MovieChat Forums > A Christmas Carol (2013) Discussion > First Post! Rotten Version of a Great C...

First Post! Rotten Version of a Great Classic! Worst Seen So Far!

posted 2 years ago by CoriSCapnSkip (1566)
3 replies | jump to latest

Admittedly I have not seen every version of A Christmas Carol out there. Rumor has it the Don Ho version may be worse, but this is by far the worst yet of the many I have seen. There aren't enough characters allowed here to tell how bad it is and why in one post, so it will have to be divided into sections.

Stave 1

Watched this free with ads on Amazon Prime. Thank God I didn't pay to watch this turkey, and I mean that in a bad, not a delicious food, sense. Wow! I never saw such a faithful version I hated so much. For starters, even the title is wrong: it should be Dickens's. Here is my review with some spoilers. This was billed as the darkest, most ghostly take on the story up to that time (before the unwatchable 2019 version) and I had very high hopes of a faithful rendition with scarier ghosts than the usual fare. This film was released on January 1, 2012 (the first of many WTF moments--why not release such a movie around Christmas? Turns out they wanted to be the first Dickens-related release in his Bicentennial year. Too bad such an unworthy offering!)

I'll mention the good things first, as there aren't many. This version uses more of Charles Dickens's actual words than any of the many I have seen (in fact, it had an actor playing him narrating much of it, which was mostly annoying). Many of the actors were well cast and played their roles well, with, unfortunately, the exception of Scrooge, who was the lead. I'll get to that. It was mercifully short at 1 hour and 22 minutes, thank God, as I couldn't have taken too much more. It is faithful to a fault, and does one thing rarely seen, quoting: "And being, from the emotion he had undergone, or the fatigues of the day, or his glimpse of the Invisible World, or the dull conversation of the Ghost, or the lateness of the hour, much in need of repose; went straight to bed, without undressing, and fell asleep upon the instant." So Scrooge put on his dressing-gown over his clothes, and went to bed like that, and is in street clothes in this film. Except for a couple of silent films, most versions show Scrooge going forth in a nightgown under the dressing-gown, if they even bother with the dressing-gown. I really prefer the nightgown.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (1566) 2 years ago

Stave 2

Now let's get into why this sucks. I thought the 1913 version was bad, but this thing takes the prize with much less excuse. The worst character in this flop was the setting. I kept thinking, where the F did they film this? It was set in London, sometime 1830s to 1850s (couldn't read the writing on Scrooge's tombstone, but it wasn't 1843, it was either a 3 or a 5 and I would not watch again for anything). Admittedly I have never been to London, but this looked nothing like any version of London from any time I have ever seen anywhere. It turned out to be filmed entirely in the Republic of Ireland. They apparently couldn't afford realistic sets, but got permission to film in some castles and fancy cottages in Ireland, and it looks it. Scrooge's office is much more lavish than it could possibly have really been, ditto his living quarters, but conversely, he doesn't even have a four-poster bed with curtains! The thief in the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come part steals window curtains instead, and that's just one of the fairly minor wrongs.

Without getting into all the bad execution which would take far too long, some things they should be punished for not doing better are, for one, the women being evicted, the women thieves, hell, even the workhouse girls, all had better hairstyles than the Cratchits, who were a respectable family! They looked absolutely ratty and I felt terrible for them. They had four children instead of the usual five (I'll give them that as the number in films varies) and Peter didn't even show up for the Christmas dinner, though he was in the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come part. Tiny Tim didn't even say, "God bless us, every one" at the dinner, it was merely said by the narrator at the end.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (1566) 2 years ago

Stave 3

When Bob Cratchit brings Tiny Tim in from church, they are both hatless--all right, I'll give them that, they could have left their hats in some entrance hall their house wouldn't have had but this one did--and Tiny Tim is barefoot! The only excuse for removing one's shoes in December is if they are covered with snow and/or rain, which they weren't because, um, Bob Cratchit was carrying him. I thought, either they couldn't find period shoes or this was a misguided attempt to be cute, but at the end, when Tim is well, he is walking wearing shoes, so again, WTF? Bob Cratchit's speech on Tim's death usually has me in tears, that is if the actor is good and enough of the original words are used--this version does both--but all I can think this time is, my God, that place is so big it echoes! Nothing like the Cratchit home. There is no snow in this version, not even a little fake snow, lots of fog and a courtyard full of sand and odd little bushes when Scrooge talks to the boy he sends for the turkey.

It was dark, all right. The scene where Belle rejects young Scrooge reminded me of the original TV series of Dark Shadows (who recently did their own version, I have not seen yet, but heard very good things), only a lot higher budget and not as good.

As for the ghosts. With Marley you can hear chains but never see any. You couldn't go to the hardware store and buy a few lousy chains? The Ghost of Christmas Past has the appearance of a female, but a male voice. It isn't spooky or edgy, it is just plain irritating. The Ghost of Christmas Present looks like some beer guzzling slob. It's like what, you couldn't afford proper robes and a little fake holly crown and had to send some dude in long underwear? Grubby long underwear, at that. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, on the other hand, is terrific--much better than the crappy Patrick Stewart version.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (1566) 2 years ago

Stave 4

Now for Scrooge, played by Vincent Fegan, who does at least passably tolerably until near the end. When he wakes up on Christmas morning, fully converted, he delivers his lines in a combination of his usual snarl and a flat monotone. To see this done right, watch George C. Scott or just about any other actor who has ever played Scrooge on film or probably stage either. Never has so much effort been put into such a bad version of a great story. A huge disappointment, much of which could have been alleviated with proper hairstyles and sets. They might have done better to film on a bare stage with cardboard backdrops than in a setting which was so wrong--amazing the difference setting makes! This was such a letdown I did what I rarely do and left a review on Amazon. Unbelievably, this has some good reviews on Amazon, but it has some great bad ones. So much was wrong with this production, but it was the setting which killed it.

The best entertainment to be derived from this is by reading the Amazon reviews, here: https://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Carol-Vincent-Fegan/dp/B00ESLZ84K/ref=sr_1_1?crid=QP3XYKT4T6X3&keywords=A+Christmas+Carol+2012&qid=1640071744&sprefix=a+christmas+carol+2012%2Caps%2C193&sr=8-1

This horribly cheap production compares to a rushed high school film project which should have received a D. Some of my favorite highlights are:

"The entire cast appeared chemically sedated"
"The whole thing feels like it was shot with a high school camera, by amateur actors on their day off."
"...the only thing scary about this movie is the 'acting' "
"...even if it were free-not good at all, I should get my money back on this...scary, my naked wife is scarier than this....bad movie, bad movie"
"The acting is so stiff, I thought they hired every one straight from the morgue."

The above reviews are hilarious but all too sadly true. Many of the good reviews appear to be for another version.