SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

smerph Spending your time spotting actors you've seen in other stuff may hold the key to making it through this rather lifeless adaptation of A Christmas Carol.Michael Horden makes a reasonable Scrooge but the surrounding production lets him down as it's clear that this suffers from a thin budget. Using drawings rather than actual sets may have a quaint charm in children's television, but here it just draws attention to how Scrooge-like the BBC must have been when they commissioned it.There are plenty of Christmas Carols on IMDb. This one isn't horrendous, but it's certainly forgettable.

MARIO GAUCI This was at least the 14th screen adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens tale that I have watched (the others being those made in 1935, 1938, 1951, 1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2006) with another (dating from 2009) following only 2 days later! While the 1951 version is universally acknowledged as the finest rendition (though one cannot really put a finger on why it works so well, given its modest credentials!), a few of the rest (including the 1983 animated Disney short!) are well enough regarded as well. Incidentally, while several actors have attempted to give life to the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge, Alastair Sim's portrayal was so vivid and perfectly-realized (he would also voice the character in the 1971 animated version by Richard Williams) that all later remakes would have to be judged against it, and this is were the film under review decidedly comes up lacking! Ironically, the otherwise reliable character actor involved – Michael Hordern – had played Scrooge's partner Jacob Marley in both adaptations involving Sim (Marley, then, is here incarnated by John LeMesurier, another welcome presence), but his contribution in this case comes across as no more than workmanlike. The main reason for this, I guess, also has to do with the script's scrupulous adhering to the letter of the original source which, again, was superbly-delivered – in his inimitable fashion – by Sim! I am sure it is not necessary for me to relate the plot line: with this in mind, the many familiar characters are adequately-filled (most impressively perhaps by Patricia Quinn – fresh from THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW {1975}! – as the Ghost Of Christmas Past, with Bernard Lee – 'M' in the first 11 instalments of the James Bond franchise – also on hand as the Ghost Of Christmas Present). Besides, the eerie elements of the narrative (which, admittedly, is what really draws me to this piece, as opposed to the sentimental subplot involving the fate of Tiny Tim!) are given their due…but, all in all, the film merely sticks to the standard of British TV productions of the era i.e. generally tasteful in approach and undeniably practised in execution, it is also inherently dull!

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This classic is probably the most ever adapted story by anyone to the silver screen or the TV screen. It has become like a universal reference, and not only because of Mickey Mouse. It is the reference to expose misers and their miserable little and at times enormous narrow-minded selfish sins. This particular adaptation is trying to make the story not too frightening, just weird enough to seem marvelous and fantastic. The ghosts are nearly friendly in a way, both in their voices and their appearances. The stories they tell are just simple stories of simple people who just try to survive in a harsh world with hard work and a lot of determination to live on and bring more life to the world. Scrooge is in many ways odious and yet he is repentant so fast that we could even believe he was touched by some kind of grace and he became nice for the sake of being nice, though he does it because he is afraid, and nothing but afraid of what may happen to him after his death. That's the very contradiction of this man becoming converted to doing good after a life of doing evil. He is moved by fear. Approaching death is a great teacher of manners and kindness. The film yet remains magic and the sudden conversion is quite pleasant. I could yet have preferred Scrooge to be a lot more inhumane, a lot more vicious, because misers are basically not human. They only exploit the others and never share.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

roghache Considering the short length and limited budget, this BBC production is an excellent version. It does appear like a theatrical production that's been put on video and some of the sets are simply painted backgrounds. However, none of this bothered me and I actually prefer it to some higher budget versions. I agree with another reviewer here who claimed you could feel the cold in Scrooge's office when Cratchit is warming his hands at the candle! Michael Hordern certainly looks the part of Scrooge. However, he is not compelling in the role, no match for Alastair Sim who really draws the viewer in. There seems no emotional engagement with Scrooge, little of the warmth that some actors bring to the role. It's Scrooge himself who drives the story and the attachment a viewer should feel to the character simply wasn't there. This may be partly due to the short length and the fact that the older, present day Scrooge isn't very involved in the storytelling. The spirits present their flashbacks and glimpses with little input from him.The major problem with this adaptation is length, it being impossible to do the story justice in one hour. Either vital characters and scenes must be omitted and/or there's a rushed feeling. Here the major characters are present -- even debtors Caroline and her husband showing relief at Scrooge's death (not shown in most versions). The main scenes are also depicted though sometimes quite abbreviated. There is a rushed feeling to the production, especially at the end. For instance, when Scrooge joins Fred and his wife for Christmas dinner, barely do they exchange greetings. The scene is simply too hurried to get the proper dramatic sense of the joy these relatives feel in connecting.This production features an excellent supporting cast. This is one of only two versions I've seen (the other being the 1999 Patrick Stewart) where Christmas Present ages during the course of his visit, as he does according to Dickens. I loved nephew Fred and found Bob Cratchit one of the most compelling I've seen. The Cratchit children are reduced from six in number to four -- budget constraints perhaps!One aspect I appreciated, despite its deviation from the original, was Fred's 'scaled down' dinner party. Instead of the large gathering typically shown, there's only a foursome -- Fred, his wife, and one other couple sitting in the parlour. This gives the scene what I've aptly heard described as a charming intimacy. Another notable deviation from the novelette is the children Ignorance and Want appearing apart from the Spirit of Christmas Present rather than underneath his robe.The primary attraction of this adaptation is its faithfulness to Dickens, apart from these minor exceptions mentioned. Almost all the dialogue is verbatim, albeit Scrooge fails to mention 'smoking bishop' in his final conversation with Bob! For all true fans of the Carol, I consider this a 'must see' version, if only to watch 'Marley' from the famous 1951 Alastair Sim version himself playing Scrooge!