Avis des utilisateurs

This adaptation tries so hard to me avant garde and full of "atmosphere" that misses out on effectively actually telling the story. It quotes much of the original novella, even including the narration (much rewritten), but and with so many cut-aways to fast moving storm clouds (much overused in overlays as well) and echoed voices in Scrooge's visions, that it is obvious that the director is trying to remake this 150 year old story with the atmosphere of a modern ghost/horror story. He does not pull it off effectively.

Too much emphasis on atmosphere, not enough on the story. While the acting is respectable, the direction and cinematography are awful...a great story poorly retold.

I don't mind it being a "dark" version and considered that a plus going in. But the ghost effects were inconsistent and dreadful. The acting uneven. The constant ooooohing music unbearable. And no sense of the story taking place in a well populated area. There must have been no budget for extras.

Give me the Muppet version any day!

Every year it seems someone makes another "Christmas Carol" movie. BE it for television or theatrical. There has been adaptions where the story is changed to "Modern Times" Some with a gender switch" and musical versions as well. I have not however seen this turned into a ballet or an "ON ICE" edition however I am sure one is in the works!

We all know the story but this edition stays as close as they can to the book. This is the darkest, most ghostly version of this story ever made. It stays true to the original feel of the Dickens story, while turning up the creepiness. A range of well known Irish and English actors makes up the cast. On the anniversary of his business partner's death, Ebenezer Scrooge finds unwelcome company in the form of three spirits from Christmases Past, Present and Yet to Come.

The problem with this film is that the lighting is bad. The direction is terrible. It also spoken in "Elizabethan" and that is a huge distraction.

As for the costumes there not "memorable". The acting was fine but nobody gives a stand out performance.

If you are a parent and you want to introduce your children to the story then almost any other version is a better choice. Like another reviewer posted "I prefer the version from MGM" from 1938.

I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 400 Christmas MOVIES.

BEWARE OF BOGUS REVIEWS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW. WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE PRODUCTION. I HAVE NO AGENDA! I AM HONEST!

Listen I am not opposed to people staying faithful to books when making a film out of that. However that is also a problem in some film adaptions. What works on page may not work in a film. This is one of those examples.

In this version the 3 Ghost visit Scrooge on 3 Different Nights. This is the darkest, most ghostly version of this story ever made. It stays true to the original feel of the Dickens story, while turning up the creepiness but sound good it really is an epic failure here. It is not creepy its cheesy!

Some of the actors are good some are not. The best film version of "A Christmas Carol" is the 1938 Edition. The B/W feel to the film really adds something to the film. See that version! Skip this one!

I don't even know where to begin. The whole production is very amateurish, and though most lines are directly from Dickens, they are edited quite heavily so that many passages are almost unrecognizable. I'm not sure if it was a question of budget, or talent, but this came off quite badly. It was only $2 online, so I streamed it. And now I want my $2 back.

Out of all the screen adaptations I have seen of "A Christmas Carol" this is the most boring adaption

Now here is the break down of the film from Amazon.

This is the darkest, most ghostly version of this story ever made. It stays true to the original feel of the Dickens story, while turning up the creepiness. A range of well known Irish and English actors makes up the cast. On the anniversary of his business partner's death, Ebenezer Scrooge finds unwelcome company in the form of three spirits from Christmases Past, Present and Yet to Come.

I was hoping that this films "Darker Elements" would make this version stand out more but it doesn't. The sets are brightly let and thus taking away anything that might be scary.

It doesn't help that they used "Old English" type of writing in this. This makes the film sounds smug and keeps the audience at an emotional distance!

I have no idea how many adaptations have been made from this Charles Dickens tale but it is time to give it a rest.

I created an account specifically so I could leave a review...this was awful and so painful to watch. It looks like the whole thing was filmed in a country house, the acting is terrible, random ghosts show up, they don't show any of scrooges happy moments in the past. His long time love releases him from his promise to her but I only know she was his long time love because of the many other christmas carol versions I have watched. The crachetts are poor but have a gigantic kitchen. And to top it off no one made sure anyone was dressed historically accurate. Bob's wife and daughters all have their hair down( not a style for 1800) and his one daughter has a bob with blunt edges framing her face...perfect for 2012 not 1800. I love A christmas carol and each one has its own redeeming qualities except this one.

I wish I could say this was better than it is. I appreciated the old and probably historical buildings this was shot in, however it was not set in London. Someone else here also said this, if you want to introduce your children to this tale, choose another version.

I've seen many versions of this story and was encouraged by the description of this being one of the darker treatments. But it was like they weren't really trying. Important lines were skipped, dialog was only one-sided, many details were missing, such as Marley's ghost talking about the chains he wore, but you couldn't see any. Or bed curtains being confused with window curtains. Way too many parts were clips shown earlier in the movie to fill the space. So much more could have been made by the creepy parts. The small cast didn't help either. No parties, no rooms of people, Fezziwig's and Fred's had just 3 people. The acting was wooden and everyone's eyes were unemotional, with the one exception of Bob Cratchit. Scrooge wasn't transformed except he stopped acting so angry. So disappointing.

The music was good, though, so that was appreciated.

A disservice to a brilliant story, I've watched every version of ACC and this doesn't even deserve a ranking. A poorer piece of film making I am yet to see!

Dickens titled his novella A Christmas Carol in prose Being a Ghost Story of Christmas and that is exactly what this atmospheric adaptation delivers. Sure its cinematography is a tad dark, so was London in 1843. Yes the dialog is Shakespearian. At least the filmmakers tried something new. The acting is excellent throughout and the script is probably the most faithful to the original manuscript of any incarnation heretofore produced. In time this little gem will be re-appraised. And God bless us everyone for being opened minded enough to give it a chance.

Where do I begin? First, nobody like a good Christmas Carol better than I do. I've read the book, Alister Sim, Seymor Hicks, Reginald Owen have good movie versions. Fredrick March.. eh.. Geo. C. Scott's was pretty good. Did not care for the musical, or the 're-imagining' versions. I like my Carol English and Dickensian. The Muppets was pretty good, too. I even like the motion capture Jim Carry version. But, my personal favorite is Captain Picard's Christmas Carol. Fabulous! This one? It has several problems. It has a real feel of a film made in the 1970s. Effects are awful, the music is WAY to loud, sometime drowning out the acting. Which is not difficult, because most of it is performed without any feeling at all. It's difficult to even pay attention. Any scene that might require and actual crowd is shot as rolling clouds and narration from the book. BBC and FX is doing a miniseries with Andy Serkis that looks really interesting. Do yourself a favor. Watch this if you must see every version out there, otherwise, skip it and get a copy of Patrick Stewert's Christmas Carol.

If this had been shot and performed for public access TV, you might be tempted to at least give it an E for effort.

But this "Christmas Carol" was obviously shot on a minuscule budget. Lots of still images, shots of skies, amateur acting and directing...you do have to ask, what was the point of this, when there are tons of versions of the story that are much, much better?

The description claims this is the darkest version of "A Christmas Carol" ever, but that actually belongs to FX's adaptation, which displays all the talent and creativity that are not found here.

Oh, and be suspicious, very suspicious, of the reviews here. Many of them contain the exact same passage:

"This is the darkest, most ghostly version of this story ever made. It stays true to the original feel of the Dickens story, while turning up the creepiness."

No it's not. Not by a long shot. But when you see that boilerplate inserted randomly in half the reviews you read, you know you're dealing with reviewers with an agenda.

I get no joy out of pillorying this movie, but I can't really say anything good about it. I wanted it to be a lot better than this. Check out the FX version if you want to see a dark adaptation done 100x better. (And no, I don't have an agenda for that movie; it just impressed the hell out of me.)

Not sure what the director was going for. But he did not do right by this wonder Christmas tale of Scrooge. Filming in a horribly echoey abandoned home in the country in Spring time??? Between the echoes and loud background music it's difficult to hear the non emotional actors. The players portraying the Cratchets were excellent though. We watch several versions of this story every year and are always on the lookout for ones we haven't seen. We will not be including this version to ones to rewatch. Following closely to the book is it's only saving grace.

The only thing this has going for it is that the dialogue is directly from Dickens. But, the "darker elements" are provided by ridiculous and frequent cuts and edits to cloudy skies photographed through a window and people walking down dark hallways. These effects reminded me of independent horror movies trying to be creepy, but ending up looking just silly.

Amateurish production with long, tiresome stretches of narration and completely uninspired acting. My god this movie sucks! I can't believe they spent $500,000 to make this boring drivel. And these are the only good things I have to say about it.

Low cost, very stage like, and dark as many have mentioned this performance seems to me to be collectible in its direct interpretation of the classic Dickens' story.