Steineded How sad is this?

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

smerph Spending your time spotting actors you've seen in other stuff may hold the key to making it through this rather lifeless adaptation of A Christmas Carol.Michael Horden makes a reasonable Scrooge but the surrounding production lets him down as it's clear that this suffers from a thin budget. Using drawings rather than actual sets may have a quaint charm in children's television, but here it just draws attention to how Scrooge-like the BBC must have been when they commissioned it.There are plenty of Christmas Carols on IMDb. This one isn't horrendous, but it's certainly forgettable.

MARIO GAUCI 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!

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This classic is probably the most ever adapted story by anyone to the silver screen or the TV screen. It has become like a universal reference, and not only because of Mickey Mouse. It is the reference to expose misers and their miserable little and at times enormous narrow-minded selfish sins. This particular adaptation is trying to make the story not too frightening, just weird enough to seem marvelous and fantastic. The ghosts are nearly friendly in a way, both in their voices and their appearances. The stories they tell are just simple stories of simple people who just try to survive in a harsh world with hard work and a lot of determination to live on and bring more life to the world. Scrooge is in many ways odious and yet he is repentant so fast that we could even believe he was touched by some kind of grace and he became nice for the sake of being nice, though he does it because he is afraid, and nothing but afraid of what may happen to him after his death. That's the very contradiction of this man becoming converted to doing good after a life of doing evil. He is moved by fear. Approaching death is a great teacher of manners and kindness. The film yet remains magic and the sudden conversion is quite pleasant. I could yet have preferred Scrooge to be a lot more inhumane, a lot more vicious, because misers are basically not human. They only exploit the others and never share.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

ixtab9 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.