Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

mark.waltz Three talkie movies of the Charles Dickens classic had come out when Oscar winner Frederic March tackled the role for this television musical that cuts out much of the meat and left and disguises it with bits of parsley disguised as mistletoe to make it seem better than it is. Adding mediocre songs makes it even more tedious although much of what makes this beloved is there. March isn't so much miserly than a lonely old man too filled with pride to admit that all he was wants is a little attention. He isn't scary at all, and one thing that should be clear is that his wealth makes him a force to be reckoned with whether it be as a lender seeking the return of a loan or as an imperious boss. Basil Rather one is on and off quickly as Marley, but the usually bland Ray Middleton seems liver than normal as both Scrooge's nephew and the ghost of Christmas present. Sti, the plight of Tiny Tim is touching and the themes remain timeless. Remade countless times in several ways, this one will remain an obscure view of Dickens' most beloved classic. It won't ever compare to the several later musical versions, especially the Albert Finney remake in 1970.

roghache I bought the Bing Crosby / Kate Smith Christmas DVD specifically for the inclusion of this 1954 Frederic March version of A Christmas Carol as a bonus. For those who are real Carol fans and simply must see every version, naturally this shouldn't be missed. However, if this were the only adaptation available to me, I'd feel quite deprived!Frederic March makes a fairly good Scrooge, in my opinion. The rest of the cast didn't much stand out with me one way or the other except that I didn't really like them 'doubling up' on roles. The same actress played both the Ghost of Christmas Past and Belle, and the same actor both nephew Fred and the Ghost of Christmas Present. I suppose it must have been fairly low budget and this was cheaper. I found odd and objectionable the writers having Marley's ghost repeatedly moaning "Oh God!" The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come was ridiculous -- some sort of blackbird! Even the Ghost of Christmas Present was miscast. Instead of a cheery, benevolent, bare chested giant clothed in a green robe, he wore tunic and pants and seemed rather slovenly, lolling about on the floor singing! They modernized or Americanized the story a bit, having one of the songs refer to Santa and the Cratchits trim a Christmas tree.The movie seemed to start out better than it ended. I found the first scenes preferable to later sequences, mainly because less seemed to be omitted early on! I prefer non-musical versions to musical ones anyway but find it especially irritating when they find time for several songs but omit crucial characters such as Ebenezer's sister Fan and eliminate numerous vital scenes. This version is short anyway, only about 50 minutes, and the story is pretty bare bones. Most of the details that enrich the tale are simply left out.The music was pleasant enough and seemed to fit in suitably but for most of the numbers, I found they contributed little and I merely wanted them to get on with the story! Unlike the 1970 Albert Finney musical which did boast some truly catchy tunes, none of these songs were the least bit memorable. However, I did enjoy the carolers at the beginning of the movie. Also, Tiny Tim sings a song at the end which, if I heard correctly, tells the Christmas story (religious context) and it appeared as though Scrooge was truly moved.Lest I appear too critical, this adaptation is a fairly traditional (if summarized) telling of Dickens' story and certainly maintains the original spirit. Again, I enjoyed March in the role and really loved some of the sets, especially the street scenes with the carolers and the drawing room with Fezziwig's party. I'd certainly recommend it to any Carol enthusiasts. Just keep an open mind and you'll enjoy it, but don't get your hopes up too high because you'll probably be disappointed!

Matt Helm This show is on DVD, it's a bonus feature on the Bing Crosby and Kate Smith Christmas DVD. I was excited to watch this, never knowing that March played Scrooge before, and always up for seeing a new adaptation of A Christmas Carol. What a huge disappointment! This is borderline garbage. March doesn't deliver and the rest of the actors, except for Rathbone of course, are lousy. The songs aren't memorable, nor even mediocre enough to sit through, and the choice of the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is unbelievably ridiculous. The only consolation is that the Bing Christmas show is the main feature and worth paying the $8 for, so you're not really paying for this version of A Christmas Carol (unless you watch it).

eggheadjon I remember watching this for several Christmases when I was a young boy. Basil Rathbone as Marley scared the bejesus out of me, and I had nightmares.I never thought I'd ever see it again until a friend found it in a big catalog and gave me a print for Christmas. What a wonderful cast and what a shame this version wasn't better preserved. Maxwell Anderson, the adaptor, was born just a few miles from here and is buried in Crawford County.The cast is superb. Whoever hears of Ray Middleton any more, or Bob Sweeney. Frederic March's reputation has held up a little better, but any would-be actor could do a lot worse than to watch him work.The songs were corny and had the sound of being tossed off between breakfast and lunch. The boy soprano in the beginning had the same effect on me as a dentist's drill.It was neat that the print I got has the Chrysler commercials, spaced out a heckuva lot further apart than they are today. Sadly, they made a fuss about telling viewers the show was in living color, but mine came through in black and white - just like our TV did in 1955.