A Christmas Carol (1999 TV Movie) User Reviews

Worth seeing, but still not the best ever!

[Toonlady · 7/10 · 6 December 1999]

Anyone who's never seen an adaptation of this perennial favorite would undoubtedly find it outstanding. However, since I almost literally cut my teeth on the ultimate version - the 1951 classic starring Alistair Sim - I couldn't avoid comparisons. Patrick Stewart turned in an inspired performance, but he lacked the sly humor that made Sim's' performance so endearing. I found the casting of Joel Grey as the Ghost of Christmas past an inspired stroke. The rest of the cast was admirable, and Tiny Tim had killer dimples! All in all - pop the popcorn, gather the family - and enjoy. You won't be sorry.

Bah! this isn't humbug! (but a very nice story).

[KnatLouie · 8/10 · 25 December 2001]

Here is another great adaption of Dickens' great Christmas story! My mood always get a little better when I watch or read this story...especially when it is Christmas! Patrick Stewart is certainly one of my favorite actors (Star Trek was one of my favorite TV-shows when I was younger), and Richard E. Grant (who also appeared in the film "Warlock") plays a very sympathetic role in this story as the book-keeper Cratchit. I think that they fit very nicely into their roles, and the supporting cast also does a fine job. Little Tim is very sweet, and you just hope that he is going to survive! They did a good job at showing Scrooge's past and telling the story of how he became such a bitter old man, and how the ghosts try to persuade him into enjoying the remaining years of his life instead of being cruel and grumpy all the time.

I hope you enjoy this movie as much as I did, and a very merry Christmas to all!

Fabulous darker tale acted wonderfully by Patrick Stewart as Scrooge

[robfollower · 8/10 · 24 December 2018]

Theater fans who longed to see Stewart's one-man-show version of "A Christmas Carol" will really appreciate this ! Patrick Stewart on Broadway plays, Scrooge, Fezziwig, Tiny Tim, the Three Ghosts and every other yuletide Dickensian character . I bet that was a sight to see "Live" ! On stage ! In the TNT TV version Stewart plays only Scrooge the film is one of the better adaptations alongside George C Scott's 1984 version, Alastair Sim 1951 ; Sim is a phenomenal Scrooge "gold standard" ! I will tell you however Stewart is outstanding and a joy to watch as you can tell he has completely dedicated himself to the character.

An old bitter miser who makes excuses for his uncaring nature learns real compassion when three ghosts visit him on Christmas Eve. Fabulous darker tale acted wonderfully by Patrick Stewart as Scrooge.

Faithful to Dickens, Stewart perfect

[Pfisiar675 · 5 November 2004]

The sad thing about this adaptation is simply that audiences have expected less reserved acting and brighter and cheerier moods. However, I've read the book many times, and although I like all versions, I think this is probably the 2nd best I've seen. (I love the musical Scrooge with Albert Finney. It's delightful, if not entirely British in tone.) Scrooge was a Victorian man, which means the definition of his character would be one of reservation and stiffness. Patrick Stewart is quite believable as a Victorian British gentleman miser.

I enjoyed immensely the understated end, where Scrooge changes much for the better, yet at the same time maintains the appearance of a Victorian gentleman. The scene in which Scrooge haltingly enters his nephews house is very powerful and poignant imo.

Admittedly, the supporting cast is forgettable, but that's to be expected. This is Scrooge's story and belongs to no one else. What I think turns people off for this version is the stiffness portrayed by Scrooge and the general "oppressive" atmosphere of the movie. But it is quite good, and Stewart's portrayal of the Victorian Scrooge is perfect.

Although, I think that from our own perspective, Alastair Sim's portrayal will remain the one that stays forever. This movie suffers most from a low TV budget which often limits the camera work along with special effects. But overall, this is one of the best versions out there.

Good and touching TV rendition with top-notch performance by Patrick Stewart as Ebenezer Scrooge

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 6 January 2012]

Charming and worthwhile adaptation about timeless and quintessential Christmas story . ¨A Christmas Carol¨ is an enjoyable British production, a wonderful and straight forward approach to the Dickens's source material being perfectly adapted . It is given the full sense of wonder , a deluxe treatment in this superior TV film . The production values & acting are both excellent, with just enough attractive to appeal to the tenderhearted , and with some doses of horror , case of the potentially frightening elements the Ghosts of Past (Joel Grey), Present (Barrit) and Future , adding sentiment ; all of them are blended into the mix , until , like a nice Christmas punch , the result appeals to all . Scrooge (Patrick Stewart) is a miserly old businessman in 1840's London . He displays no charity to mankind generally, and in particular, to his employee Bob Cratchett (Richard E. Grant married to Saskia Reeves) and his unfortunate son, Tiny Tim . One Christmas Eve he is visited by the ghost of Marley (Lloyd), his dead business partner. He is warned that he must change his miserly ways or face damnation. Marley foretells that Scrooge will be visited by three spirits, each of whom will attempt to show Scrooge the error of his ways . In Just One Night , He Has Seen His Past, His Present, And His Future. And They've All Come Back To Haunt Him Will Scrooge reform his ways in time to celebrate Christmas? . To his delight, the spirits complete their visits in one night giving him the opportunity to mend his ways. The first spirit, the Ghost of Christmas Past, shows Scrooge visions of his own past in which had spent much of his childhood neglected by his father over the holidays at boarding school until he was finally brought home by his loving sister , who died prematurely after giving birth to his nephew Fred (Dominic West). A past in which appears a young Scrooge (Doughty) and including a broken engagement to his girlfriend (Laura Fraser) . Will Scrooge change his life in time to celebrate Christmas? .

A wonderful recounting of a Christmas vintage classic and Patrick Stewart demonstrates once again his versatility on screen in this retelling of Charles Dickens' immortal story . Atmospherically, the movie is as comfortable and heartwarming as an old Christmas card . The whole concept of looking at your life in the past, present and future is creative in and of itself . After watching the movie, you may look at your life from the same perspectives . Special effects add a nice little touch , but it is Patrick Stewart's interaction with the 'ghosts' and various characters that really steal the show . Though most of us , if not all of us, have seen other adaptations in the past or read the story , and know already what to expect, Stewart manages to capture pure magic with his stunningly awesome portrayal of main character Ebenezer Scrooge and it is definitely worth a look . It's fun and different approach to the Christmas classic with acceptable effects by means of computer generator . Furthermore , an emotive musical score by Stephen Warbeck and an appropriate cinematography by Ian Wilson add assets in this splendid TV film . A highly recommended picture that nobody should miss it especially during Christmas time . ¨David Hugh Jones's Christmas Carol¨ still ranks as one of the best TV adaptations of the Dickens classic ever . This retelling of Charles Dickens' classic novel about a Victorian-era miser taken on a journey of self-redemption will appeal to Patrick Stewart fans .

Other versions about this stunning story courtesy of several mysterious Christmas apparitions are the following : The rather obscure 1935 version,with Sir Seymour Hicks ; adaptation released by MGM , directed in 1938 by Edward L Marin with Reginald Owen ; the 1951 British production with Alastair Sim and the 1970 musical by Clive Donner with Albert Finney. Under the title of 'A Christmas Carol' a cartoon rendition (1997) by Stan Phillips and voiced by Tim Curry and another (1991) by Jimmy T Murakami with Simon Callow ; in addition adaptations made by classic animated characters as ¨Mickey Mouse's Christmas Carol and ¨Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol¨ . Finally the made-for-TV productions: 1984 with George C. Scott , 1999 with Patrick Stewart, and the 2004 musical with Kelsey Grammar and the recent made by means of Motion Capture starred by Jim Carrey and directed by Robert Zemeckis .

Impressive version but darker, with a meaner Scrooge

[roghache · 9/10 · 6 April 2006]

We are great buffs of A Christmas Carol in our household, and watch almost every version faithfully each Christmas, including the old 1938 Reginald Owen and the 1984 George C. Scott. Our overall favourite is the 1951 black and white tale starring Alastair Sim, because for me, Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge, his conversion the most believable. However, this modern version has its own unique merits and is a more than satisfying & watchable adaptation. (See my comments on the other films also, if interested)

Patrick Stewart, once you get past his not being Captain Jean Luc Picard (difficult for us as Star Trek fans), makes a pretty convincing Ebeneezer Scrooge and definitely the meanest one of the cinematic world. This miser is just an incredibly nasty old businessman; personally, I'd be quite afraid to carol outside HIS office window!

The tale begins uniquely, not with the classic rendering of 'Old Marley was dead to begin with', but with Marley's actual funeral as attended by his surviving business partner, the only movie version to detail this event. However, the rest of the film is quite conventionally done. Wonderful modern special effects of course, with Marley's ghost (a quiet but grim & tortured creature here) and so forth. The spirits are well captured, and the Spirit of Christmas Present is even (unlike other versions) shown to age, in keeping with the novel, as his twelve days of Christmas progress toward Twelfth Night.

This adaptation has my absolute favorite depiction of Scrooge's nephew, Fred. His hearty entry into his miserly uncle's counting house is absolutely priceless, with his benevolent, booming, 'A Merry Christmas, Uncle. God save you!' I adore Fred in this tale. I also love the little added touch at Fred's Christmas dinner party where the punch is heated with a hot poker. Magnificent! On the other hand, while Mr. Fezziwig is indeed intended to be plump and jolly, I found the positively fat & rather crude Fezziwigs (both Mr. & Mrs.) a tad overdone.

Scrooge's sister, Fan, is younger than him here, as in the novel. Most other versions have her older, and fabricate Scrooge's mother death in childbirth when he was born. However, Fan is barefoot in this movie when she comes to her brother's boarding school to retrieve him. How probable would that be in wintertime?

This movie has by a mile the best depiction of the Cratchit's poverty. Frankly, in some versions, the Cratchits appear so downright prosperous that one half expects a servant or two to appear and begin assisting Mrs. Cratchit with the goose & pudding. These Cratchits are literally poor as church mice, just as Dickens intended them to be. Bob appears bone weary, haggard, and long-suffering, Mrs. Cratchit homespun but cheerful as she goes about her endless chores, and Tiny Tim of course a very endearing little waif. I did, however, have strong objections to the young Cratchits banging on the dinner table with their cutlery. Yes, they were eager for goose, but would never have dreamed of being so rude. (In the novel, they stuff spoons in their mouths so they won't shriek for goose!)

If anything, this version is generally the most faithful to Dickens' novel. For example, it's the adaptation which best depicts Christmas Present's tale, where the miners, mariners at sea, and prison inmates are all celebrating Christmas as best they can. Especially dramatic is the scene in which a prisoner begins playing The First Noel on his recorder and the other inmates chime in one by one with their voices. You sense the spirit of Christmas in their midst. Also, this is the only version I've seen in which the repentant Scrooge attends church on Christmas morning before his appearance at the nephew's house for dinner. And at his office next morning, in his little speech to the befuddled Bob, Scrooge addresses the hot Christmas drink in question by its proper name, bishop, as per the novel.

Overall, this modern movie is excellent, but doesn't come across quite as a heartwarming tale. Maybe more realistic, but somehow it seems a wee bit darker than the others.

Wow, for a made for TV film, this was very impressive

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 24 December 2009]

I will begin to say that I adore Dickens's book, and I do think it is my absolute favourite Christmas story. Out of the versions of the book I've seen, Scrooge(1951), Mickey's Christmas Carol, The Muppets and the George C Scott film are my favourites. This film though is above average and is a perfectly decent film overall. Of course it isn't perfect, it is a tad too short, the special effects weren't always that great and there are shortcomings in the script. That said, out of all the adaptations, this 1999 version is definitely one of the truest to the book. The scenery, costumes and photography for a TV movie are not bad at all. Maybe not as lavish or inventive visually, but considering how some TV movies have special effects etc. that are close to appalling, I am not one to judge harshly. I also agree with anybody who says this adaptation has the best depiction of the Cratchits, who are seen as warm and loving, so the part when Scrooge looks into the future does evoke a tear or two. While the music was outstanding, the performances are what make the film, Joel Grey, Desmond Barritt and Tim Potter make for imposing spirits, and even with the casting of Saskia Reeves and Richard E Grant as the Cratchits the film successfully avoids falling into modernisation. It is Patrick Stewart who holds this film together however, with a worthy and surprisingly subtle performance. I like Stewart very very much, he is a fine actor, and while he is maybe not the most definitive Scrooge he is still absolutely great. And I liked Fred in this one, he was funny(and handsome too). All in all, impressive and I liked it a lot. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

Instant classic!

[Costu-2 · 10/10 · 6 December 1999]

This is the timeless Dickens story...splendidly told! The cast is uniformly excellent, even down to the smaller roles that may only offer an actor a scene or two. But it is Patrick Stewart's show ALL THE WAY! Not only does he dominate every scene he is in by his sheer presence, but his interpretation of the character of Ebenezer Scrooge lends depth and believability to the old miser and his complete transformation, where others have veered toward caricature. The music, the costumes, the sets -- all are of first quality. Highly recommended!

Leaves One a Little Dispirited

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 8 December 1999]

I have to express a bit of disappointment in the new Patrick Stewart version of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." While the story holds up fairly well, I got the feeling Stewart (who is one of my favorite personalities and actors) was trying too hard to come up with a different kind of Scrooge--one that would put his signature on the role. In the process, he looks very uncomfortable. His words seem strained and his interaction with the other characters, unnatural.

For one thing, he is so fit, so athletic looking. I don't necessarily need a doddering old Scrooge, but he should have some vulnerability to him. His emotions are too controlled--he exposes no melancholy--he doesn't have the sad, pleading eyes of Alastair Sim. I guess I never really felt sympathy for him, especially in the scenes where he sees his sister and his one time love. Somehow the Cratchett family also suffers a lack of depth. Tiny Tim's death doesn't have the usual impact. The scenes after Scrooge's death are much less horrifying than in other movies. I generally choke up at the scene where Scrooge shows up at his nephew's house and ask for forgiveness. I didn't this time. All in all, if you have a choice, go with Sim or George C. Scott. The movie is nice to look at but needs more soul. Even a bit of nastiness would have helped.

Best version by far, bar none. A+

[adamwankenobi · 10/10 · 11 December 2013]

Having read the book a couple times, and have watched every notable Hollywood production of the tale, this version is far and away the best and most faithful to the original book. Not ever detail is precisely from the book (but so what); the over-arching story is most accurate and captures the real essence of the story. (For those who don't know, Dickens continued to edit and re-write his one man stage performance for many years after publication of the book, so don't be so petty as to demand perfect adherence to the original novel if Dickens himself didn't.) Stewart nails Scrooge; head and shoulders above all other actors playing this role. My biggest complaint is that it was clearly edited for TV time constraints and I just wish they would release a "directors cut" with a few scenes being more fulled expressed. This version is a must-watch every Christmas. A+

Not one of Patrick Stewart's best performances

[ssbass · 7/10 · 20 December 2022]

Let me first say that I love Patrick Stewart in many things, and I also love various versions of A Christmas Carol. This one, however, is a huge disappointment to me. His acting - particularly in the scene with Jacob Marley and later when he's back in his room after being with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come - is just so over the top and unbelievable that it damages what is otherwise pretty decent production. The other knock on this one is the bread-box-head-with-jawa-eyes Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. It's somewhat shocking to me that the crew was ok with this. Anyway still 7 stars from me, but this should have been a perfect 10.

Wonderfully done

[cymbols · 9/10 · 16 December 2001]

Patrick Stewart brings Ebenezer Scrooge to life in this wonderful production. As he moves from the embittered character which we are first presented with, through the intense emotions of a man reformed by the Christmas spirit, we are both astounded and captivated by the depth of Scrooge's character. A pleasure to watch.

Bless them, one and all...

[Lejink · 7/10 · 31 December 2007]

It's all in the writing of course. Stay true to Dickens' peerless source material, get the production values right and employ good actors and actresses and all should be well, as is here. Here, the excellent Patrick Stewart (executive producer too) convincingly portrays Ebenezer Scrooge and his journey from dark to light. Richard E Grant seems to me a little young and clean almost for the Bob Cratchit part, I saw Kevin Whately more in the part. The rest of the cast are fine in supplementary roles whilst I also enjoyed the special effects evocations of Jacob Marley's ghost and the three Christmas spirits who all initially scare and torment old Scrooge but ultimately lead him to righteousness. Best scenes are the first entry of Marley's ghost, the spurning of the young Scrooge by his young love and Stewart's difficulty in bringing out a laugh in his relief at his chance of redemption. The cinematography is generally good, with sprinklings of snow in most scenes to further accentuate the Christmas feel to the whole film. As stated earlier, it would be hard to go wrong here and with so many modern adaptations around, it was nice to see this wonderful Christmas story set so well in its own period.

A nice, if sadly flawed, production.

[kermit-32 · 5/10 · 26 December 1999]

This production starts with a scene which demonstrates the subtle flaws that permeate this production of A CHRISTMAS CAROL. We open at Marley's burial in a cemetary in an apparently open countryside. Since Scrooge was the beneficiary of Marley's estate and both lived in London this scene would contradict Scrooge's miserly ways and leaves the London setting that was so central to the story.

Patrick Stewart, normally a superlative actor, almost walks through his performance here. You don't believe him to be nearly old as Scrooge should be for a second. His transformation after the visitations seems more of an outburst of hysterical madness than happiness. I really wanted to believe in Stewart as Scrooge - but the camera work often worked against him as well making him appear disconnected from the action around him.

The London sets also fail to live up to the richness of detail shown in the 1951 Scrooge that starred Alistair Sim. The details that were shown and suggested in that film make this production pale in comparison with it's almost sterile depiction of London.

Sadly the director also fails in many places throughout this film. In addition to everything indicated above, there is also a regrettable tendency to use showy wipes and transitions that detract from the story. In particular the circular wipes, used when the Ghost of Christmas Future is indicating the two scenes of the future, are horribly jarring and remind you of the deliberately stylized wipes used in Star Wars when complete changes of scene were made.

After watching this production I had to go watch the 1951 Scrooge to remind myself of just how powerful this story can be when placed in the right hands.

Closest adaption of the actual novel

[blackjack128 · 1 September 2000]

Although this wasn't the best "Christmas Carol" Movie, it was very close to the novel. some of the lines and scenes were taken right from the book, like when scrooge is awake and listening to the bells toll and counting off as they go along. "quarter after, half-over- a quarter to it...." and *SPOILER*

The family that is freed from debt when scrooge dies. this is the closest rendition of the Novel I have ever seen

One of the best!

[Kimal9000 · 7/10 · 1 January 2020]

After all these years it must have become very difficult indeed to put something original into this story, or "make it your own" so to speak. There are a few really good versions out the, like the 1984 George C Scott, and the 1970 Albert Finney. I would say this one comes in third overall. Patrick Stewart probably comes the closest in the grief and redemtion phase (with a draw between Scott and Finney in the grumpy phase).

Brilliant performance by Patrick Stuart

[cjh10769 · 10/10 · 7 December 1999]

Patrick Stuart is indisputably a great actor, complemented by an excellent cast of other fine actors. This is a warm, humanized, three-dimensional portrait of Ebenezer Scrooge as a whole man. We can believe that a neglected, hurt child could grow up to become a hesitant lover and finally an embittered miser. Stuart's portrayal of Scrooge's growing regret for his life's missed opportunities is wonderfully done, and the final redemption scene is more than satisfying. This is a delightful Christmas offering.

This later version is good, but can't compare to the earliest films

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 26 December 2021]

"A Christmas Carol" is a classic story that probably will be remade in films far into the future. There will probably always be a decade or generation that will have an accomplished actor or producer who wants to make the best rendition yet of the Charles Dickens tale. So, they will try, and the end product will be good to very good. That's because of the story itself. And, indeed, almost all of the versions made into film to date have been good. But, a couple comedy attempts at very much revised stories have been terrible.

This TV movie made by Hallmark stars Patrick Stewart and does a good job of following the Dickens book and story. But, as with many modern films made of period times, the sets - costumes especially, seem too colorful,, bright, and sharp for what is known about the dress and settings of that period and place- the mid-19th century England. Some of the characters here don't fit the parts well That's most noticeable especially in the two ghosts - of Christmas past and present. And, while his performance as Scrooge is good, Patrick Stewart overacts, especial in the first half in his meanness. He probably wanted to impress audiences as being the most believable and hateful miser. But that has another effect - a negative one in the last scenes of the film,. He conversion and change of heart is the more unbelievable. And, that puts a major crimp on the whole story.

This is a good film to watch if one doesn't have the 1938, 1951 or 1984 versions.

Another amazing performance by an amazing actor

[princebe · 8/10 · 13 December 1999]

Bravo to TNT pictures for putting together two things that were made for each other; the role of Ebenezer Scrooge and the acting of Patrick Stewart. I could think of no other current actor who could approach Stewarts ability to grasp this complex role and after viewing the film I am convinced; Stewart is a genius.

It was the best of Scrooge, it was the worst of Scrooge. READ CAREFULLY

[aramis-112-804880 · 6/10 · 14 December 2017]

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.

By FAR the most Faithful to the overall Dickens' tale!

[Nola6015 · 9/10 · 13 December 2008]

I tend to assume that most who view any version of this tale, have read the original at least once, hence it is my wont to write it in what is dubbed, "spoiler" mode; albeit I hardly find it much of a "spoil" in describing a story which is fairly universally known. To cite a perhaps overused phrase: the Devil is in the details! That said, of all the uncounted dozens, nay hundreds of adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" put to film, I have found this adaptation to be far and away the most faithful to Dickens.

And yet, it does have its shortcomings:

1.) It overcompensates for the perceived ignorant masses in changing dialog to a more modern vocabulary--a thing many may appreciate, but being a purist I find somewhat irksome. Examples include changing "situation" to "job"… "Walk-ER" to "You're Joshing!", "Half a crown" to "two shillings," and "Blind Man's Buff," to "Bluff" among several others. Okay, okay... you might think these picky in the extreme; and so be it. I want a story related as told by the author; I expect it to be as written. If they truly want to put it in a modern lexicon, why not simply accept any of the modern adaptations that have done just that... like "Scrooged" with Bill Murray? --and have done with it!

2.) By far the most egregious shortcoming in your humble writer's opinion is the silly need to change the name of Fan, to Fran. Say what? Why alter a perfectly legitimate name, and the one the author of the story designated for Scrooge's beloved sister? They also depict Scrooge's niece's sister, (the "plump" one) whom Topper pursues, as anything but "plump"... she looks downright anorexic.

3.) I do wish they'd have given us a short scene from the past: where Scrooge can lament what he lost in Belle's love, as she is depicted in the story with all her happy children and the husband Scrooge might have been!

4.) The movie begins with Marley's funeral, an oversight I can forgive as it nevertheless allows for a reference to his being "dead as a doornail" and delightfully from the text a reference to the "deadest piece of ironmongery"...the scene is brief, quickly shifting to the opening scene of the storyline.

5.) Those beads of light for eyes in the spirit of Christmas Yet to Come really need to go. They might add a more creepy phantom; but detract from the mystery as related in the novel by lines suggesting all Scrooge could detect behind that hood was a darkness in which he could "sense" those eyes!

So Why a 9/10 with all these "shortcomings"? Quite simply because they are trivial, in light of all of the positives:

1.) Most of the dialog is recognizably straight from the text .

2.) Unlike many versions that have this irrepressible compulsion to impose at least one female spirit, this one remains true in that both past and present are decidedly male, which makes sense since even in the ridiculous versions changing the past to a female, the very next "spirit" refers to all of his predecessors as his 1800 plus "brothers"... nary a sister in the lot. Additionally Joel Grey truly does resemble the diminutive spirit who looks both old, and young --the only thing missing was all the morphing which no version I know of depicts.

3.) Its faithful presentation of the spirits continues as we see the spirit of Christmas Present age as his time draws to a close, another thing so far as I know, found in no other version. His remonstrance of Scrooge's "wicked cant" is line-for-line from the story.

4.) We get to laugh at Topper's thinly veiled (pun intended) pursuit of the not-so-plump sister playing at blind man's buff, and while Fred's house could hardly be described as looking "poor enough", the scenes of fun follow the story well.

5.) Even though we do not get to see the horse-drawn hearse ascending the stairway, we do note the fireplace is exactly as described in the book, with the biblical scenes, and in many of them the face of Marley (from that door-knocker) returns to haunt Scrooge. Pity he had to refer to an underdone "turnip" when the text clearly states potato, but how satisfying it was to note that, exactly as in the book, Marley's jaw drops literally to his breast upon unwrapping, and how it "snaps shut" upon its being re-wrapped. The spirits outside, also, true to those described in the book, as bemoaning their inability to intercede, and fettered to items such as safes, and money-boxes.

6.) Fan is actually a little girl, and not a practically grown woman, and very much rekindles the mind's-eye view of this little angel's excitement when she tells an actual boy (not a grown man) that "father is so much nicer now"... again, fidelity is the driving positive force.

7.) The scenes of Scrooge's transformation include his actually going "to church"...something from the book which I failed to note in every other cinematic effort. He sings, he plots and schemes to ambuscade Cratchit the next day, and the closing narration is literally from the final paragraph in the original text.

While some concessions must be made, the scenes, and depictions of this version, impel me to give it the highest rating of any version I have seen. One can truthfully revisit their mind's creations upon having read the story! Perhaps Scott is a better Scrooge, (But Stewart is good!) and the nephew from either the 1951 or the 1938 version better representatives of those characters, the sum total of this version, make it far and away the very best a Dickens purist can hope to possess, given the current choices. At least in this Dickens fan's humble opinion.

Very good...but unnecessary.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 24 December 2013]

Patrick Stewart stars as Ebenezer Scrooge in this relatively recent version of "A Christmas Carol". It is well acted and well produced--with nice sets and costumes. And, it provides pretty much the same experience as watching any other version of the story. To date, there have been approximately 1,272,347,234,913,948,251 versions and variations of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". Few of them are terrible and most do a decent job of conveying the story*. So I say, why make more?! Why don't we just watch of the best ones, such as the 1984 version with George C. Scott or the 1951 version with Alistair Sim? Now the 1999 version with Patrick Stewart is good--but why try to keep re-inventing something that's been done very well already?!?! My advice is no matter how good this version is, what is the point of yet another? Call me a Scrooge, but I say 'bah, humbug' to all the corporate folks who keep re-using this public domain tale instead of trying to create something new. And, 'bah, humbug' to the fact that MOST versions emphasize the Christmas aspect of the story but gloss over the social message originally intended by Dickens.

*Horrible versions of this over-used story include many kids' versions such as one starring Mr. Magoo, "A Bugs Bunny Christmas Carol" (I love Looney Tunes, but this one was bad), the Flintstone version (they were alive BEFORE Jesus was born...think about it) and although I haven't yet seen it, I am almost 100% positive the new Smurf version is awful.

After the Alastair Sim version, this is the best one

[critic-2 · 9/10 · 6 December 1999]

The makers of this newest film version of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" have clearly been influenced by the atmosphere sustained in the British versions, and not the sentimentalized M-G-M version (thank God!), or for that matter, the last big-scale TV version with George C. Scott. Patrick Stewart's influence on the production as both star and executive producer, as well as his deep respect for the material is clearly obvious here. Stewart's performance as Scrooge is clearly the best since the great Alastair Sim claimed virtual ownership of the role--he, too, seems to feel the role of Scrooge inside him as few others do--not even the late, great George C.Scott gave us a performance like this. Stewart shows a controlled bitterness, resentfulness and sarcasm in the early scenes comparable to Sim's, and if he doesn't seem quite as lovable bouncing around his gloomy house at the end as Sim did, he still does a remarkable job throughout the film.

Another excellent touch is that the filmmakers have thankfully resisted the temptation to "lighten things up" by emphasizing the jolly side of Christmas at the expense of the story, as so many other versions have done. We see the old, worn sign "Scrooge and Marley" outside Scrooge's office,and the squalor of the poor side of London is never forgotten. For once, Bob Cratchit's house really does look like the second-rate dwelling it's supposed to be, and the two children hiding in the robe of the Ghost of Christmas Present are truly pathetic. But there are several excellent touches in this film that are completely absent from other versions----among the most inspiring and beautiful is the "lighthouse montage" in which, with the help of computer effects (used in a Dickens film for the first time), we see carolers singing Christmas songs in different places, different languages, and different parts of the world. The idea of using digital special effects might make you uneasy enough to think that they might remind you more of "The Terminator" or "Star Wars" than Dickens, but they don't, even if Scrooge really does pass through walls here,and if, for once, Marley's jaw really does look as if it's about to fall off. The only touch I found really false is the apparent "earthquake" in the graveyard, as well as Scrooge's falling into the grave.

Richard E. Grant is a touching, vulnerable Bob Cratchit, but his portrayal and those of the other Cratchits are never allowed to get mushily out-of-hand, not even Tiny Tim. The ghosts are also quite good,though I could have done without the glowing eyes of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come. Dickens did not intend those eyes to be seen, and that DOES remind me of Darth Vader, when it shouldn't.

The language of the original story has also been, for good or bad (depending on your taste) been somewhat colloquialized. It may be easier for children that way, but,then, on the other hand, much of this film may be too intense for them.

Not enough miserliness, not enough joy

[rpawliko · 7/10 · 15 December 2005]

Don't get me wrong, I like Patrick Stewart, but I love "A Christmas Carol", and I feel that this version falls a bit short.

First the good. Great production values - you can almost smell London circa 1845 looking at this version. The ghostly effects, esp. Marley and Christmas Past, are right on the mark.

Also some interesting choices in the film work. Scrooge and Christmas Past walking through the old school building, and having the building change from an apparent burned out shell to the facility it was in Scrooge's day (and back again) was inspired.

Pretty good casting all around. Joel Grey steals this show as Christmas Past - an excellent performance. Stewart is very good, though I wanted more range from him. Tiny Tim was handled well - the part is all too frequently sacharine. I've nothing good to say about Christmas yet to come - it doesn't seem like much of a part, until you see how bad it can be in this version.

I was unsatisfied with the Ghost of Christmas Present. I've always liked the Ghost of Christmas Present as seen in the 1951 version (aka, "The Alistair Sim version") - Scrooge is overwhelmed with what is spread before him. In this version, Stewart hardly seems surprised at the "bounty" before him. No surprise, as it's a fairly meager bounty to begin with.

The Ghost of Christmas yet to come? Bah! Humbug! It seems like the production was filmed in sequence, and they ran out of money in the third act. A tall dark figure with glowing red eyes - looking more like a character from the first "Star Wars" movie than a specter from the grave. Not even a bony hand, but a fleshy grip that looked like it belonged to a butcher more than a reaper.

The transformation of Scrooge from miser to Christmas fanatic lacks the range I'd hope to see. If most of us are at a mid-point on the Christmas spirit scale, I would hope to see Scrooge start out at a (-10) and go to a +10 - at least when he wakes on Christmas morning. For me, Stewart starts at about a (-2) and goes to about a +5. Again, in the Sim version, his reformed Scrooge is all laughter, dancing, head-standing, JOY.

Stewart's Scrooge seems more like a man that has recovered from a bad cold.

Still, it's worth watching, especially the Christmas Past scenes. I'm sticking with the '51 version as my favorite, but this one shows that someone may yet get this story right in an up to date production.

Joyless, inert, disappointing and depressing

[Marta · 1/10 · 5 December 1999]

I've just finished watching Patrick Stewart's "Carol", and am mightily disappointed. A more joyless production I've never seen; "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol" was a masterpiece compared to this (actually it is far superior to most "Carol's" and a favorite of mine), and Mr. Magoo a far better actor. I've got lots of bones to pick with him for his adaptation, but here are just a few. I know he's been playing Scrooge on stage and it's a hit, but something was very wrong with this TV version.

In both the 1951 Alister Sim version and the 1984 George C. Scott version, the Ghost of Christmas Present was a strong, jovial presence who roundly told Scrooge what was what. I just watched the 1984 version this morning, and Edward Woodward's portrayal of this ghost was bold, forceful and unforgettable. He didn't mince words and Scrooge got the point. Stewart's chosen actor looked like he'd raided Eva Gabor's closet to get dressed for his part, and he acted like a henpecked husband who was afraid he'd get decked if he spoke above a whisper. I could barely hear his lines, and he had no personality. In fact, none of the actors in this thing had any personality.

Richard E. Grant was charmless and so was Tiny Tim; the Ghost of Christmas yet to come looked like a 7-foot-tall Jawa; and worst of all, I didn't care a fig about Stewart's Scrooge and whether he was redeemed or not. There was nothing he did during those two hours to make me care; no spark of emotion, no regret in his eyes, nothing. I've always liked Patrick Stewart, but I don't think this is a role suited to him. He doesn't have that inate warmth that a Scrooge needs, to force you to care about him, and he doesn't have a mobile enough face. It seemed frozen in a perpetual glare, even when he was supposedly happy. The only warmth I got from the entire production was at the very end, when Cratchit's family was on Scrooge's doorstep. A great waste of 2 hours time, except that some of the special effects were quite good.