Maybe that’s a bit harsh; Bah, Humduck is not an outright catastrophe. It faces a steep difficulty curve — of the many tones that A Christmas Carol employs, slapstick is not one of them. Any adaptation by Looney Tunes was going to have to figure out how to make Charles Dickens’ novella fit into the the brand’s zany style of comic storytelling. But Bah, Humduck also commits some unforced errors and ends with a quirky, mostly unsatisfying production.

Rather than go for a straightforward adaptation of the material, or even a hybrid or framed version of the classic story, Bah, Humduck is a modernized retelling. Instead of Scrooge the penny-counting banker, we get Daffy the owner of a Walmart-esque super-store. His store is connected to a skyscraper that bears his image, evoking (intentionally or unintentionally) Donald Trump and Trump Tower. He is intent on forcing his wage slaves to work on Christmas morning and refusing them any sort of bonus or gift.

The film clocks in at about 45 minutes, and the film errs by devoting at least half of that length to setup. We spend a long time introducing our “old sinner” and the various characters who work at his store. A lot of the regulars are here: Speedy Gonzales and Pepe Le Pew and Porky Pig. Hanging around also is Bugs Bunny, here playing an omniscient narrator role like Gonzo in The Muppet Christmas Carol.

Eventually, indeed, ghosts start appearing, including Tweety as Christmas Past, Yosemite Sam as Christmas Present, and the Tasmanian Devil as Christmas Yet-to-Come. The whole cast gets moments to do their shtick. It is certainly a fun way to get little segments from characters we love, voiced with Mel Blanc imitations of varying quality.

The film never abandons its slapstick tone, even at the expense of telling a story. For example, every time we see Daffy in one of the ghost-visions making somebody’s life worse, rather than letting it sink into Daffy’s conscience in quiet shame as typically rendered in adaptations, the ghost smacks Daffy across the head, usually accompanied by some wacky sound effect or animated gag like Daffy’s bill falling off.

I enjoyed Bugs Bunny hanging around as an omniscient narrator and conscience. It’s very reminiscent of Gonzo as Charles Dickens in The Muppet Christmas Carol. And there are some fun gags throughout — e.g. the tombstones in Christmas Yet To Come read “I’M DEAD.”

The short also had a handful of fun storytelling moments. I think more adaptations should show Scrooge second-guessing his transformation once he adds up all the dollars he’s bound to lose with his change in life direction at the end of the story. In real life, penny-pinching habits would die hard. And setting the story at a soul-sucking mega-store with an almost expressionistic corporate HQ is inspired.

Frankly, the biggest argument in the film’s favor is that the world is better off with more varied adaptations of the seminal Dickens work. I’m a junkie and I need my December Carol hit. And this is what it says on the tin: The approximate narrative of A Christmas Carol, but fully immersed in Looney Tunes shenanigans.

But it never really gels, and it’s so hell-bent on its silliness that its minor feints towards drama and character development fall flat. Allowing me to buy into a miser’s changed ways is the key to A Christmas Carol, so if you can’t achieve that, you’re definitely not getting a passing grade, even if I had some fun.

Some of the moments here have never been depicted like this before. Marley’s jaw dangles, unhinged, with all the fright described in the text. The ghost-hearse races up the stairs. The Ghost of Christmas Past flickers and shapeshifts.

The sets are shadowy and starkly angled; the graves at the cemetery in Christmas Future spout like a horrid fungus from the ground. Expressionism-inspired buildings tower over everything, almost tilted, casting an oppressive blanket of darkness on the story.

Beyond the sketch-like texture, there’s some great innovative animation. One memorable shot shows a cityscape in disorienting, vertically-rotating, 360-degree perspective.

The downside: With only 25 minutes, this short is crippled by its narrative rush. While there’s some appeal to the pace and its editing — scenes morph into each other rapidly and almost impressionistically — the short length still mandates that narrative beats be hurried.

Richard Williams’ adaptation ranks as one of my favorite versions of the Dickens classic, but would likely catapult to the top if only it had another 20 minutes to let its story comfortably develop: its animation and haunting atmosphere are simply that compelling.

The film is only 68 minutes long, but about 10 of those are spent just watching the Cratchit family have a delightful Christmas dinner during the Christmas Present segment. And it works! I wanted to hop in the screen for a cup of punch with this charming family!

Meanwhile, nephew Fred and his fiancee have big movie star smiles and are exceptionally pleasant people. There’s truly no one less than lovable in this Christmas Carol.

Reginald Owen plays Scrooge as a surface-level curmudgeon, someone easily swept away to holiday whimsy and wonder. The film has stripped away almost all of Scrooge’s darkness and deeply held regrets: Belle, the lost love, is completely cut from the story; and Scrooge’s family history is less fraught. Owen makes for a shallow but amiable Scrooge, far from the worst outcome.

Maybe the biggest highlight of this adaptation is its excellent production quality. The black and white photography is tremendously sharp and clean; the sets are vivid and engaging; the sound design is rapturous and musical; the entire cast has Hollywood charisma. It’s just a big ol’ Christmas feast of studio system craft.

So where it might lack the deeper character work and passion of other adaptions, it ranks among the most watchable Christmas Carol films, and certainly the most cheerful I’ve seen.

For the opening half or so of the film, my reaction to this one was pretty muted. The opening is slow, and the Christmas Past section is surprisingly low energy. It doesn’t help that the Ghost of Christmas Past played by Angela Pleasance is pretty lifeless, and the movie uses cheap transition effects to the past. (Gotta make budget cuts as a TV movie somewhere, I guess.)

The one early bright spot is Marley’s ghost, who is probably the creepiest version of the ghost I’ve yet seen, with otherworldly makeup and acting intensity by Frank Finlay.

I was also down on Scott as Scrooge during the opening half of the film. He’s a great curmudgeon, just a really shitty old man, but he was thoroughly passive and buttoned down during the Christmas Past segment. I always enjoy when Scrooge has a heightened reaction to seeing his past mistakes.

BUT this one takes a major turn for the better as it wraps up the Christmas Present segment. Scrooge’s vision of the poor that he condemned as “surplus population” is dark and freaky, and even that is hardly prep what comes next.

I can say without reservation that this is my favorite Christmas Yet to Come segment — Michael Carter is genuinely haunting as a death specter, and the gloom and dread of life wasted builds to the gut punch reveal of Scrooge’s tombstone.

I also quite liked the redemption segment. Scott really comes to life with an infectious smile and laugh. And his reunion with his nephew is the best that beat has ever been depicted — I was choking up at Scrooge’s remorse and cautious warmth.

So it’s not quite an all-timer, but the 1984 Christmas Carol is definitely a strong one that gets better as its runtime goes — and same for George C. Scott as Scrooge.

Imagine a one-man Christmas Carol show that hits all of the expected beats and themes. Except every character is a half-baked celebrity impersonation, and the tone is a mediocre ’70s sitcom with a constant laugh track in the back.

“Richard Nixon” plays Marley; “Inspector Clouseau” plays the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come; “Johnny Carson” plays nephew Fred. “WC Fields” plays Scrooge, mostly for the sake of a bunch of alcoholism jokes. I’m not making this up.

Seriously, how the hell does this exist?

Even if the concept itself had much merit (it doesn’t), it’s certainly dragged out longer than it needs to be with impersonations that often don’t strain for a joke beyond “my voice and mannerisms vaguely resemble a person you recognize.” I’m sure Little worked hard on his money-making impersonations, but they’re really not that impressive or funny — and a solid half of them would have been outdated even in 1978.

I give the movie an escape from the lowest possible rating because of four or so moments that made me smile (not quite laugh), in addition to my bewildered astonishment at its very existence. Plus, it occasionally verges into so-bad-it’s-good territory.

This is easily the worst Christmas Carol I’ve seen, and also probably the weirdest.

Mickey’s Christmas Carol makes an excellent way to introduce younger kids to the Christmas Carol story, but it’s honestly appealing to all ages. In its 25 minutes, it cuts Dickens’ story down to its most essential beats without sacrificing the novel’s tone. Indeed, this is pretty scary as far as Disney toons go, with a particularly creepy use of shadows for Goofy’s Marley. Doubly so for the Christmas Future segment, which pulls no punches: we get a full on descent to Hell.

Alan Young gives a notably nuanced performance as Ebenezer Scrooge McDuck, wringing as much nastiness and regret as one could hope for in family film.

With such a short runtime and the friendly faces of familiar characters, this is instantly appealing to the very young, including my 4 year old, who really dug it. (I’ll show her Muppet Christmas Carol next.)

Alas, that accessibility and short run time are ultimately the film’s shortcomings. You can’t get the richness of introspection and redemption of the source material with every beat of the story cut to the bone.

It’s still a worthy watch whether or not you have little ones with you.

The classic 1951 Christmas Carol adaptation (technically titled Scrooge according to most sources I’ve seen) gives us the best and most believable Scrooge I’ve ever seen, courtesy Alastair Sim. Indeed, this Scrooge’s nastiness in the story’s opening is very clearly the invective of a witty asshole using snark as a defensive mechanism. His “decrease the surplus population” rant has a self-awareness of its shocking cruelty so that it’s said almost with an eyeroll.

I like this take on Scrooge a lot. It grounds him a bit more, makes him seem like a real human. And it makes his transformation all the more effective. It’s so gratifying and fulfilling to see him warm up in the end, like a depressive friend who’s fully and finally escaped their mental sickness.

On top of Scrooge himself, this is all-around one of the best Christmas Carol film productions I’ve seen, period. In fact, it’s probably at the top of the list for straightforward dramas — I only put Muppet above it.

The production is great from top to bottom. I love the trippy and unnerving sound design of Marley’s ghost and the flash of Hell he gives Scrooge. The direction, in general, is spot on — there’s a brilliant camera angle to introduce us to the frightening Ghost of Christmas Future that will be sticking with me.

The movie also brings in some invented material not in the book (or at least not in any adaptation I’ve seen — I’ve never actually read the Dickens novella), and all of it deepens the story. In particular, it adds more dimension and details to Marley and his death that flesh out Scrooge’s business history, tying in some anti-industrialization rhetoric.

My main knock on this one is that I think the story suffers from de-emphasizing Alice (aka Belle), the Christmas Past love interest. It feels kind of hand-waved rather than teased out to full emotional impact. As a darker drama, it’s inevitably more drawn to the dark

But this is definitely the standard by which I’ll be measuring other Christmas Carol adaptations — and, especially, other Ebenezer Scrooges.