IN: Review: So this made for TV film scores only a 7.6 on this site? Bah! Humbug! Without question this 1984 version of Dickens' classic tale is the best ever made. And yes, the Hound has seen the 1951 version which was also good, but not good enough. The lack of color is perhaps the biggest shortcoming of that version, although the acting was wonderful.

George C. Scott is simply incredible as Ebenezer Scrooge. We all know the story of this stingy businessman who is haunted by the ghost of his dead partner, then by three other spirits later on that evening. Scott is properly gruff as Scrooge. Too gruff in fact for some critics who claim he is unable to project the new-found glee that he awakens to on Christmas morning after the spirits teach him a valuable lesson. But hey, this is George C. Scott. He's never going to go dancing down the street in a fit of joy. He has too much dignity, and his Scrooge projects his emotion in a realistic manner.

The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, as are the costumes, music, and scenery. 19th Century London comes to life in Clive Donner's visionary style. The film even borders on frightening in several scenes involving the spirits. The important tale of morality shines through in every frame, though.

You won't often find this version aired on television anymore, and that is a disappointment. The 1984 version of A Christmas Carol should be a required part of every household's celebration of the holiday. When the decorations come out of the basement, this film should find its way into the DVD player at least once during the season.

10 of 10 stars.

The Hound.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Textbook example of an underestimated movie.

Although one can watch this movie over and over again and laugh every single time and still see something new in it, it's still regarded as just another funny picture. And although the movie has inspired many and added it's quotes and images to the pyche of all it's viewers, Moon Over Parador still hasn't received the acclaim it should. Even the brilliant cast with Academy Award winner Richard Dreyfuss and Raul Julia, to mention one, is not able to change this perception.

But after watching Raul Julia as Roberto Strausmann make Richard Dreyfus an offer he can't refuse in a meatlocker by reading him a good review of a part that he once played one can only come to one conclusion: this stuff is timeless! In fifty years we will have the proof.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: If there is one thing to recommend about this film is that it is intriguing. The premise certainly draws the audience in because it is a mystery, and throughout the film there are hints that there is something dark lurking about. However, there is not much tension, and Williams' mild mannered portrayal doesn't do much to makes us relate to his obsession with the boy.

Collete fares much better as the woman whose true nature and intentions are not very clear. The production felt rushed and holes are apparent. It certainly feels like a preview for a much more complete and better effort. The book is probably better.

One thing is certain: Taupin must have written something truly good to have inspired at least one commendable effort.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I have seen the movie at the Viennale a few years ago, where the audiences liked it. I liked it as well, Summer Phoenix performance still haunts me, that's why I decided to write a comment.

The story unfolds in London around 1900, where a jewish girl decides to become an actress. She tries desperately to become one, but it isn't before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being.

There were certain reviews, were her performance was smashed, they accused her of being dull, not able to bring life to her character. I think that's her strong point, that's exactly what Esther Kahn should be and Phoenix makes a brave decision to make her Esther a rather boring girl. So her transformation at the end is more powerful than it could have been otherwise.

The cinematography is great, the images of London around the turn of the century are very dark and sad, you can see how unpleasant life was back then.

The only fault in my opinion is the length of the movie, you loose touch with the characters, after all it's only about finding the actor in yourself, so there are no dramatic actions in the film. It's Phoenix credit that we don't loose the interest in the movie after the first hour.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive