Not enjoyable, I watched this dumb video last night and it was a waste of time. The characters remind me of the ones in 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother, I mean... some of the annoying kids do. I stopped watching this.I don't like A Christmas Carol but this is the worst adaptation I ever seen and I don't see how it got such a high rating. It just looks so old and dark.This movie was rushed, simple, stupid, dark, and unremarkable. Now, the start was mediocre, but the animation is rough and so is the film itself.I think you are better off watching Rugrats, this cartoon was lazy and the person tried too hard to make it. I watch funny dubs of Rugrats on YouTube and they are so much better than A Christmas Carol.Just because I don't like the book, I also don't like many adaptations of A Christmas Carol but I don't hate either one of them. They're usually boring and fairly interesting.I won't watch this anymore.... avoid this and go watch Rugrats instead.

Generally I do like the animations from Burbank Films Australia. They have done some bad ones like Don Quixote, The Odyssey, The Three Musketeers, Prisoner of Zenda and The Old Curiosity Shop, but for me most of their resume ranges from decent to great. I really liked this animated adaptation of I think Charles Dickens' most accessible story, and it is one of Burbank's better efforts along with Wind in the Willows, Peter Pan, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Black Beauty and David Copperfield. It is not perfect, the animation quality is inconsistent, with some handsome background art, hauntingly beautiful colours and a meticulous atmosphere but also some stiff character designs especially the facial expressions- the ghost of Jacob Marley is an exception though- and unconvincing camera angles at the start. But it is very well done on the whole, the exceptionally powerful story that resonates with children and adults is charmingly and movingly told. Some additional scenes are interesting to see such as the flashback of Marley's death as well. The music is very nicely composed, while the dialogue is intelligent and all the characters serve their purpose more than convincingly. Scrooge's transition from miserly to humble is very believable, the three spirits are suitably imposing and as ever Tiny Tim really brings a lump to my throat. The voice acting is good, not the best( either Wind in the Willows, Black Beauty or Hunchback) nor the worst(A Tale of Two Cities is definitely a contender for this, as is The Odyssey). All in all, very good and charming, true to the story and to the meaning of Christmas. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I have seen other animated versions of the story, including one directed by Richard Williams in 1971, and "Mickey's Christmas Carol" from 1983. Both of those were more consistent in visual style and obviously had a larger budget.The beginning of this cartoon seemed cheaply done, with unconvincing low angles and street scenes where only a couple people in the foreground are moving. Also, some of these opening street scenes are reused in a later flashback. The animation quality is comparable to that of a Scooby Doo episode.Despite evidence of cheapness, I still found this to be a charming adaptation. The musical score is pretty good, as in the scene where Scrooge is flown over the rooftops of London. The characterizations are distinguishable from other versions. The ghost of Marley, in particular, is well-drawn, and we are shown a flashback to Marley before he died, which is unique (at least out of all the other versions I've seen). Some of the backgrounds are effectively somber and atmospheric, particularly in the dark chambers of Scrooge's home.This is not my favorite filmed version of the story (that would probably be the one from 1984 starring George C. Scott), but it is charming and definitely watchable. I saw it on TV in the mid-80s and was happy to find it on DVD recently.