Wow! Such a good movie.

A different way of telling a story

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Being a big Star Trek: The Next Generation fan, I remember watching this Patrick Stewart-led Dickens adaptation back in the late 1997s on TV. At the time, it seemed like the best "Christmas Carol" re-telling I had ever seen. Upon a more recent viewing, however, I discovered that time had not been kind to my analysis of the overall production.For a basic plot summary, this is a simple adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens tale. Miserly old Scrooge (Stewart) is visited on the night before Christmas by three ghosts (Past, Present, Future) that help him re-discover his heart.The trouble with this production is that the "production values" are just not that good. The auxiliary cast is lackluster, the special effects are unspectacular (even by 1990s standards), and the whole show has a depressive mood about it.Pretty much the only reason to watch this version is the incredible performance from Mr. Stewart. He absolutely owns the role of Scrooge. Unfortunately, as the story dictates, Scrooge is all too often watching the action unfold instead of participating in it.Thus, I would advise looking elsewhere for your "Christmas Carol" fix unless you're a Patrick Stewart junkie. There just isn't enough else to carry this production.

In one scene in particular, i can't help but feel Patrick Stewart tried hard and failed as, Ebenezer Scrooge. The acting where he meets his dead partner of seven years, Jacob Marley (played wonderfully by, Bernard Lloyd), is down right awful. There is another scene in where Patrick Stewart first meets the "Ghost Of Christmas Future". I couldn't help but notice that scene was filmed during the day and edited to make it look like night. That is another scene in this movie i can not stand. But that wasn't the fault of Patrick Stewart or was it? That doesn't mean this is a bad adaptation. Far from it. This is a beautiful version of the classic story. But he didn't come across as mean as some of the others legends before him like, Michael Caine, George C. Scott, Alastair Sim and even Sir Seymour Hicks. But the acting from, Richard E. Grant as Bob Cratchit and Saskia Reeves as Mrs Cratchit and the rest of the supporting cast and Patrick Stewart in some cases makes up for those bad scenes in the movie. And add to the brilliant acting from the other cast members, the music is hauntingly beautiful. There for i give this version of the classic tale 7 out of 10.

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.

There are spoilers here that will gave away differences that set this review apart from others. I urge you to look at the rating and not read this review if you have not seen it. This version of "A Christmas Carol" is currently the one I look for every year, and well worth watching.As adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" go, this one stands above most. There is extra detail given to the custom of Christmas in Dickens' time period, and choices I have not seen in any other version. One of my favorite moments was Scrooge concealing himself behind a door, ashamed of the judgment of the happy, friendly people who's hospitality he is intruding upon.Another was the utter shame and humility with which he presents himself to his nephew's wife. Scrooge could not have simply played nice and won her over, so as far as believability, this is the best take I have ever seen.The only weak moments I can recall in the movie revolve around Patrick Stewart's Scrooge and dialog from the book sounding too much like a stage production (and lacking the grace and subtlety of film). An example is Scrooge's first hearty laugh in years, on Christmas morning. Stewart makes a kind of choking gasp that struck me as a bit much.As with Royal theater, the acting is large, stage acting, and while the lines have conviction and Stewart is very charismatic, it lacks the realism the other choices had-- it's difficult to believe a man speaking to a deathly ghost showing him his own death would do so in a steady stage voice. (I'd really love to see a version where the later lines came out like mad rambling or perhaps a whisper to himself.) Theater fans who longed to see Stewart's one-man-show version of "A Christmas Carol" will really appreciate this, but so much love and detail was given to the realism in this version that I found his performance distracting.For the rest of this movie, I can say that it's spot on. Richard E. Grant makes an excellent Bob Cratchitt, and the reaction to Scrooge's change after Christmas was excellent, as was Stewart's Scrooge in that scene.