Rating: 
Summary: I'm on a diet!
Review: I kid you not--those words actually came out of Mrs. Fezziwig's mouth. Note to screenwriter: Women living in Regency (or thereabouts) England did not "go on diets". This is a very uneven production--there were some nice moments which were immediately followed by some really odd moments. There were moments of charming faithfulness to Dickens' novel, followed by jarring anachronisms (see above). Some dialogue was stripped of its richness and authenticity, while some was left intact. The Ghost of Christmas Past was wonderful, but I half expected the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come to stick out a bag of candy and shout "Trick or Treat!" Worth watching when it comes on television, but I don't think I would purchase it. I preferred the Scott adaptation.
Rating: 
Summary: worst version yet
Review: I want to warn people who are interested in seeing A Christmas Carol to avoid this pathetic version. It is so bad that I'm sure it made Dickens roll in his grave. Some reveiwers say that it sticks most closely with the book. Well, I hardly call modernizing Victorian speech sticking with the book. I can't figure out what the purpose of that was. It makes you think that these are just modern day people dressed up for Halloween. Second, the ghosts were different. Christmas Present is supposed to be a giant, but he was some blah little twit in this one. And the ghost of Christmas future--I hardly think Dickens had Star Trek! Hokey and stupid beyond comprehension. Scrooge's sister is Fan, not Fran. I hardly consider the hokey secial effects to be "keeping close to the book." Anyway, there were a number of other things, most notably the Cratchit family. This was supposed to be a close and loving family, but you never get that impression of them. In fact, they repel rather than invite sympathy. The character of Cratchit was awful. Tim looked rather big and healthy, rosy cheeked and robust. Yes, he had a crutch, but he may well have just injured his leg sledding. Hardly the boy on the brink of death. Supposedly, this was filmed on location in London. Excuse me? Did they mean filmed on a cheap set in London? The acting is awful all around. Patrick Stewart, who is a great actor, appears to be sleeping through his lines. His Scrooge is lifeless, and his redemption, if you can call it that, is not convincing. Avoid this version like the plague. Stick with the tried and true, there are many great ones out there, especially the George C. Scott one.
Rating: 
Summary: Follows The Book Closer Than You May Think
Review: I reviewed this version a couple of years ago. I am reviewing it again, as I don't believe my first one did it justice.
This Patrick Stewart version of 'A Christmas Carol' is one that, judging by other's reviews, you'll either love or hate. I believe, however, in a middle ground (or upper middle ground in this case). What makes this version so unique is that it actually shows many scenes that were in the original book but never put on the various filmed versions available for viewing. A few examples: the Ghost of Christmas Present showing Scrooge the many different types of people - miners, lighthouse keepers, sailors out at sea - all celebrating this special day; the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come showing the lifeless body of Tiny Tim laid out in the Cratchit home; the lower jaw of the ghost of Jacob Marley dropping "down upon its breast" when the bandage around his head was removed. Even the items that once belonged to Scrooge being sold at "Old Joe's" pawn shop, such as the sugar tongs, were listed in the original book.
This version, as I stated in my previous review, also has the best Cratchit family put to film. Their physical appearance (even their teeth), their manner of speech, their clothing, all were as you would expect a poor 19th century London family to look, sound, and be like.
The costuming, the acting, the sets, all are very well done. For what I just wrote, I would put this particular version right up there with the best of the 'Carols.'
However, it does have its downside that brings it down a couple of notches. First and foremost is Patrick Stewart. He actually does a fair job in his role as Ebenezer Scrooge. But I truly do have a problem with a totally shaved bald -headed Scrooge. Sorry, but most bald men are not 100% hairless! Also, Mr. Stewart's choking out a laugh toward the end of the film is obviously (too obviously) forced.
Another rather small but noticable error is when Scrooge is asking the young lad to go and get the poulterer, the young boy answers with "you're joshing." I'm fairly certain that 'joshing' was not a term yet used in 1843. For a movie that went to great lengths for accuracy, one must wonder why they put in a contemporary slang term.
One must also wonder why they call Scrooge's sister Fran instead of what she was called in the book - Fan. The 1938 version with Reginald Owen also makes this same mistake.
And, yes, I must agree that they could have done a better job on the phantom. Again, with all of the computer tricks available, why go with a battery operated child-type toy figure?
Why, with all of the wonderfully accurate scenes, did they allow for the inaccuracies that they did (there are a few others I did not list)?
All in all, even with the inaccuracies, it is definitely worth adding to your collection. It is a high quality version that, because of what it has included in contrast to its deficiencies, will, I believe, stand the test of time.
Rating: 
Summary: A great disappointment after hearing him read the story
Review: I LOVE Patrick Stewart and think he is a wonderful actor. I have seen his one man play of A Christmas Carol four times and enjoyed it immensely. I have given the tapes and CDs of his reading of the story for several years as Christmas gifts. He has a wonderful reading voice! He captures you and puts you into the story. So I looked forward to this movie with great anticipation. I was utterly dismayed at what I saw. It does not live up to the Alistair Simm or George C. Scott versions. The actors seemed to be sleepwalking through the roles, there was no heart or soul. Instead of buying this, I would recommend purchasing the audio CD, settle in with some hot cider and candlelight, and let Patrick Stewarts incredible voice bring the true spirit of Dickens story to you.
Rating: 
Summary: my new Scrooge of choice
Review: This version of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is, without a doubt, my favorite. Patrick Stewart spent a good deal of his early post-Picard life performing a one-man rendition of Dickens' holiday classic. All that work pays off big-time in this wonderful movie version (with a full cast) made by the folks at TNT. Stewart is the star here. His scrooge is a far cry from the usual curmudgeon we've been given by the likes of George C. Scott, Lionel Berrymore, and Albert Finney. Stewart's Scrooge is much more human--and as a result much less wooden. The four ghosts are excellent as well. Part of this may well be advances in special effects. Yet bearing even that in mind, the first three ghosts (especially Joel Grey as the ghost of Christmas Past) turn in spectacular performances; while not saying much (as usual) the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come broods nicely. Interwoven throughout the movie is the outstanding job done by the various actors who play the Cratchit family. Richard Grant is the best Bob Cratchit I have ever seen. The rest of the family is just as remarkable. More than anything else however, this TNT version gets more to the meaning of Christmas than most earlier versions. We have so much more here than empty, fuzzy-warm sentiment. When the redeemed Scrooge takes action, he also runs to sing songs of joy and worship to the God that has made it all possible. Everything about this movie version is spot-on. The pacing is superb, each phase of Scrooge's journey is given enough time to truly blossom--nothing gets shortchanged. This makes for the best ending sequence to the piece ever filmed. I cannot express my enthusiasm for this film enough. This is the best movie of A Christmas Carol yet made (my previous Scrooge of choice was Bill Murray's Scrooged, which I still greatly appreciate). I give this movie my highest recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Zzzzzzzzz...
Review: I can sum this up in 9 words: Stewart is a ghastly, pretentious trainwreck of an actor. Yes, more true to the original than most screen adaptations, but it was delivered with all the heart of a meatloaf. Stewart's dialogue seems so forced--especially when conversing with Marley's ghost. "Why...do spirits walk the earth...?" Very Shatner-esque. Coincidence? Scott is still the most believable Scrooge and Finney is by far the most entertaining. Unless you're intrigued (in an MST3K kind of way) by B movies and want to watch something much more humorous than it meant to be, save your money.
Rating:
Summary: "Truth is stranger than fiction"!
Review: I had thought that this story, though teaching all us a good lesson, had been beaten to death by every form of media. That was until I saw the version with Patrick Stewart a couple of years ago. The raw truth, once again, slapped my dull psyche back into reality. I intend to purchase a copy when it comes out this fall, not only as a testimony to the fine performance by all of the actors, but moreso for the story of pain and hope it conveys... a message that is timeless.
Rating:
Summary: Been done before and been done better.
Review: Like others I was beguiled into buying the DVD after hearing the CD of the marvelous one-man show that Stewart has done. I found this to be a less than compelling re-make of the timeless classic. The enduring story of "A Christmas Carol" involves Ebenezer Scrooge, a greedy grasping businessman, who is untouched by human emotion. Or so we think until he is visited one Christmas Eve by four sprits who show him the error of his ways. In the end a redeemed Scrooge resolves to keep the Christmas spirit all the days of his life and to be good to his fellow men. In contrast to his one-man show, Stewart is here keeping company with actors of lesser abilities. This is a dreadful problem. Especially since so many of the characters are only thinly drawn in Dicken's story. The Fiancée who leaves him and the sister who once rescued him are both poorly portrayed in this rendition. Even the beloved clerk, Crachit, is a weak shadow of the loving family man we have come to expect. Stewart himself seems to be giving a less than peak performance but this might just be because he was unable to rise above the mediocre acting about him. I did not find that the special effects were in anyway well done. All the advent of technology and computer-aided imaging was unable to create anything that could captive the viewer and cause him to suspend disbelief. I purchased the DVD edition of this movie, but I might as well have saved my money and gotten the VHS version (or saved more money and not gotten any version). The special features are noting more than the little 'squibs' used by TNT to promote the film none lasts for more than a minute or two. But do not despair if you simply must have Stewart as Scrooge, get a copy of his one-man show. It is really magnificent.
Rating:
Summary: A Regrettable Disappointment
Review: After seeing Patrick Stewart's live, one-man stage adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" in New York, this film was terribly disappointing. It lacks all the life and spirit of Dickens' original story, which Stewart breathes into the stage version, and of the two wonderful screen adaptations released in 1951, with Alastair Sim, and in 1984, starring George C. Scott. The problem is that Stewart gets to play all of the characters on stage and he is delightful as Fezziwig, Cratchit (and his entire family), and in the roles of the ghosts. The film, however, offers him only the chance to play Scrooge and his choice to keep him morose and one-note up until the very end simply doesn't work. We have to believe that Scrooge is affected by what the ghosts show him; he can't just make an instant change at the end only because he has seen his own dismal death. What lesson is there in that? The production is further undermined by very weak performances from some of the key supporting players, particularly Cratchit and the humorless Ghost of Christmas Present (Hello! This guy is supposed to be JOLLY to take the edge off of the other, more serious ghosts!). Nonetheless, the film should be seen in order to contrast it with the original novel and the other filmed adaptations. It's just too bad that there is no video release of Stewart's magnificent stage version. John Frye
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful! Worth owning!!!
Review: This Christmas, I watched all versions I could find of "A Christmas Carol," trying to find a version that I could add to my holiday movies. This one takes the cake! The special effects are wonderful, and Patrick Stewart plays a very believable Scrooge. His acting is superb!! The settings were well done, and the other actors did awesome jobs. Nothing was cheezy or fake... This rates number one on my Christmas list of movies!... right there with White Christmas and Miracle on 34th st with Natalie Wood. Well, worth the money!!
| 
