I can not believe that Allen Menken of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin fame wrote the songs for this god-awful piece of yuletide fluff....hammy acting, forgettable songs, and the worst script i've ever seen. It's almost as if they threw it together on a bet to see who could produce "a christmas carol" the most rapidly. Is there a song in here that doesn't include the phrases "rat-tat-tat" or "harum-pump-a-pum-pum"?
shareAt 10pm ET, this is an absolute abomination. From the pseudo-Sondheim songs to the bang-you-over-the-head morality tale additions, it proves this production thinks it can improve on the source material.
Miscast is hardly an adequate word for this dreck. Grammer is one-note, Jennifer Love-Hewitt is lifeless as ever, and Jason Alexander was an embarassment. Please - Jacob Marley's song played to what amounted to Jewish klezmer music was offensive to say the least. It was the perpetuation of a Jewish stereotype that is astonishing in 2004. (And NO - I'm not Jewish. Lutheran).
Apparently, we, as Americans, need to be hit over the head with plot details to get the point of what's going on. We are dumbed down to, and Dickens in dumbed down upon because we no longer have the ability to derive the message ourselves. Do we need to see Scrooge witness Marley's death to understand the impact? No.
I saw Kelsey Grammer in marvelous stage performance in 1982 as Sergius in Shaw's "Arms and the Man". His performance set the benchmark in my mind of every production I have seen of this play since. Not here. He cannot hold a candle to the great Alistair Sim, or even George C. Scott or Albert Finney in this role.
The music adds nothing. It only dilutes the spirit of the story. I'm all in favor of reinterpretations, but this is not the one we've been waiting for. Far from it. I'll defer to Mr. Sim and company for my Christmas Spirit.
It seems thar Lynn Andhres, the book writer, read a cliff notes version of Dickns and then compleatly ignored it.
The Nameless
I am not what I am
I agree totally miscast. Not just Grammer but all the parts. For some reason Kelsey Grammer thought that we'd instantly recognize him as Scrooge if he just kept the same plastered on frown the entire movie.
The songs in the production might be good for stage, I won't judge until I actually see it performed. But to me, the lyrics were generally irrelevant to the scene or just plain boring.
I absolutely LOVE the 70 musical. The songs are in all the right places and are very memorable. Besides, this Grammar version is missing the "hell" scene from the 70s version. Guess we're all PC now, but it sure made more of an impression than a bunch of ghosts dancing around a cemetary.
too bad, i liked it
Sig
Re this bit: "Jacob Marley's song played to what amounted to Jewish klezmer music was offensive to say the least. It was the perpetuation of a Jewish stereotype that is astonishing in 2004. (And NO - I'm not Jewish. Lutheran). "
I agree it's a bit stereo typed and not very PC, but I grow tired of PC claptrap all the time, I daresay we'll have to change shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice as Shylock is Jewish in that too. It's a catchy song and lets face it not without a good reason because the guy is called JACOB marley and this is what it says about the name Jacob on wiki.
Hebrew, Ya'aqob[1]
The name Jacob originally came from the Hebrew name Ya'aquov. Jacob has undergone many variants throughout he ages, from the Greek translation Lakobus, to Latin Jacobus, to the modern day "Jacob." The name is of Biblical context; Jacob made his first documented appearance in the book of Genesis. He was the youngest son of Isaac and Rebecca. History tells us that Jacob's name is a reference to his birth. Jacob was born holding on to the heel of his twin brother Esau. Jacob was father to the 12 founders of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Qur'an although not giving details of the life of Jacob it does state that Jacob was of the company of the elect and the good (38:47, 21:75). Yaqub (Arabic version) is an accepted name in the Muslim Culture showing the reverence towards the name Jacob.
So a fair extrapolation of the characater from his name I feel.
It's not my favourte version and I hated it to start with but the songs have grown on me a lot I think it's overlit and looks a bit dated for such a recent film.
Dude... SHUT UP! I thought it was great and Grammar outdid himself yet again! You, and everyone who doubt it, SUCK!!!
BURN BABY, BURN! THE PYRO'S IN DA HOUSE!
~Have you had your dossage of LOST today? I know I have.~
Well, I don't agree that it was awful, I thought it was decent, even though the thing has probably been remade enough times already. None of the actors' singing voices disappointed me. The only one I didn't like was the little girl who played Grace Smythe--her voice is too shrill and literally hurt my ears, but everyone else sounded pretty good.
Now about the lyrics, I have to agree with you, they could have been much better, especially when you consider who wrote them. The song about Fezziwig's ball that included the bewilderingly useless phrase "rat tat tat tat tat tat tat" about a zillion times was pathetic. I'm no lyricist, but even I could have come up with something better than repeating that nonsense over and over.
Apparently having a party back in the 1800s in England meant repeating rat-tat-tat over and over again, trust me, this gets more than annoying when you're forced to hear this number over and over again.
Anyway, I thought that it was good for a TV special, but that's just me. I also think that on a whole it probably works a lot better as a stage production.
I think had I paid for tickets to see this on the stage, I would have been at the box office door within 30 minuted demanding my money back.
The single most annoying thing about this whole production was the sporadic attempts to insert an old cockney accent in to the songs. As an Englishman who has acted a fair bit, and does a lot of dialect work when in the UK, I have to say that these are some of the most awful London accents since Johhny Depp played Jack the Ripper.
Given a cast that includes Grammer (who I enjoyed in Frasier) and Alexander (who I put up with in Seinfeld) I cannot imagine why they would give this show a 9pm Slot on NBC. Had this been shown at 4pm so that more kids could watch it, then perhaps it would have been bearable, but to be the Prime Time focal point after Shrek.... come on NBC...
I also agree that this show was another examples of Directors and Producers under-estimating the American public. Why must everything on TV be dumbed down so that a 4 year old could understand it. And to make it just so god damned moralistic was irritating also. The story has a moral in it, and its worked out at the end of the story, so let the viewer learn the moral for themselves, rather than taking every opportunity to thrust it at the viewer.
Very Disappointed, almost to being disgusted.
Let me just say this. I'm only 13 years old and I was in this production on Broadway in 2002. Please don't be so harsh on the show itself, but feel free to feud about NBC.
I love "A Christmas Carol: The Musical," but this version was awful. NBC absolutely destroyed this musical. It's beautiful on the stage - I should know; I was in it. "Link by Link" (Marley's song) is amazing on stage; frightening to a point. There about a dozen more ghosts, all in glow-in-the-dark costumes and hanging from the ceilings - doing flips, using the chains for jumpropes, the whole nine yards. "Abundance and Charity" (Ghost of Christmas Present's song) is supposed to be a tap number, not a... I don't even know what to call it, but you get the point. The Ghost of Christmas Past is supposed to be a man. I respect Jane Krakowski and all for her Tony-winning performance in "Nine," but... it just didn't work. Oh yeah, and since it was played by a woman, they just *had* to put her in a slutty, low-cut dress that was slit up to the thigh. Past is supposed to a hyper, short little man in a white and blue tux spinning Scrooge's bed around, not a wood nymph. "A PLACE CALLED HOME" IS NOT A DIVA POP SONG! I REPEAT, NOT A DIVA POP SONG! Take note, Jenny. "Mr. Fezziwig's Annual Christmas Ball" was waaay too slow here, and it usually has a bunch of people doing flips and such. Tiny Tim looked like a monkey and did we really need that shot of Frasier shirtless? Don't think so. Only one person from the Broadway production worked on it (the choreographer), which explains the mediocracy - no, the... ugh, I have no words to describe how awful this was. They changed all the lyrics, which is why so many of you thought the songs sucked. NBC has destroyed it. filmmaker0 definitely has a point in saying that it works much better on the stage. It does. Sorry this is so long but I had a lot to say.
Just so you know, the filmmakers didn't want to do Abundance and Charity as a tap-dance number because it wouldn't have been historically accurate for the time period.
shareI don't see why some of you didn't like it. I mean, there are so many versions of "A Christmas Carol" and I think this is one of the best versions out there. It's a fluffy version, but I think it's cute. :)
shareI agree with filmmaker0 and name_in_lights (who is, I guess, 17 now) that the stage version of this particular show can be a lot more fun, so I hope you won't all stay away from it just because you didn't like the 2004 TV one. I just saw a local production of it the other day. It's hard to get me to enjoy a musical, but this was just right, even without Broadway levels of flying and acrobatics. And some things were really meant to be shared with and among a live audience.
If NBC changed a bunch of lyrics and messed with Menken's music to the point that he isn't even credited, that alone would lead me to suspect the TV version isn't firing on all cylinders. And I get where the critics here are coming from, but I'd still like to see this one as well sometime.
[deleted]
I've just started watching it...more appropriately, watching AT it. USA Network is rebroadcasting it, and since I missed it the first time through, I thought I'd see what it was all about.
It STINKS. It's HORRIBLE. And I don't see any way it can be redeemed in the next hour and fifteen minutes...even if I hadn't already browsed the comments here.
I have the George C. Scott version on DVD (which is my personal favorite), the Alastair Sim version (which comes a very close second), and even the Patrick Stewart version (which ranks behind the other two, but is still very enjoyable). I haven't bought the Albert Finney version, but I do try to watch it every year (I love "Thank You Very Much"...it's a great song).
But this one...it's just terrible. It's a throwback to the worst of the '40s and '50s musicals. I thought that Matthew Broderick's "The Music Man" was the worst remake I've seen in this century, but I think this one has to be even more horrible. At least "The Music Man" has its music as a redeeming factor. This one has...well, nothing.
I totally agree.
AWFUL.....just awful....
I agree too, but no one has mentioned the cotstumes
for the 1st ghost (i didnt watch the third) it literaly looked like an ice skating dress of something off strictly come dancing. i mean What??
the songs sucked- i only remember link by link, the only one i would have considered using. however even link by link was spoiled by stupid costumes (again) and bizarre choice of special affects. i dont think i will watch it again.
however i can imagine it being better on stage with adjustments.
ooglebug
I know it has been said before but I would also llike to say that I hated this version, but I think that the stage version was utterly AMAZING. I loved it so much that I saw it three times. It is one of my favorite shows. The movie, however, was just bad. I knew I was gonna hate it when I saw that they unessesarily rewrote the opening number. Then Abundance and Charity was painful to watch because it was my favorite part of the stage version and they ruined it. The only number that I thought they didn't ruin was Dancing on Your Grave. But then I wanted to kill someone when they didn't play "God Bless Us Everyone" at the end (I know it was included throughout, but it wasn't the same). So criticize this movie all you want, but don't denounce the show itself unless you've seen it on stage.
sharefinally! a totally agree! fluffy, the songs were forgettable, the acting terrible. costumes! oh my goodness - what was with the costumes for the ghost of christmas past and the ghost of christmas yet to come? the first looked like she'd was wearing a sexy prom dress from the local shopping centre, and the second looked like a cross between a mop and a reject from swan lake. *sigh...
shareAnd a huge BAH! HUMBUG to all of you panning this version. For the most part your criticisms of this are unfounded and weak. This is one of my wife and mine's favorite versions because of the music, cast and performances. Maybe they aren't all the most classically trained bunch to ever perform it but for the most part it is surprisingly well done. I hold degrees in theatre, film and music. Also, a veteran of over 150 stage productions including several versions of this show. I am qualified to critique all aspects of this show.
I am especially impressed by Jenifer Love-Hewitt's vocal performance. Who knew?
My only criticism is of Jane Krakowski's sickeningly bad english accent. Stage diction I can tolerate but this is not good. Overall, get over yourselves and just sit back and enjoy it. It is at heart a corny story and unless you can get in the mood easliy you are choosing the wrong approach or your Christmas spirit has been long ago snuffed out.
to the guy who loves this, mr Lownote:
having a college degree in anything does not qualify you to criticize anything anymore than anyone else.
as an artist who utterly and wholly disagrees with you, with degrees of my own, and experience to boot, i can confidently assert that the only real "credentials" you have are your direct experience in *making* theater pieces, not in watching them or even performing in them.
and if you have such experience, that makes it all the more surprising that you like this piece of drek.
however:
art, the making and enjoyment thereof, is subjective -- "de gustibus non est disputandum" -- so you are entitled to your opinion.
but so is everyone else.
and here's mine: this was clearly a cynically put together piece of hollywood junk, designed to cash in on the season. maybe it was better on the stage, who knows, but the music was bad, the lyrics pedestrian (rat tat tat tat??), the dancing inappropriate and anachronistic, the stage directions awkward, the accents and acting generally poor, the casting silly, and the lighting truly terrible.
i could go on and on, but suffice it to say that this is a hastily considered, poorly made, classic example of bad art -- in pretty much any category you care to name -- cobbled together in time for TV ratings at christmas.
for the record, mr lownote, telling people who disagree with you to, more or less, "relax and you'll enjoy it" is just absurd, not to mention insulting.
your statement sounds a lot like what the date rapist says to his unwilling partner: "jeez, why are you so uptight? just relax and you'll enjoy it."
such statements imply that if we weren't so "uptight" we'd all agree with you and your wife -- and if we don't, then it must be because we're thinking about it the wrong way, or maybe our christmas spirit was "snuffed out" long ago.
in other words, we don't like this terrible show because WE are, in fact, scrooges. i should say congratulations, then -- you have superior taste AND you are a better human being.
i am happy for you that you and your wife love this musical, and that it brings you enjoyment. that's great.
as for me, i love the original version, the albert finney version, and less so the george c. scott version. all are well-made, thoughtful, and simply better-crafted versions, imho, than this piece of junk.
but for the purposes of this board, "scrooged" holds a special place in my heart as an adaptation -- because it pillories this kind of drek as precisely what bill murray's character produces, cynically, in order to get big ratings for his network at christmastime.
all that said, however, i still wouldn't want to get in the way of your right to enjoy this.
so kindly do us all a favor? don't get in mine either. and don't tell us how to think or feel, or imply that we are flawed because we disagree with you and your wife.
last i checked, this is america, and we are supposed to welcome diverse opinions. it's in our national dna -- the constitution and its bill of rights.
so merry christmas, and god bless us, every one -- even the people with whom we don't agree. and let's be thankful that we still live in a place where we can express our opinions out loud, and not be punished for them.
I have to agree. It is on right now and I had to turn off the telly. It is that painful to endure. A full blown assault on the mind and senses. Shudder.
For my money though, Alistair Sim has set the bar for so long. And when you shoot at a king, you better kill him. And I just do not see anyone doing it any time soon. But *spoiler alert*
I wish with the Alistair Sim version they clean it up and use cgi to remove the man from the mirror. That annoys me to no end and the only real flaw in a pretty much otherwise perfect movie. But once you know it/he is there, it is jarring to see and you can't help looking. Pulls you out of the film as it were. So I see no purist's reason to keep it.
"What does it do?" Do? "It doesn't DO anything. That's the beauty of it." Jacques Heim/Louis Reard
The first time I watched this I would have totally agreed with those of you who hate this movie.
But I watched it again and it grew on me so much that I got the DVD. I will admit that I fast forward through quite a few of the numbers just like I do in White Christmas and that improved it for me. I watched it and the Alistair Sim version last night and enjoyed them both (there is no need to ff through any of the 1951 version).
I love it!
shareThis is wonderful production with talented people and unforgettable music. What is wrong with you? You obviously know nothing of music or musicals. Kelsey Grammer never disappoints and Jason Alexander and the rest of the cast were amazing. Sorry, but you and the other haters of this production are idiots.
shareFrankly, my favorite is the Mr. Magoo version.
share