A Christmas Carol (2004)

Hello!Though I have visited the IMDb.com site for many years, this is my very first review here, because I felt a strong moral obligation to warn others about this movie.I have seen perhaps 15 movie versions of "A Christmas Carol".Without a doubt, this awful piece of garbage ranks dead last, even after bad half-hour animated versions.Everything is so appallingly bad, that it's difficult to point out anything in particular.Kelsey Grammar, who I have not hated before this movie, turns in one of the most dreadful performances I have ever seen, anywhere, in any movie! I was stunned by the ham ridden, exceptionally poor performance, in what should have been a drama. Don't expect much more from the other "actors", many of whom act as if they are on drugs (I blame this on the director, Arthur Allan Seidelman. SO many actors can't have turned in such bad performances, without the director being hugely at fault!).The script has been dramatically changed from the original story, every time, making this movie worse, and worse, and worse. Now, I understand that most stories or novels can't be translated directly into a movie without alterations, HOWEVER, that doesn't excuse the butchery of the original story that was done in this movie, with no point. AND, "A Christmas Carol", by Charles Dickens, READS almost as a screenplay. Many adaptations have stayed very close to the original source material, with sometimes very great results.The music varies from inane, to horrible. I know that Alan Menken has done decent stuff before, but this certainly has to have been one of his poorest efforts.Rather than continuing to harp on the vast shortcomings of this unwatchable piece of crud, I will list the versions of "A Christmas Carol", that I consider best, in order:1. "A Christmas Carol", George C. Scott, 1984, long version. 10 star movie. Brilliant performance by Scott, probably the best of his entire career, even better than in "Patton". He portrays Scrooge as a textured, real person, rather than the over-the-top performances you see by most actors. ALSO, this version is closest to Dickens original story "A Christmas Carol", of any of the movie versions that I have ever seen (and I sometimes READ the story, along with the movie, while it is going on!) Also, this movie has the strongest supporting cast of any of the movie versions. Particularly memorable, is Edward Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present.2. "A Christmas Carol", George C. Scott, 1984, 101 minute version. Almost as good as the longer version.3. "Scrooge", Alastair Sim, 1951. Sims puts in a good performance as Scrooge, but not as good as Scott's.4. "Scrooge", Albert Finney, 1970, UK version, 120 minutes. I consider this the best musical adaptation of "A Christmas Carol". Finney, unfortunately, was too young for this role in 1970. He's probably the right age now, and I would suspect he would put in a better performance, now (2011)!5. "Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol", Jim Backus, 1962, animated musical. I consider this the best version for children. The story has been simplified a bit for children, BUT, does not pull any punches. It also focuses on the children in the story a bit more. Good music by Jule Styne, that I understand was originally written for a Broadway show that fell through, but it found a good home here. Better music, I think, than in the Finney "Scrooge".6. "Scrooge", Albert Finney, 1970, US version, 113 minutes. The seven minutes cut from the UK version really butchers the ending.7. "A Christmas Carol", Patrick Stewart, 1999. 2nd best supporting cast out of any version I have seen. Unfortunately, Patrick Stewart was the weak link, here. He really did not seem to understand the character of Scrooge at all, and put in a remarkably flat and dull performance.My 2 cents worth.Hope this was helpful.Karl

I missed the beginning few minutes of this movie, so I spent quite some time thinking that the part of Scrooge was played by Tim Robbins. Otherwise, I just stayed for the ride.As an adaptation of Dickens' moral story, it follows the general thread pretty closely but tends to play fast and loose with many of the details. And with Dickens, the devil's all too often IN the detail.Otherwise, it's the first musical version of Christmas Carol (so far as I recollect) which is surprising, really. If ever any stories lend themselves to musical filmography, those of Dickens do because they're so brimming with humour. Lionel Bart's outstanding production of 'Oliver' showed just what can be done way back in - what - 1969? And it was such a success that I've always been amazed that more productions didn't jump on the bandwagon. But there you go.Still, There's plenty of songs, of a rather unmemorable kind. And there's a cast who give really vigorous - if uninvolving - returns for their paycheques. Some detailed, comparatively seamless, recreations of Victorian London provide a nice sense of place. Many entail expansive camera pans. In fact camera-work is probably its best feature. Costumes also measure-up, so to speak. It's obvious that plenty of people put a lot of thought and hard work into realising this movie. But somehow, it just didn't gel for me. I'm an ardent Dickens fan, but I'm not a purist, and Bart's 'Oliver' still remains one of my favourite movies, as well as a favourite recreation of The Master's work. Of all criticisms, I suspect the songs were a bit too bland. No melodies were lodged in my head at the end, unlike 'Oliver'. I mean - let's be honest - Ron Moody's rendition of 'You've Got To Pick A Pocket Or two' is alone worth the price of a DVD. The ghosts could certainly have been more imaginative too, for 2004. And Ebenezer himself might have given more expression. In the end, I was left disappointed. However, as I say; the movie has plenty of good points to recommend it. There's an astonishing number of extras wandering about for a TV movie. I just don't think you'll be investing in the soundtrack. Consider yourself - shortchanged.

Takes far too many liberties with the story, Scrooge's family history during the Ghost Of Christmas Past section doesn't fit in with the usual versions and it spoils it, without giving too much away the back story between him and his father is changed entirely and he doesn't go to boarding school....It seems to miss or mess up pretty much every important scene in the story, why would anyone do that?I'm not a big musicals fan though I must admit that the songs are generally quite good but the divergences from the standard A Christmas Carol storyline really grate; I turned it off part way through The Ghost Of Christmas Present - considering I paid for the DVD that's not a good sign.Get the Alistair Sim classic, or the acclaimed George C. Scott version, or the surprisingly good Muppet Christmas Carol but avoid at all costs this mess of a film.

Christmas Carol, A (2004)** (out of 4) Musical version of Charles Dickens' novel features Kelsey Grammar as Ebenezer Scrooge, the old miser who is visited by three ghosts who hope to show him the right way to live. A Christmas TALE has been filmed dozens of times since the silent days so it's always a challenge for filmmakers to tell the story in a new way. This one here decides to have Alan Menken do the music and I'm sure fans of his are going to enjoy the treatment. With that said, I think fans of the story are going to be disappointed because the heart of Dickens story is pretty much removed and replaced by scenes that are either boring or really serve no purpose on the story. We get more footage from Scrooge's childhood and this includes seeing his father taken away to prison as well as him working in a boot factory. Neither item is from the original novel and neither add anything here. The creepiness of the story has pretty much been watered down as the ghosts aren't a tad bit scary and none of the situations are directed to further any of the story. Instead we get a lot of musical numbers but I found most of them to be boring. Again, fans of musicals might enjoy them more but I found all of them to be rather poorly staged and they didn't do anything for the actual story. If you're going to film Dickens most famous story then you might want to write your musical numbers around the actual story. There's one nice number between Cratchit and his son but that's about it. The stuff with the three ghosts really don't work, although Jason Alexander does a good job as Marley's ghost. Those who have seen the 1910 version of FRANKENSTEIN are going to notice that his ghost looks exactly like the monster from that film. Grammar isn't too bad as Scrooge but he pretty much gets lost in the musical numbers. Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jane Krakowski and Geraldine Chaplin appear quickly but add very little.