Being a big Star Trek: The Next Generation fan, I remember watching this Patrick Stewart-led Dickens adaptation back in the late 1997s on TV. At the time, it seemed like the best "Christmas Carol" re-telling I had ever seen. Upon a more recent viewing, however, I discovered that time had not been kind to my analysis of the overall production.For a basic plot summary, this is a simple adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens tale. Miserly old Scrooge (Stewart) is visited on the night before Christmas by three ghosts (Past, Present, Future) that help him re-discover his heart.The trouble with this production is that the "production values" are just not that good. The auxiliary cast is lackluster, the special effects are unspectacular (even by 1990s standards), and the whole show has a depressive mood about it.Pretty much the only reason to watch this version is the incredible performance from Mr. Stewart. He absolutely owns the role of Scrooge. Unfortunately, as the story dictates, Scrooge is all too often watching the action unfold instead of participating in it.Thus, I would advise looking elsewhere for your "Christmas Carol" fix unless you're a Patrick Stewart junkie. There just isn't enough else to carry this production.

Patrick Stewart stars as Ebenezer Scrooge in this relatively recent version of "A Christmas Carol". It is well acted and well produced--with nice sets and costumes. And, it provides pretty much the same experience as watching any other version of the story. To date, there have been approximately 1,272,347,234,913,948,251 versions and variations of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". Few of them are terrible and most do a decent job of conveying the story*. So I say, why make more?! Why don't we just watch of the best ones, such as the 1984 version with George C. Scott or the 1951 version with Alistair Sim? Now the 1999 version with Patrick Stewart is good--but why try to keep re-inventing something that's been done very well already?!?! My advice is no matter how good this version is, what is the point of yet another? Call me a Scrooge, but I say 'bah, humbug' to all the corporate folks who keep re-using this public domain tale instead of trying to create something new. And, 'bah, humbug' to the fact that MOST versions emphasize the Christmas aspect of the story but gloss over the social message originally intended by Dickens.*Horrible versions of this over-used story include many kids' versions such as one starring Mr. Magoo, "A Bugs Bunny Christmas Carol" (I love Looney Tunes, but this one was bad), the Flintstone version (they were alive BEFORE Jesus was born...think about it) and although I haven't yet seen it, I am almost 100% positive the new Smurf version is awful.

I felt sorry for Patrick Stewart playing Scrooge. I felt this actor tried hard to be his own Scrooge, but he missed by a mile. I felt his acting was forced.But I felt the rest of the cast played it well, and Richard E. Grant as Bob Crachet was superb in his role.Particularly at the end when Grant picked up a poker to defend himself against his evil boss, Grant was shaking, terrified of his boss, and the atmosphere this one scene created, was for me very powerful.I suspect this is how every homeless person feels today against those among the British public who behave just like Scrooge, they could not care less, and many homeless people are spat upon.Those among the British public who behave like this are a disgrace, and they frighten the homeless, just like Grant's Bob Crachet was frightened into picking up that poker.It is a shame that in my opinion Patrick Stewart was unable to provide his Scrooge with the same menace.I felt the story was flat, almost boring. I give it 2 out of 10 for a good effort.But I give Richard E. Grant a full 10 marks for his role, and his wife and children equally so, they were all excellent.The best Scrooge films by far, is the Alastair Sim version, and the George C. Scott version.George C. Scott's version is more applicable to today's Society where the homeless people are under the Bridge, and the man asks his wife, "why cant I work to provide for my family", this question was spot on for today, because it reflects today.And then when George C Scott realises everything, he kneels down and asks, "what have I done" ?, because he realises how mean and short sighted he has been.And I would say "what have I done?", can also be said of those in our Society that have their heads in the sand, not realising and not caring about anybody but themselves, or the consequences of their actions.

Speaking as a big fan of Dicken's cherished Christmas story, I am amazed that it is possible to go so wrong with a movie based upon it, especially one that is actually fairly faithful to the content.I think the main fault lies with the cast or direction of the cast. Patrick Stewart's portrayal is predominantly lifeless compared to other cinematic Ebeneezers. In those moments when Stewart does attempt to inject some color, his instinct is all wrong. I'll never forget the scene toward the end of the film, where the reformed Scrooge is rejoicing in a changed life, and Stewart attempts to morph cardiac arrest into a fit of laughter. I get what Stewart was trying to accomplish but the effect is just plain disturbing and bizarre. The director's goal in that scene should be to get the viewer to be happy for Scrooge's redemption, not to be repulsed by his grotesque antics!The ghosts of Christmases past, present and future were also big disappointments. Especially the Ghost of Christmas yet to come. Others have noted that he looked more like a goofy character from an early Star Wars movie than the mysterious and dreaded apparition of inscrutable future events. The silly lit-up eyes illuminated the interior of the hood and betrayed the ghost as simply a guy in a cheesy costume. Of course, sporting a sci-fi head but normal, flesh and bone hands didn't help either. This costuming of the Ghost of Christmas yet to come was an even stranger decision by the director than the heart-attack laugh of Patrick Stewart's Scrooge.There is a strange unemotional, detachment from this version that you don't get in others. I think it is because the direction is completely lacking instinct for the mood of the piece. Lines are quoted literally from Dickens' novel and yet the actors often appear unconvincing and without the emotional commitment required to carry off some of the scenes.The staging at times is also quite weird. For example, other versions, for the sake of brevity, have not included some scenes from the novel, perhaps most notably the scene where the Ghost of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on a tour of remote areas where even people in seclusion are reveling in the spirit of the day. This version does include that part of the book. It utilizes the singing of "Silent Night" as a continuity element from one celebration to another. The vignette ends with a far away view of Scrooge and the Ghost triumphantly silhouetted atop a hill as the carol reaches its ending crescendo. Instead of it being a moving scene, it all comes across as a melodramatic and silly gimmick that is more comical than anything else.Others have noted that this version also has that cheap, made-for-TV appearance and I have to agree. Compare to the rich, exquisitely-lit cinematography of the George C. Scott version and you will see that just because this was made for TV didn't mean it had to look it.I rate this film with a two only because of my reverence for the story. Still, it's a shame this cinematic retelling misses so badly with such can't-miss material.