Eine Weihnachtsgeschichte

I have seen many different versions of this story and I think that after the 1984 version with George C. Scott they should have stopped making remakes. I am not saying subsequent versions are bad (the Patrick Stewart version is excellent), but that the Scott version is so perfect and well-crafted that there is simply no need to try again! Scot is the best Scrooge--with malevolence and selfishness in spades! In addition, despite this, there is a deeper humanity about his character and the writers were brilliant to focus so much on the societal aspects of the story as well. The hungry masses were only alluded to or shown in a cleaned up way in other versions, but here starvation and desolation are ugly and important to the plot and are just as Dickens had intended. Other stories have tended to focus too much on Scrooge while sometimes ignoring the important allegorical aspects of the tale. Dickens felt it was not so much a Christmas story but a story of the responsibility the rich have to their fellow man.

The 1984 TV version of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is a joyous thing. Fronted by George C. Scott as the infamous Ebenezer Scrooge, Clive Donner's movie pays great respects to the source material and garners a multi stranded piece of brilliance out of Scott. The characters of course remain the same, but headed by Scrooge having a complex and painful background and a persona of confused emotions, there's meaty substance holding the movie up high. Donner and writer Roger Hirson retain the black heart of the source story, with the horror elements suitably effective to bother the children, while the Victorian atmosphere always feels – crucially – authentic.

If you haven't seen this version of the often filmed tale, put it on your list for next yuletide. 9/10

Once again a retelling of the classic Charles Dickens novella. This time made directly for television, yet starring George C. Scott in the role of Ebenezer Scrooge. And over the years it has become one of the most well-known adaptations of the original tale. And for a reason, I say.

The original story is of course wonderful. An old miser gets haunted by his old partner, who in turn warns that he's about to be visited by three ghosts in the course of the night in order to teach him about the perils of his miserly nature. The ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet-to-Come are once again brilliantly represented, managing to drive the point of giving and sharing in, but the real star of the show has to be George C. Scott as Scrooge. The sheer talent and charisma of this man is by itself enough to carry a movie. The scene where he meets his remaining family after he has repented is easily one of the most poignant in the entire film and made possible solely through the talent of Scott.

Not to say that the rest of the film is in any way inferior. Quite the opposite. Despite being made directly for television, it impresses with its technical aspects and with the talents of its actors. Just goes to show that the spirit of Christmas brings out the best in all of us.

Quite worth seeing.

So this made for TV film scores only a 7.6 on this site? Bah! Humbug! Without question this 1984 version of Dickens' classic tale is the best ever made. And yes, the Hound has seen the 1951 version which was also good, but not good enough. The lack of color is perhaps the biggest shortcoming of that version, although the acting was wonderful.

George C. Scott is simply incredible as Ebenezer Scrooge. We all know the story of this stingy businessman who is haunted by the ghost of his dead partner, then by three other spirits later on that evening. Scott is properly gruff as Scrooge. Too gruff in fact for some critics who claim he is unable to project the new-found glee that he awakens to on Christmas morning after the spirits teach him a valuable lesson. But hey, this is George C. Scott. He's never going to go dancing down the street in a fit of joy. He has too much dignity, and his Scrooge projects his emotion in a realistic manner.

The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, as are the costumes, music, and scenery. 19th Century London comes to life in Clive Donner's visionary style. The film even borders on frightening in several scenes involving the spirits. The important tale of morality shines through in every frame, though.

You won't often find this version aired on television anymore, and that is a disappointment. The 1984 version of A Christmas Carol should be a required part of every household's celebration of the holiday. When the decorations come out of the basement, this film should find its way into the DVD player at least once during the season.

10 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

This underrated version of the Dickens classic is, if not the most faithful to the book, the most faithful to the truths of Victorian England. This version draws less from the jollity of Dickens' earlier Christmas works, and more from his later, darker works (such as "Bleak House"). It is packed with details which ground it in a sort of reality that the earlier, more fanciful versions ignore. The streets are dirtier, the people are more miserable, and for perhaps the first time in film history, you can understand why people hate Scrooge so much. George C. Scott is outstanding in this version: his Scrooge is spiteful, cruel, and virtually irredeemable. Tiny Tim looks like a choleric orphan who could literally drop dead at any given moment. My favorite aspect of this production is how people react to Scrooge's transformation at the end. Rather than following the standard "Hooray, he's nice now!" change of heart, all the characters regard Scrooge with understandable suspicion and disbelief. While it may not be the best to warm your cockles on a cold Winter's eve, this version is at least the closest to Dickens' view of humanity.