A Christmas Carol Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
In Just One Night, He Has Seen His Past, His Present, And His Future... And They've All Come Back To Haunt Him.
Scrooge is a miserly old businessman in 1840's London. One Christmas Eve he is visited by the ghost of Marley, his dead business partner. Marley foretells that Scrooge will be visited by three spirits, each of whom will attempt to show Scrooge the error of his ways. Will Scrooge reform his ways in time to celebrate Christmas?
| Patrick Stewart | Mr. Ebenezer Scrooge |
| Richard E. Grant | Bob Cratchit |
| Joel Grey | The Ghost of Christmas Past |
| Ian McNeice | Mr. Albert Fezziwig |
| Saskia Reeves | Mrs. Cratchit |
| Desmond Barrit | The Ghost of Christmas Present |
| Bernard Lloyd | Marley's Ghost |
| Dominic West | Fred |
| Trevor Peacock | Old Joe |
| Liz Smith | Mrs. Dilber |
| Elizabeth Spriggs | Mrs. Riggs |
| Kenny Doughty | Young Scrooge |
| Laura Fraser | Belle |
| Celia Imrie | Mrs. Bennett |
| John Franklyn-Robbins | Mr. Crump |
| David Hugh Jones |
7.10 out of 10 (1836 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Scrooge is at it again
posted on 06 Aug 2009This was pretty much the same tale as all the other renditions of this film. Fine performances, good scenery, and realistic locations made for an enjoyable program. However, I preferred the picture with George C. Scott in it; I felt he was a more believable Scrooge and the whole show was simply more well made.
Worst Scrooge Ever
posted on 17 Jun 2009Patrick Stewart ruins this reading of Dickens' well-loved tale of Christmas redemption and reclamation.Sticking to his one-note acting style, he reprises one more time, yet again, ad nauseum, the the Ghandi-in-an-usher's-uniform Picard tones, strutting about like a skinny little peacock, booming "make it so!". Stewart just does not have the depth and breadth of acting chops to play Scrooge. His imperious booming voice does not carry the day in this version, not at all.The story was paced by Dickens to deliver many punches to Scrooge all along the way, yet Stewart stays uniformly stone-like until he sees his own name on the tomb stone at which point Stewart the actor gives one of the more laughable displays of emotion ever captured for repeated viewing.It should hardly be necessary to describe his transformation at the end of the story except to say that a motion sickness bag may come in handy as he really sticks a fork in this botched version of a Christmas Carol.If you think that being a mono-toned authority figure, as in Picard, is the mark of great acting, then you'll quickly be dispelled of that misguided view after watching this horrible abomination.Interestingly, Patrick Stewart was the executive producer of this failed production, so there could be little room for blame except directly at his feet. I'm sure that Patrick Stewart was giving the director direction.Watch this one for laughs, but if you are hoping to see a version of this wonderful story that will move you, stick with the 1951 Allastair Sim version.
Seen it all before!
posted on 07 Jun 2009Stewart is a good actor, but borrows too heavily from previous Scrooge adaptations. As a result, even his performance fails to redeem this quite unnecessary and inferior version of Dickens' seasonal classic. To see a more spirited Ebenezer, check out the George C. Scott version - it puts this half-hearted attempt in the shade.
Good adaptation of Dickens' classic Christmas story
posted on 11 Feb 2009While I do think Alastair Sim from the '51 version of the story, 'Scrooge', looked and acted the part of Ebenezer Scrooge better than Patrick Stewart does in this version, this is possibly the better film overall. I'll have to see 'Scrooge' again to be certain. I haven't read the original novel, but I hear that this is the most faithful adaptation of it. The plot is very good, and thoroughly interesting(even to those who know it by heart, as this is, apparently, a word-for-word film version of the novel). The pacing is good, I never found myself being bored with it. The acting is great... Patrick Stewart, while not as good for the part as Sim, does a very good job on Scrooge, and most of the supporting cast, including the child actors, give good performances as well. The characters are well-written, interesting and credible. The film isn't sappy or overly sentimental... I'm not too big on Christmas, especially Christmas films, but I found this to be a good film. Thoroughly interesting and entertaining. For a Christmas film, this is fairly good. I suggest you see Alastair Sim's version of Ebenezer Scrooge as well. Personally, I find his performance more accurate and impressive than Patrick Stewart's, but some might disagree. I recommend it to fans of Dickens' and the story, A Christmas Carol. Just about any fan of Christmas movies will probably enjoy this. 7/10
Will disappoint any longtime fans of "A Christmas Carol" adaptations.
posted on 05 Feb 2009I expected a lot from this film, but I was almost completely disappointed. David Hugh Jones has directed some very good films, but he seems without a clue this time around. The special effects are, without a doubt, abysmal. They should have followed the example set by the version the Muppets did, which had a lovely and magical Ghost of Christmas Past (the best one ever) and a truly creepy Christmas Future. If they had been at least as good as the 1984 version, this film might have had a chance. Patrick Stewart tries hard, but is shockingly overacting in many scenes. As much experience as he has with the character, he has nothing on George C. Scott.With tighter editing, a more careful performance by Stewart, better special effects, and much better cinematography, the 1999 version of "A Christmas Carol" could have been so much more.6.5 out of 10
Another stellar performance by the great Patrick Stewart
posted on 06 Oct 2008I have seen Mr. Stewart do his one man show of "A Christmas Carol" on the Broadway stage twice, and was waiting with great anticipation this performance as aired on TNT. I was not let down. Mr Stewart is by and far the greatest actor to grace the small and big screen in the second half of the 20th Century, and his performance as Scrooge was one of his best. I hope he keeps putting out the same top quality performances both on the screen and on the Broadway stage for many years to come.
The defining performance of Patrick Stewart's career?
posted on 22 Sep 2008Long after I have forgotten Star Trek: The Next Generation this will stand out for me as the defining performance of Patrick Stewart's career.He is simply superb, bringing all his Shakesperean gravitas to the role of Scrooge. Surely this is what Dickens would have had in mind.ST:TNG may have brought him fame and fortune, but this was surely the role he was born for?
Patrick Stewart's Scrooge is the one to watch.
posted on 10 Jul 2008I had already seen Mr. Stewart in his one man version of ACC. So I knew going in it was going to be a great performance. An instant Christmas classic. Ignore all of the nay sayers here and the anti Star Trek people who disapprove of anything anyone related to ST does. George C. Scott is a great actor in his own right and his ACC Scrooge is a very close second to Mr. Stewart but second none the less. Shall we say 11 out of 10 stars here for Mr. Stewart's version of ACC.
Could have been better....
posted on 02 Mar 2008I am a huge "Christmas Carol" fan....love the book, love Dickens, and I have to say my favorite version of the movie is the George C. Scott one. However I figured that a modern version would be a fun watch, so we tried it out.The first thing that turned me off was Scrooge himself. I couldn't get "Star Trek" out of my mind for starters...and for another thing, I thought his acting was admittedly terrible. He did not seem natural in his role. His "fear" and "surprise" were totally faked. When Marley's ghost "scared" him, his facial expressions were as convincing as those of a teenager in a high school play. He also overdid his conversion at the end. I complained about the choice of casting Scrooge the entire movie. Someone earlier commented that his acting seemed forced...and I heartily agree.I was also highly disappointed in the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. For all the technology they could have had at their fingertips, this ghost could have been a chilling climax but instead looked like a guy draped in cheap gauze.I will say they added some neat extras that go along with the book that others do not...I really like how they showed "Christmas around the world". My husband loved their accurate portrayal of the Ghost of Christmas present...however I was not prepared for such a different character and was uncomfortable with it. My husband also liked how they had Marley's mouth drop wayyyy down, as the book mentions.In my opinion the most heartwarming version of this is the 1984 George C Scott version, and I've watched it twice already this week! Its the one I grew up on, and its the one I'll stick with. My second favorite is the Muppet Christmas Carol...the soundtrack is some of the most cheery Christmas music there is!
A great retelling of the classic
posted on 13 Nov 2007The venerable old tale gets a wonderful retelling in this expertly done film. The settings are beautiful as backdrops to moving, genuine performances. The FX help establish good, spooky atmosphere without overwhelming the story.Stewart proves once again that he can tackle powerful characters and bring them to full life. This is a joy and a new classic.
Another duff adaptation to add to the pile
posted on 29 Aug 2007This run-of-the-mill adaptation of the story suffers from flat direction, some chronic performances, a complete lack of imagination in the timeline transitions, and a performance from Patrick Stewart that's far too strong and theatrical for the character. Some of it hits the spot - the early scenes, Richard E. Grant's Bob, the bit at Old Joe's, the finale - and it's good to see lines and portions of the book that often fail to make the transition from page to screen; but as a whole it just never becomes sad, or rousing, or poignant, it just ticks off the chapters, the story once again falling victim to the TV movie blandifier.
Bad, Bad, Bad...
posted on 22 Jun 2007A group of about 14 of us sat around recently to watch this new version. When it was all over, we all sat around and wondered how such talented group of people and big budget could produce such a laughably bad production?Wooden acting, effects just for the sake of having effects, and the ghost of Christmas Future... The 1984 George C. Scott versions black robed figure of the ghost of things yet to come gives a chill no matter how many times I watch the movie. This new version had us all laughing out loud. We expected to see Fozzy Bear or Kermit the Frog pop out from behind his giant red flashlight eyes. Very sad.If you see one version, get the 1984 George C. Scott adaptation. It is excellent.
An excellent stage version put on film
posted on 19 Apr 2007There are spoilers here that will gave away differences that set this review apart from others. I urge you to look at the rating and not read this review if you have not seen it. This version of "A Christmas Carol" is currently the one I look for every year, and well worth watching.As adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" go, this one stands above most. There is extra detail given to the custom of Christmas in Dickens' time period, and choices I have not seen in any other version. One of my favorite moments was Scrooge concealing himself behind a door, ashamed of the judgment of the happy, friendly people who's hospitality he is intruding upon.Another was the utter shame and humility with which he presents himself to his nephew's wife. Scrooge could not have simply played nice and won her over, so as far as believability, this is the best take I have ever seen.The only weak moments I can recall in the movie revolve around Patrick Stewart's Scrooge and dialog from the book sounding too much like a stage production (and lacking the grace and subtlety of film). An example is Scrooge's first hearty laugh in years, on Christmas morning. Stewart makes a kind of choking gasp that struck me as a bit much.As with Royal theater, the acting is large, stage acting, and while the lines have conviction and Stewart is very charismatic, it lacks the realism the other choices had-- it's difficult to believe a man speaking to a deathly ghost showing him his own death would do so in a steady stage voice. (I'd really love to see a version where the later lines came out like mad rambling or perhaps a whisper to himself.) Theater fans who longed to see Stewart's one-man-show version of "A Christmas Carol" will really appreciate this, but so much love and detail was given to the realism in this version that I found his performance distracting.For the rest of this movie, I can say that it's spot on. Richard E. Grant makes an excellent Bob Cratchitt, and the reaction to Scrooge's change after Christmas was excellent, as was Stewart's Scrooge in that scene.
Stewart & Scrooges Past and Present
posted on 18 Mar 2007When I first learned that Patrick Stewart would be playing Scrooge in a new adaptation of the Dickens classic, I couldn't help but wonder what he might possibly bring to the role. After all, Scrooge has been played by such disparate actors as Albert Finney, George C. Scott, Alastair Sim, Bill Murray, Susan Lucci, Jack Palance, Cicily Tyson and...of course...Quincy Magoo. Suffice to say, Patrick Stewart succeeds in re-inventing one of the most familiar characters in all of English literature. The moment after his epiphany when a long-stifled laugh literally sticks in his throat is truly priceless and enough to make one forget all the Scrooges that have gone before. Kudos to Mr. Stewart and the Filmmakers!
Below average attempt spoiled by poor production values
posted on 20 Feb 2007With all the attempts at making and remaking film versions of the Dickens' classic, one would think that the essence of the Victorian novelette could make it onto the screen quite easily.In this version, the original text and flow is followed somewhat faithfully - to it's credit. Patrick Stewart and Richard E. Grant actually do a fair job with Scrooge and Cratchit. However, the direction and production are woefully horrible. The photography is technically bad; it is poor overlit TV. The special effects are cheesy and amateurish. There is no "spirit" to this production.While I praised Patrick Stewart, I was disappointed that I did not see a building of his remorse, then the transformation. It just sort of happened without any motivation. Actually, I sense this is the director's fault, because he has relied so heavily on special effects to carry the story.
Stewart is brilliant in probably the most faithful adaptation.
posted on 20 Feb 2007We all know Patrick Stewart. Patrick Stewart is a popular guy who is known mostly for his commanding presence as Captain Jean Luke Picard from the Star Trek TV show and films. However, he is also well-known for having done a one-man act of "A Christmas Carol" for many years on Broadway. Having studied the role for years, and doing the version on Broadway which is more-or-less straight from the Dickens novel, one would think that no one would be better fit for the role of the bitter miser Scrooge than Stewart.Indeed, this is the truth. Forget Star Trek; this is the role Stewart was born to play! All his reactions are right on the money, all of the emotions of Scrooge are outstandingly played, and his redemption is so well done that it is impossible not to be moved. The significant different that Stewart offers to this oft-played role is the fact that his Scrooge is not so much a bitter old grump as he is a severely depressed one, whose built up emotions over the years turned-inward have simply resulted in hatred towards himself. As a result, he takes it out on everyone else. Through viewing the past, he finds these emotions again and brings them out into the open. By viewing the present, he sees the fun that he is missing at Christmas-time as a result of his bitterness. By viewing the future, he sees what will happen if he doesn't change fast, and the story is set up so convincingly, when Scrooge changes and repents, a piece of the viewer will change as well.This is also the most faithful of all the versions. No other version to my knowledge features the great hurricane that the Ghost of Christmas Present uses to steer Scrooge to many pictures of Christmas all over the world. No other version uses as much forgotten dialogue from the book (though the excellent 1984 version with George C. Scott certainly came close). No other version presents the characters so closely to how Dickens described them. I think he would be proud to look at this version, and if he could be resurrected to view the influence of his work in modern times, this would be the film I would show him.Through all of this rambling, I seem to be making the statement that this is the finest version of "A Christmas Carol" ever to grace the screen. Gasp! Dare I make such a bold, blatant statement?Indeed, I do!God bless us, everyone!**** out of ****
A Mean, Cold-Hearted Miser Becomes a Warm, Kind-Hearted, Giving Man in Only One Night With the Help of 3 Ghosts!
posted on 17 Jan 2007[CONTAINS SPOILERS. (YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T READ IT)] Our story begins December 24, 1836 in England where Jacob Marley, the long time business partner of Ebenezer Scrooge, was laid to rest. Scrooge decided not to show any emotion towards Marley's death and keep it to himself. He vowed to continue to run their business alone. Seven years go by and Scrooge still decided not to remove Marley's name from the sign. Today was Christmas eve, the seven year anniversary. Scrooge denies his clerk, Bob Cratchit, to use any coal for the meager fire. Then in comes Scrooge's nephew, Fred, who tries to spread some Christmas cheer around the place. Scrooge wonders why since Fred was somewhat poor but Fred didn't worry about money. He invites Scrooge to Christmas dinner. Scrooge rejects the invitation and throws Fred out. Then in come two collectors for the poor, new to the district. Scrooge decides to put himself down for nothing and throws the men out. When he hears a boy singing Christmas carols outside his door, Scrooge threatens him with a cane. Then at 7:00 PM he very reluctantly gives Cratchit Christmas day off and trudges home. Soon he's visited by the ghost of Jacob Marley! He was covered in heavy, iron chains. They were the ones he forged in life by all that dirty dealing business. He was past all hope but he informed Scrooge that he still had a chance and that three more ghosts would arrive and straighten Scrooge up, or else...Marley leaves, Scrooge humbugged the whole thing and went to bed. At midnight, he meets the Ghost of Christmas Past who takes Scrooge to see, what else? The past. They go to Scrooge's old boarding school where all the other boys and girls had gone home for Christmas, except Scrooge. His father would have nothing of him. Then they see a Christmas where Scrooge's sister, Fran, came to bring him home. Scrooge and Fran loved one another, but Fran eventually died as a young woman. Then Spirit and Scrooge see a Christmas at his old master's, Albert Fezziwig. They throw a big party and young Scrooge dances with Belle, the love of his life. Present Scrooge watches devastated as Scrooge becomes more interested in money than love so he lost Belle forever. Scrooge is returned home only to be confronted by the Ghost of Christmas Present who shows Scrooge downtown on Christmas morning. They visit the home of Bob Cratchit. The wife and kids prepared dinner when Bob and Tiny Tim came home. Tiny Tim was weak, ill and on crutches. If these shadows remain unchanged by the future, the child would die, the spirit observed. The Cratchit family dinner, for seven kids, was a small goose and pudding. Scrooge and Spirit then see Christmas at nephew Fred's. Fred was sister Fran's son. Everybody at Fred's party, save for Fred, were speaking ill of Scrooge. Scrooge suddenly found himself alone in the cold, dark streets only to be confronted by...The terrifying Ghost of Christmas Future. Future Ghost shows Scrooge the events of a Christmas the following year where someone unwanted and unloved had died. Scrooge watches a char woman, a laundress and an undertaker pawning things they stole from the deceased: bed curtains, bed sheets, boots, pencil cases, towels. Curious. Scrooge also learns that poor Tiny Tim died also. They go to the grave yard where Future Ghost points to the tomb stone of the deceased individual whom nobody cares about: Ebenezer Scrooge! Scrooge begged and pleaded with the ghost to give him another chance. Scrooge suddenly found himself back in his own room on Christmas morning! He quickly sprang into action with his newfound kindness. He anonymously sent the Cratchits a big turkey then attended Christmas dinner with Fred and his charming wife. The next day, he awaited Bob Cratchit and raised his salary! So in the end, Tiny Tim did not die and Scrooge became a second father to him and everybody, except Jacob Marley, lived happily ever after. This was a very good adaption of A Christmas Carol. Patrick Stewart was a very convincing Scrooge. Richard E. Grant was good as Bob Cratchit, Joel Gray was a good Past Ghost. Everybody was good. This adaption more closely related to the book. Before I watched it, I listened to A Christmas Carol on audio tape read by Patrick Stewart and I saw that some scenes in the movie were much like the scenes in the book! Many good actors in cinema history have portrayed Ebenezer Scrooge, like Alastair Sim, Reginald Owen, Michael Caine, Mister Magoo, George C. Scott, Fred Flintstone, Scrooge McDuck, Seymour Hicks, and more. If they made another Christmas Carol movie anytime soon, who should they cast as Scrooge? How about Sean Connery? But anyway, this Christmas if you're looking for a good movie to watch, I recommend A Christmas Carol with Patrick Stewart. I also recommend the one with George C. Scott. So, as Tiny Tim observed, "God bless us, everyone".-
Worth seeing, but still not the best ever!
posted on 06 Nov 2006Anyone who's never seen an adaptation of this perennial favorite would undoubtedly find it outstanding. However, since I almost literally cut my teeth on the ultimate version - the 1951 classic starring Alistair Sim - I couldn't avoid comparisons. Patrick Stewart turned in an inspired performance, but he lacked the sly humor that made Sim's' performance so endearing. I found the casting of Joel Grey as the Ghost of Christmas past an inspired stroke. The rest of the cast was admirable, and Tiny Tim had killer dimples! All in all - pop the popcorn, gather the family - and enjoy. You won't be sorry.
CLOSER TO NOVEL NOT LIKE CLASSIC ORIGINAL 1951
posted on 19 Sep 2006I was disappointed that even though British flavor is suppose to resemble the
original, Patrick Stewart performance as "SCROOGE" done well for actors of the
nineties. This version sadly did nothing for me, one must consider everything,
from director to all the casts. Another remake gee whiz how many remakes weneed. Even IMDb list many versions. Unless remake can stand on it's own merit
giving Oscar winning performances, STICK TO ORIGINAL!! Outside of fineacting by Stewart overall 5/10 I enjoyed the original. BAH HUMBUG!!!!!!
How can you people watch this?!!?
posted on 26 Aug 2009I had recently read "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens and thought I would watch this, as I had heard, more faithful movie adaption. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!! It was too long and very boring. I could really buy the Scrooge character being mean, but when he was supposed to be nice, it wasn't convincing. Especially the part where he starts to laugh and it sounds like he's choking!!! The acting wasn't bad excpet for the man who plays Scrooge. What was with the scene where the tornado picks them up and carries Scrooge and one of the spirits around, though? The special effects were AWFUL!!!!!!!! I definitely suggest renting the 1964 cartoon- That' s great one. For this, I'll give it a 2 out of 10 for effort.