Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

SPOILERS AHEAD As a Dickens buff I watch all the new productions based on his works. "A Christmas Carol" has been done to death by repetition, with every shady character in every sitcom being "Scrooged" one way or another. But certain things about Dickens never seem to seep into most productions, including this one.This production is certainly one of the most elegant, showing details impossible in many previous productions, such as the details on Scrooge's hearth and the infamous "extinguisher cap." In that, it is the most accurate of productions.Patrick Stewart throws his heart into becoming Scrooge, looking younger and balder than most. His is a masculine Scrooge, able to get around without shuffling, and standing up to ghosts better than most. Stewart's is superior to the flat George C. Scott performance or that of the cloying (though famous) Alistair Sim. Richard E. Grant is not like the typical Bob Cratchit (i.e., David Collings in "Scrooge" or David Warner in Scott's 1985 version). Ian McNeice's Fezziwig surprising leaves lots to be desired; it would have thought this production might use someone like Richard Pearson. McNeice is capable of, but does not exhibit here, the necessary warmth or bonhomie.Joel Grey, on the other hand, is (again, surprisingly) accurate as the Spirit of Christmas Past. An old/young, short and shining man.However, what's missing in this production, as in so many, is Dickens' great humor. Admittedly, as in Wodehouse, most of Dickens' humor rises from his word choice rather than what he depicts (perhaps he discovered with PICKWICK his comic episodes aren't all that comic after all so he relied on language). Dickens is able to describe the most bitter episodes in his fiction in a way to raise at least a sardonic smile. That was what was most disappointing in the Sim version. Sim was an actor of enormous comic potential, but his "Christmas Carol" was too po-faced. Frankly, so is this one.Though David Warner was notable in the 1985 Scott version, far better than Grant, the only real alternative for Dickens' humor is the Albert Finney "Scrooge" (despite the liberties it takes with the text and dodgy "special effects"; and though the songs range from brilliant to utterly insipid with nothing in between!) And Albert Finney is able to bring in his performance of both the young and old Scrooge the Dickensian humor Stewart lacks.One more thing "A Christmas Carol" productions usually lack, including this one, is Fred's line "I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round-apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that-as a good time . . ." In no production is the "sacred origin" of Christmas played up, and its absence makes Scrooge's conversion a bit hollow and perhaps a "humbug" to fool even Death.

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.

Considering this TV Movie boasts Patrick Stewart in the lead role, I can only confess disappointment at this solid, but stolid, adaptation. While Stewart is the main trump card, the rest of the cast are a little lacking. Richard E Grant is a severely undervalued actor, but I found his Cratchett not nearly as likable as the character should be. It's mostly very faithful to the book. While there are strange omissions (there's no Cratchett toast to Scrooge as the "founder of the feast") as well as pointless changes (Scrooge's sister Fan...becomes Fran) and needless additions (the film begins with a scene set following Marley's death - only briefly mentioned in a preamble in the novella) but, for the most part, this is faithful to Dickens. The problem is that it leaves no lasting impression beyond that.In terms of adaptations, it draws its closest comparison to the George C. Scott effort from 1984. That too, was very faithful to Dickens - but had a flair to it that's missing here. It seems a little churlish to review this by comparing it to other productions of the book but when it's so slavish to the text, it does invite these comparisons. Unfortunately, this adaptation feels a bit surplus to requirements when one considers the efforts of Simm, Scott and The Muppets. If you need a quick fix of Scrooge, they would get the nod before Stewart.

I felt sorry for Patrick Stewart playing Scrooge. I felt this actor tried hard to be his own Scrooge, but he missed by a mile. I felt his acting was forced.But I felt the rest of the cast played it well, and Richard E. Grant as Bob Crachet was superb in his role.Particularly at the end when Grant picked up a poker to defend himself against his evil boss, Grant was shaking, terrified of his boss, and the atmosphere this one scene created, was for me very powerful.I suspect this is how every homeless person feels today against those among the British public who behave just like Scrooge, they could not care less, and many homeless people are spat upon.Those among the British public who behave like this are a disgrace, and they frighten the homeless, just like Grant's Bob Crachet was frightened into picking up that poker.It is a shame that in my opinion Patrick Stewart was unable to provide his Scrooge with the same menace.I felt the story was flat, almost boring. I give it 2 out of 10 for a good effort.But I give Richard E. Grant a full 10 marks for his role, and his wife and children equally so, they were all excellent.The best Scrooge films by far, is the Alastair Sim version, and the George C. Scott version.George C. Scott's version is more applicable to today's Society where the homeless people are under the Bridge, and the man asks his wife, "why cant I work to provide for my family", this question was spot on for today, because it reflects today.And then when George C Scott realises everything, he kneels down and asks, "what have I done" ?, because he realises how mean and short sighted he has been.And I would say "what have I done?", can also be said of those in our Society that have their heads in the sand, not realising and not caring about anybody but themselves, or the consequences of their actions.