Reviews

The attractions of setting an adaptation of A Christmas Carol during the Great Depression are obvious as it allows the messages behind the immediate storyline to be driven home in the same direct way as Dickens managed when attempting to mitigate the harshness of Victorian utilitarian philosophy.However, the success of this film doesn't lie in capitalising on this parallel.For me, it comes more in the excellent script, characterisations and great moments.I believe a really good adaptation should contain moments to take you to the very bottom of your soul - maybe to even question what you're not doing more of that you could be. In this, the film succeeds very well.There are some genuinely dark moments - eg the Ghost of Christmas Future's pointing at Scrooge's forgotten headstone and telling Scrooge that no one even remembers him "That is the only real death" Indeed that ghost, given a rare speaking part, never seems convinced that he will give Scrooge another chance after all and that uncertainty adds weight to the performance. (It can also be comic - what would the miser think at being confronted with a spirit dressed in a seventies disco outfit. That is truly scary !) All the scenes with the Cratchit family (the Thatchers as they are called here) are much more understated than the original and this makes the whole thing easier to accept.Henry Winkler makes a good jump from his role of The Fonz. Like Finney, one of the few other younger men to take the older role as well, he overdoes the tottering about a bit but generally its an assured performance.This isn't the greatest film adaptation but it joins a select group of others that does justice to the original concept in adapting it for another era.

Most of the comments expressed so far have correctly pointed out this version as the best and, unlike someone's reference to George C Scott's Scrooge, it does actually come directly from the book and not from years of ingrained television adaptations.The reason it is so good is because it echoes correctly the strata of fear that the book is based on. As a child, Jim Hawkins is scared of everyone from the physically hideous Blind Pugh to the men of bloodthirsty reputation - Israel Hands and Blind Pugh and that fear is shown by the pirates in their reverence for Captain Flint and of course, Long John, who commands by reputation alone.In preserving this intact, the whole book and thus, the film, is believable.I know people question some of the language (incorrectly in my view as all those words were spoken by landsmen not natural sailors and were very much in use in that time - the word 'bugger' for example, appears in the diaries of Pepy's hundreds of years earlier).Its easy to say that the film draws influence from early versions but that's inevitable. The Chieftans soundtrack and a very fine cast make it far superior and much more believable. As someone said earlier, you need a proper Silver who can both turn on the charm to convince a young lad but also control a band of cutthroats and Heston achieves that superbly well. You can see clearly how easily intimidated the pirates are because they are uneducated and that's obvious from the exchanges between them and Long John. Postlethwaite is brilliant in these and totally convincing ! Finally, I think someone mentioned a continuity problem earlier.Although having run off, Jim does see a pirate killed, this is only after he has jumped off the jolly boat and run inland.The two aren't connected.He does that for devilment I think and there are other examples of his reckless behaviour elsewhere in the book. What a great story though - the triumph of the stereotypical English gentlemen over the bloodthirsty pirates.I think we all agree on here, this interpretation is spot on !