kfo9494 Sure, this was not the best adaptation of Dickens' classic tale- but for a made-for-TV movie, this western theme story was not bad.We all know the details of Charles Dickens work but in this version it takes place in a rural western 1800's town where Ebenezer Scrooge runs a saloon and cheats people out of money. And like in all the writings, Scrooge is a miserable miser that controls the money and people in the town. And as the story goes, Scrooge will meet up with three ghosts that will show him the way his life is heading. It will be up to Ebenezer to take the information and change his ways.There are a few changes that differs from the usual tale but overall the theme of the story rings out very clear. Jack Palace does a nice job of playing the villain in this show and actually makes the movie much better with his performance. With the small budget for the film, there are a few rough spots during the production. However, these take nothing away from the story and the true spirit of the classic novel comes through in the end.This movie can not compare to the larger budget films that most remember of 'A Christmas Carol'. But in the end, the film got it's point across and the viewer was entertained. That is why this film was made.

TheLittleSongbird A long way from the best version of A Christmas Carol(between the Alastair Sim and George C. Scott versions) but not the worst(the 2001 animation). It is an interesting and different interpretation that that parts that do work and others that don't. What doesn't come off very well here are that some of the dialogue- not all of it, there are a fair few parts that are genuinely entertaining- is quite bad with some of the humour coming across as very awkward. To me actually though the "you're my only nephew" line was one of the better and wittier parts of the script, it was lines like "I'll send you away to a manger" that fell flat) and a lot of the actors mostly in the female bit parts and extras play their parts far too straight to the extent they come across as too low-key, and that is including the least jovial and least imposing Ghost of Christmas Present you'll find anywhere. Especially when compared to Jack Palance. This could be down to Ken Jubenvill's at times heavy-handed direction that is crying out for more wit and humour. There could have been less of Samuel Benson's subplot, some of his appearances seemed shoe-horned in and misplaced. However, it is a good-looking adaptation with the Wild West setting well-evoked, some accurate costuming and some nice photography. The music is rousing while never over-bearing but when it needs to be toned-down it does that quite well. The story doesn't really capture the spirit of the story, more of a darker, wittier and festive feel was needed to make that work(at least to me), it's basically a story set in the Wild West with the basic elements of the Christmas Carol story. That's not necessarily a bad thing though, besides there are scenes that come over very well. One was the Christmas Future segment, where Scrooge saw what would happen to him in the future if he didn't change but in a much more expansive way than most others adaptations of Christmas Carol, it was very creatively done. And the other was when he is trying to join in the festivities playing Father Christmas via a play after his change of heart, Palance gives a telling facial expression mixed with regret and anxiety at this point and coupled with Tiny Tim standing by him and singing along with him it made for a truly poignant moment. I also liked how the adaptation didn't rush Scrooge's change of heart transformation, like when the towns-folk being uncertain as whether to accept Scrooge and whether he's changed, one potential problem with adapting A Christmas Carol is Scrooge transforming too quickly and easily and Ebeneezer manages to avoid that. Although the acting was not great in support, some performances do impress like Ricky Schroder's amusing Samuel, Amy Locane's beguiling(especially her face) Erica and Joshua Silberg's touching Tim. Best of all is Jack Palance, who does a great job as Scrooge, he does do better when Ebeneezer is a miser which he attacks with booming intensity and with a sense that he's enjoying himself but he does acquit himself beautifully at the end. To conclude, decent but could have been better than it turned out, worth watching for Palance and some good scenes but a better script, better support casting and direction would have helped things a lot. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Amos_Dundee I caught this umpteenth reformulation of the Dicken's tale quite by accident--and it was truly like watching an accident happen. Awful does not capture the turgidity of this misbegotten project--"A Christmas Carol" set in the Klondike. True, it does have Jack Palance as the Scrooge character; but even Mr. Palance needs a script and a director--both of which are missing here. His performance, over the top and nasty though it is, is the only thing worth watching. The script captures none of the detail / feeling of the original story and Scrooge isn't very interesting--just mean and nasty. No original innocence. The actors, as in alot of made for TV movies all have a cookie cutter sameness--like they were mostly gotten from modeling agencies. The idea "might" have been workable if a little humanity and humor been present in the script and few decent actors been hired. Watch Alastair Sim, George C. Scott for great Scrooges--or Michael Caine (no slouch) in "A Muppet Christmas Carol" if you are in a more whimsical vein--but pass this one by.

fleister This was a very good re-telling of the "Christmas Carol" story. I really liked the slight changes in the end and think others will as well if, like me, they take every opportunity to watch Scrooge! Take a chance on this one and live a little.