The Man Who Invented Christmas (2017)

This film tells the story of Charles Dickens who is pressurised to come up with a story in just 6 weeks, to solve his mounting debt and restore his professional credibility.The story is more like a fantasy film, in which the famous author immerses himself in the story he is creating. It is interesting to see how the creative process come alive on the screen, as this is not a topic that is addressed often in films. However, it does not quite work for me, as I find it more like a highly psychotic experience in which Charles Dickens cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality. Dan Stevens' good looks is not put into good use either. Fortunately, the supporting character Tara has quite a lot of charm, so at least there is something I like about the film.

This is a film based on the events that drove Charles Dickens to write one of the most popular books of all time.The film is well made and it seem authentic. The problem is we know this "gamble" will pay off. No suspense but otherwise a good film

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!

Or, more exactly, a wise one. because it has humor and drama and bitter scenes and hopefull scenes. it is a genesis fantastic sketch of an admirable book but, in same measure, it is not a biographic film about Dickens being one. it is easy to define it as a delight. but it is a remember. about the life of a great witer. about the roots of a sort of perspective about life and people. and good kick to discover, again, the freshness of a work. the film has many virtues. it could be perceived as a charming easy film, like a comedy or a film for young public, colorfull and seductive and little superficial and unconvincing. but it is a real good film for to give to the public what it deserves. a brilliant cast and good performances. the fictional history of classic book, the difficulties of the existence of the writer. and something else. out of words. an answer, maybe. to the crisis of our time. short, it is , maybe, not the impressive film who you expect. but it is an usefull one. and that is the most significant virtue of it.