A Christmas Carol is such a timeless story, one that almost everybody knows and is Charles Dickens' most accessible works. This 1977 adaptation is a very good one and, while not as good as the Sim, Scott and Muppet versions, deserves to be better known. It is too short in length and did feel rushed as a result, it needed another thirty minutes at least. The production values are not quite of the highest quality but are at least acceptable and hardly ugly-looking, they also at least give some atmosphere, with Cratchit trying to warm his hands you can actually feel the cold in which he works. The adaptation is directed assuredly, and is well-performed too. Michael Hordern is a most credible Scrooge, Alastair Sim is still the definitive Scrooge but Hordern does a fine job as well. There's also John Le Meseurier's spooky Jacob Marley, Clive Merrison's humble Bob Cratchit, Paul Copley's jovial Fred(one of the better actors as the character alongside Barry MacKay in the 1938 film) and Timothy Chasin's heartfelt Tiny Tim. The Three Christmas Ghosts are very well-characterised as well, especially Bernard Lee as Ghost of Christmas Present, funny and imposing. What makes this adaptation as worthwhile as it is is how it tells the story. The dialogue, being amusing, dark and with pathos, is very Dickenesian and adapted intelligently. And the story, for one told in such a short running time, maintains the spirit of the story, and is every bit as magical, charming and enthralling as it should, the message is one to warm the heart and the darker aspects are genuinely foreboding. Overall, a very good adaptation and deserving of more credit. 8/10 Bethany Cox
12 Reviews
Basic, appealing, and best Marley ever.
johnbmoore-1722 December 2021
As others have noted, this is a low budget and abbreviated version of the familiar story. However, it is very earnest and faithful to the book in tone. It has several excellent performances, the best of which I believe is John Le Mesurier's as Marley - whom he depicts not with the usual overwrought performance but as a tired and long-suffering spirit weighed down with regret. His time onscreen is far too short. Overall, this a version certainly worth seeing by fans of the story.
That was a time when being nice was still a rule on TV
Dr_Coulardeau7 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
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
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Proof you don't need a big budget to do the story justice!
ixtab95 December 2003
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.
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.
A Christmas CAROL (TV) (Moira Armstrong, 1977) **1/2
Bunuel197629 December 2011
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!
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!
Low on budget and sparkle
smerph23 December 2013
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.
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.
The forgotten version of A Christmas Carol
Norton-99 December 2007
I first watched this adaptation of A Christmas Carol when it was broadcast by PBS in the seventies. Of course, one attraction was the casting of Michael Hordern as Scrooge, having remembered him as Jacob Marley in the all-time classic Alastair Sim version. Mr. Hordern did not disappoint, providing a Scrooge of sufficient bluster and befuddlement. This could be described as a no frills version of the story by some, but I love it's lean and mean production values and wonderful sets. The cold in Scrooge and Marley's counting house is palpable, with the frost building on the window behind Scrooge's desk. It really seems as though the lighting is coming from the few candles lit in the office, one of which does double duty as Bob Cratchit uses it to warm his cold hands. I love these atmospheric touches, of which there are many in this production. The wonderful collection of British actors bringing the novel to life is the icing on the cake as there are many who stand out. I heartily recommend this version if you can find it. I was able to tape it off television about 10 years ago, and have not seen it since. Still, a wonderful adaptation.
Has Little Punch
Hitchcoc28 December 2023
There is nothing dramatically wrong with this version of the Dickens classic. It is just short and undernourished. Numerous scenes are either shortened or not seen at all. The characters have no opportunity to gain any traction. The people are physically pretty good but they are on the screen and off. The scene with Belle takes so much time and is not set up well in the least. We don't know about their arrangement so there is little dramatic oomph. The final scene seem as if they are trying to squeeze everything into a couple of minutes so they don't use any extra film. We barely see Marley except as a ghost. It was by the book and little in a creative way.
Short length and low budget but faithful to Dickens
roghache20 December 2008
Considering the short length and limited budget, this BBC production is an excellent version. It does appear like a theatrical production that's been put on video and some of the sets are simply painted backgrounds. However, none of this bothered me and I actually prefer it to some higher budget versions. I agree with another reviewer here who claimed you could feel the cold in Scrooge's office when Cratchit is warming his hands at the candle!
Michael Hordern certainly looks the part of Scrooge. However, he is not compelling in the role, no match for Alastair Sim who really draws the viewer in. There seems no emotional engagement with Scrooge, little of the warmth that some actors bring to the role. It's Scrooge himself who drives the story and the attachment a viewer should feel to the character simply wasn't there. This may be partly due to the short length and the fact that the older, present day Scrooge isn't very involved in the storytelling. The spirits present their flashbacks and glimpses with little input from him.
The major problem with this adaptation is length, it being impossible to do the story justice in one hour. Either vital characters and scenes must be omitted and/or there's a rushed feeling. Here the major characters are present -- even debtors Caroline and her husband showing relief at Scrooge's death (not shown in most versions). The main scenes are also depicted though sometimes quite abbreviated. There is a rushed feeling to the production, especially at the end. For instance, when Scrooge joins Fred and his wife for Christmas dinner, barely do they exchange greetings. The scene is simply too hurried to get the proper dramatic sense of the joy these relatives feel in connecting.
This production features an excellent supporting cast. This is one of only two versions I've seen (the other being the 1999 Patrick Stewart) where Christmas Present ages during the course of his visit, as he does according to Dickens. I loved nephew Fred and found Bob Cratchit one of the most compelling I've seen. The Cratchit children are reduced from six in number to four -- budget constraints perhaps!
One aspect I appreciated, despite its deviation from the original, was Fred's 'scaled down' dinner party. Instead of the large gathering typically shown, there's only a foursome -- Fred, his wife, and one other couple sitting in the parlour. This gives the scene what I've aptly heard described as a charming intimacy. Another notable deviation from the novelette is the children Ignorance and Want appearing apart from the Spirit of Christmas Present rather than underneath his robe.
The primary attraction of this adaptation is its faithfulness to Dickens, apart from these minor exceptions mentioned. Almost all the dialogue is verbatim, albeit Scrooge fails to mention 'smoking bishop' in his final conversation with Bob! For all true fans of the Carol, I consider this a 'must see' version, if only to watch 'Marley' from the famous 1951 Alastair Sim version himself playing Scrooge!
Michael Hordern certainly looks the part of Scrooge. However, he is not compelling in the role, no match for Alastair Sim who really draws the viewer in. There seems no emotional engagement with Scrooge, little of the warmth that some actors bring to the role. It's Scrooge himself who drives the story and the attachment a viewer should feel to the character simply wasn't there. This may be partly due to the short length and the fact that the older, present day Scrooge isn't very involved in the storytelling. The spirits present their flashbacks and glimpses with little input from him.
The major problem with this adaptation is length, it being impossible to do the story justice in one hour. Either vital characters and scenes must be omitted and/or there's a rushed feeling. Here the major characters are present -- even debtors Caroline and her husband showing relief at Scrooge's death (not shown in most versions). The main scenes are also depicted though sometimes quite abbreviated. There is a rushed feeling to the production, especially at the end. For instance, when Scrooge joins Fred and his wife for Christmas dinner, barely do they exchange greetings. The scene is simply too hurried to get the proper dramatic sense of the joy these relatives feel in connecting.
This production features an excellent supporting cast. This is one of only two versions I've seen (the other being the 1999 Patrick Stewart) where Christmas Present ages during the course of his visit, as he does according to Dickens. I loved nephew Fred and found Bob Cratchit one of the most compelling I've seen. The Cratchit children are reduced from six in number to four -- budget constraints perhaps!
One aspect I appreciated, despite its deviation from the original, was Fred's 'scaled down' dinner party. Instead of the large gathering typically shown, there's only a foursome -- Fred, his wife, and one other couple sitting in the parlour. This gives the scene what I've aptly heard described as a charming intimacy. Another notable deviation from the novelette is the children Ignorance and Want appearing apart from the Spirit of Christmas Present rather than underneath his robe.
The primary attraction of this adaptation is its faithfulness to Dickens, apart from these minor exceptions mentioned. Almost all the dialogue is verbatim, albeit Scrooge fails to mention 'smoking bishop' in his final conversation with Bob! For all true fans of the Carol, I consider this a 'must see' version, if only to watch 'Marley' from the famous 1951 Alastair Sim version himself playing Scrooge!
Scrooge budgeted this production
stomaino11 December 2022
This may be the cheapest production of this classic tale ever made by a major studio and looks it. Backgrounds that are crude paintings and a 58 minute running time harm the production. These great actors seem rushed.
I so wanted to see what Michael Hordern could bring to the role and he just doesn't have the time he needs. It seems the camera work is all closeups to cover up how threadbare the sets. The Fezziwig party has a few other guests besides Fezziwig, Scrooge and Dick Wilkins. Fred has just two guests at his party, Topper and an unnamed blonde. The BBC has done such lavish productions of Dickens. Why would they be so cheap and Scrooge-like with their only production of Dickens' most famous work?
I so wanted to see what Michael Hordern could bring to the role and he just doesn't have the time he needs. It seems the camera work is all closeups to cover up how threadbare the sets. The Fezziwig party has a few other guests besides Fezziwig, Scrooge and Dick Wilkins. Fred has just two guests at his party, Topper and an unnamed blonde. The BBC has done such lavish productions of Dickens. Why would they be so cheap and Scrooge-like with their only production of Dickens' most famous work?
Charming version of a familiar tale
didi-517 December 2009
In comparison to longer, more showy versions of Dickens' classic novella, this version from 1977 with Michael Hordern as Scrooge can look a bit underfunded - however, I think that its short length and the quality of its cast outweigh these concerns.
The key of adapting a familiar story is to meet expectations in many ways, and this version does succeed. The visitations of the four spirits (including Jacob Marley), are well done, Bernard Lee as Christmas Present, John Le Mesurier as Marley amongst them. Hordern himself makes a good Scrooge, grey, morose and menacing at the start, and gentle and reformed at the end.
Alongside versions with Alistair Sim, George C Scott, Patrick Stewart, and others, this version more than holds its own.
The key of adapting a familiar story is to meet expectations in many ways, and this version does succeed. The visitations of the four spirits (including Jacob Marley), are well done, Bernard Lee as Christmas Present, John Le Mesurier as Marley amongst them. Hordern himself makes a good Scrooge, grey, morose and menacing at the start, and gentle and reformed at the end.
Alongside versions with Alistair Sim, George C Scott, Patrick Stewart, and others, this version more than holds its own.
My favorite version of an oft-told story!
arcwulf25 December 2021
Let's get this out of the way: This television version of Charles Dickens's classic story is not the best acted nor the best produced, and it's special effects are (quite frankly) laughable even by the standards of the time. It's gifted actors seem like they're rushed to deliver all of their lines in the course of a commercial television production (because they are). None of that is what makes this such an outstanding version of the teleplay.
The secret sauce here is that this is filmed in 1970s BBC studios, and that means you get the wonderful effect of the PAL video technology at the time, with its overblown highlights, deep blacks, and high refresh rate. These qualities inherent in the technology of the time make this (in my mind) the spookiest version of this story ever put to screen. The ghosts are just more ghostly, and matte-background London looks much more gritty than any other version. The atmosphere is palpable and feels oppressive, and that is what you want in what is arguably the most famous ghost story ever told.
The secret sauce here is that this is filmed in 1970s BBC studios, and that means you get the wonderful effect of the PAL video technology at the time, with its overblown highlights, deep blacks, and high refresh rate. These qualities inherent in the technology of the time make this (in my mind) the spookiest version of this story ever put to screen. The ghosts are just more ghostly, and matte-background London looks much more gritty than any other version. The atmosphere is palpable and feels oppressive, and that is what you want in what is arguably the most famous ghost story ever told.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
