Rating: 
Summary: Patrick Stewart as the thinking man's version of Scrooge
Review: Nobody ever prepared for playing Ebenezer Scrooge as much as Patrick Stewart, who for years did a one-man recitation of "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens during the Holiday season. Eventually his mesmerizing performance was made available as an audiotape, which was certainly better than nothing, but it was difficult not to be disappointed that Stewart's performance was not captured on video. In 1999 this situation was somewhat rectified when Hallmark put together this made for television version of the classic Dickens tale. The story begins with the funeral of Jacob Marley, who died on a Christmas Eve, and Ebenezer Scrooge musing on why doornails are particularly to be regarded as "dead." If there is one thing that distinguishes Stewart's performance it is emphasis on how Scrooge was responsible for his own sorry state. This time around there is less of an idea that the fates were not kind to Scrooge than there is that he made choices that he refuses to regret. His disdain for Christmas and its attendant joys and practices comes not so much from anger as it does from a sense of superiority, taking a rather perverse pride in putting the two gentlemen who make the mistake of coming to Scoorge & Marley for funds in their place. The most insightful scene into the character of this Scrooge is when Marley's Ghost (Bernard Lloyd) appears. Scrooge returns to eating while doing the "more gravy than grave" speech and his inquiries about the meaning of spirits coming to visit him comes across as utterly reasonable, the product of intellectual curiosity more so than fear and trembling, and Marley replies in kind. Scrooge cannot understand why Marley is suffering given how good of a businessman he was in life. Of course, in due time, Marley and the other spirits will educated Scrooge accordingly. I find the cover shot for the DVD/VHS of this film to be quite appropriate because I believe it represents the moment when Scrooge goes too far and provokes the visit from Marley's ghost and the rest of the spirits. A young boy, obviously symbolic of Tiny Tim, has the nerve to stand in front of Scoorge & Marley singing a Christmas carol ("Good King Wencelas"). Scrooge can endure only a single verse before he opens the door and threatens the child with a raised cane. The boy quickly flees, but the moment stays with us, a new affront in the litany of Scrooge's crimes against Christmas that we know so well. I have to admit, I was sure the young actor (Leagh Conwell) playing the caroller would return at the end as the boy Scrooge sends to fetch the big turkey in the window, but that is not what takes palce. The spirit of rethinking roles extends to the ghosts as well, with Joel Grey as a somewhat menacing Ghost of Christmas Past and Desmond Barrit as a rather melancholy Ghost of Christmas Present. This production is also unusual in that the supporting cast does not show a lot of recognizable names. The exception would be Joel Grey, but the rule would be veteran character actors like Elizabeth Spriggs ("Sense and Sensibility") as Mrs. Riggs. The special effects are a hit and miss proposition, and while you want to take into account that this is "just" a television movie and not a theatrical film, it is more to the point to remember that this particular production was undertaken to get Patrick Stewart in front of the camera playing Ebenezer Scrooge. Alastair Sim in the 1951 version of "A Christmas Carol" remains the definitive Scrooge, but Stewart is a most reasonable second choice.
Rating: 
Summary: Stick with George C. Scott!
Review: I've recently seen this Patrick Stewart version of A Christmas Carol for the second time in hopes that I would like it more than when I saw it last year. I didn't. It's a handsome production...perhaps too handsome. The buildings and streets all look very quaint and clean and just so "perfect". The 1984 production with George C. Scott was much grittier and darker and really created a sense of atmosphere. All of the supporting actors are decent in this most recent version, but not particularly memorable. For instance, the actor portraying Jacob Marley in the Stewart version has nothing on Frank Finlay, who was so chilling as Marley in 1984! I hate to say it, but Patrick Stewart is a very inadequate Scrooge. I know Scrooge is supposed to be a hard man in the beginning of the story, but Stewart is so stoic that you simply can't read anything from his expressionless face throughout most of the film, whereas all other actor's who have played the famous Dickens' character have been able to convey the appropriate bitterness or sadness that inhabits Scrooge. One particular choice Stewart makes is dead wrong: When Scrooge visits the "Chrismas yet to come", he begins to realize that he is the dead man everyone's talking about BEFORE he sees his name on the tombstone. It's only when he sees his name that he fully comes to terms with his impending death...Every other actor who has portrayed Scrooge has understood this, but Stewart plays the scene as if he had no idea that he was the dead person UNTIL he reads his name on the stone! This choice is wrong because it ultimately makes Scrooge look as if he doesn't truly change his ways until that very moment...when Scrooge's transformation should occur slowly with every spirit's visit! I respect Patrick Stewart, but with his performance in A Christmas Carol, he demonstrates why he's no Alistair Sim, Albert Finney, George C. Scott or Michael Caine!
Rating: 
Summary: Holodeck Scrooge!!!
Review: I am a huge fan of the "Scrooge" story in general and of Star Trek The Next Generation. What I cannot believe is that this movie seems to be a very unhappy marriage of the two. Stewart acts like Jean-Luc, and every other character is like a holographic image with no soul. I keep expecting him to be called to the bridge and stop "playing around" because the Klingons or the Borg are coming. I have always had the opinion that the difference between Stewart and Shatner in the Star Trek cosmos is that Stewart can really act. This version of the Scrooge story has made me doubt that supposition. Stewart as Scrooge shows no real emotional change at all before or after the ghostly visitations. His lines change and he starts to say nicer things to people, but there is no real sense of personality change. The weird (and I mean WEIRD) way that he chokes out a laugh after waking up on Christmas morning is one of the most amateur acting displays I have ever seen on film. Before (and after) the "change", I keep expecting him to tell Cratchit to do something followed by "engage" or "make it so". I hate to be negative here, but really, if you think this is good, what else do you watch? At the end of the movie, Stewart is sitting by the fire drinking what looks like a cup of Earl Grey, and looking very much like Jean-Luc. It would have been a bit more fun to have Troi play his sister Fan, Crusher his old flame, Riker play ghost of the present, Data play Cratchit (he would show as much emotion as the guy who did play Cratchit), Worf play ghost of the future, Geordi play ghost of the past, Q play Marley (that would have been a hoot), and Wesley Crusher play Tiny Tim. I'd pay real money to see all that!
Rating: 
Summary: Exceptional
Review: With so many year's experience playing Ebenezer Scrooge on stage and in recordings, it is fully forseeable that Patrick Stewart's film portrayal of the miserly curmudgeon transformed by Christmas spirit might itself be a bit of holiday magic, and so it is. Veering almost never off Dickens' path, with appropriate use of special effects and supported by an able British cast (most memorable is the portrayal of Mrs. Cratchit as a sharp-featured Cockney who first appears in her kitchen singing an old London pub song with her children) the film features an interesting musical score and a dark, grimy, gloomy, foggy London. Drawbacks? Well, there aren't any, unless you have seen Stewart do Scrooge on stage or even heard the audio-only version (basically a reading of Dickens). If you have, you will wonder why Stewart was unable to re-create on film either Scrooge's despicable meanness at first, or his abject terror later, in the presence of Marley's Ghost. But you will not be disappointed by the brilliant energy of Stewart's Transformed Scrooge. This may not be The Best, but it is wonderfully watchable and belongs in any collection.
Rating: 
Summary: Not very convincing
Review: I saw only the DVD version of this most recent presentation of "A Christmas Carol", and must say that it was terribly disappointing. It completely lacks the heart and soul of two very superior versions done first by Alastair Sim, and then brilliantly by George C. Scott. There are good special effects, and if you are a Patrick Stewart fan, then you will probably greatly enjoy this movie. But Stewart's interpretation of Scrooge is almost one-note, and he changes his tune only very late in the game. His performance simply pales desperately in comparison to that of Sim or Scott. In addition, the supporting cast is very average (the Scott version has the strongest supporting cast of any version, in my opinion), the overall tone of the picture too bright throughout, and the liberties taken with the updated language is pointlessly disconcerting. This is no competition for past versions of "A Christmas Carol", and it hurts to have to be negative about Patrick Stewart's performance. There are not a lot of extra features on the DVD, although their are two interesting short features on the making of the movie. For what it's worth, my recommendation remains the 1984 George C. Scott version, which is exceptional in every way.
Rating:
Summary: A much closer following of the Charles Dickens novella.
Review: I admit that this isn't my favourite screen adaptation of "A Christmas Carol"; the 1951 version with Alastair Sim really is unsurpassed. But as good as that version is, there were plenty of "artistic liberties" taken with the Dickens story which admittedly added to the story (and makes the 1951 film adaptation of the story perhaps even better than Dickens' original writing, which is all that more amazing a feat when considering the source).
>
Having said that, this most recent undertaking of the classic tale of redemption is certainly a lot better than it's been credited as being in some of the reviews submitted here. Patrick Stewart has been performing the role of Scrooge on stage in a one-man production for quite some time (it's available in a condensed version as an audio book, incidentally), and as such he's had the time to well-develop his performance. He does go a bit over-the-top at times, but I suggest that has more to do with his experience with the role on stage and the natural overemphasis required of a media where there are no boom microphones to pick up less-pronounced sounds for which a TV or cinematic sound edit can attone. That may make his performance appear les polished, but it certainly doesn't take away from its overall power.
>
As for the special effects, I personally enjoyed them very much. I'm sure that if the producers of this movie were able to hire real ghosts for the parts of Jacob Marley and the Spirits there wouldn't have been a need for them, but I don't feel they detracted from the movie in the least. The 1951 version had also been singled out at the time of its release for spectacular use of effects, so this is hardly a new topic of discussion for this movie.
>
If you want to see a screen adaptation of this fantastic Dickens story that takes advantage of modern cinematic production values and still remains true to the novel, I can't recommend a better version than this one. If you prefer "A Christmas Carol" as a movie rather than a novel (or a close screen adaption), go with the 1951 British version with Alastair Sim. You can't go wrong with either one.
>
Merry Christmas!
Rating:
Summary: Holodeck Scrooge!!!
Review: I am a huge fan of the "Scrooge" story in general and of Star Trek The Next Generation. What I cannot believe is that this movie seems to be a very unhappy marriage of the two. Stewart acts like Jean-Luc, and every other character is like a holographic image with no soul. I keep expecting him to be called to the bridge and stop "playing around" because the Klingons or the Borg are coming. I have always had the opinion that the difference between Stewart and Shatner in the Star Trek cosmos is that Stewart can really act. This version of the Scrooge story has made me doubt that supposition. Stewart as Scrooge shows no real emotional change at all before or after the ghostly visitations. His lines change and he starts to say nicer things to people, but there is no real sense of personality change. The weird (and I mean WEIRD) way that he chokes out a laugh after waking up on Christmas morning is one of the most amateur acting displays I have ever seen on film. Before (and after) the "change", I keep expecting him to tell Cratchit to do something followed by "engage" or "make it so". I hate to be negative here, but really, if you think this is good, what else do you watch? At the end of the movie, Stewart is sitting by the fire drinking what looks like a cup of Earl Grey, and looking very much like Jean-Luc. It would have been a bit more fun to have Troi play his sister Fan, Crusher his old flame, Riker play ghost of the present, Data play Cratchit (he would show as much emotion as the guy who did play Cratchit), Worf play ghost of the future, Geordi play ghost of the past, Q play Marley (that would have been a hoot), and Wesley Crusher play Tiny Tim. I'd pay real money to see all that!
Rating:
Summary: The Best!
Review: Blah Blah Blah, Yadda Yadda Yadda! The George C. Scott Christmas Carol production was good but some of us like The Patrick Stewart version better so get over it! I actually used to like the Alistair Sim production as the best of them all but now my favorite is The Patrick Stewart film and it's now my all time fave with Alistair Sim following. The Patrick Stewart film is a lot closer to the Dickens novel than the haters will have you thinking and I think if you give it a chance you will like it!
Rating:
Summary: One ham and a lot of corn
Review: The sole saving grace of this pathetic version of the Dickens classic is the wasted talents of Patrick Stewart who has to ham it up to fill the void left by a weak cast sleepwalking through horrible, emotionless performances. In a tragically small role and under embarassingly bad make-up, though, is Joel Grey miscast as a passable Ghost of Christmas Past. The Ghost of Christmas Present is abysmal. What should be a jocular and lively character comes across as exciting and jovial as an autopsy. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is unintentionally hilarious and cheesy. Bob Cratchit's character is completely unsympathetic - one almost wished Tiny Tim would die just to get some emotion from him. When, in the timeline of Tim's death, Cratchit's sadness is shallow and appears contrived. To the director's credit, the story explores scenes not usually shown in other versions, ie, the lighthouse and the ship at sea. Put DVD back on the shelf, save your money, and explore Clive Donner's version with George C. Scott. Donner's version is infinitely superior in every aspect and a far more satisfying holiday treat.
Rating:
Summary: Patrick Stewart gives an amazing performance!
Review: Patrick Stewart did such a great job in this movie. It has now become a tradition of mine to watch this movie every year on Christmas Eve and days in between then also. Patrick Stewart gives an amazing performance as Scrooge and I can hardly imagine watching any other versions of this movie besides this one!
|
