A Christmas Carol (2004)

Excellent adaptation.

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

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.

This film isn't that bad, not perfect, but a long way from being awful. I still consider the Alistair Sim film the definitive version of the timeless story. Well, the best asset has to be Kelsey Grammar's Scrooge. He was brilliant, very good acting and even better at singing. It may be just me, but Grammar does have a fine baritone voice. The other performances are well done, especially Jesse E. Martin and Jane Krakowski(she looked stunning). Jason Alexander does a good job as Jacob Marley and Jennifer Love Hewitt is truly lovely here. It is true that some of the accents are not that great though, and the script isn't given as much detail as there is so evidently in the period detail and the music. And I know there have been complaints of the film straying from the original story, which it does at times. For a TV musical, the production values weren't bad at all. The set designs were excellent and the costumes ravishing. Even the special effects are decent, and I have seen TV movies when they have been appalling. The music is great, the score is beautiful and the songs are hummable. Some are stronger than others, but there are many other musicals out there that are like that as well. In conclusion not bad, not perfect though, but it is worth the look. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I have seen quite a few versions of A Christmas Carol in my time and this is without a doubt the worst adaption of Charles Dickens greatest work ever made. Poor casting, bad acting, uninspired and prolonged dance scenes, scatty songs which certainly do not stir the heart and a rather over the top approach whenever they feel the need to depart from the original script. The film appears to have been a deliberate and disastrously failed attempt at humour, at least one hopes so as that is the only thing that could excuse casting Kelsey Grammar as Scrooge. He does not pass muster as a dramatic actor. Do not waste your time with this musical, it isn't worth it.If you want to see a truly inspired adaption you can't go past Scrooge (1951), which after fifty years still remains superb. If you want to see the truest version of the story then George C. Scott's 1984 portrayal is best. If you want something a little lighter to show the children, then The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) is another excellent adaption with some wonderful songs. If you want a cartoon then the 1971 version with Scrooge's Alastair Sim reprising his role.I would advise sticking to Scrooge though and maybe the Muppet's on a back shelf. Grammar's 'Carol is simply is terrible.