Mister Scrooge to See You (2013) Reviews

• Not Very Good

  Christmas-Reviewer2017-09-18

  BEWARE OF FALSE REVIEWS & REVIEWERS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW TO THEIR NAME. NOW WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MOVIE. IF ITS A NEGATIVE REVIEW THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST THE FILM . NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 300 HOLIDAY FILMS & SPECIALS. I HAVE NO AGENDA. This film was a interesting idea but the attempt is a misfire. It does have a few moments that work but as a whole the film is as good as a fruit cake. The writer/director of this film should of had someone else do a polish of the screenplay. This was also a case where it looks like he hired "friends" and his "Friends Let Him Down". In other words the casting was bad. Before I get to that let me tell you what the story is. It has been a year since Scrooge had his visits from the ghost. Now a changed man his old business partner sends Scrooge into the future to save Tim Cratchit the VI. He is now as angry as Scrooge was. There is clever moments where the classic lines from "A Christmas Carol" are incorporated here. However that only echos the problems with this film. Now the biggest problem with this film is the casting of Matt Koester. HE is terrible in the part. He over does everything. Had this been a stage performance then he would of been fine but in film "Less is more". There is other things that do not work but there is far to many to list. David Ruprecht however does save this film from being a total waist of time! I would like to stress that when a film starts throwing off "Bible Versus" it becomes hard to enjoy the film. There is many people out there that find this insulting. I know this is a Christmas Theme movie and Christmas is about the birth of Christ but, "A Christmas Carol" is about redemption not about someones faith. Its about living and appreciating life.

• Are You Kidding ME

  cherylthomas-873202017-10-03

  It has been over 150 years since "A Christmas Carol" was originally told. The film has gone to made into more movies, television movies, plays then almost any other book. I am not sure if anybody has ever tried a sequel before but here someone did and they screwed here. SInce we all know the story so well the film should have focused on the newer characters more carefully. They didn't. They cast this film with people that try their best with a pedestrian script. This film also drags on & on. The same story could have been better with a tighter script. In fact if the cast talk a little faster then maybe the film might not of been as bad. In this film its one year later. Scrooge is "Sent in to the future" to tell "Tim Cratchit the Vii" mend his ways. Well you know how it will end! It just takes forever for it to end.

• Should of been better

  angelafranklin-273412017-09-19

  The concept of a sequel to "A Christmas Carol" was questionable to begin with. Then add time travel we open up a huge can of worms. That is what this is "A can worms". The once mean and miserly Ebenezer Scrooge was forever changed by his ghostly Christmas Eve encounter. Now one year later, Scrooge receives another posthumous visit from his old business partner. It seems Jacob Marley is not yet finished with Mister Scrooge! Sent on a journey 170 years into the future, Scrooge encounters a world even colder and greedier than his own, a world that includes a young cutthroat businessman named Timothy Cratchit VI. Will Scrooge be able to turn Cratchit from his selfish ways and teach him the true meaning of Christmas? Now this film isn't terrible but it makes zero sense. Any film that deals with time travel is always tricky. What I liked about this film was that dialog that we heard in the countless films and books is once again repeated here by different people. The blessing this film has is they have a great actor that played Scrooge. David Ruprecht is great. He plays all the layers of Scrooge that we expect but also shows a few new things that I am sure that other actors in the future will copy. Now if I were to make a "Sequel" to the classic tale I would have had the Cratchit Children track down Scrooge's long lost love and have them reunited on Christmas Eve. That would of been a better to approach a sequel. But then again who can compete with "Charles Dickens".

• Keep Rupprecht, Richter and Koester and dump the rest.

  Ten-Inch-Toni2019-01-15

  The actors that actually seemed to know what they were doing were the gentleman playing Scrooge and the one playing Jacob Marley. The waitress was pretty good, as well. Her dialogue was choppy but at times she was able to put her on flavor in it. i.e. At times her lines were delivered with genuine feeling rather than someone regurgitating their memorized lines at their cue. The actors playing Bell and Ben, well, their acting was very weak. I didn't feel that either of them were able to convey their characters appropriately. And the little twist about being brother and sister rather than an unkindled romance was just too uncomfortably awkward and wholly unbelievable. A genuinely terrible solution to the problem of how to bring them together as caring Christian people. When "they" kept saying "they" needed to reveal something about Bell, I seriously thought they were going to either say she had cancer or she was pregnant with Tim VI's love child. Which would have pulled in an immaculate conception into the piece. As ridiculous as this idea sounds, it wouldn't have been any less awkward and non-sensical as some of the other attempts that were made to make cohesive connections between this screenplay and Dickens' original story. It wasn't complete crap; but very nearly so. If they had taken more time to develop the script and dialogue between characters it may have been more enjoyable. Things that should not have been "forced": References to God and Christianity are completely out of place and awkward. Like they were an afterthought. Further, it was COMPLETELY unnecessary and quite disgusting to have the shopping carts with the nasty clothing placed in the background of the restaurant as "incontrovertible proof" that the "Bridge Club" were a group of homeless people. Why not have a neon sign with an arrow flashing above the Bridge Club that says "Homeless! Homeless! Homeless!" ANYONE working with truly homeless people would not allow them to bring that shopping cart into an eating establishment. The clothing would have stunk badly and would have been filled with vermin such and lice and bedbugs. The stench alone would have been unbearable. It's not like homeless people routinely take their shopping carts of rubbish and clothes they've gotten from charity or from the trash and visited a laundry-mat. So many problems, so little time. Bottom-line, it could have been wittier, funnier and still managed to squeeze in a Christian sentiment or two. ~ by ToniHunterOne.

• Prepare to be surprised!

  elbonian00-218-8829712018-12-22

  I was expecting the usual Christian "B" movie, with an unknown cast, tiny budget, and tentative acting. Ok, there is that... BUT... it's a very clever modulation of the Dickens tale that I find clever and uplifting. A must see!