The sequence I found most distracting was an extended bit added to the Christmas Past when Scrooge's sister, Fan, tells Scrooge he can return home. It does give us a rare moment of levity in an otherwise unusually dark adaptation, so I suppose it qualifies as a positive, albeit a small one. Mostly, it's just here to introduce a few characters from the Christmas Yet to Come section early. This sequence isn't awful, but it's not particularly important, either. We also get a scene of Scrooge as a businessman.
And of course, they made the poor kid milk all this. It doesn't help that there are scenes the character's makeup makes him look like a zombie. The problem is we have a mental image of Tim - overshooting it doesn't make his predicament feel worse, it just feels like someone's trying to manipulate our emotions. Someone seems to have reasoned the more pitiable they made Tim, the more sympathetic he'd be. There's a new brief scene early on between Scrooge and Tiny Tim that definitely should have been cut, and not just because Tim is one of the movie's largest missteps. That version was enhanced by its additions this time they get in the way. The new stuff here isn't as well integrated compared to the earlier movie, however. Clive Donner, the director of this movie, also did some editing on the 1951 film. In that respect, this resembles the 1951 version, which makes a degree of sense. There's not a great deal to cover in terms of the story: this sticks fairly close to the book, mainly deviating to flesh out Scrooge's backstory and relationships. Speaking of the cast, Michael Gough shows up in a bit part, which is fun (side note: by my math, 50% of actors who play Alfred Pennyworth in live-action Batman movies have appeared in adaptations of A Christmas Carol). Fair or not, David Warner (Cratchit) and Roger Rees (Fred) both went on to land iconic villain roles, so seeing them as two of the story's most sympathetic roles gave me a bit of vertigo.
A christmas carol 1984 movie#
I will say that Bob Cratchit and Fred feel a bit awkward in hindsight, though it's no fault of either the movie nor the performances. Most of the cast is good, but - as I've remarked in the past - the cast is rarely the issue with these adaptations.
This Scrooge feels consistent and grounded, and that's no small accomplishment when adapting a book from 1843. I didn't feel an abundance of depth, but I do think he managed to smooth out several rough spots in the narrative. Scott takes the role seriously and delivers a fairly straightforward Scrooge. and they do it without breaking the bank. Between that and some good cinematography, they're able to pull off some gorgeously atmospheric visuals, ranking among the best-looking adaptations.
Rather than spending their budget on expensive sets, they simply filmed in a market town that hasn't significantly changed since the 1800s. Starting with the opening shot, the movie looks good. Essentially, it's difficult to find anything significant to fault, but it's nowhere near my favorite of the bunch. That said, I don't think it leaves as much of an impression as the best of the lot.
A christmas carol 1984 full#
It covers the full scope of the story, the casting is good, and it's visually impressive.
Taken as a whole, this is one of the better modern adaptations I've seen. It's also abnormally difficult to bucket the genre: this straddles the line between horror and drama to an unusual degree.
A christmas carol 1984 tv#
Released theatrically in England and on TV in America, I'm not even sure whether to consider this a full movie or a made-for-TV production. Scott feels like it's trying to be difficult to categorize. The 1984 adaptation of A Christmas Carol starring George C.
0 kommentar(er)
