The Man Who Invented Christmas

source: The Man Who Invented Christmas

I really wanted to like this movie but alas that was not in the cards. Dan Stevens, seen previously as the Beast in the live action remake of Beauty and the Beast merely whimpered as Charles Dickens. It was almost a manic portrayal of Dickens whose life seems to be falling apart. Sad to say skip this one. One present to leave under the tree.

The intention of this film was to offer insights into the genius of Charles Dickens in the writing of his beloved novel "A Christmas Carol." Unfortunately, the clumsy and meandering fantasy was an unconvincing portrayal of how a gifted writer becomes inspired. The film started well as we see the 32-year-old Dickens struggling to undertake a new writing project after three poorly received works, including "Martin Chuzzlewit," "Barnaby Rudge," and "American Notes." As Dickens wanders about London, he begins to get an idea for a Christmas tale based upon the people he is observing on the streets. It is at this point that the filmmakers make a wrong turn by having Scrooge and the other characters appear to Dickens in the flesh and guide him through the story. The film thereby turns into a "gimmick" in which we see the characters acting out their roles in front of the quizzical Dickens, who seems in a fog about all of these literary characters appearing before him as strange apparitions! In turn, we are forced to re-live Dickens' hardscrabble childhood when, at age twelve, he was forced to work as a grimy and "scabby" little factory boy, pasting labels onto jars of black boot shoe polish in a rat-infested factory filled with vile little street urchins who verbally abuse "Charlie" because he thinks that his spendthrift father is a gentleman. A second flaw in the film was to turn Dickens himself into a Scrooge, whose shabby treatment of his father and other characters ultimately leads him to an awakening to "let bygones be bygones" and bring holiday cheer to one and all. The great realization that comes to Dickens is that "no one is useless in this world that lightens the burden of another." In the act of writing "A Christmas Carol," Dickens is supposed to be lightening the collective burden of the world. Unfortunately, the excessive sentiment was forced and artificial. For us as the audience, the "burden" was to be forced to sit through this silliness. While the Victorian costumes were effective and the performers were well-cast, the ultimate effect was neither a compelling biographical film nor a serious attempt to understand the way that a novelist develops characters and narrative. Above all, the attempt at fantasy never worked. The publication of "A Christmas Carol" on December 19, 1843, was undoubtedly a major literary event. It just wasn't celebrated very convincingly in this superficial film that portrayed the old "Boz" as a nasty old Scrooge. Bah! Humbug!

The professional movie critics are already attacking 'The Man Who Invented Christmas' I like Christmas movies. Last week, a brilliant poster mentioned how the majority of 'professional' movie critics are a cancer. I'm in complete agreement with this person. I also believe these movie critics are a cancer to all artists. And they're a cancer to the film industry. TRUTH: Critics kill any joy of those who actually do something. Phil Collins said he was glad to retire because of the music critics. Kevin Durant said sports critics are killing the game. And James Cameron didn't direct for 10 years after Titanic because he was sick of movie critics bashing him. Everyone knows the story of Herman Melville who died a broken man because the critics savaged his book, "Moby Dick". The book didn't sell well and Melville went bankrupt and spent his last years in a grocery store. True story. Movie critics are not just a poison, they're very dangerous. Many times you'll see them 'ganging up' on filmmakers and using almost the identical reviews - it's like they collectively do a smear campaign on any movie they dislike. I didn't watch Kevin Costner's 'The Postman' for YEARS because the movie critics said it was utterly horrible. However, after watching the film, I was shocked at how good the film was. I almost missed out on watching a great film because again I listened to these loser critics. I almost didn't watch 'Hidden Figures' because another critic savaged the movie as 'unwatchable'. Like the previous poster said, "Movie critics have never written, directed, acted, or produced a film in their entire lives. They're just losers who wish they could be filmmakers." So this is the essence then of today's movie criticism. It's useless. Pointless. Fake News. One critic admitted he would never give Paramount good reviews because Paramount wouldn't read his script. So what can we do about this? What can movie fans and those artists (and crew members) in the film industry do? FIGHT BACK. Let's 'out' these critics by name in public forums like 'Topix.com'; 'Ripoff.com' 'ComplaintsBoard.com' - the critics will see their name smeared on Page 1 of Google the same way they smear filmmakers. Give them a taste of their own medicine. Movie critics will never be remembered nor their reviews. No mother ever tells their children, "Someday I want you to grow up and become a movie critic."

In 1843 London, author Charles Dickens finds himself in financial trouble after writing three unsuccessful novels in a row. Desperate for a hit, Dickens relies on real-life inspiration and his vivid imagination to bring Ebenezer Scrooge, Tiny Tim and other classic characters to life in "A Christmas Carol," forever changing the holiday season into the celebration known today. Well made. Lots of fun. "Most" likely will grow in popularity in the years to come. The film is so well made and acted that you will want to watch it Now instead of waiting for Christmas

I Have Reviewed OVER 500 "Christmas Films and Specials". Please BEWARE Of films and specials with just one review! For instance When "It's a POSITIVE" chances are that the reviewer was involved with the production. "If its Negative" then they may have a grudge against the film for whatever reason. I am fare about these films. Based on the book "The Man Who Invented Christmas" this film explores the time Charles Dickens was having. HAving just come off three bombs he is not only in desperate need of hit he also running out money. This fear he has of losing everything drives him into creating the "Most Beloved Christmas Story" of all time "A Christmas Carol". Now this film shows us where he might of got his ideas from and it does so entertainingly. Since most of us now how the story will end its still a surprise to see all the craziness Charles Dickens had in his life but was able to create a masterpiece that is still popular today 175 years after it was first published!

One one hand we have a story of the writing of "A Christmas Carol"... on the other... a story of Dickens own redemption... an immersive movie on it's first watching... even more so over coffee later as you begin to recognize and unravel the symbols and metaphors that run through it. One of the best written and crafted pieces I've seen in ages... ... the raven is important...

By 1843 Charles Dickens (Dan Stevens) was a successful author known around the world, however he was in a funk. His last three books were flops and he was broke and well into debt. Out of ideas he is up against the wire knowing another flop could very well kill his career. When inspiration finally strikes, he is forced to publish the book himself because no publisher wants to do a Christmas book and he has to finish in just six weeks in order to release before Christmas. When Dickens is writing, he sees his characters in the room with him and talks to them to develop the character. This is best done with his conversations with Scrooge (Christopher Plummer) a character he created as an amalgamation of London's snobby elite who helps he learn about himself as he writes. The story also dives into Dickens early life, especially his relationship with his father (Jonathan Pryce), which helps the viewer understand what drove and inspired Dickens. This is definitely a movie that assumes familiarity with A Christmas Carol, since it constantly references the story. The title is also a misnomer of sorts, there is no real perspective as to what Christmas was like before A Christmas Carol. And while Dickens did shape a new form of Christmas, it is not the Christmas that is celebrated today. Dickens' Christmas was focused on charitable giving and coming together with loved ones, that Christmas has been lost for a while in favor of a more consumerist Christmas.

I was so excited to see this movie after seeing the trailers on TV, but was truly disappointed and walked out of the theater after about 45 minutes. It turns Dickens into a sort of comic character. I guess growing up with such a reverence for Dickens, I just couldn't handle this interpretation, particularly having seen Ralph Fiennes as Dickens in The Invisible Woman. I don't blame Dan Stevens (of Downton Abbey fame,) who plays Dickens. It had to be the vision of the director.

Whitewashing his marriage--THE INVISIBLE WOMAN here's where he got the inspiration for this and that and that a bit of a dick The timing of "The Man Who Invented Christmas" seems a bit unusual in that back only a few years before, the film "The Invisible Woman" came out and the latter film would seem to contradict much of the nice-guy image they created. So, in "The Invisible Woman", you learn that Charles Dickens had a wife who was perpetually pregnant with his children...only to be dumped by Charles for another woman. In "The Man Who Invented Christmas", you have a man who has some personal demons BUT who was essentially a nice-guy and who was a really swell guy by the end of the movie. Clearly, the latter film used a bit of artistic license! The story is about the creation of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"...and the creative process going on behind the scenes. Some of this is clever but too much of it, to me, seemed like they were tossing in all sorts of references too often. Regardless, by the end of the story, Dickens is beloved and all is good. If it sounds like I did not love this film, that's true. While the critics seemed to really like it, I felt that the story is pretty much one that Dickens fans would love...while others would like it as well IF they didn't know that the man was extremely flawed. Overall, watchable but also it's a film that tries too hard to make something special happen.