I want to start out by admitting I really don't like musicals. I usually find them silly, boring and they give me a headache. Thankfully none of these happened any of the times I watched NBC's enchanting musical starring Kelsey Grammar as Scrooge. What a delight! The songs were very good, the production values superb and the true spirit of Dickens' novel came through! I was particularly impressed with Grammar's Scrooge and Jesse L. Martin as the Ghost of Christmas Present. I really only watched this because I adore Jennifer Love Hewitt, I'd watch her in hour-long commercial for fruit! But I really thought this was just great. Every time I watch I like it better!
83 Reviews
Likable version
einezcrespo26 December 2005
I read some of the comments regarding this version of A Christmas Carol and someone wrote about the bad "English accents." I found it ironic because four members of the ensemble are British musicals stars in their own right. They are Linzi Hateley, Claire Moore, Ruthie Henshall and Dave Willets. While Kelsy Grammar is great as a performer I wasn't sure about his take on Scrooge. His moodiness was like that of Frasier Crane. He was upstaged by all of the Christmas ghosts particularly Jesse L Martin. Jane Krakowski sexiness as the Ghost of Christmas past seems a little out of place. On the whole it is a good production and well sung. I did like this version and wouldn't mind watching it again even if the non English actor's have bad "English accents."
Mediocre, but shines in places
IDanceWithFishes27 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
There are some things that work here, and some that...don't. Some of the music is formulaic, with shades of Menken's older work (Beauty and the Beast, anyone?) And the lyrics can go from clever to damn dreadful in a blink of an eye, depending on the song. The music doesn't hold up here, but the story, and character interaction, does handsomely.
A good example is Scrooge's past. Jacob Marley is a key player in Scrooge's development, something what has been left out in previous adaptations, which works wonderfully here. The story has been changed quite drastically from the book, but it gives a fresh take on Scrooge's relationship with his past. Emily (this version's Belle) sorrowfully rejects Scrooge in his own office, not even allowing Marley to escape her attentions. Scrooge allows Fezziwig to fall into debt by refusing him in a loan in case of a small risk to his business. Despite the softer and lighter feel of this version, his past is bitter and sad. He alienates all that once loved him, excluding Marley. And when Jason Alexander, in a lovely, subtle scene, mumbles about not feeling well, and collapses in the office, the clipped yet urgent concern of Scrooge is truly heartbreaking. This is by far the most poignant rendition of Past's visit, and despite this is far from my most cherished version, this segment is my favourite depiction of Scrooge's past.
It is sickly in places, and not afraid to load on the schmaltz. But it has some effective scenes (the depiction of Scrooge's future is a dark little number, and well done.) A special mention goes to Jason's Alexander's Marley, and the spirited and macabre "Link by Link" which is elevated to a greater level by lively performances and some chilling imagery. And the acting of young Scrooge and Marley is believable in their growing coldness. If only the whole of the film had been as emotionally raw as those ones in the office! Apart from that, pretty safe stuff. Light enough for a watch on Christmas Eve with the family. But I warn you; some of those lyrics will haunt you beyond the grave. And the typical cod accents.
Overall, not a bad adaptation.
A good example is Scrooge's past. Jacob Marley is a key player in Scrooge's development, something what has been left out in previous adaptations, which works wonderfully here. The story has been changed quite drastically from the book, but it gives a fresh take on Scrooge's relationship with his past. Emily (this version's Belle) sorrowfully rejects Scrooge in his own office, not even allowing Marley to escape her attentions. Scrooge allows Fezziwig to fall into debt by refusing him in a loan in case of a small risk to his business. Despite the softer and lighter feel of this version, his past is bitter and sad. He alienates all that once loved him, excluding Marley. And when Jason Alexander, in a lovely, subtle scene, mumbles about not feeling well, and collapses in the office, the clipped yet urgent concern of Scrooge is truly heartbreaking. This is by far the most poignant rendition of Past's visit, and despite this is far from my most cherished version, this segment is my favourite depiction of Scrooge's past.
It is sickly in places, and not afraid to load on the schmaltz. But it has some effective scenes (the depiction of Scrooge's future is a dark little number, and well done.) A special mention goes to Jason's Alexander's Marley, and the spirited and macabre "Link by Link" which is elevated to a greater level by lively performances and some chilling imagery. And the acting of young Scrooge and Marley is believable in their growing coldness. If only the whole of the film had been as emotionally raw as those ones in the office! Apart from that, pretty safe stuff. Light enough for a watch on Christmas Eve with the family. But I warn you; some of those lyrics will haunt you beyond the grave. And the typical cod accents.
Overall, not a bad adaptation.
NOT bad at all!!
RosalieBustingMyBowls8 December 2004
Well, from everyones reaction, I expected to HATE this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised! I really think people expected too much. This is a TV movie, not a Broadway musical! For a TV movie, it does it's job VERY well. As a Theatre lover, I really enjoyed everyone in the cast. Jesse L. Martin was wonderful, as was Kelsey Grammar. It was Jennifer Love Hewitt who REALLY surprised me though. What a lovely voice!! She really is a terrific actress. She's only in two scenes, and she steals both of them. Her song "A Place Called Home" with the Young Ebeneezer is a genuinely touching moment. Most of the score is VERY hummable, and i've always enjoyed Meknens music. I really don't get all the hatred this movie has gotten. Sure it has it's problems, but we can't always expect perfection, especially from a made-for-TV movie. I will Definitely buy the DVD when it comes out!!
Watchable
jpintar28 November 2004
This umptenth version of A Christmas is watchable, but is not great. Maybe the musical numbers worked better on stage, but in this TV movie the numbers just get in the way of the telling of the story. Kelsey Grammar is hammier than Albert Finney in the 1970 musical of Scrooge. The movie also makes unnecessary changes to the story (since when did Scrooge's father go to debtor's prison?) that feel like outtakes from Oliver Twist, not A Christmas Carol. There have been worse tellings of A Christmas Carol before, such as the obnoxious Scrooged with Bill Murrary. However, I'll personally stick with the 1951 version with Alistar Sim or the 1984 George C. Scott version. If you want a musical version, go with the Muppet Christmas Carol. The story is still compelling, however, and this version is worth your time. 6/10
Not perfect, but very charming and movingly done.
jfeezel15 December 2004
There have been so many productions of Dickens' classic that it is hard to be different and good. This one surprisingly was both. Most striking was the seemingly very authentic settings--sets, decorations, costumes, characters all seem to take us back to Dickens' London. The music was quite good overall, some songs not as strong but most were hummable and the lyric captured the story and mood. Choreography though anachronistic at times had some very good moments. The women soldiers in the theater seemed a take-off on the Rockettes. The leads performed well, especially a strong K. G. in acting and (yes) SINGING (surprise). Those who hated this will find flaws to pick at, but perhaps we expect too much from an overworked Seasonal classic. It was entertaining and worth the viewing!
A Bit Disappointing
screenman18 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I missed the beginning few minutes of this movie, so I spent quite some time thinking that the part of Scrooge was played by Tim Robbins. Otherwise, I just stayed for the ride.
As an adaptation of Dickens' moral story, it follows the general thread pretty closely but tends to play fast and loose with many of the details. And with Dickens, the devil's all too often IN the detail.
Otherwise, it's the first musical version of Christmas Carol (so far as I recollect) which is surprising, really. If ever any stories lend themselves to musical filmography, those of Dickens do because they're so brimming with humour. Lionel Bart's outstanding production of 'Oliver' showed just what can be done way back in - what - 1969? And it was such a success that I've always been amazed that more productions didn't jump on the bandwagon. But there you go.
Still, There's plenty of songs, of a rather unmemorable kind. And there's a cast who give really vigorous - if uninvolving - returns for their paycheques. Some detailed, comparatively seamless, recreations of Victorian London provide a nice sense of place. Many entail expansive camera pans. In fact camera-work is probably its best feature. Costumes also measure-up, so to speak. It's obvious that plenty of people put a lot of thought and hard work into realising this movie.
But somehow, it just didn't gel for me. I'm an ardent Dickens fan, but I'm not a purist, and Bart's 'Oliver' still remains one of my favourite movies, as well as a favourite recreation of The Master's work. Of all criticisms, I suspect the songs were a bit too bland. No melodies were lodged in my head at the end, unlike 'Oliver'. I mean - let's be honest - Ron Moody's rendition of 'You've Got To Pick A Pocket Or two' is alone worth the price of a DVD. The ghosts could certainly have been more imaginative too, for 2004. And Ebenezer himself might have given more expression. In the end, I was left disappointed.
However, as I say; the movie has plenty of good points to recommend it. There's an astonishing number of extras wandering about for a TV movie. I just don't think you'll be investing in the soundtrack.
Consider yourself - shortchanged.
As an adaptation of Dickens' moral story, it follows the general thread pretty closely but tends to play fast and loose with many of the details. And with Dickens, the devil's all too often IN the detail.
Otherwise, it's the first musical version of Christmas Carol (so far as I recollect) which is surprising, really. If ever any stories lend themselves to musical filmography, those of Dickens do because they're so brimming with humour. Lionel Bart's outstanding production of 'Oliver' showed just what can be done way back in - what - 1969? And it was such a success that I've always been amazed that more productions didn't jump on the bandwagon. But there you go.
Still, There's plenty of songs, of a rather unmemorable kind. And there's a cast who give really vigorous - if uninvolving - returns for their paycheques. Some detailed, comparatively seamless, recreations of Victorian London provide a nice sense of place. Many entail expansive camera pans. In fact camera-work is probably its best feature. Costumes also measure-up, so to speak. It's obvious that plenty of people put a lot of thought and hard work into realising this movie.
But somehow, it just didn't gel for me. I'm an ardent Dickens fan, but I'm not a purist, and Bart's 'Oliver' still remains one of my favourite movies, as well as a favourite recreation of The Master's work. Of all criticisms, I suspect the songs were a bit too bland. No melodies were lodged in my head at the end, unlike 'Oliver'. I mean - let's be honest - Ron Moody's rendition of 'You've Got To Pick A Pocket Or two' is alone worth the price of a DVD. The ghosts could certainly have been more imaginative too, for 2004. And Ebenezer himself might have given more expression. In the end, I was left disappointed.
However, as I say; the movie has plenty of good points to recommend it. There's an astonishing number of extras wandering about for a TV movie. I just don't think you'll be investing in the soundtrack.
Consider yourself - shortchanged.
What a Waste of Talent (Warning Spoiler)
smit81529 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
There is no question that Kelsey Grammar, Jason Alexander, and Alan Menken are talented people. But this rendition of the Christmas Carol may be the very worst I have ever seen. It stank. The line deliveries were flat. There was no passion in the characters or in the lines that were given. I've seen better acting in kindergarten plays.
I suspect the problem is that the above people are more steeped in comedy and light hearted musicals. The Christmas Carol is serious and needs passion.
I recommend my favorite version - the 1970 Albert Finney version called "Scrooge". The Allistair Sims version, or George C. Scott version are far better than this production. The Mr McGoo version was better than this version.
Andy Smith
I suspect the problem is that the above people are more steeped in comedy and light hearted musicals. The Christmas Carol is serious and needs passion.
I recommend my favorite version - the 1970 Albert Finney version called "Scrooge". The Allistair Sims version, or George C. Scott version are far better than this production. The Mr McGoo version was better than this version.
Andy Smith
First rate TV Fare, loved it.
LT-1029 November 2004
I couldn't get enough of this! Catchy tunes and and fast pacing kept it going right to the end. Can't wait to add this to my collection as another great version of A Christmas Carol.
I've noticed some complaints about the adding of characters and slight plots changes. Well, I WELCOMED these. It makes the story fresh and interesting, I mean come on! We all love this story but have seen it/heard it/read it exactly the same many many times.
Be sure to catch Jason Alexander's song, as well as the one at Fezziwig's. They hightlight a strong musical score. I'm hoping for a soundtrack. Honorable mention to Jennifer Love Hewitt, I wasn't sure what to expect having only hearing her sing pop. But she holds her own here and shows versatility with her voice.
A Christmas Carol is a great, simple, musical. Large chorus numbers filled with choreography and soft ballads. It is a welcomed break from the attention deficit Moulin Rouge and scene-stealer infested Chicago.
I've noticed some complaints about the adding of characters and slight plots changes. Well, I WELCOMED these. It makes the story fresh and interesting, I mean come on! We all love this story but have seen it/heard it/read it exactly the same many many times.
Be sure to catch Jason Alexander's song, as well as the one at Fezziwig's. They hightlight a strong musical score. I'm hoping for a soundtrack. Honorable mention to Jennifer Love Hewitt, I wasn't sure what to expect having only hearing her sing pop. But she holds her own here and shows versatility with her voice.
A Christmas Carol is a great, simple, musical. Large chorus numbers filled with choreography and soft ballads. It is a welcomed break from the attention deficit Moulin Rouge and scene-stealer infested Chicago.
Most other versions are better but this is ok.
kelseylaura-4716224 December 2022
If you are looking for a version that is very close to the Dicken's story this will disappoint you. If you are just looking for something fun to watch at Christmastime then this is fine. It does tell the basic story but adds some extra scenes and characters. The songs are mediocre but the singers are good. Kelsey Grammer is a good actor but he does much better as Fraser Crane than as Ebenezer Scrooge. He isn't bad as Scrooge but he isn't great either. This version was a Broadway musical so it looks much more like that than a story set in old England. Grab some popcorn and beverage and watch it for fun. Then watch the 1951 and the 1984 versions.
Unwatchable!
sqrunner29 November 2004
This is the worst version of "A Christmas Carol" that I've ever seen (for the 20 minutes or so that I could bear to watch). Charles Dickens must be rolling in his grave. I know you need to take liberties when adapting a book to screen, but inventing the idea of Scrooge's father going to debtor's prison is ridiculous. It may play well on Broadway, but does not translate well to TV. The musical numbers were laughable and unintelligible. Jason Alexander (who was great in the musical "Cinderella") sounded like he was doing in a parody of "If I Were a Rich Man" from Fiddler on the Roof. Stick with the Alistair Sims, Reginald Owens or Patrick Stewart version.
Enjoyable, heart-warming version of the classic.
slasheuse4 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
With music from the composer of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, it's not hard to see why this striking reworking of the classic is such a success. I can't over-emphasise how great the music in this film is; strong, dependable themes with some of the best lyrics I've ever heard in a musical.
Visually, some of the filmmakers' decisions are very bold (the costumes of the Ghost of Christmas Past and the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come), but it's important to remember that most of what we think of as "normal" for the ghosts' costumes in musical versions of the novel have NOTHING to do with Dickens' version anyway. In the actual book, the first Ghost is an old man; usually on film it's played as a child and Jane Krakowski's version is a fully-grown woman. In fact, this adaptation is actually MUCH closer to the book than the better-known film versions; the two children Ignorance and Want are included, and the book's religious (don't worry, it's not too heavy) and social messages are brought to the fore. The reworking of Scrooge's early life surprised me a bit, but it was very plausibly done, presumably to reflect Charles Dickens's own early experiences. Jennifer Love Hewitt is unexpectedly brilliant as Emily (though I don't get why they changed her name).
And... I was holding my breath, preparing to be appalled by the accents, but Grammar is fine. His wig is awful, but he's pretty good, and sings well. Most of the accents are brilliant, and there are lots of strong British ensemble stars such as Ruthie Henshall. The music is fab. My mum bought this for me as a possibly-ironic Christmas present, and our whole family loved it. Give it a try!
Visually, some of the filmmakers' decisions are very bold (the costumes of the Ghost of Christmas Past and the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come), but it's important to remember that most of what we think of as "normal" for the ghosts' costumes in musical versions of the novel have NOTHING to do with Dickens' version anyway. In the actual book, the first Ghost is an old man; usually on film it's played as a child and Jane Krakowski's version is a fully-grown woman. In fact, this adaptation is actually MUCH closer to the book than the better-known film versions; the two children Ignorance and Want are included, and the book's religious (don't worry, it's not too heavy) and social messages are brought to the fore. The reworking of Scrooge's early life surprised me a bit, but it was very plausibly done, presumably to reflect Charles Dickens's own early experiences. Jennifer Love Hewitt is unexpectedly brilliant as Emily (though I don't get why they changed her name).
And... I was holding my breath, preparing to be appalled by the accents, but Grammar is fine. His wig is awful, but he's pretty good, and sings well. Most of the accents are brilliant, and there are lots of strong British ensemble stars such as Ruthie Henshall. The music is fab. My mum bought this for me as a possibly-ironic Christmas present, and our whole family loved it. Give it a try!
Dreadful!
paul_loader13 December 2005
I really am sorry! I hate saying negative things about other people's work. I really tried hard to like this version of one of my favourites, especially having bought the DVD. Part of the trouble is I think that many of our friends across the pond have seen Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins and think that this is really what us Brits sound like. I'm sorry guys, we don't sound or act like that anymore than the stereotype that all Americans are loud and wear checked trousers. But what can I say, it was flippin awful! I can't blame it on being a musical. The Albert Finney version from 1970 is stunning and I am looking forward to taking my family to see the stage version this Christmas. The feel was wrong! there were gaping great plot holes that Dickens certainly didn't write (where the hell did nephew Fred get all his money from if he was born in abject poverty for a start). The acting wouldn't have looked out of place in a pantomime. And Dickensian England looked a very clean and posh place full of....well....Dick Van Dyke stereotypes!
Now if you want to see how it should be done. Go back to Hallmarks non musical version with our own Patrick Stewart (he was so good I stopped expecting him to say 'make it so' in about 5 mins). George C Scott's version is pretty good and as I said the original musical was excellent.
As I said, I am sorry to be so negative. And to be honest, my daughter loved it! But then she watches Charmed!
Now if you want to see how it should be done. Go back to Hallmarks non musical version with our own Patrick Stewart (he was so good I stopped expecting him to say 'make it so' in about 5 mins). George C Scott's version is pretty good and as I said the original musical was excellent.
As I said, I am sorry to be so negative. And to be honest, my daughter loved it! But then she watches Charmed!
A Beautiful Film with a great cast and an equally great score.
jpforbes22 December 2004
When I first watched this movie I didn't even get to see the whole thing but even without the ending I knew this was worth watching again so when Hallmark repeated it I naturally sat back down and didn't move from beginning to end. This is a beautifully put together film and the cast is fabulous. Jennifer Love Hewitt as Emily was the best rendition of the role I'd ever seen. The role is small but she managed to do something with her two short scenes that I have never seen done in any version of this story. The score is something I could listen to for weeks on end especially my two favourite songs: The Nights Of Long Ago and A Place Called Home. Both these songs were beautifully performed especially by the two main ladies (The Ghost of Christmas past and Emily). The weird thing is that when I first heard the score I didn't realize it was written by Alan Menken. I have been a fan of this composer for years ever since I was a kid watching the classic Disney movies like 'The Little Mermaid' and 'Aladdin'. I swear that when I first watched it I said "Wow! this sounds like something Alan Menken would write". So you can imagine my delight at finding out it was in fact him who composed the music for this film. I say that if you read reviews before seeing the movie it's a waste of time because someone's always going to disagree with your final decision of what you think of the film. So don't take my word for it... Watch the movie and make up your own mind about it. It will be repeated on Hallmark on the 25th and 26th of the month and early next year as well. I hope you'll/you'v Enjoy/ed the film as much as I have. Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
the show was very entertining, loved the cast
jerseyladygreen4 December 2004
i totally disagree with the review i just read of how terrible it was. i thought it was done in taste, and i thought jesse martin in his role as present ghost was fantastic. i had no idea he was that talented, and enjoyed him very much in the show. i thought the story followed exactly what the store was about, and i liked the idea of Grammar playing Scrooge, he was terrific. i have it on tape, and i will put it in my files for a keeper. i will keep going to the present, just to watch Jesse sing and a little dancing. i was very surprised to read the review above that i just read. i don't see any of the things wrong that the person making the comment said. again, i loved it.
If you respect Dickens, avoid this.
Genesplicer28 November 2004
Since I love the works of Charles Dickens, especially "A Christmas Carol", I decided to tune in and watch this latest version of his masterpiece. I can't even finish it. It's a musical. A poorly done musical. The songs are unbelievably poor. The acting is bad. And sadly, probably the worst part for a purist such as myself is the fact that they have added characters and scenes not in the story. Why? The story is great the way it is, why change it?
I was saddened to see how poor this production is. There are many, many good productions. Check out the others.
Go watch Patrick Stewart's version, on stage, if possible.
Or read the book and use your own imagination. Don't waste your time on this one.
I was saddened to see how poor this production is. There are many, many good productions. Check out the others.
Go watch Patrick Stewart's version, on stage, if possible.
Or read the book and use your own imagination. Don't waste your time on this one.
Engaging, New Christmas Classic
edwardaretz29 November 2004
A wonderful movie. Hard to believe it was made for TV.
Alan Menkin's wonderful music. This is not a made for TV musical. It has a engaging cast, memorable music, and wonderful choreography. Kellsey Grammar is a revaluation!!! Once you get over that Frasier Crain is playing Scrooge, his musical timing is extraordinary.
The direction is moving. The songs seem familiar as they are woven into the story and are often reprised to great effect. The reprises are never hokey.
This production is much too good for TV. It is much like Oliver, another Dickens tale made into a musical, and while not quite as good, it has no right to be either, as it played in the theaters for years and had a much bigger budget, on a relative basis. Destined to be an annual classic!!!
Alan Menkin's wonderful music. This is not a made for TV musical. It has a engaging cast, memorable music, and wonderful choreography. Kellsey Grammar is a revaluation!!! Once you get over that Frasier Crain is playing Scrooge, his musical timing is extraordinary.
The direction is moving. The songs seem familiar as they are woven into the story and are often reprised to great effect. The reprises are never hokey.
This production is much too good for TV. It is much like Oliver, another Dickens tale made into a musical, and while not quite as good, it has no right to be either, as it played in the theaters for years and had a much bigger budget, on a relative basis. Destined to be an annual classic!!!
Oh My God - Truly Awful
njmackem29 November 2004
Trailers in the build up to this show made it look very promising. Shame all the highlights of it were in the trailers.
Never in all my days have I ever seen such a turgid remake of what can only be described as one of the mose heart warming Christmas events.
Grammar made Scrooge look like Frasier on downers, totally wooden and apathetic. Never nasty enough before the visits, not scared or regretful enough during the visits, and too sickly sweet after them.
As for Jason Alexander - how he won a Tony is beyond me. This guy is a one dimensional cretin with all the talent of my little toe. The less this man is on the TV the better for humanity.
Even Jane Krakowski was a let down, Ally McBeal showed what an amazing voice she has, and then she has to work with what can only be described as the most awful musical numbers of all time.
Never have I seen such terrible English accents, such hammish acting and dire choreography. My daughters school version of this classic was better produced, acted and choreographed.
I just hope that these actors have not seen any of Dickens other novels - Imagining Grammar as Fagin in Oliver Twist is too much to contemplate.
Never in all my days have I ever seen such a turgid remake of what can only be described as one of the mose heart warming Christmas events.
Grammar made Scrooge look like Frasier on downers, totally wooden and apathetic. Never nasty enough before the visits, not scared or regretful enough during the visits, and too sickly sweet after them.
As for Jason Alexander - how he won a Tony is beyond me. This guy is a one dimensional cretin with all the talent of my little toe. The less this man is on the TV the better for humanity.
Even Jane Krakowski was a let down, Ally McBeal showed what an amazing voice she has, and then she has to work with what can only be described as the most awful musical numbers of all time.
Never have I seen such terrible English accents, such hammish acting and dire choreography. My daughters school version of this classic was better produced, acted and choreographed.
I just hope that these actors have not seen any of Dickens other novels - Imagining Grammar as Fagin in Oliver Twist is too much to contemplate.
Good adaptation of A Christmas Carol.
OllieSuave-00725 December 2004
I thought this was a pretty good musical of Charles Dickens' classic. Greedy and selfish Scrooge gets visited by the ghosts of colleague Jacob Marley, Christmas Past, Present, and Future and is reformed into a more giving human being.
While a pretty nice and feel-good film, I wished Jennifer Love Hewitt would of gotten more screen time. Other than that, the story, acting, choreography and music were generally on spot. The special effects were well done. Jane Krakowski's portrayal as the Christmas Ghost of the Past was my favorite. They could have, though, used a better Bob Cratchit though, as I think he gave a weak performance.
Overall, a nice feel-good Christmas film that is perfect for the entire family.
Grade B
While a pretty nice and feel-good film, I wished Jennifer Love Hewitt would of gotten more screen time. Other than that, the story, acting, choreography and music were generally on spot. The special effects were well done. Jane Krakowski's portrayal as the Christmas Ghost of the Past was my favorite. They could have, though, used a better Bob Cratchit though, as I think he gave a weak performance.
Overall, a nice feel-good Christmas film that is perfect for the entire family.
Grade B
Awful
smerph11 December 2009
I can only surmise that the people who have given this good reviews watch TV Movies regularly and have incredibly low expectations. I do not, but came to this as fan of the story. I've seen a LOT of adaptations and I can say with certainty that this is the worst one I have ever come across.
I've got nothing against Kelsey Grammar. Though not a Frasier fan, I respect him as an actor and have enjoyed his performances in a lot of other shows and movies. But in this...oh dear. He's awful. Hopelessly miscast and hammy. His repertoire involves squinting and frowning...and that's it.
The rest of the cast fares little better, but they're far from the worst thing about this cheap production. First and foremost, this is a musical but there's not one decent song in the entire film. In fact, the songs aren't really songs at all. It's just dreary dialogue set to verse. There's no choruses, no rhymes, no real lyrics. Just meandering vocals accompanied by dancing that is totally out of place. The whole thing resembles a really bad opera. The only times the movie had my full attention was during the occasional lapses in verse when, mercifully, the script would call upon Dickens's original dialogue.
I didn't think it was possible to mess up an adaptation of Dickens's timeless story so much, but this production enlightened me. While it's a nice idea to show us exactly why Scrooge is a miser (most other adaptations simply explain why he's miserable), to explain that his father was imprisoned is off-book and totally wrong. Bizarrely, this is actually a nod to Dickens himself rather than his creation. Other adjustments (such as Scrooge's lost love Belle being called Emily, or the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come being unmasked from its regular guise as a Grim-reaper style ghoul to a dancing old woman) are not quite as jarring but are still pretty pointless.
Direction is pedestrian. I understand this was originally a theatre production but some sort of effort to transform it cinematically wouldn't have gone amiss. The aforementioned dancing sequences (particularly out of place in the sombre future sequences) go on for far too long and are just totally mundane and unimpressive to an audience watching this on TV.
The whole thing is cheap, dull and unimaginative. There are countless adaptations of this story out there so newcomers should start with Sim. And when it comes to a musical adaptation, look no further than the Muppets.
I've got nothing against Kelsey Grammar. Though not a Frasier fan, I respect him as an actor and have enjoyed his performances in a lot of other shows and movies. But in this...oh dear. He's awful. Hopelessly miscast and hammy. His repertoire involves squinting and frowning...and that's it.
The rest of the cast fares little better, but they're far from the worst thing about this cheap production. First and foremost, this is a musical but there's not one decent song in the entire film. In fact, the songs aren't really songs at all. It's just dreary dialogue set to verse. There's no choruses, no rhymes, no real lyrics. Just meandering vocals accompanied by dancing that is totally out of place. The whole thing resembles a really bad opera. The only times the movie had my full attention was during the occasional lapses in verse when, mercifully, the script would call upon Dickens's original dialogue.
I didn't think it was possible to mess up an adaptation of Dickens's timeless story so much, but this production enlightened me. While it's a nice idea to show us exactly why Scrooge is a miser (most other adaptations simply explain why he's miserable), to explain that his father was imprisoned is off-book and totally wrong. Bizarrely, this is actually a nod to Dickens himself rather than his creation. Other adjustments (such as Scrooge's lost love Belle being called Emily, or the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come being unmasked from its regular guise as a Grim-reaper style ghoul to a dancing old woman) are not quite as jarring but are still pretty pointless.
Direction is pedestrian. I understand this was originally a theatre production but some sort of effort to transform it cinematically wouldn't have gone amiss. The aforementioned dancing sequences (particularly out of place in the sombre future sequences) go on for far too long and are just totally mundane and unimpressive to an audience watching this on TV.
The whole thing is cheap, dull and unimaginative. There are countless adaptations of this story out there so newcomers should start with Sim. And when it comes to a musical adaptation, look no further than the Muppets.
Great Musical
loonstyle29 May 2006
When the TV station played this in 2004, my mom watched it, but she didn't tape it. She didn't think it would be a good version. She loved it! It was not showed again that year. She was really sad about it. In October 2005, it came out on DVD. I wanted to get it for her for Christmas, but I knew that if she saw it in the store she would buy it. So she got a very early present. She ended up getting the soundtrack for Christmas. It is terrific. When you listen to it, it is like you are watching the movie. I knew every scene after the first time I saw it. I would like people to know that even if you don't care for musicals, you should take the time to see the movie. The cast is great and Kelsey Grammar was the best!
Great work
ricrupnik10 January 2005
I have read, and I am surprised by the content and tone of a lot of commentary on the Christmas Carol Musical.
I'd like to express my opinion within the tone taught by the work of Charles Dickens. To do otherwise is just a lot of noise (bible says clanging cymbals).
I enjoyed the TV program very much. I had seen the Madison Square garden production 5 times, excepting 2001 after 9/11. I think Dickens' decision to call his sentimental romance a 'carol' makes it quite fittingly a musical. I do love the 1951 Sim version, and I watch all the others each year; I think they all have a lot to offer in painting the texture of yearly reclamation and redemption for all of us.
Complainers are correct to ask why redo this story over and over in the same way. The Musical adapts the theme and tone of Dickens' novel for today's sentiment; I hope a new crop of actors will do the same in another 20 years for best serving that generation.
As I am reading Dickens novel currently, I am aware that each of the presentations (1930's, 1950's, the various musicals) take liberties with the text of the novel. The adaptations don't bother me as I appreciate the meaning of the words "based on". In the case of the current musical i think the composers and actors have built a touching presentation which, by Dickens' standard, should depict the emptiness of greed and the fullness of caring, even in poverty. The scene near the end in the cemetery is particularly moving, when all of the children enter holding candles and are then joined by Scrooge's mother and sister. The energy of those anticipating Christmas, the energy of the dancing at Fezziwig's, and the simplicity of eager yet simpler anticipation by Crachit's family seems to me a bit more real in our time that earlier filmed versions. (I still enjoy the other versions, however).
I was sad to hear the Madison Square Garden production was to end after Christmas season, 2003, but I am happy to know I can still see this warm, enjoyable production each year to drown out the typical holiday noise and refocus on family, togetherness, and good will.
Perhaps those who only respond with harsh criticism need to reread Dicken's novel and see where his lesson has fallen on deaf ears.
just my 2 shillings :) Ric
I'd like to express my opinion within the tone taught by the work of Charles Dickens. To do otherwise is just a lot of noise (bible says clanging cymbals).
I enjoyed the TV program very much. I had seen the Madison Square garden production 5 times, excepting 2001 after 9/11. I think Dickens' decision to call his sentimental romance a 'carol' makes it quite fittingly a musical. I do love the 1951 Sim version, and I watch all the others each year; I think they all have a lot to offer in painting the texture of yearly reclamation and redemption for all of us.
Complainers are correct to ask why redo this story over and over in the same way. The Musical adapts the theme and tone of Dickens' novel for today's sentiment; I hope a new crop of actors will do the same in another 20 years for best serving that generation.
As I am reading Dickens novel currently, I am aware that each of the presentations (1930's, 1950's, the various musicals) take liberties with the text of the novel. The adaptations don't bother me as I appreciate the meaning of the words "based on". In the case of the current musical i think the composers and actors have built a touching presentation which, by Dickens' standard, should depict the emptiness of greed and the fullness of caring, even in poverty. The scene near the end in the cemetery is particularly moving, when all of the children enter holding candles and are then joined by Scrooge's mother and sister. The energy of those anticipating Christmas, the energy of the dancing at Fezziwig's, and the simplicity of eager yet simpler anticipation by Crachit's family seems to me a bit more real in our time that earlier filmed versions. (I still enjoy the other versions, however).
I was sad to hear the Madison Square Garden production was to end after Christmas season, 2003, but I am happy to know I can still see this warm, enjoyable production each year to drown out the typical holiday noise and refocus on family, togetherness, and good will.
Perhaps those who only respond with harsh criticism need to reread Dicken's novel and see where his lesson has fallen on deaf ears.
just my 2 shillings :) Ric
Perfectly dreadful
adalbertus1 December 2004
What a sorry mess of a retelling of Dickens' holiday classic this is. The only thing Kelsey Grammar was missing was the apple stuffed in his mouth, as this would have completed the picture of the perfect Christmas ham. The dreary cardboard sets evoked something more like the Carpathian villages of grade-B vampire flicks than Dickensian London, and never was I convinced that the outdoor temperature was less than 80 degrees. Add to this the tiresome Menken score (EVERYTHING that this man writes sounds exactly like the last thing he wrote), the most grating and talentless passel of child actors ever to have been paraded before a camera, the phoniest English accents imaginable (it's either highfalutin Oxbridge or exaggerated Cockney, with no gradations in between), a laughable script, and...oh well, to catalog everything that was wrong with this woefully misguided attempt at holiday "entertainment" would run on ad nauseam. And nausea (from too much treacle, probably) was the inevitable result of enduring this fiasco.
Has become a family favorite
swbmoss7 January 2005
My family absolutely loves this musical. Nearly a month after Christmas we find ourselves watching this musical several times a week. The performance provides an excellent opportunity to discuss and teach children the countless lessons of this classic. The music and lyrics touch the heart as few productions can. What a joy to hear your children sing along with the wonderful performances and vocals. Each and every actor does a tremendous, heartfelt job drawing you in to this accurate retelling of Dickens work. I believe this performance will become a classic, and our family believes it is simply the best made for TV production of any kind we have seen in 40 years. A true masterpiece.
Even worse than you can imagine...
innocuous29 November 2004
As I watched this movie (in its entirety) last night, I found myself screaming at the TV and actually getting up to leave the room out of sheer frustration.
The acting was almost uniformly awful; the music and lyrics sounded like advertising jingles and were totally inappropriate to the mood of the story; and the dialogue was both good and original...sadly, the original parts were not good and the good parts were not original (rimshot).
What pained me the most was to see the way the writers totally bastardized the story. One thing that irritated me right from the start was the fact that the story is not told from Scrooge's perspective. It is crucial to the story's unfolding that we hear and see ONLY what Scrooge hear and sees as he is transformed through the visits of the three spirits and Marley.
The writers apparently also decided that Scrooge needed a "better" reason to be a miser, so they decided that Scrooge's father was poor (he was not at all poor in the story) and imprisoned for debts. Scrooge grew up working in a shoe factory (instead of going to a boarding school, as in the story) and decided, like Scarlett O'Hara, that he "would never be poor again!" This completely shatters the richness of the original story, wherein Scrooge comes to love money in the absence of his father's love and attention.
A thoroughly despicable and awful movie. Some people deserve to lose their jobs over this stinker.
Zero stars out of four.
The acting was almost uniformly awful; the music and lyrics sounded like advertising jingles and were totally inappropriate to the mood of the story; and the dialogue was both good and original...sadly, the original parts were not good and the good parts were not original (rimshot).
What pained me the most was to see the way the writers totally bastardized the story. One thing that irritated me right from the start was the fact that the story is not told from Scrooge's perspective. It is crucial to the story's unfolding that we hear and see ONLY what Scrooge hear and sees as he is transformed through the visits of the three spirits and Marley.
The writers apparently also decided that Scrooge needed a "better" reason to be a miser, so they decided that Scrooge's father was poor (he was not at all poor in the story) and imprisoned for debts. Scrooge grew up working in a shoe factory (instead of going to a boarding school, as in the story) and decided, like Scarlett O'Hara, that he "would never be poor again!" This completely shatters the richness of the original story, wherein Scrooge comes to love money in the absence of his father's love and attention.
A thoroughly despicable and awful movie. Some people deserve to lose their jobs over this stinker.
Zero stars out of four.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
