film’s close, and the heart-warming aspects of the story easily outweigh those darker parts as Scrooge finds a family and realises that his money doesn’t equate with happiness.

There are elements of the film that play up the animated style, at times drifting from somewhat realistic to totally fantastic, and some of these scenes feel a little forced, or at least drawn out, to highlight the film’s 3D presentation: they don’t last too long, and provide an impressive, if incomplete, view of Zemeckis’ London, but they distract from the heart of the story, perhaps struggling to create some visual magic, little realising the emotional magic already there in the story.

As such, kids might not quite get what’s going on in the more story-focussed parts of A Christmas Carol, but will nonetheless be entertained, and it’s been quite a while since a Christmas film has been quite so oriented towards the whole family. It’s a surprisingly magical experience because of that fact, and although the kids might have more fun with the adventure, even the most hard-hearted of adults will be pushed not to find this, with its messages of family and altruism, one of the most charming Christmas movies of the last decade.

Festive Zombie Rating: B

A Christmas Carol opens in cinemas worldwide on November 6th, 2009, presented in Disney Digital 3D, IMAX and IMAX 3D where available.