If you didn't like this movie just because you didn't like it, then fine, but to write a review about it being inappropriate is bewildering to me. You knowingly watched a movie on FX (known to push boundaries), with a TV-MA rating & even the promos were dark & obviously not for children. So if you ignored all that & watched with your kids, then that's on you.
Add a Review
-
cshine1823 December 2019
-
cruzarts-7394630 December 2019I'm not a Dickens purist and appreciated many of the storytelling choices -- particularly the stunning, period-proper stretches which place the poor and vulnerable under the heel of the powerful and callus.
Where this fell down for me is at the end. It seems as if an excessive amount of time was spent at in the first two episodes of characters looking around and pacing, then the end is shoe-horned in and feels woefully incomplete.
Ebenezer's relationship with his sister is stronger in this version than any other, but he doesn't reconcile with his nephew. It seems incomplete and rushed at the end. -
yeshieparker20 December 2019All reviews I read were fairly negative. I watched this movie anyway and really liked it. This movie presents a more authentic depiction of mid-19th century London than past versions and it certainly isn't candy-coated. The acting is excellent and there is a very clear message about greed and its effects. The plot follows the basic structure of the story - the important components are the same but it is a very loose adaptation.The important thing is that it succeeds in transmitting the intended message. If you are looking for a faithful, by-the-book adaptation, this is not the movie for you. I recommend watching it with an open mind.
-
spenfam-0414524 December 2019I loved it and I am 65 years of age. I agree the expletives didn't add anything and were not necessary but it was well written and very well acted. If you want same old same old then watch Muppets Christmas Carol or Alistair Sims original (both of which I love) but this was different and I enjoyed it
-
mikegibb-6041824 December 2019One of the best TV mini serirs ever made. I am genuinely shocked by people taking offence at this adaption of this Dickens classic. I am a huge fan of the book. I have read it every Christmas for the last twenty years and have watched and enjoyed many TV and film adaptions. I therefore approached this version with trepidation but ended up being blown away. My only complaint was that it wasn't long enough. It was a brilliant retelling of the classic take of redemption. The script, which unusually,didn't draw from the book, was sharp and engaging, the production was amazing with the mill, mine and church scenes breathtaking and the acting straight out of the top drawer. Truthfully I don't believe there has ever been a better Scrooge than Guy Pearce. If you haven't seen it please don't be put off by the negative reviews. This is a total treat.
-
Written by Steven Knight and directed by Nick Murphy, this latest adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1843 novella (which aired on the BBC in the UK and Ireland as three one-hour episodes over three nights, and on FX in North America as a three-hour film) was heavily advertised as the "darkest" version ever made, with a Scrooge for our bitter and jaded times. Very much eschewing the sweetness of previous adaptations, the show interrogates not just such standard fare as the exploitative nature of capitalism and the illogicality of certain Christmas traditions, but actually deconstructs the thematic foundations of the novella itself. Fans of the original have taken issue with some of the changes (such as the reformulation of Scrooge from misanthrope to villain, the depiction of child sexual abuse, and the joyless nature of the Cratchit family), and certainly, some of these complaints are justified. On the other hand, it looks amazing, is anchored by an extraordinary central performance, and the attempt to ground the whimsical nature of the original in something more akin to psychological realism is, for the most part, very well-handled.
Good lord though, the last 30 seconds are ill-advised.
Set in London in December, 1843, Ebenezer Scrooge (an incredible Guy Pearce) is a miserly and cynical individual, who is contemptuous of the good cheer that people exhibit at Christmas, arguing that such sentiments are hypocritical and fake, a philosophy he takes great delight in explaining to his put-upon clerk, Bob Cratchit (Joe Alwyn). Meanwhile, in Purgatory, Scrooge's dead friend, Jacob Marley (an excellent Stephen Graham) is told that because he and Scrooge worked together to exploit others, his redemption is tied up with Scrooge's. And so Marley visits Scrooge, telling him that three ghosts will be coming to see him, laying bare his life and choices - the Ghosts of Christmas Past (Andy Serkis), Christmas Present (Charlotte Riley), and Christmas Future (Jason Flemyng).
The first thing that jumped out at me in this adaptation was the aesthetic, particularly Si Bell's dark and oppressive cinematography, which avoids primary colours as much as possible, instead casting the world in blacks, greys, browns, and off-whites, with ample use of deep shadows. Interiors punctuate these shadows with the teal and orange glow of the fireplaces, and overall the show's palette is extremely muted, as it should be. In this sense, the opening scene, featuring an ominous raven and a child urinating on Marley's grave, tells us just how unique the visual template is. Another nice early scene is when Scrooge is counting the recurring noises outside his window so as to chart his frustration. The scene is shot entirely from his perspective, we're locked inside his subjectivity, so we hardly ever see the people who are making the noises, we just hear the noises, which is an excellent way to convey that he looks at the world quantitatively, seeing no humans, only numbers.
The most aesthetically impressive sequence comes in the last episode; as Scrooge stands in his office, he looks up and the ceiling has become a layer of ice. Then someone falls through the ice and seems to float in the air - we're actually underneath the ice layer, and the person who has fallen through is drowning, all the while Scrooge looks up from his office below, helpless to intervene. It's a haunting and extraordinary image. There's also a very subtle shot in the second episode with huge thematic importance - as Scrooge relives a moment from his childhood, we see his father (an intense Johnny Harris) threaten to beat him as he cowers on a bed. However, although it is the adult Scrooge we can see, the shadow he casts is that of his childhood self. Really good stuff.
Thematically, the show covers some of the same ground as the novella. In an early scene, for example, Scrooge brilliantly deconstructs the concept of gift-giving and then goes on to pick apart the very notion of Christmas cheer, in a speech that represents some of Knight's tightest writing; "How many Merry Christmases are meant and how many are lies? To pretend on one day of the year that the human beast is not the human beast? ... Instead of one day good, the rest bad, why not have everyone grinning at each other all year and have one day in the year we're all beasts?" In a subsequent scene, Scrooge relives the origins of this philosophy, as his drunken and bankrupt father tells the child, "A gift is just a debt unwritten but implied" and "everyone out there - every man, every woman - they're all beasts who care only for themselves. Because that's what a human is. It's an inward-looking thing only."
Where this adaptation breaks from the novella is in the depiction of Scrooge himself. Usually, a curmudgeonly old misanthrope, the worst you could really say of him was that he was a personification of some of the more unpleasant aspects of capitalism. Here, however, he has been refashioned as an outright villain. A manipulative asset stripper, Scrooge is complicit in the deaths of numerous factory workers and numerous miners, due to his penny-pinching ways. He's a man who goes out of his way to be nasty to people and whose treatment of Cratchit is almost fetishistically perverse. And that isn't even to mention his abuse of the power his wealth affords him, using it to compel people to demean themselves for his curiosity.
However, I would contend there is thematic justification for making this significant change. Dickens' Scrooge is not an irredeemable character, but the Scrooge of this show is, which necessitates that the joyful catharsis found in Dickens be reformulated as an altogether more sober moment of self-realisation. And the absence of such catharsis is precisely the point; this Scrooge is savvy enough to understand that redemption won't do anything to erase his past deeds, so he doesn't especially care about redemption, which is a kind of psychological verisimilitude not found in the original or any of the adaptations. Depicting Scrooge as much worse than usual allows Knight to build organically to a more downbeat, but so too more realistic ending that's far more in tune with our own cultural milieu than the twee optimism found at the conclusion of Dickens's tale.
Indeed, most (but not all) of the significant changes can be explained thematically. For example, the much-discussed childhood sexual abuse storyline is there to add an extra layer of psychological trauma to Scrooge's childhood. Similarly, there's no final joyous scene with Fred because the show doesn't deem Scrooge worthy of such a scene. On the other hand, portraying Scrooge as a pseudo-sexual predator serves little intrinsic purpose. Yes, I understand it's to paint him as thoroughly vile, but it's unnecessary, and achieves nothing that couldn't have been accomplished using less extreme tropes. Another change I didn't really like is the unrelenting miserableness of the Cratchit family. In the novel, they're poor but loving, a deeply happy family who get strength from one another. In the show, they're a bunch of sourpusses who do little but complain (except Tiny Tim, he's fairly laidback). This achieves nothing - the whole point of the family in the novella is to show Scrooge that happiness doesn't necessarily depend on material possessions and wealth.
On a much more practical level, the pacing of the show is very poor. The Ghost of Christmas Present only appears to Scrooge at the top of the second hour; he then takes that entire hour and about 20 minutes of the last hour. The Ghost of Christmas Present gets about 20 minutes and the Ghost of Christmas Future no more than 10 or so. This has the effect of making the first hour seem unending and the last hour seem rushed. Another issue I have is the design of the Ghost of Christmas Future. See the awesome Death-like figure on the poster? Don't get too attached to him because he never appears in the show, not once. The Ghost of Christmas Future is instead a guy wearing a long black coat and a black hat, with his mouth sewn shut...and that's about it.
And then there's final 30 seconds. I have no idea what they were going for with this ending, but it makes little contextual sense, it's patronising, incredibly preachy, and...just wrong, both thematically and tonally. Indeed, if you really think about it, it completely undermines much of the themes the rest of the show has established.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed this adaptation, which is dark both literally and figuratively. It's an altogether more realistic version of the story, one more in tune with our cynical times, and for that, Knight should be commended. But the changes are significant, and a few don't work. In this sense, I'm honestly not surprised it got such a mixed reaction. -
jdcusumano121 December 2019This is a BRILLIANT version of A Christmas Carol. It is dark, and it is adult in nature. Not for children. It is the very first movie to focus on the part of the story that MUST be understood and highlighted to understand Scrooge's transformation. In my 1996 book, In my book, Transforming Scrooge (which has been just released as a Kindle edition on 11/7/21), I discussed, in depth. The need to understand his boarding school hallucination, brought on by familial abandonment and abuse. This movie lavishes, in depth, time on this part of the story. I cannot tell you how pleased I am with this gritty and honest version of the story. It is Dickens for the 21st Century. Highly recommended.
-
IonicBreezeMachine16 December 2021Ebeneezer Scrooge (Guy Pearce), a hardened and cynical man is an investment broker specializing in lucrative ventures of cannibalizing bankrupted businesses and yielding exorbitant profits at the expense of worker safety. Scrooge's deceased former partner, Jacob Marley (Stephen Graham), having resided in purgatory of being trapped in his coffin out of desperation begs for repentance and is told his salvation will be tied to the redemption of his friend and partner Scrooge. Marley warns Scrooge he will be visited by three spirits as a last ditch effort to save both their souls from damnation.
Produced by Tom Hardy and Ridley Scott, and written by Taboo and Peaky Blinders scribe Steven Knight, the jointly produced FX/BBC miniseries, A Christmas Carol based on Charles Dickens 1843 novella of the same name was touted as being the darkest take on the material yet with the miniseries intended for an adult audience as opposed to the (relatively) universally accessible versions of the story. The show is certainly unapologetic in how dark it goes into parts of its story with topics such as child molestation, sexual exploitation, and financially motivated negligence resulting in the maiming or deaths of people tackled with very few pulled punches. This miniseries is certainly bold in the direction it takes with the source material, but while I do recommend a one time viewing this isn't one of my favorite adaptations of the source material and I most likely won't be inclined to revisit it.
Despite Guy Pearce being one of the younger Scrooges I've seen, Pearce does well bringing his own take on the material with some really good scenes especially in the first episode that really showcase how strong an actor Pearce truly is and gives added dimensionality to Scrooge with his mannerisms adding an element of psychosis to the character that works surprisingly well. This is very much a showcase for the actors with Stephen Graham doing quite well in a greatly expanded take on Marley, Andy Serkis being an unusual but interesting take on Ghost of Christmas Past, and characters like Mary Cratchit and Scrooge's sister have been expanded upon in order to give added dimensionality to these characters in the context of this darker take on the story. The production design is also quite well done with the show's depiction of 1840s London definitely the grimiest and dirtiest take on the city I've seen in A Christmas Carol adaptation with a real tangible feeling to the soot and filth coating the London streets.
Knight's take on the story is probably the most nihilistic interpretation I've seen of Dickens' story and that will be a major deciding factor in whether or not you enjoy this take on the material. While A Christmas Carol with its Ghosts, scenes of human indifference and neglect, as well as its portrayals of death do make it a "dark" story in some respects, the source story is ultimately about redemption and finding that humanity within. Steven Knight's take on the story does have some level of redemption at the end of the series, but with how much the show ups Scrooge's cruelty and indifference the show seems to take an almost callous view of Scrooge's redemption with some of his actions going to pretty despicable areas that the ending doesn't have that same level of catharsis you got from the Patrick Stewart or George C. Scott versions of the story and the ending feels more Pyrrhic than joyous which I guess fits well with Steven Knight's take, but to an end I can't really say worked for me completely.
The 2019 Christmas Carol miniseries is certainly a different take on the well worn material, but not to the point I'd say it's required viewing. With Knight's more acerbic language replacing Dickens' dialogue in service of a gritty take on the material, the show is pretty consistent with its oppressive atmosphere of 1840s England in a manner that's probably more true to life but it loses a lot of the resonance from the beats in Dickens' original story. The show does tackle dark subject matter and elaborates on minor characters from the story, but it also sidelines other characters with Scrooge's nephew and Scrooge's former love scaled back to borderline cameos at best and cliff notes at worst. There are some absolutely chilling moments in this adaptation as well as unique incorporations of other characters and iconography, but the end result is messy albeit ambitiously so. -
andycurtis-1661124 December 2019Quite simply superb. Without doubt the best adaptation I have ever seen. Dark and earthy, but brilliantly acted, gripping, moving and, ultimately, uplifting. Maybe not for everyone, but three generations of my family loved it. Thank you BBC.
-
kenbrown-9457926 December 2019This is another perfectly good classic tale wrecked by being used as a vehicle for delivering messages about modern society rather than a great story told with verve and enthusiasm. It was over long and full of philosophical rumination which I frankly found tedious. It is far too gloomy IMO. Redemption is muted and not gloriously celebrated. I will never watch it again in contrast to the Alistair Sim version which I have seen countless times and enjoyed on every occasion.
-
mezzaitaliana-8913122 December 2019I'm not sure why the writers decided to update a true classic. The characters have been changed dramatically. Guy Pearce is too young and has not disguised his Australian twang. Bob Cratchit is facetious and sarcastic. His wife is mixed race and bolshy. The scenery is dark and stylish, and everyone looks clean. To summarise, if you love the book and previous productions don't bother.
-
Sleepin_Dragon26 December 2019If you're expecting something middle of the Road, and dare I say it, along the same lines as War of the worlds, you'll be disappointed, this is a very different, relevant and gritty.
I would say it improves as it progresses, the first twenty minutes or so are very slow, but once you get into the core of the story it becomes excellent.
Very gothic, very bleak, it's dark, it even looks dark, memories of Jamaica Inn.
Terrific acting, Pearce is the standout as Ebeneezer, others also impressed, Charlotte Riley and Stephen Graham were great.
I thought it was very impressive. 8/10 -
blatherskitenoir29 December 2020Now, there's dark and gritty, and then there's this. It's like the makers of Bloodborne decided to try to make a version of A Christmas Carol. Ebenezer is transformed from grumpy penny pincher in need of some holiday spirit to a literally evil person. He has been involved in, and responsible for, *multiple* incidents of mass death, and enjoys psychologically torturing characters with messed up mind games. It strains credulity that Christmas Cheer and The Power of LoveTM can absolve someone like this. But it's just so pretty and his back story is so dark and twisty, and it's just, so, *different*.
To put it succinctly, this is A Christmas Carol for those who dislike A Christmas Carol and would prefer never seeing A Christmas Carol again.
Think of all the teens, dads, and just regular Christmas grumps forced to watch the exhausting parade of Christmas Carol versions by their chipper, Christmas-fanatic relatives, and you'll find the audience for this one. They will like it BECAUSE the classic story is twisted and darkened until it's basically unrecognizable, and for the mature shock value, while the Christmas cheer fans will utterly loath it and want their feel-good family classic back.
It's strong points are that it is visually gorgeous, well acted, and very different.
It's weaknesses are it's pacing, (which is really, truly bad), the unsatisfying ending, and the fact that it isn't A Christmas Carol, but keeps half heartedly trying to be, when it really would have worked better as an original piece. -
stephanieecrane26 December 2019Yes, every version of "A Christmas Carol" takes liberties with the source material. Even the much-beloved 1951 Alistair Sim version creates a whole new subplot with the amoral Mr. Jorkin out of whole cloth. But this mess seems like Steven Knight took a third-grader's 100-word book report on Dickens' classic and made a whole new movie out of it.
Scrooge and Marley were now not merchant and/or small-loan bankers; they were vulture capitalists who bought bankrupt businesses, stripped them of their assets, and by penny-pinching ran them in to the ground, killing dozens along the way. Scrooge, who has acquired both obsessive-compulsive disorder and a photographic memory in this version, starts his travel with a shapeshifting Ghost of Christmas Past by watching his newly-bankrupt father decapitate his pet rat, then sell him to a pederast schoolmaster (implied, free tuition for free buggery). Fan - here called Lottie - holds off the schoolmaster with a gun to "rescue" Scrooge. Fezziwig? Doesn't exist here. Belle - here called Elizabeth - gets less than a minute's mention. To get the money for surgery for Tiny Tim, Mary Cratchit submits herself to a "Fifty Shades of Grey" domination-submission session with Scrooge (so anyone who wondered what Bob Cratchit's wife's bare bottom looks like can be satisfied). The main highlights of the session with the Ghost of Christmas Present (who this time out looks like Lottie) are Mary lying about the session with Scrooge and Bob Cratchit (who gives so much lip to Scrooge that a real 19th-century employer would have sacked him inside a minute) planning to quit his job with Scrooge for a two-shilling raise with another employer. (Fred, Lottie's son and Scrooge's nephew, shows up at the beginning to say that he won't be extending an invitation to Christmas dinner ever again - against the way Fred is presented in practically every other adaptation - and then disappears.) The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come - who is made to be the big bad guy, with the power to decide what happens to a man's soul - is completely forgettable, as is his segment of the show. Scrooge refuses to repent or to change his ways; instead, we are to believe that his desire for Tim not to die after falling through the ice while skating (?!?) was enough for the Ghost to let him go. The show wraps up with Scrooge letting Cratchit resign and then closing down his company, followed by a suggestion that Mary Cratchit started the proceedings with some type of voodoo "because I'm a woman and can do these things" (so Mary Cratchit's a witch?). By the way, Marley procuring the chance of redemption for Scrooge doesn't exist here - Marley only came back to life when a miner whose family was killed at a Scrooge and Marley coal mine urinated on his grave.
I'd sat down with a group - men and women both - to watch this new interpretation. By the time Mary Cratchit's bare bottom hit the screen, I was the only one left. This is a travesty that ignores the source material for the writer's own dark interests - and in the process creates a dark, dank, and ultimately forgettable slog.
To borrow from Frank Cross: "Oh, my gosh... Does THAT suck! Now I have to kill all of you!"
(Resubmitted in case IMDb requires a star rating - mind you, I'd give this zero stars if I could.) -
tynisha335423 December 2019Honestly I loved this rendition and appreciated the well thought out additions to the original. Loved how dark it was and the offered up explanation for why Scrooge is Scrooge.
Did a great job filling in the blanks of the original story and really was quite creative. People are mad Mary Cratchitt is black but she's clearly mixed and last time I checked bi racial AND black people existed in England in the 19th century! Also would like to point out the dickens version doesn't specify what race Mary is!
Watch it without expectations and an open mind! I love the original and I read it each Christmas but this was a pretty unique retelling and I appreciated it! -
Roy_Batty_Nexus625 December 2019It is Simply awful, truly truly awful. The language in this awful production is not in keeping with a Dickens classic such as A Christmas Carol, and it is also full of PC to kowtow to the liberal masses. This is not Dickens. This belongs in the dustbin.
-
lisahimme24 December 2019I don't understand the bad reviews, 2 episodes in and I think Guy Pearce has acted really well and of course the amazing Stephen Graham. Guy's take on Scrooge is amazing. It's dark and miserable but so was London all those years ago and the story is a dark and miserable story, until the end anyway. Like I say I am only 2 episodes in and I will definitely be watching the 3rd.
-
neilsharp-0311524 December 2019The last thing the 21st century needs is another version of A Christmas Carol, another rehash of Alistair Sim or George C Scott being visited by ghosts no one would be afraid of, this is a completely different take on the classic, not the same story in HD or 4K, but as if it had been written today, and set in the 19th century, themes and aspects that couldn't be explored previously, this is a ghost story as Dickens would have written it if he were a contemporary author, the characters are superb and well acted, sometimes the dialogue could be clearer, but the atmosphere is dark and eerie, maybe too dark at times, I say crawl out of your literary hole, stop crying over the fact that the world has changed and moved on in 175 years, and look at how the world actually is, not how you want it to be, this new adaptation hit the mark.
-
Chrispearce225 December 2019I liked it and it was well produced and acted but I felt too much time was spent on the darkness and not enough exploring the redemption which was very rushed.
-
josh0308198522 December 2019Let me start by saying never once have a written a review on here before. I have never felt the need because the reviews I have seen here reflected my opinion quite well. I have always been a fan of period style films and novels, so when I heard about this darker version of a beloved story from my childhood I was a little wary of it. A Christmas Carol is one of my all time favorite Novellas/Films. I felt a little biased going I to this. I was afraid I wasn't going to enjoy it. I have never been so pleased to be wrong. This version of the classic story feels so much more real and human than any other version I have ever seen. No it isn't in the style a traditional holiday classic, however it really humanizes the character of Ebenezer Scrooge and the times in which the original Novella was written and the time period in which it takes place. People are on here bashing it because of the darker tone. What most don't realize is that during that time period things of that nature did occur quite frequently. Of course we don't learn them in history class and whatnot, but they did happen. I am so happy with how FX and the BBC showed life in 1842. Another thing I would like to touch on is Guy Pearce's performance as Scrooge. He did a phenomenal job. This really shows the range of his acting abilities. He plays it so well! So to anyone reading this, I highly recommend watching this! I know I will be watching it again and again.
-
eve_dolluk23 December 2019This is a very different adaptation of A Christmas Carol so beware if you are expecting the classic tale.
Having read nearly all of Dickens novels only once ( I refuse to read his depressing works ever again ) Christmas Carol was the only book that has a glimmer of hope.
This adaptation virtually throws that under the bus. I have read that Dickens was pressured to lighten this book due to it being set at Christmas, however this may be a myth.
Oh btw they did use the Fword back in Victorian times but to actually publish it on paper was frowned upon. Dickens did however find ways to implement both foul language and subtle ways to implement things of a sexual nature with a nudge nudge wink wink.
However as I said above this is not a tale true to the books, this is a Dickensian nightmare far worse. This is what Dickens would have wanted to write without the restraints of the time.
In this adaptation Mrs Cratchet is of mixed race, this is very viable as after the end of slavery London found itself with many black people to take care of. With Cratchet being poor but a written and learned man taking a wife of mixed race would be quite apt.
Regardless the production is excellent and the acting is excellent while haunting, the setting is dark and grim which was London of that time especially in winter, the grime and smoke of the factories making days darker than they should be.
Without giving away spoilers the story while having the same tropes is presented in a slightly different way and at times this is less of a Dickensian nightmare and more of a Dickensian Horror so be prepared.
There are also some very British political undertones rolling around here.
The Grenfell Tower incident, British Austerity and a rise in homelessness and desperation within families. They are subtle though and not thrown at you.
The UK is far from those dark times of the 18th century but there is a nudge at the social zeitgeist.
Here is my problem on a well made production, Christmas sake... Does anyone really want to be faced with this at this time of the year ??
I can be objective and subjective but sometimes I just want to be entertained and while this was interesting it left me cold and right now its cold enough.
7/10 -
bobotn-1520923 December 2019While this is the darkest version I've ever seen, I really enjoyed it because it Wasn't predictable.
The acting was superb, especially Guy Pierce!
The back stories were new to me and made sense to the layers of what Scrooge had become. The spirits of past, present and future were a treat. In the scene of the singers at the church, it actually made me cry; something none of the other movie versions ever did. So there's that.
In the end, you weren't sure what was going to happen! I still love the Alister Sims, the George C. Scott, the Patrick Stewart, even the Mister Magoo versions. Maybe I'll watch one of those next.
Merry Christmas...God Bless Us Everyone! -
harj-41-60709024 December 2019This is a very different -- but welcome -- addition to the collage of films, cartoons and shows that portray the great Christmas story. There is nothing wrong with this being different, don't watch it if you want a simple, faithful retelling which will never meet up to your expectations and the perfections established by the excellent films. This *needs* to be different, this needs to be an alternative telling of the timeless masterpiece. Watch this with the most open of minds, and you most probably will not be disappointed.
-
traceylu2131 January 2020Started off promising, even if it was a bit dark and twisted. But the huge deviation from the original moral of the story was disappointing. Trying to bring in the modern "me too" twist did nothing for the story and only took focus away from the real story of Scrooge's transformation from bitter old miser to generous man who truly had something to offer. Too much time was spent on the past and the ridiculous Mary storyline, not enough on Scrooge's path to redemption, which never really materialized in this version.