Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Armand as letter from a good friend. as web of a fisherman. as drawing of a child. this short version was seed of a revolution. for its science to remember the Christmas deep beauty. for the honest way to present a well-known story. and for the grace of each line. so, each new watching is an event. out of definitions or nice words but really touching. its charm is special. because it is a form of remember. without great ambitions only to be a hello for the people in middle of little daily circles. sure, the implication of great actors is important. but theirs voices are part of game. because, like flavor of a flower or taste of a food from childhood, this film makes difference.

Gobsmacker ...of Dickens' famous classic tale. I love this version of 'A Christmas Carol.' The animation, or rather artwork, looks like Victorian woodblock prints of the era. The redux of Alastair Sim as the-most-famous-Scrooge-in-history, is an added bonus. I rediscovered this on Youtube (almost 40 years after I saw this on network TV in the early 1970's). The scenes that remained the most vivid for me were, the Ghost of Christmas Present's journey to the Welsh miner's cottage/the waveswept lighthouse/and the squarerigger plowing the Channel played to the hymn, 'God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen'; the second unforgettable segment was the haunting scene showing Ingorance and Want beneath the ghost's robes. While watching this, I almost felt transported back to the mid-19th century. This is a holiday classic that deserves a wider audience!

smerph Before watching this production of Dickens's classic story, I was of the opinion that it would not be possible to successfully condense A Christmas Carol into a runtime of less than 45 minutes. After watching this, I'm perhaps still of this opinion...yet relatively satisfied by the efforts here. A Christmas Carol 1971 manages to cover almost every major aspect of the novella (even the oft-forgotten "Want and Ignorance" sequence) but does so in breathless fashion so there's little time for elaboration of finer details. The biggest casualty is Scrooge's sister Fan, who does not merit a mention and his unhappy childhood is merely hinted at. The major asset is having Sim reprise his Scrooge, although I found his performance perhaps a little inferior in comparison to his live-action one from twenty years earlier. His Scrooge here is lacking a little in the sharpness and, to no great surprise, seems older and perhaps more harmless. I would not recommend this to newcomers to the story, but for those who need a (very) quick fix of Scrooge, it doesn't really put a foot wrong. In terms of animated versions, it's far superior to either the 2001 monstrosity or the overblown 2009 Disney effort. I just wish it was maybe 15 minutes longer so it could expand on some elements.

MartinHafer This animated version of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" was directed by the legendary Chuck Jones, though the film doesn't at all appear like any of his typical work. This is NOT the Chuck Jones of Looney Tunes or Tom & Jerry!! For this nice rendition of the classic story, the film received the Oscar for Best Animated Short. In many ways the film seems a bit ordinary today, though for 1971 it was a rather extraordinary film. In other words, at that time, low frame rates and cheap animation was the norm and compared to the rest of the animated films it was lovely--particularly the painstakingly drawn backgrounds. While the characters lack some smoothness in animation, it isn't that bad--especially for the day.The only real problems I see with the film aren't really the animation but the story itself and its presentation--it is a bit on the dull side. That's because much of the film is word-for-word Dickens and is like so many, many other versions. Plus, a few places where it could have been more dramatic or warm, it wasn't. But, this is a minor quibble and some of the scenes in the film were very, very good--such as the old ladies talking about the haul they got off the corpse--the voice work was excellent here. And, speaking of voice talent, some of the voices were weak--with too little energy--especially Scrooge himself. Marley and the old ladies, however, were very good.Overall, I'd give this film a 7--though it's almost good enough to get an 8. It's well worth seeing--just don't expect anything particularly better (or worse) than most of the other 247392 versions of the tale. However, if you are looking to see perhaps the best version of the story, the George C. Scott version is terrific--and really emphasizes the social commentary aspects of the story. In other words, the film makers realized it's less a film about Christmas and more a tale of greed and concern for your fellow man.