A Christmas Carol

There is nothing dramatically wrong with this version of the Dickens classic. It is just short and undernourished. Numerous scenes are either shortened or not seen at all. The characters have no opportunity to gain any traction. The people are physically pretty good but they are on the screen and off. The scene with Belle takes so much time and is not set up well in the least. We don't know about their arrangement so there is little dramatic oomph. The final scene seem as if they are trying to squeeze everything into a couple of minutes so they don't use any extra film. We barely see Marley except as a ghost. It was by the book and little in a creative way.

I highly recommend this terrific U.K. television version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and I wish it was better known than it is. Some PBS stations used to show it in the late 1970's and early 1980's but since then this version of the Dickens Christmas classic has shown up rarely even on cable.

Let me make it clear right off the bat that I'm one of those people who could watch an "All CHRISTMAS CAROL, All The Time" channel every December. That doesn't mean that I love each and every version of the story that comes along, it just means I love watching them all every single year. This adaptation of the story stands out from every other film and television version I've seen and only it's low budget and short running time put it behind the George C Scott classic.

The lighting may be 70's sitcom level and for some scenes this T.V. movie may use painted backgrounds but it wins the viewer over by demonstrating over and over again that it "gets" the point of the story. There's no attempt to psycho-analyze any of the characters, no silly attempt to contemporize the ghosts, no omission of Ignorance and Want and for once Belle doesn't overstay her welcome.

The secret of this version's appeal is that it uses nothing but Dickens' own story and best of all, nothing but Dickens' own dialogue. This may put the conversational exchanges over the heads of very young viewers but those who love the novelette will be ecstatic about this. Dickens' wordplay in the original story is wonderfully close to prose poetry and it's delightful to hear it presented in it's original form. Similarly, there are no fabrications of scenes not in the "real" story and no extraneous characters added. I enjoy seeing what some adaptors do with the story as much as anyone but it's refreshing to see a visual depiction of nothing but the content in the original classic.

Non-devotees of A CHRISTMAS CAROL would likely rate this lower than I do since I think the emotional bang of this telefilm makes up for it's budget limits. Even CAROL purists may be put off by the omission of some scenes from the original story but with the short running time that can't be remedied. Unless someone eventually does a film version of this story that's as slavish to it's source material as Erich Von Stroheim's GREED was to the novel McTEAGUE I don't think we'll see an adaptation that comes closer than this to realizing Dickens' original work.

As long as you don't expect outstanding production values I think the heartfelt performances and respect for the viewers' intelligence will put this version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL near the top of your list.

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!

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!

As others have noted, this is a low budget and abbreviated version of the familiar story. However, it is very earnest and faithful to the book in tone. It has several excellent performances, the best of which I believe is John Le Mesurier's as Marley - whom he depicts not with the usual overwrought performance but as a tired and long-suffering spirit weighed down with regret. His time onscreen is far too short. Overall, this a version certainly worth seeing by fans of the story.