~December 19, 1843 - the date Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" was first published~
This is actually the second re-write I've done for this post.
My original post goes back to 2008. My first update was done back in 2011. But instead of just adding to the update, because this is more than just a re-working of it, I thought it best just to do the whole thing over. For this version - this, um...update...I added more reviews along with a couple of book versions...and a few more bits and surprises.
Plus I am posting this one on the 181st anniversary of "A Christmas Carol's" first publishing back on December 19 in 1843. So if you are a long-time reader and recall my previous post from all those years ago, I think you will enjoy this one even more.
~~~~~~~~
 |
| Charles Dickens |
Hopefully in this posting you can find which version of "A Christmas Carol" is the most suitable to you so you can get your favorite of this wonderful story.
We have always watched at least one film version every Christmas Season, but oftentimes we'll actually read the story. Believe it or not, there can be differences from book to book in the written stories as well, sadly, because some current publishers sometimes try to modernize the words used in an appeal to the 21st century person. Of course, in my opinion, reading it as Charles Dickens originally wrote it is best of all, for this is what took England and then the world by storm.
But...just think: "A Christmas Carol."
Is there any other story that epitomizes what the modern day Christmas celebration is all about? And who would have thought this very English fable written 181 years ago as of this writing (2024) would be every bit as alive today here in the 21st century United States as it was in 1843 England when first published? Gerald Charles Dickens, great great grandson of THE Charles Dickens, was quoted as saying, "The 'Carol' is 10 times more popular in America than it is in England. In England, the 'Carol' is just a story. In America the 'Carol' IS Christmas."
Very true indeed.
 |
| This is a facsimile of the 1st edition 1843 "A CHRISTMAS CAROL" by Charles Dickens exactly as seen in, “The Man Who Invented Christmas.” |
Anyone who knows me knows I am a pretty big fan of Charles Dickens, and have been for years. I have read most of his books, and have seen nearly all of the movie versions of said books. Of course, "A Christmas Carol" is my all-time favorite of his stories. I also very much enjoy the movies made of this particular story, but I do love the book. Original first editions of his works can sometimes run into astronomical prices, especially of "A Christmas Carol." I've seen first editions of this novelette from 1843 go for as low as $15,000 up to $60,000 - just a wee bit out of my price range (lol).
When "A Christmas Carol" appeared on December 19, 1843, it cost a whopping 5 shillings—about $41 in today's U.S. currency. But the book was well received. Its initial print run of more than 6,000 copies sold out in just a week, and Dickens' reputation was revived.
The final product was bound in red cloth with gilt-edged pages, four full-color illustrations done by John Leech, and a beautiful decoratively festive spine.
As for me, after quite a search I'm excited to say that I found as near to an exact replication as anyone these days can find.
As it says in the preface:
"In the preparation of this edition of Dickens's wonderful story, every effort has been made to present an exact replica of the original edition...As far as is possible in these days all points as regards paper, type, illustrations, and binding have been faithfully adhered to."
 |
| The decoratively festive spine |
Yeah...I'm pretty excited...it's awesome what one can find on Ebay - - - Hey---the advertisement said "get a little something for yourself!" so I did! lol
Kind of an early Christmas gift!
From me to me~
The construction of this binding is a wonderful reproduction of the original including cover designs, John Leech's illustrations, in size (4.5 x 6.75), type fonts, and even printing errors found in the original.
As faithful a reproduction as I have yet to see!
I'm still not giving up hope of eventually owning a first edition of "A Christmas Carol" someday, but, for now, I am quite please with this.
Plus I can actually hold onto and read this one without fear of ruining it in any way.
 |
| You can see how the inside looks like the original~ |
A quick story about this story:
One Christmas morning, we had all gathered around the tree, getting ready to open the gifts lying beneath. Patty had asked me to first read the Christmas story from the Bible to keep the meaning of the day in the forefront, so I opened it up to Luke 2: 1-21. I looked down at the page, then I said, in a solemn voice, "Marley was dead; to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that..."
At that point, Patty, looking horrified, explained, "Not THAT story!"
Oh! Me and the kids had a good laugh about that!
Of course, I then read the actual Christmas story from the Bible.
Of course, I then read the actual Christmas story from the Bible.
 |
| Are you ready to hear a ghost story of Christmas in prose? |
I highly recommend reading the original Dickens novel of "A Christmas Carol." It always amazes me how many people have actually never read this story the way Mr. Dickens wrote it in 1843. When my wife did for the first time back in February of 2011, she thoroughly enjoyed it. She got so much more out of it than the filmed adaptions, which is usually the case for books turned into films, isn't it? I read it every year, beginning right around the 1st of November. My favorite is the "Annotated Christmas Carol: A Christmas Carol in Prose" . The original story as Charles Dickens wrote it is here, along with his special "reading copy" he used while on stage. But the main reason this has been my favorite it because Michael Patrick Hearn added annotations (an annotation is a short explanation or note added to a text or image, or the act of adding short explanations or notes) to Dickens' original. I wrote a review of this book on Amazon:
'Simply amazing! That is the best description I can give of this version of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol."
How many times have you ever read this wonderful novel, but overlooked many parts because it may have seemed long-winded, or maybe you just didn't quite understand the Victorian language that Dickens used (and why wouldn't he?)? Being a student of Dickensian England, editor Mr. Michael Patrick Hearn, in this book, thoroughly explains every minute detail of the time period in which this story takes place (1843) throughout the story itself. So much so that after completing this encyclopedia (for it truly is an encyclopedia of 1840s historical knowledge), I felt as if I understood completely what the readers of the time of Dickens must have understood after reading the first edition over 180 years ago. Words, sentences, phrases - all explained descriptively so as we the modern reader now know what Dickens actually meant when writing the words he chose. It opened my eyes much wider to the WHOLE story, not just the famous parts we've all come to know. And you get the complete original novel as well as the 'reading to the public' version that Dickens used while he toured, along with a very informative introduction.
Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" is "A Christmas Carol" no matter which book version you read. But this particular one, however simply put, takes it to another level!'
 |
| To me, this is a must have! |
How many times have you ever read this wonderful novel, but overlooked many parts because it may have seemed long-winded, or maybe you just didn't quite understand the Victorian language that Dickens used (and why wouldn't he?)? Being a student of Dickensian England, editor Mr. Michael Patrick Hearn, in this book, thoroughly explains every minute detail of the time period in which this story takes place (1843) throughout the story itself. So much so that after completing this encyclopedia (for it truly is an encyclopedia of 1840s historical knowledge), I felt as if I understood completely what the readers of the time of Dickens must have understood after reading the first edition over 180 years ago. Words, sentences, phrases - all explained descriptively so as we the modern reader now know what Dickens actually meant when writing the words he chose. It opened my eyes much wider to the WHOLE story, not just the famous parts we've all come to know. And you get the complete original novel as well as the 'reading to the public' version that Dickens used while he toured, along with a very informative introduction.
Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" is "A Christmas Carol" no matter which book version you read. But this particular one, however simply put, takes it to another level!'
Because many of my friends know I am such a fan of this wonderful Christmas tale, every year I receive numerous inquiries asking about my favorite filmed version. Or they'll even ask me through general conversation. So a quite few years ago (2008, I believe) I posted here on 'Passion for the Past' my reviews of the various filmed versions of "A Christmas Carol" that I had originally written as reviews on Amazon.com - so I put them altogether in one posting. Well, I revised it a number of years later, in 2011. So here it is, December 2024, and I believe it's time to do another...only, as I mentioned at the top, there are additions as well as a few changes in my other reviews. Not that my opinion means squat - it's just my opinion. But, I do hope that it helps you decide which direction you may want to go: do you want to read the original, or maybe there's a certain filmed version you'd like to watch this year - hopefully, you'll get a chance to see at least one of 'em.
The links provided for each movie are for the DVD or Blu-Ray.
Are you ready then?
Are you ready then?
Here we go - - - - - ............
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
 |
| Seymour Hicks does make a fine Scrooge. The sets are pretty amazing. |
This is better than one might think for 1935.
However, I feel that they could have come up with better spirits than a light, a shadow, and a voice. I also feel that Scrooge's reformation comes on a bit too fast. He was clearly already a changed man before the Ghost of Christmas Past was finished with its job. And, I have to say that Scrooge's former love, Belle, seemed to be quite the motherly type - we counted at least 14 children from her post-Scrooge marriage!
Now for the pluses: the sets were terrific! Very authentic - I wonder if they were actually filmed in original period structures? The Cratchit's home is perfect for their status, as was the home of nephew Fred. And the showing of Tiny Tim's body lying in state in the Cratchit home gives realism that a few of the other more popular filmed versions haven't touched. Also, seeing Mrs. Cratchit pull out the pudding from the laundry tub gave this that extra bit of authenticity rarely seen anywhere else.
The addition of Queen Victoria celebrating Christmas was unique.
Unfortunately, the quality of the print is not as good as it should be. It's not horrid but not what one is used to from a remastered disc. I am guessing that the original print is long gone. But, it's much much better than the VHS version.
All in all, not bad for its age. Mr. Hicks gives a fine rendition of Ebenezer Scrooge that well done. Especially for 1935.
A worthy DVD, especially if you are a collector and want to own them all.
The one with Reginald Owen as Scrooge - 1938:
A nice, short, light-hearted family version of the Dickens classic. Good for the kiddies to introduce them to this great story. But for the purist, it has its shortcomings. First of all, it deviates frequently from Dickens original story - right from the opening scene in fact. And there is little "spirit" here. For instance, Marley just speaks his part instead of wailing it as one would think a tortured specter would. Bob Cratchit is a bit too portly to be believably poor in my opinion. And, I'm sorry to say, Kathleen
 |
| The grave of old Ebenezer Scrooge |
Another complaint is there is more telling of the story here than actually portrayed. Sort of like a Reader's Digest condensed version. Too bad the script writers wrote too many of their own scenes and changed Dickens' own 'staves,' as well.
I will say this, though, until the one made by Disney in 2009, this was the only version I had seen that explains about the Cratchit's goose being cooked at the bakery, to be picked up at an appointed time on Christmas Day. Many poor people in Victorian England did just that since their homes had too small of an oven or no ovens at all.
All in all, this is probably my least favorite. For the purest, this is not a God awful version. Rather, it's a mediocre one that has its moments.
By the way, Scrooge's sister's name was FAN not Fran.
 |
| Alastair Sim is a great Scrooge! |
The one with Alastair Sim as Scrooge - 1951:
This is the version that many consider to be the definitive filmed Christmas Carol. And it really is an excellent and faithful to the book version. Alastair Sim plays Ebenezer Scrooge like no one else can. The believability factor here for both, the 'old mean Scrooge' and the 'newly transformed Scrooge' is very high, with the transformation itself coming about slowly. And that's what I like about this one. Scrooge doesn't suddenly become happy and giddy from the first of the three spirits, as in the Seymour Hicks and Reginald Owen versions. It takes Sim's old Ebenezer fully until the last spirit to convince him that he truly was a "squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner!"
Victorian London is well represented here, its sinister darkness, dreariness, and hopelessness surrounding the viewer in glorious black and white to further the mood of the dirty old town.
Jacob Marley is excellent here (listen to the way he mourns and moans. Sends chills!). And Mrs. Dilber is hilarious when she meets up with Scrooge on Christmas morning. All three of the Christmas Eve ghosts are as Mr. Dickens described. Considering how little movie magic was used, that's no small feat! Plus they show the Cratchit's removing the pudding from "the copper." But, most important, Scrooge is well played here by Sim and his portrayal is a fine one indeed.
Yes, this is definitely an annual watch for us - my wife's most favorite depiction.
The one with George C. Scott as Scrooge - 1984:
This version is, to me, probably the best of 'em all, though I do really enjoy the Alistair Sim version.
Yes, it's that good.
The opening scene literally grabs you and pulls you into the gray, wintry Dickens London on Christmas Eve day in 1843.
This is the version that many consider to be the definitive filmed Christmas Carol. And it really is an excellent and faithful to the book version. Alastair Sim plays Ebenezer Scrooge like no one else can. The believability factor here for both, the 'old mean Scrooge' and the 'newly transformed Scrooge' is very high, with the transformation itself coming about slowly. And that's what I like about this one. Scrooge doesn't suddenly become happy and giddy from the first of the three spirits, as in the Seymour Hicks and Reginald Owen versions. It takes Sim's old Ebenezer fully until the last spirit to convince him that he truly was a "squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner!"
Victorian London is well represented here, its sinister darkness, dreariness, and hopelessness surrounding the viewer in glorious black and white to further the mood of the dirty old town.
Jacob Marley is excellent here (listen to the way he mourns and moans. Sends chills!). And Mrs. Dilber is hilarious when she meets up with Scrooge on Christmas morning. All three of the Christmas Eve ghosts are as Mr. Dickens described. Considering how little movie magic was used, that's no small feat! Plus they show the Cratchit's removing the pudding from "the copper." But, most important, Scrooge is well played here by Sim and his portrayal is a fine one indeed.
Yes, this is definitely an annual watch for us - my wife's most favorite depiction.
The one with George C. Scott as Scrooge - 1984:
This version is, to me, probably the best of 'em all, though I do really enjoy the Alistair Sim version.
Yes, it's that good.
The opening scene literally grabs you and pulls you into the gray, wintry Dickens London on Christmas Eve day in 1843.
 |
| Marley's ghostly hearse~ |
The viewer will feel as if they were walking down the cobblestone streets of Merry Olde England, passing the street vendors hawking their wares, and hearing the carolers and street musicians singing and playing that wonderful Victorian Holiday music. Top hats and bonnets abound as the crowd of people - rich and poor alike - rush to celebrate this most Holy of Christian nights. That is, all but one. And the first image of old Ebenezer Scrooge, played here to perfection by the late great George C. Scott, will send chills down the back of even the most ardent skeptic.
Just think...if the opening scene is this good, you can just imagine how great the rest of this movie is! Of all the different "Carols" that have been filmed, this is one of the best and most realistic I have yet to witness.
Now what puts this version of Charles Dickens' classic tale above the one with Alistair Sim? First and foremost is the feel. There is a certain ambiance here - a sort of realism - that is not present in the others. As stated previously, you, as the viewer, are drawn into the movie as a willing participant to the events happening about you. Given that this movie was filmed not on a stage set in Hollywood, but in and around actual buildings that were standing during the period in which this story takes place alone gives this version an edge the others can't touch. And the authentic costumes are as accurate as I have seen.
Another major plus here is that Dickens' original story is followed very close; it makes me wonder why they hired script writers, for most of the lines were lifted right from the book! And the casting was pert near perfect as well. In fact, the only character I felt that could have been better - ever-so-slightly - was the actor (who's name escapes me) that played the role of Scrooge's nephew, Fred. Not toward the beginning of the film when he's inviting his uncle to dine with him, but toward the end when Uncle Ebenezer is dining with him on Christmas Day itself. He just kind of rubs me the wrong way here. A small opinionated blip ever-so-minor that, because of just how wonderful the rest of the movie is, one would hardly notice. Not enough to lower any part of the score!
Just think...if the opening scene is this good, you can just imagine how great the rest of this movie is! Of all the different "Carols" that have been filmed, this is one of the best and most realistic I have yet to witness.
Now what puts this version of Charles Dickens' classic tale above the one with Alistair Sim? First and foremost is the feel. There is a certain ambiance here - a sort of realism - that is not present in the others. As stated previously, you, as the viewer, are drawn into the movie as a willing participant to the events happening about you. Given that this movie was filmed not on a stage set in Hollywood, but in and around actual buildings that were standing during the period in which this story takes place alone gives this version an edge the others can't touch. And the authentic costumes are as accurate as I have seen.
Another major plus here is that Dickens' original story is followed very close; it makes me wonder why they hired script writers, for most of the lines were lifted right from the book! And the casting was pert near perfect as well. In fact, the only character I felt that could have been better - ever-so-slightly - was the actor (who's name escapes me) that played the role of Scrooge's nephew, Fred. Not toward the beginning of the film when he's inviting his uncle to dine with him, but toward the end when Uncle Ebenezer is dining with him on Christmas Day itself. He just kind of rubs me the wrong way here. A small opinionated blip ever-so-minor that, because of just how wonderful the rest of the movie is, one would hardly notice. Not enough to lower any part of the score!
 |
| Jacob Marley is one scary dude in the George C. Scott version - as he should be! |
The Ghost of Jacob Marley tears at your heart, for the believability factor here is high that this specter is truly in tortuous pain and sorrow for his life's (mis)deeds. Watch as he says "It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death. It is doomed to wander through the world -- oh, woe is me! -- and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!" My gosh! Your heart just wrenches for this poor lost soul.
The heartiness of the Ghost of Christmas Present, with his sarcastic wit, easily puts Scrooge in his place simply by using Scrooge's words, own lack of common sense, and lack of courtesy against him.
The Cratchit family is also top notch (I must say, though, my favorite Cratchit's are in the 1999 version) and believably poor. And just look at poor Tiny Tim! Wow - excellent!
The poor homeless are represented well, and not as an afterthought but as real people.
I could go on and on about how great this one is, but instead I'll just say in my opinion, virtually everything about this version of 'A Christmas Carol' surpasses its predecessors. This one ranks above them all.
The one with Patrick Stewart as Scrooge - 1999:
This Patrick Stewart version of 'A Christmas Carol' is one that, judging by others reviews, you'll either love or hate. I believe, however, in a middle ground (or upper middle ground in this case). I enjoy seeing, for instance, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing Scrooge the many different types of people in greater detail than than seen before - miners, lighthouse keepers, sailors out at sea - all celebrating this special day; the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come showing the lifeless body of Tiny Tim laid out in the Cratchit home (the Jim Carrey version is the only other one I have seen do this); the lower jaw of the ghost of Jacob Marley dropping "down upon its breast" when the bandage around his head was removed. Even the items that once belonged to Scrooge being sold at "Old Joe's" pawn shop, such as the sugar tongs, were listed in the original book.
This one also has the best Cratchit family put to film. Their physical appearance (even their teeth), their manner of speech, their clothing, all were as you would expect a poor 19th century London family to look, sound, and be like.
The heartiness of the Ghost of Christmas Present, with his sarcastic wit, easily puts Scrooge in his place simply by using Scrooge's words, own lack of common sense, and lack of courtesy against him.
The Cratchit family is also top notch (I must say, though, my favorite Cratchit's are in the 1999 version) and believably poor. And just look at poor Tiny Tim! Wow - excellent!
The poor homeless are represented well, and not as an afterthought but as real people.
I could go on and on about how great this one is, but instead I'll just say in my opinion, virtually everything about this version of 'A Christmas Carol' surpasses its predecessors. This one ranks above them all.
The one with Patrick Stewart as Scrooge - 1999:
This Patrick Stewart version of 'A Christmas Carol' is one that, judging by others reviews, you'll either love or hate. I believe, however, in a middle ground (or upper middle ground in this case). I enjoy seeing, for instance, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing Scrooge the many different types of people in greater detail than than seen before - miners, lighthouse keepers, sailors out at sea - all celebrating this special day; the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come showing the lifeless body of Tiny Tim laid out in the Cratchit home (the Jim Carrey version is the only other one I have seen do this); the lower jaw of the ghost of Jacob Marley dropping "down upon its breast" when the bandage around his head was removed. Even the items that once belonged to Scrooge being sold at "Old Joe's" pawn shop, such as the sugar tongs, were listed in the original book.
This one also has the best Cratchit family put to film. Their physical appearance (even their teeth), their manner of speech, their clothing, all were as you would expect a poor 19th century London family to look, sound, and be like.
And they remove the pudding from "the copper" as is in the book!
 |
| The best Cratchit family put to film yet comes from the Patrick Stewart version. |
The costuming and the acting are very well done, but the sets leave a bit to be desired for, at times, one can tell it was filmed on a stage rather than in period buildings. For what I just wrote, I would put this particular version slightly above average - maybe a B on a grading scale.
However, it does have its minuses that brings it down a couple of notches. First and foremost is Patrick Stewart. He actually does a fair job in his role as Ebenezer Scrooge. But I truly do have a problem with the 'look' of this particular Scrooge. Instead of a mean appearance, Stewart is almost sinister...murderous...like he could snap at any moment in a violent rage. Also, Mr. Stewart's choking out a laugh toward the end of the film is obviously (too obviously) forced. It's embarrassing.
Other small but noticeable errors: (1) Mrs. Fezziwig telling her husband that she is on a diet, and, (2) toward the end of the story, when Scrooge is asking the young lad to go and get the poulterer, the young boy answers with "you're joshing." I'm fairly certain that neither 'joshing' nor being on a diet were terms yet used in 1843. One must wonder why they put in such contemporary slang terminology.
One must also wonder why they call Scrooge's sister Fran instead of what she was called in the book - Fan. The 1938 version with Reginald Owen also makes this same mistake. Fan/Fanny was a popular name in the Victorian era.
And, yes, I must agree with many other reviews I have read that they could have done a better job on the phantom - the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come. Again, with all of the computer tricks available, why go with a battery operated child-type toy figure from, shall we say, Star Wars?
It also leaves one with an empty feeling, for it truly doesn't capture the essence of Dickens' novel. Not much spirit here.
All in all, even with the inaccuracies and lack of passion, it is worth adding to your collection. It is a fair version - above Reginald Owen's, that's for sure - and because of pluses it has included in contrast to its deficiencies, it will, I believe, stand the test of time.
However, it does have its minuses that brings it down a couple of notches. First and foremost is Patrick Stewart. He actually does a fair job in his role as Ebenezer Scrooge. But I truly do have a problem with the 'look' of this particular Scrooge. Instead of a mean appearance, Stewart is almost sinister...murderous...like he could snap at any moment in a violent rage. Also, Mr. Stewart's choking out a laugh toward the end of the film is obviously (too obviously) forced. It's embarrassing.
Other small but noticeable errors: (1) Mrs. Fezziwig telling her husband that she is on a diet, and, (2) toward the end of the story, when Scrooge is asking the young lad to go and get the poulterer, the young boy answers with "you're joshing." I'm fairly certain that neither 'joshing' nor being on a diet were terms yet used in 1843. One must wonder why they put in such contemporary slang terminology.
One must also wonder why they call Scrooge's sister Fran instead of what she was called in the book - Fan. The 1938 version with Reginald Owen also makes this same mistake. Fan/Fanny was a popular name in the Victorian era.
And, yes, I must agree with many other reviews I have read that they could have done a better job on the phantom - the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come. Again, with all of the computer tricks available, why go with a battery operated child-type toy figure from, shall we say, Star Wars?
It also leaves one with an empty feeling, for it truly doesn't capture the essence of Dickens' novel. Not much spirit here.
All in all, even with the inaccuracies and lack of passion, it is worth adding to your collection. It is a fair version - above Reginald Owen's, that's for sure - and because of pluses it has included in contrast to its deficiencies, it will, I believe, stand the test of time.
The one with Jim Carrey as Scrooge - 2009:
This is the adaption which is right up there in my top three. Now, being a traditionalist, this may come as a surprise to you, considering the computerized / live-action approach Disney has taken with it. But, right up to the third of the three spirits it is extremely close to Dickens' original story; like the George C. Scott version, most of the dialogue comes straight from the author's own words, and the depiction of old London is simply outstanding! Now, don't let yourself be fooled...just because it is somewhat animated doesn't mean a fig.
This is the adaption which is right up there in my top three. Now, being a traditionalist, this may come as a surprise to you, considering the computerized / live-action approach Disney has taken with it. But, right up to the third of the three spirits it is extremely close to Dickens' original story; like the George C. Scott version, most of the dialogue comes straight from the author's own words, and the depiction of old London is simply outstanding! Now, don't let yourself be fooled...just because it is somewhat animated doesn't mean a fig.
 |
| The details of old London are shown as realistic as if one were there - |
This is a downright very dark and very scary 'reading', just as Dickens originally wrote. The characters seemingly jump off the screen right into your room - no, I'm not even speaking of the 3-D version here, by the way.
Just watch Marley's eyes...very eerie.
 |
| Old Marley's ghost is as real a depiction of an apparition as anything I have yet to see. |
Whether you like Jim Carrey as an actor or not shouldn't make a difference here, for one cannot even tell it's him! In fact, Carrey also plays the role of Ghost of Christmas Past, Present, and Yet-To-Come, as well as Scrooge in the various stages of his life, and he excels as each. The general feel is what I suspect one would imagine while reading the book, and there have been very few movies that have ever done that for me.
Now, as wonderful a depiction of this tale this one is, there are a few complaints I do have (possible spoiler alert):
1) Ghost of Christmas Past - I don't mind too much that a candle flame head represents the ghost...it adds just a bit of unique flavor without taking away from the story. But, what I didn't care for was when Scrooge snuffed out the candle with its hat, he is suddenly shot miles into the air, gliding in front of the moon along the lines of E.T., then falls back to earth, landing on his bedroom floor almost in a comedic manner. I believe they only wanted to show the magic of 3-D here. It doesn't take away from the story, but it doesn't add anything either. There were outtakes that should have been included instead of this wasted minute or two..
2) I don't particularly care for Scrooge witnessing the action of the 'present time' through a hole in the floor, though the scenes themselves are done very well.
3) Ghost of Christmas Yet-To-Come - There is a scene where Scrooge is being chased by a phantom horse & hearse during this portion of the movie that I feel takes away from what this chapter was originally supposed to mean. Then, to further take 'artistic license' (if you want to call it that), Scrooge suddenly shrinks to the size of a rat while being chased, and slides through gutters, etc., while trying to get away. (Maybe, in this way, they can promote this bit as 'for the children.' Sorry---this is not a kiddie flick - Disney blew it on that scene).
4) There is too many "thrills and chills" in that they're trying to show off the technology of 3-D. As I said, there are outtakes that should have been left in rather than all of the chase and flying scenes that occur.
Aside from the above diversions (and just a couple others that matter little, really), the rest is done very well and easily overtakes the blips.
I would love to see a "director's cut" to show more of what was in the original book, such as seeing Belle's family, Jacob Marley while he was alive as Scrooge's partner, and more of Scrooge's future. In fact, on the DVD there are deleted scenes, and one in particular shows the horse-drawn hearse being driven up the stairs inside of Scrooge's house, just like in the original novel:
"You may talk vaguely about driving a coach-and-six up a good old flight of stairs, or through a bad young Act of Parliament; but I mean to say you might have got a hearse up that staircase, and taken it broadwise, with the splinter-bar towards the wall and the door towards the balustrades: and done it easy. There was plenty of width for that, and room to spare; which is perhaps the reason why Scrooge thought he saw a locomotive hearse going on before him in the gloom. Half a dozen gas-lamps out of the street wouldn't have lighted the entry too well, so you may suppose that it was pretty dark with Scrooge's dip".
 |
| It would be great if they completed this scene and inserted it into the Jim Carry version, for, as you just read, this is how Dickens originally wrote seeing the hearse - actually going up the stairs in his house. It would be a first! |
I wish they would complete and include that scene in a future release!
Now, as I stated earlier, this is quite the scary version and may not be suitable for the younger set. Heck! Even a couple of older folks had to close their eyes upon a recent showing during a Christmas Carol party I had!
Now, as I stated earlier, this is quite the scary version and may not be suitable for the younger set. Heck! Even a couple of older folks had to close their eyes upon a recent showing during a Christmas Carol party I had!
 |
| The home of Bob Cratchit and his family. |
Aside from the blips to show off the modern 3-D magic in movie making and the chase and the overdone flying scenes, this one is great fun to watch with the actual scenes following the book closely.
Coming from me, that's saying a lot!
Coming from me, that's saying a lot!
And, though not "the Carol' proper, I am going to include
 |
| Not "A Christmas Carol," but a movie loosely based on how the story came about. |
"The Man Who Invented Christmas tells the magical journey that led to the creation of Ebenezer Scrooge, Tiny Tim, and other classic characters from Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." The film shows how Charles Dickens mixed real life inspirations with his vivid imagination to conjure up unforgettable characters and a timeless tale, forever changing the holiday season into the celebration we know today."
This is such a well-done movie - the sets and clothing are excellent. Many times this somewhat fictionalized story will be our first Christmas movie watch of the season. I enjoy seeing the characters Dickens writes about in his story come alive before his (and our) eyes and even help him with ideas. Now, we know that this was not the case in real life, but it makes for a fun movie.
One of my favorite scenes is when Mr. Dickens reads a portion of his work to Tara, one of the servant girls in his household, for he values her opinion and thoughts:
Tara the servant girl: "How do you do that, sir?"
Charles Dickens: "Do what?"
Tara: "Make a world come alive. I could almost see and hear them people."
 |
| As Dickens writes his book, the characters come to life! |
We must remember - when Dickens wrote these stories, it was the age before movies, and books were all people had to entertain themselves (unless they could afford to go to a play). Writers in these old days wrote very descriptively so the reader could see the writer's vision. To some in our modern day, this could be tedious. But put yourself in their place before reading Dickens' writings - wipe your modern mind clear of movies and other modernisms - and then read the book.
There is another line I enjoy and have repeated often. It's when Dickens finds himself frustrated with his father, who tends to ask for financial help a bit too often, and Charles is complaining about this to his sister:
"This morning I had 25 shillings in my hand. And now," Dickens opens his empty hand, "observe the vacancy."
"This morning I had 25 shillings in my hand. And now," Dickens opens his empty hand, "observe the vacancy."
I love that line!
This is a well-done movie that we enjoy very much, and even though many of the details are clearly fictionalized, it is an annual watch for us.
Truly top-notch!
 |
| Muppets Christmas Carol~ |
1992 gave us the release of the Muppet Christmas Carol.
It's cute - great for kids and even adults with a sense of humor, for there are enough lines to capture a few laughs. I have to admit that Michael Caine does Scrooge very well, and Kermit thee Frog makes a good Bob Cratchit. And it sticks to the story more than most children's versions. There is humor, sentimentality, sadness, and happiness. Being that it is a musical, the songs are good - my wife plays the soundtrack often.
This is a great introduction for the wee ones, but hopefully you'll introduce them to the more mature versions - or entice them to read the book (with feeling!) - as they grow older.
Yes, we watch this almost annually, usually around Thanksgiving, but we also watch one of the human versions as well as we get closer to Christmas.
SILENCE please!
Old Scrooge from 1913 (in England - 111 years old this year) and released in the U. S. in 1926
 |
| A cut from the 1913 version |
This is the oldest of the "Christmas Carols" I own, though there were others made before this one.
Typical of silent movies, the viewer needs to put their mindset in the times this was originally made and shown and forget future filmmaking extravagance to fully appreciate it.
There are changes in the story here that, to me, are unacceptable changes that needn't have been. For instance, besides the charity collector coming in to ask Scrooge for a donation, there is a poor woman who also comes in looking for charity for herself. And even worse, there is no Ghost of Christmas Past, Present, or Yet to Come - instead, the ghost of Jacob Marley does it all.
Yes, this does take away from the original story.
However, Seymour Hicks portrays quite the scraggly Scrooge - almost tramp-like - and he does a wonderfully masterful job in his portrayal. By the way, Seymour Hicks is also in the 1935 version - the first Christmas Carol talkie (see my review toward the top of this post).
The camera tricks are pretty fair, considering its age. And Hicks really is an excellent Scrooge. I mean, he had quite a bit of practice: throughout the late 19th century, and into the early years of the 20th, Hicks toured England with his own adaptation of the story, in which he played Scrooge.
The best part for me, though it is not a part of Dickens' original story, is the joyful ending when Scrooge enjoys spending Christmas with the Cratchits. And I do like it when nephew Fred shows at the beginning.
 |
| In Scrooge's Counting House 1913: I see Ebenezer Scrooge, nephew Fred, and Bob Cratchit. |
A Christmas Carol from 1923
 |
| Jacob Marley - 1923 |
Now, this is a short version in which seemingly as much time is spent showing Scrooge in his office at the beginning of the film, and after his reformation at the end than his time with the spirits as a whole. As far as how old this film is (101 this year of 2024), the camera tricks with the ghosts are done well, especially when he meets the ghost of Jacob Marley - it's as if John Leech's illustration came to life!
The three spirits that follow...well...it all goes too fast. I believe even for its time they could have done and shown more. That's my complaint.
We must remember this is technology from over a century ago and may almost seem very rudimentary when compared to what young children can do today. But it was very good for its time.
As for now, well, it's watched more as a curiosity. As a collector, it's well-worth having.
 |
| Marley and Scrooge - 1923 Just like the Leech illustrations~ |
----------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, the BBC did a television series called "Dickensian" that I plan to rewatch, and when I do, perhaps I will include a review here, for it centers on Jacob Marley's death.
. . . .
Bill Kumbier is a Dickens historian and collector, and it was a pleasure to speak with him at the Waterloo Farm Museum's Christmas On the Farm event in early December.
 |
Bill Kumbier holds an original 1st edition of Charles Dickens' novel "Bleak House" from 1852. This is so cool! |
 |
Bill had a few very cool Dickens collectibles. A few originals, such as the aforementioned "Bleak House," but a few very well-done replicas as well. He also had another original - "American Notes" which Dickens wrote about his tour of America, which was originally published in 1842. |
................................................
Whichever route you take --- book or one of the various filmed versions ---you can not go wrong with this Christmas story.
~ ~ ~ ~
"Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.
He had no further intercourse with Spirits, but lived upon the Total Abstinence Principle, ever afterwards; and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God Bless Us, Every One!"
Until next time, see you in time.
~ ~ ~ ~
