I did, however, watch (for the first time) the version starring George C. Scott. I have detected a pattern that only two versions seem to have escaped:

Nearly every version I am aware of is used as a showcase for the talents of an actor who is universally proclaimed as a "great actor" (at least at the time of filming). This actor invariably portrays Scrooge in an unconvincing manner. He is either so over-the-top as to be unbelievable or he is so wooden that the result is much the same. Part of the fault undoubtedly lies with the director, but actors generally get the blame when they do not deliver the goods.

Of the following versions of this story, I offer the following analyses:

"An American Christmas Carol" (Henry Winkler as Benedict Slade, the "Scrooge" of this picture.)

This movie's redeeming point is that the story is artfully set during the depression era. Henry Winkler is a good, not a great, actor, but as with many of these movies, the supporting actors save the movie from becoming either completely insipid or too serious for it's own good.

"Scrooged" (Bill Murray)

This movie is proof that Bill Murray can't seem to choose a good script. Here we have a talented comedic actor who can not prevent himself from mugging to the camera, in a movie that has no other point than to prove you can spend large amounts of money to produce something that is peripherally related to a literary classic and still wind up as entertaining but pointless schlock. It's more entertaining than "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", and about as sentimental.

"The Original Scrooge" (Sir Seymour Hicks)

Actually, not a bad try. The plot and story are given short shrift due to the abbreviated length of the movie (only 60 minutes). As in so many versions, Scrooge is portrayed unconvincingly, but Sir Seymour Hicks does a fair job during certain scenes. As this movie was produced during the 1930's (1935) there is a certain sentimental melodramatic quality to the whole thing that, while it does not rescue the abbreviated story, goes quite a ways towards redeeming the production. Good. Not great, but good.

"A Christmas Carol" (Reginald Owen)

Another product of the '30s (1938 this time). This one suffers most from the director's temptation to mold it into a sermon about how the rich ought to forget about accumulating wealth and distribute it to the (much more deserving) poor. Reginald Owen exhibits the worst overacting I have seen in any version. He begins almost from the start to forget that to him, money is of utmost importance, and shows great enthusiasm for Christmas almost from the first visitation of the spirits of Christmas. It seems he has done nothing worse than become preoccupied with business and only needed a little prodding to bring him back to the kind, loving and generous ways he originally displayed. He shows no remorse for how his life has been wasted, and only seems to regret all the fun he missed out on.

"Scrooge" (Albert Finney)

This is the only musical version (that I am aware of) to make it to film. As such, I believe it is in its own class. It is actually quite good, though over the top, as every musical must be. It's possibly the second best on this list.

"A Christmas Carol" (George C. Scott)

I liked him better as Patton. Still, this movie is saved, as many other versions are, by an excellent supporting cast. The most memorable character (my opinion) is the Ghost of Christmas Present, portrayed by a fellow who resembles a seven-foot-tall John Cleese.

"A Christmas Carol" (Alistair Simm)

My favorite. I'm biased, of course, but I'm of the opinion that this is the best of the lot, ever. Scrooge is more believably miserly, corrupt and grasping in the beginning of this movie, and is more convincingly redeemed by the end. He convincingly shows the slow realization that what he has become something repugnant, and shows genuine remorse for the evil he has done in the name of "business". The movie runs long enough to give us more than just a recap of Scrooge's descent into miserhood. How he changed so much since his youth is plainly evident and understandable, not the unstated mystery it seems to be in other versions.

There are innumerable delightful scenes in this one. Four that quickly come to mind are:

1. As Scrooge walks home from his business, he approaches a blind man and his dog. The dog glances in Scrooge's direction, and nearly pulls his master off his feet getting him clear before Scrooge arrives.

2. Bob Cratchitt proposes a toast to Scrooge's health, and his wife (portrayed by Hermione Baddely) radiates disapproval and indignation and gives the best version of "If he were here, I'd give him a piece of my mind for him to feast upon!" (She isn't the prettiest Mrs. Cratchitt, but she's definitely the best.)

3. Scrooge awakens on Christmas morning to discover it's not too late to change his fate and make amends. As he prances around in giddy delight, the maid thinks he's gone mad, fleeing from the room with her apron thrown over her head when Scrooge attempts to stand upon his head on a chair.

4. Scrooge confronts Bob Cratchet on the day following Christmas. He seems fully aware of his mistreatment of Cratchitt and actually apologizes, rather than simply giving him a raise and pretending he's done nothing wrong.

Again: The best version ever.

I had more versions, but I can't find them either. Bummer!

------------------
"Scrooge had often heard it said that Marley had no bowels, but he had never believed it until now."
-- Charles Dickens (A Christmas Carol -- Charles Dickens)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

------------------
*gasp* "The pictures...they're...coming...alive!"
-Abe Simpson, on the miracle of the moving image

------------------
"Stop right there! I have here the only working phaser ever built! It was fired only once: to keep William Shatner from making another album."

- The Collector, "Treehouse of Horror X," The Simpsons.

The Muppet version is my favorite non-serious version, followed by the Mr. Magoo version (actually a serious version done in animation -- well done, indeed).

The Scrooge McDuck version hardly merits comment. It serves mainly as a showcase for Disney's animated characters.

Likewise, the Bugs Bunny version (My favorite animated character, along with Daffy Duck) seems to be more an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of their famous animated characters than an honest attempt to provide good entertainment value.

Any other versions I may have seen? Possibly. I'm eagerly anticipating the version with Patrick Stewart as Scrooge. We shall see. I hope he has enough respect for the story to put an honest effort into it.

--Baloo

------------------
"There are some upon this earth of yours, who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all out kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us."
-- The Ghost of Christmas Present (A Christmas Carol -- Charles Dickens)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

No, I don't think the movie is drawn from his stage show, in case anyone is wondering.

On another note, I saw a musical version just last Saturday. It was...interesting. Not my favorite, but it was a fair showing.

My Judgement: Well done!

Patrick Stewart does not overact as Scrooge, although he seems a bit too unemotional at times. Still he brings a new perspective to the story. Without diminishing the importance of Scrooge one bit, he manages to step aside and let the other characters share the stage -- something I have never seen before to such good effect. I still think the Alistair Simm version is better, but this version has raised the bar for subsequent productions.

Things I liked:

• Joel Grey makes an excellent Ghost of Christmas past.

• The guy who plays Fezziwig is the most convincingly jolly portrayal I've had the pleasure of viewing. He and his wife (a lovely, but large and happy woman) are the best pair of Fezziwigs I've seen.

• Tiny Tim is not so tooth-shatteringly sweet as to cause brain siezures by the mere sight of him. This alone would redeem the production had it no other virtue.

• Few, if any, of the people in the movie look like fashion models dressed in period costume. Despite this, they portray characters with many redeeming qualities, such as a loving disposition, generous hearts, and rational minds. Even Mrs. Dilber, crone that she is, comes across as a sympathetic character. You can't tell the bad guys just by how good-looking they aren't.

Things I don't like:

• Short list, this one: They modernized the language so it is more easily intelligible to the contemporary audience. I don't mind it much, but the original turns of phrase lend the story an extra measure of charm to my ears.

If you can, see it. I'm sure TNT will broadcast innumerableencore performances, and it will very likely be available on tabe (and/or DVD) by next Christmas.

------------------
"Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead," said Scrooge. "But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me."
-- Charles Dickens (A Christmas Carol)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

------------------
"You see, unlike you I understand history!
My name will blaze across the stars long after your petty treachery has been for-gotten !!!"

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

Look here at the IMDb user comments for Scrooge (1951).

--Baloo

------------------
That�s one of the things that bothers me about Star Trek - the faint whiff of Singapore wafts from the Federation. Clean, peaceable, industrious - with jail sentences for anti-social chewing-gum disposal.
--James Lileks
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm