A Christmas Carol

His review was helpful to me primarily because I didn't have to write it myself. Like him, I love Dickens' story in most every telling and retelling but found this unwatchable in every way including the weird gray cast to the...cast. The song Scrooge sings to Marley's picture was where I gave up. It had an almost romantic vibe that would have been far less creepy had it seemed intentional rather than like a repressed and unrecognized impulse on Scrooge's part. Out of curiosity, I watched Kirk Cameron's "Saving Christmas" the other day. It's currently at a 1.5 rating and the second lowest rated film on all of IMDb. While Saving Christmas is not good by any stretch of the imagination, at least it had a kind of hypnotic weirdness that kept me watching all the way through. Frankly, I'd like to sentence everyone who gave Saving Christmas a 1 or 2 rating to an hour of watching this thing to see what Worst can really be.

I love A Christmas Carol and am generally easy to please when it comes to any version of the story. That said, this is among the worst I've seen. It is consistently bad in all regards.

The performers are mis-cast and bear little resemblance to your expectation. Likewise, the sets don't convey the proper time or place. And the music certainly won't put you in the Christmas spirit either.

I want to like every version of A Christmas Carol I see but that wasn't possible for this presentation (note – I had to fast forward through it while scanning for anything "good" just to see it all the way to the end).

At the very beginning, this film it is identified as an amateur production. It says "A Movie by...." Professional directors agreed to discontinue that phrase decades ago, because it is presumptuous to claim that the director did it all by his/her own. Nowadays, it is considered proper for a director (like Ron Howard) to say "A Ron Howard Film." not "A Film By Ron Howard"

Anyone purporting to be qualified to review a film on anything other than whether they liked it or not, should take things like the budget, resources et cetera into consideration. The director of this film shows considerable creativity in his use of these resources. That is assuming the amount of the budget quoted went mostly to the narrator.

Other reviewers criticized the sets. The director showed significant creativity in the use of sets, considering the low budget and his singing voice was one of the best in the film. It would be interesting to see what he could do with better funding. Then, he could afford to have better miking, lighting et cetera and could afford to rent a sound stage so the ambient light and sound could be controlled.

In these times, there are people making movies in their living room with their cell phones and are putting them onto YouTube. At least this guy got his product distributed. I admire his effort.

My wife and I enjoy Charles Dickens' classic tale, A Christmas carol" and like to view the various versions of the story. We came across this offering while scrolling through Amazon Prime and immediately gave it a go. It quickly became apparent that this was a bad decision on our part as the first scene showed that not only did the main actor have no business portraying Scrooge, but the actor has no business "acting." The film is downright amateurish and came across like someone wanted to make a movie and just asked a bunch of friends and whomever wanted to join from the local laundromat and coffee shop. The sets did not remotely look like something from 1842 but whatever the local church had around. The acting was downright painful and my wife and I just kept looking at each other in disbelief at how bad this thing turned out to be.

I then looked it up on IMDb and found out that the director also cast himself in the choice role as Scrooge. Turns out this guy has made several other "adaptions" and cast himself in the lead roles in each one. How much of an ego can one person have to put their own self indulgence ahead of what would be best for a movie project. More so, how delusional can one be to not realize that they lack the acting chops to pull off the role. This guy makes Uwe Boll come across like Cecil B DeMille.

What astounds me is that this movie even rates as 4 stars. The director must have had everyone one at the coffee shop go on here and rate it as high as possible. Beware, this is not close to a 4 star film. Finer things have been flushed down the toilet. In closing, to reference the actual story, where Marley actually HAS the chains of his sins weighing him down, Director Anthony Mann should be wrapped in an ocean liner anchor chain for this crime against cinema for the rest of his days and beyond.

I am always intrigued by films like this.

When I went to it, a site called: "All about Funances and Duct Systems" came up (?). Is Anthony D. P. Mann a Furnace Specialist by DAY and an Actor/Songwriter/Screenplay Author by Night?

The opening credits states: "featuring the talents of (Anthony D. P. Mann et al). Presumptuous, don't you think? Shouldn't you let US watch it and decide if those people have "talent"?

The Opening Credit also states " Devon Murray-Powell, as The Cratchit Family". ALL of them? That must have been exhausting!

Where did the money come from? Who is (WAS?) the expected audience? Who is Colin Baker?

Brent Holland wrote the Band Tracks. They were really good...a lot better than the pitchy singing that they accompanied. Why aren't they mentioned in the closing credits?

Oh, no hard feelings, but the film is a piece of CRAP!! It is badly "mic"ed, making the dialogue impossible to hear. There is no arc. I am not sure WHY Ebenezer Scrooge decided to change his ways from watching this film.

BUT, Just like Ed Wood, Anthony D. P. Mann MADE a movie and got it released somehow. I got my copy from a public library in the suburbs of Chicago so, I suppose it is a "real film".

Maybe Anthony D. P. Mann knows Michael Bloomberg.

I watched this film, so you don't have to! Spare yourself the 67 minutes. Clean out your closet instead.