So. Robert Zemeckis's A Christmas Carol 3D opened on Friday (because it's Christmas!...right, guys?*). In it, Jim Carrey plays seven different characters**—among them, the most annoying Ghost of Christmas Present EVER (and he's the one we're supposed to like! He's supposed to be the fun one!)—and Gary Oldman plays Bob Cratchit AND Tiny Tim, and even though these famous actors were paid (human money!) to stand in a room and talk to each other and act, Zemeckis insists on taking a computer and doodling on them until they look like a bunch of expressionless, waxy, reanimated corpses. Which is precisely what I wrote in my review of Zemeckis's 2007 adaptation of Beowulf (a review titled, thanks to the great Annie Wagner, Waxy Waxy Anglo-Saxy):

I guess old-fangled human actors are okay—always using their eyeballs and faces to communicate emotions and stuff (so pretentious). But what would be really great is if you could use a camera to film human actors, and then take a computer and scribble on the footage until the humans look like expressionless, waxy, reanimated corpses! Wake up, Louisa May Alcott—it’s called the 21st century (nice bonnet). And speaking of modernity: Yeah, I’m kind of into Anglo-Saxon heroic epics, but you know what would really jazz that shit up? BOOBZ. Hella boobz. Plus, have you heard about these new individually wrapped prunes? They’re totally changing the way I eat prunes. Jesus Christ, I love the future.

• HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! HEEEEEEEEEEEEEGH!

The raw footage of Firth and Carrey acting together in their motion-capture space suits is fascinating—evoking weird, minimalist theater more than multibillion-dollar filmmaking. The motion-capture technology itself (Robert Zemeckis's unhealthy obsession—pull yourself together, man!), thankfully, seems much improved since 2007's dismal Beowulf: You can see its potential for twitchy naturalism and emotional range and fun, uncanny grotesquerie. And though I'm not quite convinced that those were lacking in traditional animation OR traditional human acting, I'm interested to see what A Christmas Carol delivers. Because the train, really, is amazing. You make a convincing pitch, train!

So. I was willing to give A Christmas Carol a shot, when the time came. That time is now. The movie is dumb (though commendably scary), and motion-capture is its downfall:

Character development is minimal—they clearly spent more time making sure Scrooge's every wart and neck flap had a realistic wiggle than making sure anyone gave a shit about Tiny Tim...There's no denying that the motion-cap technology in A Christmas Carol is hugely improved since Beowulf, and it can be employed in film to creepy, creaturey effect (Gollum!). So, sure. Animate the ghosts. Awesome. Animate spindly old Scrooge, even. But everyone? When all you've really accomplished is turning Jim Carrey into an elderly manorexic man-spider and giving Colin Firth a very big weird chin, it just feels like technological showboating. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Sssssssssssssssssssssigh.

So. That's that. Merry Christmas. Robert Zemeckis is a turd****.

*........guys?
**Scrooge/Ghost of Christmas Past/Scrooge as a Young Boy/Scrooge as a Teenage Boy/Scrooge as a Young Man/Scrooge as a Middle-Aged Man/Ghost of Christmas Present/Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come
***Wait...what makes trains go?
****A stinky turd. Go sniff a jockstrap, you poophead.