BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

macmill-56539 Patrick Stewart excels as perhaps the nastiest and most intimidating version of Scrooge, which makes his redemption all the more heartening and indeed shows more than any other adaptation, that it's not just Scrooge that needs saving but also the downtrodden Bob Cratchit and the family that so depends on him. The casting here is absolutely top notch, with Richard E Grant - has there ever been a more stressed out and sympathetic Cratchit - Dominic West - has there ever been a more likeable and charming Fred - Desmond Barritt, Ian MacNiece - born to play Fezziwig - Joel Grey, Saskia Reeves and Bernard Lloyd all excellent in their roles, which stands in stark contrast to the terribly miscast 1984 version, often bizarrely cited as being superior.

Michael_Elliott Christmas Carol, A (1999) *** (out of 4) Beautiful looking version of Dickens' play has Patrick Stewart taking on the role of Scrooge. Everyone knows the story so there's no point in going on about that so how does this version stand up? I've said several times that the original story is so good that you'd have to try very hard to make a bad film out of it and with that in mind this version here works just fine even though there are a few flaws. What I enjoyed most about the film was its actual look from the cinematography to the lighting to the costume design and art direction. The production of this, I'm sure, had a small budget but you'd never notice by watching the film because the images are just so striking that they will certainly remain in your mind. The ghost of Marley is perhaps the best I've seen in any version with his ash-like look that really captures the feeling of the spirit. The other three ghosts also look quite nice compared to everything else that is on the screen. The visuals have quite a bit of CGI but it never takes control of the story and for the most part the director does a great job at not making it too distracting. Some of it comes out quite beautiful like the scene where Scrooge pretty much walks away from his love for money. The visuals here are quite striking as are the ones showing the ghettos of the town. I think a minor problem with the film is Stewart himself. He gives a good performance but there are times where it seems like he's trying to do something completely original with the role that he goes a bit over the top and takes one out of the mood of the film. A good example of this is when he first wakes up after the visits with the spirits and then again when he first wishes Cratchit a Merry Christmas. The supporting cast are all good in their roles and Stewart does handle some of the softer moments a lot better as well. In the end, this certainly isn't the best version out there but I think there's enough here to recommend to fans of the story of just Christmas fans in general.

Whythorne Speaking as a big fan of Dicken's cherished Christmas story, I am amazed that it is possible to go so wrong with a movie based upon it, especially one that is actually fairly faithful to the content.I think the main fault lies with the cast or direction of the cast. Patrick Stewart's portrayal is predominantly lifeless compared to other cinematic Ebeneezers. In those moments when Stewart does attempt to inject some color, his instinct is all wrong. I'll never forget the scene toward the end of the film, where the reformed Scrooge is rejoicing in a changed life, and Stewart attempts to morph cardiac arrest into a fit of laughter. I get what Stewart was trying to accomplish but the effect is just plain disturbing and bizarre. The director's goal in that scene should be to get the viewer to be happy for Scrooge's redemption, not to be repulsed by his grotesque antics!The ghosts of Christmases past, present and future were also big disappointments. Especially the Ghost of Christmas yet to come. Others have noted that he looked more like a goofy character from an early Star Wars movie than the mysterious and dreaded apparition of inscrutable future events. The silly lit-up eyes illuminated the interior of the hood and betrayed the ghost as simply a guy in a cheesy costume. Of course, sporting a sci-fi head but normal, flesh and bone hands didn't help either. This costuming of the Ghost of Christmas yet to come was an even stranger decision by the director than the heart-attack laugh of Patrick Stewart's Scrooge.There is a strange unemotional, detachment from this version that you don't get in others. I think it is because the direction is completely lacking instinct for the mood of the piece. Lines are quoted literally from Dickens' novel and yet the actors often appear unconvincing and without the emotional commitment required to carry off some of the scenes.The staging at times is also quite weird. For example, other versions, for the sake of brevity, have not included some scenes from the novel, perhaps most notably the scene where the Ghost of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on a tour of remote areas where even people in seclusion are reveling in the spirit of the day. This version does include that part of the book. It utilizes the singing of "Silent Night" as a continuity element from one celebration to another. The vignette ends with a far away view of Scrooge and the Ghost triumphantly silhouetted atop a hill as the carol reaches its ending crescendo. Instead of it being a moving scene, it all comes across as a melodramatic and silly gimmick that is more comical than anything else.Others have noted that this version also has that cheap, made-for-TV appearance and I have to agree. Compare to the rich, exquisitely-lit cinematography of the George C. Scott version and you will see that just because this was made for TV didn't mean it had to look it.I rate this film with a two only because of my reverence for the story. Still, it's a shame this cinematic retelling misses so badly with such can't-miss material.

teamwak I love this film. There, its out of the way.I love Patrick Stewarts take on the character. Scrooge has always been played as pathetic or comical. Stewart plays him as a mean, strong-willed, domineering man. Scrooge is unpleasant, not funny.This is the movies key strength. It makes Scrooges redemption all the more powerful when we see where he was before.This is also a traditional telling of the story, with the Fezziwigs scenes played in full. More time is taken showing Scrooges brother and his family. The scenes where Scrooge watches with the Ghost how his brother and wife still think of him is fabulous. As is the scene where Scrooge asks for their forgiveness on Christmas morning.I know some feel this is a missed chance, but all I can say is, I think this is a brave and powerful and emotional re-telling of a very famous story, and I think it hits every mark perfect.Watcvh this and your heart will sing like Scrooges on Christmas morning!