If this had been shot and performed for public access TV, you might be tempted to at least give it an E for effort.
But this "Christmas Carol" was obviously shot on a minuscule budget. Lots of still images, shots of skies, amateur acting and directing...you do have to ask, what was the point of this, when there are tons of versions of the story that are much, much better?
The description claims this is the darkest version of "A Christmas Carol" ever, but that actually belongs to FX's adaptation, which displays all the talent and creativity that are not found here.
Oh, and be suspicious, very suspicious, of the reviews here. Many of them contain the exact same passage:
"This is the darkest, most ghostly version of this story ever made. It stays true to the original feel of the Dickens story, while turning up the creepiness."
No it's not. Not by a long shot. But when you see that boilerplate inserted randomly in half the reviews you read, you know you're dealing with reviewers with an agenda.
I get no joy out of pillorying this movie, but I can't really say anything good about it. I wanted it to be a lot better than this. Check out the FX version if you want to see a dark adaptation done 100x better. (And no, I don't have an agenda for that movie; it just impressed the hell out of me.)
2 out of 4 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink