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

I have a feeling that people who trash this movie are doing so out of a deep seeded love for the Alistair Sim classic, and a refusal to enjoy any other version. This is an interesting adaptation and worth watching.I especially enjoy the fact that the story continues after Scrooges transformation, showing how people deal with an overnight change in someone they have long feared and stopped trusting.Hey, I like the 1951 version too, watch them both for Christmas!

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.

Although Dickens' tale is "Westernized" (it's hard to imagine Scrooge getting into fistfights and high noon shootouts as he does in this movie), it works here, thanks to the performance of Jack Palance. He also does a decent tale of playing the redeemed and transformed Scrooge. Some versions have Scrooge convert too readily, or the folks he previously screwed over accepting him too easily.Palance's Scrooge "converts" just slowly enough that it's believable. Also, the townsfolk are at least initially reluctant to accept his transformed version.There are also some interesting variations. Scrooge actually gets to see his future self's last few actions in life (most versions just kill him off-screen, leaving Scrooge to face his corpse or hear people talk about how he died).Weak spots include some really bad dialogue ("You're my favorite nephew" - "I'm your only nephew!") and mediocre casting of the first two Spirits. There's also a subplot with the last person Scrooge ripped off, Sam Benson, which awkwardly interrupts the Spirits' visits.Overall, though, the movie's strength lies in Palance's performance, and it's a great one. I'd say he's the best Scrooge (albeit an American/Western one) since Sim.