Rating: 
Summary: Third Place In A Field of Three
Review: When this cinematic version of Dickens' Christmas classic was released in 1999, it entered an already crowded field, following on Alistair Sim's well-loved 1951 role as Scrooge, and George C Scott's outstanding 1984 performance. Unfortunately for Patrick Stewart, who stars as Scrooge in this version, it is impossible to judge this film completely on its own merits. Invariably, the audience will compare it to those renditions that came before it.Patrick Stewart does not strike me as "Scrooge," as a bald Scrooge goes against every other portrayal. In his black clothes, Lincolnesque top hat and gaunt appearance, Stewart appears more a kindly Snidely Whiplash than Ebenezer Scrooge. Finally, Patrick Stewart is too nice a man, and being mean, stingy and grouchy is not his forte. In short, I think Stewart is a fine actor who was miscast in "A Christmas Carol." Also, his lines were not delivered with enough passion or emotion, except for the Christmas morning wakeup scene, where he appears truly giddy with laughter. The costumes, scenes and sets were adequately authentic and true to the 1840s time period, but I felt that each scene was a bit rushed, as if they were trying to get it all in before time ran out. Finally, the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come was gimmicky and too Halloweenish -- he appeared to be eight feet tall with lightbulbs for eyes. In a field of three -- with Alistair Sims and George C Scott being the other two, this version of the tale takes a decided third place.
Rating: 
Summary: How Embarrassing to Dickens
Review: Dickens would be embarrassed to admit that he had anything to do with this one. It is truly amazing how a great story like this one could be so badly botched and how a great actor like Patrick Stewart would consent to reading a script this bad--and then putting in a dreadful performance. I can't understand how people think this movie is great, or even okay. None of the characters are likeable, the acting is awful all around--not one good performance to be had. The special effects are probably thrown in there to distract viewers from the acting. This was supposed to be filmed on location, but it looks very much like a poorly done Hollywood set. And the modernization of the language that Dickens used only serves to make it even more hokier. I actually laughed during the scenes of young Scrooge in love--apparently, the script writer and director hadn't a clue of what Victorian courtships were like. These two acted like modern day lovers, except they were wearing old-fashioned costumes. Did anyone bother to read up on custom at that time? If you want to watch A Christmas Carol, do yourself a favor and stay as far away from this one as possible. Rent or buy the 1951 version with Alastair Sim, and the great 1984 version with George C. Scott--one of the best movies ever made. The only thing that this version is good for is the recycling bin.
Rating: 
Summary: Not perfect, but lots of small, nice touches.
Review: Having heard the audiocassette version of Patrick's reading of A Christmas Carol, I was most pleased to learn that he was to be in a TV-movie version. Happily, except for one or two little hiccups here and there, I wasn't disappointed.I'll get the few shortcomings out of the way first. Like everyone else on this page, I didn't like the design of the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (I kept muttering "Uttinni!" under my breath since he looked like the grandfather of all Jawas). Likewise, those cheesy circular wipes for some of the Christmas Future scenes didn't work for me either. I don't know why they cut out the scene of the Two Charitable Gentlemen receiving a donation from Scrooge after the old man's reformation. And Christmas Present, though good, didn't quite convey both the warmth and the sternness that Edward Woodward did in the Scott version. That said, there were certain elements that this production handled very well indeed...in some cases, the best of all the film versions. The main one is Nephew Fred and the depiction of the Christmas party at his home. Dominic West (who's been in a few Shakespeare films) makes a superb Fred, showing warmth and kindness without being a cartoon character. When he says that he holds no grudge against his uncle "because his offenses carry their own punishment", he is sincere and you feel as if this is the kind of chap you'd be lucky to have on your side. It's also a nice touch that Fred is the one to narrate the last moments of the story. "My uncle was as good as his word..."And Patrick...well, the man could read the telephone book and make it compelling, but here he conveys both the anger and viciousness that drives Scrooge, as well as a real sense of sadness during the Christmas Past scenes. (To the reviewer who said that Scrooge was cruel because he'd "turned against a world that he believed had turned against him"...well spotted!)The breakup between Ebenezer and Belle has never been handled quite so poignantly. The actress playing Belle shows both sadness and resolve...although she wishes things could have been different, she knows that this is the only way. And that shot of her disappearing into the falling snow as a melancholy version of the party music plays...with Patrick shouting to his younger self, "GO AFTER HER!"...gets me every time. Though I wish they'd had the scene where he is forced to see her with her husband and children and realize what he threw away.Richard E. Grant is an EXCELLENT Bob Cratchit. I must respectfully disagree with the reviewer below who didn't think the Cratchits were a convincingly poor family. I thought that this version believably showed their poverty (their clothing is shabby and they are somewhat thin, but they are happy in one another's company. And this is the first Cratchit family to ALL have Cockney accents!) But I have a new respect for Richard and his talents. Richard E. Grant himself lost a child that was born prematurely and died hours after birth. I can only imagine what it must have been like for him to play the scenes in Christmas Future where Tim had died, and it adds a new poignancy to these scenes.Other small, nice touches I liked: Scrooge's nervousness when he enters church for the first time in years (he has to be prompted to remove his hat), his slight hesitancy even after his reform when he offers to give the messenger boy a tip (he's got to get used to this generosity bit, after all!), his reactions to the Christmas parties he attends in "shadow" (he taps his foot to the music at Fezziwig's party and reaches out for a punch cup at Fred's), the genuinely CREEPY moments in Christmas Future when he sees his own dead body, first laid out and covered with a sheet, then actually face to face in the graveyard scene), the fact that the movie begins with a literal dramatization of the book's first words ("Marley was dead, to begin with.").Maybe this isn't quite up to the best made-for-TV version with George C. Scott. But it has enough of these small touches to bring it quite close, and to make Sim, Scott and Stewart the Scrooge Triumvirate.
Rating: 
Summary: The most touchy of all
Review: If you are one of those who make it a point to watch this greatest piece of christmas literature, from Charles Dickens, then rest assure that this particular adaption is the best of all I have seen. It is so beautifully directed and picturized, that you really get drawn into the world of poverty, sickness, pain and death, which existed in England. The most touching scene was of that the spirit taking scrooge through different locations, the jail, coal mines, ship in the middle of seas, where all people although in desolation and extreme lonliness were coming together to celebrate the time of year that brings joy and happiness. There are also other extraordinary scenes of young scrooge recollecting his old christmas and his long lost love. The finale is absolutely breath taking and fabulous with him transforming into the person he should be, sharing, loving and friendly. Overall a must have I should say, and the best ever. Patrick Stewart hats off to you, you have done an amazing job. If this movie doesnt make you a transformed person, then nothing will.
Rating:
Summary: A Laughable Version of a Great Story
Review: When I first saw that Patrick Stewart was portraying Ebeneezer Scrooge in yet another version of 'A Christmas Carol', I was interested in seeing how he handled the task. As I viewed it, I did all I could to restrain myself from throwing something at the TV. This is by far the worst version of this Christmas classic. What was Stewart thinking? What were all involved thinking? Stewart's performance is so one dimensional and nothing like how I pictured Scrooge to be when I read Dicken's story. The supporting cast added nothing - the Cratchet's did not seem like a loving family with a dying son. The effects are horrible, the worst being the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. A person walking around with a black sheet over his head pointing the way with his amazingly human fingers would not frighten me to the point of a life-altering change. He's called the GHOST of Christmas Yet to come, not Some Guy in a Black Sheet of Christmas Yet to Come. And when Stewart realizes he's alive, he begins to wretch uncontrollably which turns into a hideously forced laugh. Stewart's acting throughout is HORRIBLE!! Stay away from this atrocity and stick to the incredible 1984 version with George C. Scott, a man that was born to play this role.
Rating:
Summary: You only think you know the Christmas Carol; watch this one!
Review: I've seen every version of a Christmas Carol. Watching at least one if not several versions every year has become an important part of each Christmas season for me and getting myself back into the Christmas spirit. I've found something special in each version, but as well as I know the story, none has ever brought tears to my eyes (and more than once) as did Patrick Stewart's Ebeneezer. The additional scene at the opening of the film added insight into the relationship between Jacob Marley and Scrooge and provided an understanding that with Marley's death, Scrooge lost the last person he might have had any bond with. Thereafter we're able to see in Scrooge's behavior the bitterness, resentment, and isolation of someone who's turned against a world he'd believed had turned against him rather than a simple caricature of meanness. His experience of the visitations of the spirits of Christmas was far more feeling than in previous versions, which often seemed more like a detached trip down memory lane. Stewart's Scrooge came to life in those scenes, showing the humanity and vulnerability of the young Scrooge, which is resurrected through the progress of each experience. Step by step we find Scrooge rediscovering his heart and eventually finding the courage to put aside his fears and resentment and reach out again to his fellow man. Give yourself (and anyone else on your shopping list) a Christmas present this year and watch this. And keep your tissues handy.
Rating:
Summary: Worst ever version
Review: What was Patrick Stewart thinking when he made this dreadful version of A Christmas Carol? He is totally unconvincing as Scrooge, the supporting cast is mediocre to awful, and while this was supposed to be filmed on location in London, the sets looks more chinzty than those you see in old 1930s movies. I never had a feeling of being in Victorian England, or a feeling of being anywhere except on a movie set. There wasn't one character I liked in this movie--the Crachits were totally unlikeable, and there was none of the warmth and togetherness that they are supposed to have. Tiny Tim looked well nourished and healthy, not at all like a child with a disease that he was wasting away from. The updated language and the special effects make the movie hokey and silly--why on earth are special effects needed in a Dickens story, may I ask? I got rid of this tape as soon as I watched it--in fact, I couldn't get it out of the house fast enough. And then I took out the "real" Christmas carols--the 1984 George C. Scott and the 1951 Alastair Sim versions. What a difference! Stay away from the movie. I just can't understand how anyone says they liked it.
Rating:
Summary: Hate to be a Scrooge
Review: I am a big fan of 'A Christmas Carol.' I have several adaptations on video, including this one. I was a little disappointed in Mr. Stewart's performance. It may be that he was burnt out after doing his one-man performance of 'A Christmas Carol' (of which I have the CD, and enjoy it). Stewart's 'Scrooge', IMHO, departs from the 'Scrooge' Dickens gives to us, and this, at pivitol points in the movie. To me, Stewart's 'Scrooge' is at times too pragmatic. It's as though Captain Picard is playing the role of Scrooge in the hollow-deck. Again this is not a slight to Mr. Stewart (whom I admire as an actor). Overall the script is very well written. There are some instances where the dialog is deftly turned and very fresh, yet keeping with the spirit of the novel ("Nail, knob, or knocker, he's dead...."). Some elements of Dickens novel that are absent from other adaptations are present and welcome. The supporting cast is great. I especially enjoyed Bernard Lloyd's performance as Jacob Marley. And the slant given the 'Turkey Boy' (played by Billy Seymour) is fresh yet not out of line with what his attitude may have been. The special effects are very well done. From Marley's chin dropping to his chest to the transitional effects which move us from one scene to another. The only drawback was seeing the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (he looked like a giant Jawa). While I would recommend this movie (it is better than the adaptation with Mr. Simm and on par with the one starring the late George C. Scott), I only wish that Mr. Stewart would have given us a 'Scrooge' which was more in line with Dickens' version. Bottom line: Not, "Bah, humbug." But not, "God bless us, everyone."
Rating:
Summary: A Modern Classic
Review: I really enjoyed this version when I saw it on TV the first time and rushed to buy the DVD as soon as it was available. I didn't give it 5 stars for 2 reasons: 1) I thought they could have done a much better job of creating the costume for the ghost of Christmas future; 2) Patrick Stewart is a great actor and he does a great job of making you believe he is Scrooge but I thought his performance in the scene of Christmas morning when Scrooge realizes it's not too late to change was over dramatic. Overall I highly recommend this version.
Rating:
Summary: It's Cool!
Review: I own the orignal with Alistar Sim. I also own this one. I liked Patrick Stewart's version of Scrooge.
| 
