A Christmas Carol adaptations range from the delightful to the derivative.
Just how do the many iterations of Dickens' classic tale of redemption stack up?
From the total disasters to the heartfelt classics...
"Humbug."
...here are A Christmas Carol adaptations ranked from worst to best.
Have you ever thought to yourself that A Christmas Carol could use some slapstick animal gags
to undercut all the Victorian gloom?
How about a sleeker, younger Ebenezer Scrooge who's given a second chance at love?
Perhaps a love song performed by Kate Winslet?
No?
Well, that's too bad, because 2001's Christmas Carol: The Movie is stuffing all that and
more into 81 minutes of tooth-gritted cheer.
It's not just that stuff that makes this take on Dickens so skippable.
Despite the A-list talent, Christmas Carol: The Movie is remarkably lifeless.
The facial animation doesn't ever look quite right, the acting is, at best, stiff, and
the entire operation feels dumbed down.
This adaptation's fatal flaw is that it doesn't trust Dickens, and it doesn't trust its audience.
This 2003 TV movie attempts to liven up the classic tale by replacing Scrooge with a selfish
talk show host and moving the story from Victorian London to modern-day Hollywood.
It's an intriguing idea on its own.
What setting better represents a story of greed, empathy, and false fronts than Hollywood?
And hey, isn't the idea of Scrooge as an image-obsessed celebrity pretty great?
In concept, it's all strong and innovative.
Too bad the execution isn't.
A Carol Christmas is little more than a fresh coat of paint that flakes away over the course
of the movie, revealing that it wasn't all that necessary to begin with.
The modern setting makes Dickens' story more cloying than anything else.
Removed from sooty London, the sickly children and terrifying visions of the future feel
more like after-school specials than grave warnings.
Worst of all, A Carol Christmas is simply boring.
By the end the audience isn't so much watching the movie as it is waiting it out.
The cranky celebrity might learn to be kinder by the end, but the viewer has only learned
to distrust new takes on old favorites.
There was a sliver of time in the 2000s when movies fell in love with surreal, motion-capture-powered
computer animation.
Robert Zemeckis, fresh from using this technique in The Polar Express and Beowulf, decided
to apply it to A Christmas Carol.
Led by performances from Jim Carrey as Scrooge and Gary Oldman as Bob Cratchit, the results
were...odd.
Some, like Roger Ebert, hailed it as "an exhilarating visual experience."
Others, like The Telegraph, considered its looks distracting, creating distance between
the characters and the audience that made it difficult to connect to the story.
"There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are."
"WAAAAH!"
Years later, the movie's reputation remains mixed, and it's not hard to see why.
There are certainly strengths to be found.
Carrey's Scrooge is a bit goofier than other renditions, but it fits the ghoulishly funny
tone of the movie, and Oldman's Cratchit is pitch-perfect.
But the visuals, so dazzling in 2009, look strange to modern eyes.
Plus, the tone of the film sits uncomfortably between two extremes.
It's a little too dark to be heartwarming and a bit too silly to be bleak.
Only one thing is truly clear: It's nobody's go-to version when the holiday season rolls around.
You might not recognize Alan Menken by name, but there's a good chance you know his work.
The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Tangled all feature his songs.
So when he signed on to a brand new adaptation of A Christmas Carol starring Kelsey Grammer,
hopes were high.
The man behind "A Whole New World" and "Under the Sea"
tackling one of the greatest holiday stories ever told?
That's not just a good idea — it's about as safe a bet as anyone gets in the entertainment industry.
And yet somehow, this version of Scrooge's fateful transformation
leaves something to be desired.
The music is quite good, though it never hits the highs of Menken's greatest work.
The story is solidly told, and the movie features a fine performance from Jane Krakowski as
the Ghost of Christmas Past.
Grammer is as grumpy as Scrooge should be, without ever crossing the line into total
awfulness.
And yet the entire affair is somehow inert.
It never stops feeling like something adapted from the stage that probably should've stayed there.
On film, it never offends, but it doesn't impress either.
It's trapped between worlds, unable to succeed in either one.
Disney has been involved in multiple Christmas Carol adaptations, but this is the one that
features the characters most central to the brand.
Mickey, Minnie, and of course, Scrooge McDuck all star in this particular take on the tale.
They bring a certain lightness to even the darkest parts of the iconic story.
No one heads into A Christmas Carol thinking Scrooge won't end up changing his ways, but
there's still something soothing about Mickey Mouse leading the bleak first half of the story.
For the youngest viewers, this is an ideal Carol indeed.
"Farewell, Ebenezer…"
Unfortunately, that's the only group this version is meant for.
Anyone beyond the preschool years won't find much to love about this take, blunted as it
is by Disney's core characters.
This isn't to say it isn't sweet to watch beloved figures like Daisy Duck and Goofy
in London, learning the ways of goodwill toward men.
The sheer number of A Christmas Carol adaptations, though, means that no viewer has to settle
for mere sweetness.
Leave this version in the nursery where it belongs, and move on to something better.
Unique among Carol adaptations, Scrooged actually features an in-universe staging of the classic
Dickens tale.
Shrewd TV executive Frank Cross ordered it, and he doesn't care how much strain it puts
on his overworked employees.
He is, of course, the Scrooge of this story.
"Oh my Gosh, does that suck."
He's even got an overworked assistant, a widow named Grace, and an old flame whose work with
the homeless contrasts sharply with his greed.
Three ghosts visit him, lessons are learned, and in the end, Frank, leads the Carol crew
in a rendition of the 1969 classic "Put a Little Love in Your Heart."
Spins on Carol can go quite well, and this one does, for the most part.
Modern mass media suits the protagonist, and it's different enough from the original story
to be intriguing but similar enough to translate smoothly.
Bill Murray in the title role plays Cross with sharky, calculating menace.
He's a Scrooge the audience fears on a primal level, as he's so destructive in a familiar way.
But there is a mean-spirited tone to the film, as though the movie is embarrassed to seem
too earnest.
This pairs oddly with the sentimental ending, which actually goes further down the road
to a happy ending than most Carols.
All in all, it's fun...but only just.
This isn't the only animated rendition of A Christmas Carol on our list, but it might
just be the most visually striking, so much so that it won an Oscar for Best Animated
Short Film.
Richard Williams, who masterminded Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, directed and produced this
version, and the quality is clear in every frame.
This version of A Christmas Carol is austere, almost dour, thanks to the crew looking to
19th-century engravings for inspiration.
As a result, this version might not be the one children respond to.
Plus, it's a short piece, only 25 minutes long.
You can't help but wish the film had a little more room to breathe, if only to explore the
possibilities of its unique animation more.
Still, the end result is a gorgeous half-hour of pure Dickens, as warm-hearted as it is
deliberately rough around the edges.
You forget the happy ending within the grimy first half of the tale, so it's all the more
delightful to rediscover that in the second.
Dickens' work isn't exactly what anyone would describe as "feel good."
Sure, A Christmas Carol has a happy ending, but the reader needs to earn it.
"Dickensian," after all, has become a descriptor unto itself.
And this version of A Christmas Carol (aka Scrooge) is truly Dickensian.
British giant of the stage and screen Alastair Sim dons the stovepipe hat in this adaptation,
and he cranks up the grumpiness to memorable levels.
It's a notably grim take on an already dark tale, but it works, for the most part due
to Sim's unbeatable screen presence.
You hate Scrooge, but you never give up on him.
That stirring central performance livens up the whole production, making the film actively
entertaining, instead of simply faithful to Dickens.
This is a deeply honest Christmas Carol, for better and worse, but it never loses its faith
in humanity's ability to change.
A version of A Christmas Carol starring Patrick Stewart already has a leg up on the competition.
Those who know his work will automatically see him as a natural Scrooge, while those
who are new to his work will be quickly convinced.
His gruffness suits the character perfectly, while his comedy chops come in handy towards
the end.
Stewart is an actor at the height of his powers in this adaptation, as natural rolling his
eyes at orphans as he is embracing Tiny Tim.
He gives the entire production gravity, and he loans every scene and set piece weight
and sophistication with his presence.
This take A Christmas Carol helps you understand how Stewart's career has, if anything, only
grown with age.
The movie around him, in contrast, is merely fine.
There's nothing to complain about, but beyond Stewart's powerhouse performance, nothing
catches the eye.
That's easily forgiven thanks to Stewart, but when placed beside other versions of the
story, it's a lot more noticeable.
Stewart is talented enough to make the production notable, but in truth, he's the only thing
that does.
Happily for Dickens and Stewart fans alike, A Christmas Carol is very much Ebenezer Scrooge's story.
Thus, this time, it's Patrick Stewart's story as well.
"What the dickens have they done to Scrooge?" the tagline of the Scrooge poster pleads.
It's also a musical, and one made in 1970 at that.
You hear these facts and imagine a sort of perfect, anti-Dickens storm approaching.
And yet, Scrooge actually ends up being pretty delightful.
Yes, it enjoys thumbing its nose at ideas of the Victorian era and what a literary adaptation
should be.
But its heart is fixed firmly in the right place, and that results in a truly wonderful
rendition of A Christmas Carol.
The songs serve the story rather than smothering it, clarifying Dickens' themes as they spin
them into an entirely new medium.
Is this jauntier than the more classical takes on the story?
Yes, but that's a virtue.
Scrooge might be making its own rules, but it never loses sight of its source material.
There's no shortage of Christmas Carol adaptations featuring top-class talent, especially in
the role of Scrooge.
But George C. Scott brings something unmatched to this version, a sheer power that pours
from every frame.
An actor from West Virginia brings something to a role as essentially British as Ebenezer
Scrooge that the actual Brits could do well to learn from him.
This is a Scrooge who strides, and whose nastiness stings all the more for the force he can put
behind it.
Thus, it's also a Scrooge who feels entirely transformed by the final credits, and a Scrooge
who delivers the moral with renewed energy.
He isn't just changed by his ordeal with the ghosts, but rebuilt as a new man with new
purpose.
Alongside a cast that brings a certain worn quality many Carol adaptations lack, Scott
shines all the brighter.
It's not just a great take on a classic story, or a collection of impressive performances.
It's a holiday treasure all its own.
Who'd have thought that a rendition of A Christmas Carol starring Muppets would be one of the
best adaptations of all?
Unlike the worst offenders on this list, this film doesn't just trot out the morals everyone expects.
It also doesn't put any unnecessary new spin on things that don't need changing.
Rather, it highlights the best things about the story while providing a new lens with
which to view them.
Thus, it helps us love them like we did the very first time we heard the story.
To start with, there's Michael Caine's Scrooge.
He's as grouchy as he should be, but surrounding him with puppets teases out a comical edge.
He's a terror, but you're laughing at him from the beginning.
This makes the movie an ideal choice for the youngest viewers, but it also gives the film
an inventive spin on Dickens' tale.
While some on this list succeed by leaning into the story's darker elements, the Muppets
succeed by embracing the author's sense of humor, joy, and goodwill.
Plus, you'll get to see Gonzo, best known for his weird blue nose and love of chickens,
play cultural cornerstone Charles Dickens.
What's not to love?
What makes A Christmas Carol great?
There's the satisfaction of seeing a villain confronted with the consequences of his actions.
There's the sly sense of humor that peeks out from around the story's most cynical corners.
Plus, there's the community spirit that it celebrates.
But beyond all of that, there's the hope it kindles.
A Christmas Carol tells us that it's never too late to be a bigger, better, and more
benevolent person.
"I shall change my way of living.
I will try to keep Christmas all the year."
It's this spirit that the 1938 adaptation embodies.
From its first scenes to its sublime ending, it's a beacon of progress in all its forms.
Reginald Owen's Scrooge is an old monster who finds himself falling in love with life
again, flush with the fact that it isn't too late for him.
That this film was made in the midst of the Great Depression for a weary public remains clear.
This is a movie for those all too familiar with Scrooge and his ilk, as Dickens' audience
was in its day.
This version of A Christmas Carol understands the power of its story like few others, and
decades after its debut, it still shines like it did the day of its premiere.
Check out one of our newest videos right here!
Plus, even more Looper videos about your favorite Christmas movies are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.