SCBRoslyn

Like so many other reviewers here, I went into this looking for a blockbuster comedy. This ain't it.

The first thing someone should do is put out an "All Points Bulletin" to search for creative, clever writing. This film has almost none of that.

My first clue should've been the involvement of Seth MacFarlane.....he's just not funny. He wallows in the depths of toilet humor.

You'll get a snicker here or a chuckle there, but you'll never get the full-blown belly-laugh you were expecting.

I went into this picture with a very definite idea of what I expected this to be, but it turned out it was quite a bit different. That doesn't mean it was bad, it was great and I would recommend this film to anyone. Rather than risk having any of my incorrect expectations categorized as "spoilers," I'll just let anyone else who has not seen this yet go in with their own postulations and either be surprised, amazed, or disappointed.

Neal McDonough is outstanding. In fact, I would've liked to have seen more interaction from his character in the story. Also, there were some elements that appeared in the previews/advertisements that were clipped from the movie. I saw more than a few reviewers who stated they were somewhat confused by the film - they certainly could have fleshed out the story more to eliminate that. I think I read that they were concerned about the total running time of the movie, but I would rather have clarity over an arbitrary time constraint.

Without question, I would highly recommend this movie.

I just saw this listed on "Fox Movies" tonight and thought I'd give it a shot. In a nutshell, if you judge this movie all by itself and do not try to compare it to other versions, it's OK. If you view it while trying to hold it up to say the 1951 version with Alastair Sim, you'll be very disappointed.

Be advised, the writer of this screenplay used the Charles Dickens story as a sort of framework for this movie, NOT as a blueprint. There are several alterations to the story, I suppose to make it more contemporary with the moral challenges society faces today - they just don't really fit very well if you're trying to sell it as events taking place in England of the 1800s. Additionally, the story development they do try to pursue is simplistic without any real quality to it.

The changes in the story are tolerable up until the last half hour when they seem rushed to cram everything in to tie-up all the loose ends - that part along with the final resolution was when the film lost me and dropped down to a 5-star effort in my opinion.