It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

A Christmas Carol is such a timeless story, one that almost everybody knows and is Charles Dickens' most accessible works. This 1977 adaptation is a very good one and, while not as good as the Sim, Scott and Muppet versions, deserves to be better known. It is too short in length and did feel rushed as a result, it needed another thirty minutes at least. The production values are not quite of the highest quality but are at least acceptable and hardly ugly-looking, they also at least give some atmosphere, with Cratchit trying to warm his hands you can actually feel the cold in which he works. The adaptation is directed assuredly, and is well-performed too. Michael Hordern is a most credible Scrooge, Alastair Sim is still the definitive Scrooge but Hordern does a fine job as well. There's also John Le Meseurier's spooky Jacob Marley, Clive Merrison's humble Bob Cratchit, Paul Copley's jovial Fred(one of the better actors as the character alongside Barry MacKay in the 1938 film) and Timothy Chasin's heartfelt Tiny Tim. The Three Christmas Ghosts are very well-characterised as well, especially Bernard Lee as Ghost of Christmas Present, funny and imposing. What makes this adaptation as worthwhile as it is is how it tells the story. The dialogue, being amusing, dark and with pathos, is very Dickenesian and adapted intelligently. And the story, for one told in such a short running time, maintains the spirit of the story, and is every bit as magical, charming and enthralling as it should, the message is one to warm the heart and the darker aspects are genuinely foreboding. Overall, a very good adaptation and deserving of more credit. 8/10 Bethany Cox

This was at least the 14th screen adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens tale that I have watched (the others being those made in 1935, 1938, 1951, 1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2006) with another (dating from 2009) following only 2 days later! While the 1951 version is universally acknowledged as the finest rendition (though one cannot really put a finger on why it works so well, given its modest credentials!), a few of the rest (including the 1983 animated Disney short!) are well enough regarded as well. Incidentally, while several actors have attempted to give life to the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge, Alastair Sim's portrayal was so vivid and perfectly-realized (he would also voice the character in the 1971 animated version by Richard Williams) that all later remakes would have to be judged against it, and this is were the film under review decidedly comes up lacking! Ironically, the otherwise reliable character actor involved – Michael Hordern – had played Scrooge's partner Jacob Marley in both adaptations involving Sim (Marley, then, is here incarnated by John LeMesurier, another welcome presence), but his contribution in this case comes across as no more than workmanlike. The main reason for this, I guess, also has to do with the script's scrupulous adhering to the letter of the original source which, again, was superbly-delivered – in his inimitable fashion – by Sim! I am sure it is not necessary for me to relate the plot line: with this in mind, the many familiar characters are adequately-filled (most impressively perhaps by Patricia Quinn – fresh from THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW {1975}! – as the Ghost Of Christmas Past, with Bernard Lee – 'M' in the first 11 instalments of the James Bond franchise – also on hand as the Ghost Of Christmas Present). Besides, the eerie elements of the narrative (which, admittedly, is what really draws me to this piece, as opposed to the sentimental subplot involving the fate of Tiny Tim!) are given their due…but, all in all, the film merely sticks to the standard of British TV productions of the era i.e. generally tasteful in approach and undeniably practised in execution, it is also inherently dull!

I first watched this adaptation of A Christmas Carol when it was broadcast by PBS in the seventies. Of course, one attraction was the casting of Michael Hordern as Scrooge, having remembered him as Jacob Marley in the all-time classic Alastair Sim version. Mr. Hordern did not disappoint, providing a Scrooge of sufficient bluster and befuddlement. This could be described as a no frills version of the story by some, but I love it's lean and mean production values and wonderful sets. The cold in Scrooge and Marley's counting house is palpable, with the frost building on the window behind Scrooge's desk. It really seems as though the lighting is coming from the few candles lit in the office, one of which does double duty as Bob Cratchit uses it to warm his cold hands. I love these atmospheric touches, of which there are many in this production. The wonderful collection of British actors bringing the novel to life is the icing on the cake as there are many who stand out. I heartily recommend this version if you can find it. I was able to tape it off television about 10 years ago, and have not seen it since. Still, a wonderful adaptation.

I highly recommend this terrific U.K. television version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and I wish it was better known than it is. Some PBS stations used to show it in the late 1970's and early 1980's but since then this version of the Dickens Christmas classic has shown up rarely even on cable. Let me make it clear right off the bat that I'm one of those people who could watch an "All CHRISTMAS CAROL, All The Time" channel every December. That doesn't mean that I love each and every version of the story that comes along, it just means I love watching them all every single year. This adaptation of the story stands out from every other film and television version I've seen and only it's low budget and short running time put it behind the George C Scott classic.The lighting may be 70's sitcom level and for some scenes this T.V. movie may use painted backgrounds but it wins the viewer over by demonstrating over and over again that it "gets" the point of the story. There's no attempt to psycho-analyze any of the characters, no silly attempt to contemporize the ghosts, no omission of Ignorance and Want and for once Belle doesn't overstay her welcome.The secret of this version's appeal is that it uses nothing but Dickens' own story and best of all, nothing but Dickens' own dialogue. This may put the conversational exchanges over the heads of very young viewers but those who love the novelette will be ecstatic about this. Dickens' wordplay in the original story is wonderfully close to prose poetry and it's delightful to hear it presented in it's original form. Similarly, there are no fabrications of scenes not in the "real" story and no extraneous characters added. I enjoy seeing what some adaptors do with the story as much as anyone but it's refreshing to see a visual depiction of nothing but the content in the original classic.Non-devotees of A CHRISTMAS CAROL would likely rate this lower than I do since I think the emotional bang of this telefilm makes up for it's budget limits. Even CAROL purists may be put off by the omission of some scenes from the original story but with the short running time that can't be remedied. Unless someone eventually does a film version of this story that's as slavish to it's source material as Erich Von Stroheim's GREED was to the novel McTEAGUE I don't think we'll see an adaptation that comes closer than this to realizing Dickens' original work.As long as you don't expect outstanding production values I think the heartfelt performances and respect for the viewers' intelligence will put this version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL near the top of your list.