AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Celticfox20-769-195618 Unpopular opinion I know. Sorry. The greatest version ever? Not really. Don't get me wrong I do love this adaptation but don't feel it lives up to the original Dickens tale. A lot of the acting felt-to me-either too rushed or dull and monotone. And if it wasn't either of those then it was too over the top. Now I also know many basically worship Alastair Sim but I feel Seymour Hicks portrayed Scrooge in the 1935 movie better. Again I know my opinion is the unpopular one here but that's my feelings on it.

MisterWhiplash Has A Christmas Carol aged well? That depends on how much you think you can take things like Charles Dickens or early/mid 19th century London, England of the period, or about morality stories involving the rich coming to grips with what they've done in life (which, of course, as I'm sure Dickens was well aware, barely ever happens, so if his story isn't pitched at them it's pitched at us - so we can try and be better people even if someone like Ebeneezer Scrooge cannot). Within this fantasy of the 'Three Spirit' visitations over a night - a hallucination, a dreamscape, a step into the surreal alternate/upside down dimension where time exists forever in the past in the sorta-present (kind of the future too, just within the next several hours), and the future as in not *too* far ahead - we get the ultimate 'guilt trip' story, but in a way that's a good thing. I mean, who wants to be a scrooge on Christmas except... Scrooge himself? Something I wondered seeing this for the first time (though it's not my first time around with this story as I've seen other iterations, mostly done for children, which by the way is interesting as this should be a story geared more for adults): why go into the future? Is there more to see that will suddenly make Scrooge even more set in his ways - should he still choose, I imagine there's ultimately some existential element here, as in he could potentially *not* become a better person starting December 25th - than what he sees in the past and the present? Especially in the past in this segment, we see how much Scrooge experienced actual tragedy, with the death of his mother that brought him into the world (the Tyrian Lannister thing, you know), and then that it happens to his sister as she brings his nephew into the world too. And, naturally, what money does to a person when hurt and pain leaves nothing but material possessions and the promise of the Almighty Dollar does to a man. Goodness, what if it was simply after the *past* that he got shook up? As far as what this particular version goes, by the time the present segment comes up, one could argue "alright, we get it, we GET IT!" A law-of-threes might be what Dickens was working at, however, and that the Greatest Fear (Death itself) is what should drive everyone to be at the least decent to one another. Otherwise, by this point, it's practically overkill as far as how much is laid at Scrooge's way. I think the power of the story is that people can and do look at it in not simply one way, and how people's levels of empathy and sympathy for fellow human beings will come out based on how they see Scrooge and those he interacts with (not to mention the idea of if the "world changes you" or you change the world sort of thing, which Ebeneezer's young could-be-wife says to him when she realizes he has changed).All the while that this film, which moves at a fairly brisk pace at 86 minutes, gives us Alistair Sim. He's a Scrooge who is able to go from being the despicable, cold "Covetous old" character with believability, though he does start to look more stark raving mad when he becomes his 'good' hearted self and is laughing sort of like a British Joker. I think at first the bigness, if one can call it that, of his acting threw me off, but the more the film went on I got into how his performance was going, as well as the supporting players (when the actor who plays Jacob Marley shows up as the ghost... well, make sure your speakers aren't *too* loud for when he does his wails). Perhaps the acting hasn't aged as well as the story, but here too there's spots where there's deliveries of lines and pauses in action (look how the actor playing Cratchett looks when Scrooge offers him a raise near the end) that can keep your attention.What can be said about this that hasn't been said by others? If the movie isn't as timeless as It's a Wonderful Life or, for younger people, A Christmas Story, it has its appeal as being true to its source so strongly that other versions end up paling by adding color or being in widescreen. Lastly, I enjoyed the visual effects, which were done with what was available at the time at that studio or with that budget, such as the simplicity in making a character in the same frame faded out to show he is a ghost, or the image of the sands of time in the hour-glass coming forward as time moves to another period. Even an image like the books showing the passing of years is effective.

Emil Bakkum "A Christmas carol" by Dickens has been molded into a film version many times. However this version from 1951 stands out for several reasons. At the time most people were still religious, so that they were sensitive to the sincere and supernatural connotation in Dickens' story. The film producer realizes this. In 1951 Scrooge is an evil man, he is evidently a sinner, but he is not yet a caricature. He is not a guy who reverse charges his obscene telephone calls. The black-and-white images fit in with the atmosphere of the nineteenth century, and this is reinforced by the sometimes gloomy music. This is Scrooge as Dickens meant him to be. Later versions suffer from the fact, that people have become agnostic (because atheists do not have holidays). Christmas has been transformed into a rather sentimental feast, with delusions about world peace. It must also be remembered, that Dickens portrays the real spirit of businessmen in olden times. It is the flourishing period of Manchester capitalism, and of Malthusianism. In a sense Scrooge is even engaging, because at least he abstains from a decadent lifestyle. He is simply a skillful investor, who knows the risks. He is indeed a man of rare gifts. He is the type who stuffs a pair of socks in each pocket, when he sends the pajamas to the laundry. Since the financial crisis of 2008 the personality of Scrooge has again become recognizable. Finally, it must be remarked that only true believers will be able to accept the sudden conversion of Scrooge. Indeed the intervention of God is needed in order to change a seasoned investor into a philanthropist, within a single night. It is a bit like your mother-in-law. You did not believe in Hell until you met her. The Bible is replete with such events. But modern psychology tells us that a protracted therapy would be required. Nevertheless, the film is worth watching, on Christmas day and beyond.

ironhorse_iv British author, Charles Dickens' novella 'A Christmas Carol', is one of the stories most often made into a film that there is hardly any reason for me to explain the plot, but if you been living in a rock and haven't hear of the story for some reason. Here is your chance! The novel tells a bitter old business man, named Ebenezer Scrooge whom given a chance for redemption when he is haunted by three ghosts on Christmas Eve in Victorian England. This version of the story, can be found in films as early as the silent era with films like 1916's 'The Right', to the Talkie Golden Age of cinema of the late 1930s with 1938's 'A Christmas Carol', and can also be found in the Blockbuster era of the 1980s & 1990s with films such as 1992's The Muppet Christmas Carol; and others. Even recently as 2009's with Disney 'A Christmas Carol'; it has been remade into a film. There is just so many various versions worthy to watch. With all say, I have to agree with most of the critics in saying, that 1951's 'A Christmas Carol' is by far, the best one, so far. While, I wouldn't call it, the most 'merry' version of the novel. There is just something very charming and eerily with this film. It really does match, the dark tone of the novel, so very well. The black and white nightmarish imagery, the haunting Gothic horror like music by Richard Addinsell, the use of large noises, and even the look of the ghosts, were all fine in the way, its portrayal. If anything, can be said, about the movie, it might be a little too grim. I can hardly see, any modern family wanting to put this deeply dark film on Christmas Day, over something, a lot more jollily. Another problem with the film, is how dated, it is. Some of the visuals effects in this film, are indeed laughable to the modern viewer. For the time and the budget, it somewhat works, but let me say, that I have saw, way better effects in films, years earlier when this film was made. So, that isn't much of an excuse, but I can't complain, too much about it. Most of the changes that director Brian Desmond-Hurst & writer, Noel Langley indeed change from the source material were for the better, for the most part. Things like young Ebenezer Scrooge (George Cole) being the cause of his mother's death, and being corrupt by an unscrupulous mentor in the new character, Mr. Jorkin (Jack Warner) made for better character development within the story. It serves to explain how Scrooge transforms from a good-hearted young man into a cold blooded old man now played by Alistair Sim. However, there were some jarring changes, the filmmakers did, created when adapting this source material that wasn't well-deserve. A good example is like cutting the scenes where Ebenezer Scrooge is berating Bob Crachit (Mervyn Johns) for wanting more coal. It's so strange, because toward the end, Scrooge would indeed tell Crachit to run out and buy a new coal. In this version, that request really seem to come out of nowhere. It seems like a bad cut. Other changes, such as giving more scenes to a minor character like Mrs. Dilber (Kathleen Harrison) weren't needed. It felt like time-wasters. For the most part, besides that, the movie is very well-paced; as there was hardly any slow moments. From all the actors, that has portray Scrooge over the years, Alastair Sim is by far, the best actor for the Ebenezer Scrooge role, I ever saw. Alastair Sim really does looks and feels like he came from that time. He really looks so sickly and cold from the holiday. I love the way, his facial expression tells the story, from showing disgust, fear and even a side of stingy. There is hardly any bad scenes with him. I just wish, the supporting cast were the same, as Alastair Sim, but there were no match. I never got the idea that they were truly into the Christmas spirit, themselves with their one-dimensional caricatures. The 19th English slang is so thick with some of them that it's really hard to understand, what certain characters are really saying. The kid actors in the film, are some of the worst. They were written way too Shirley Temple jolly to be, taken seriously. Yes, I know that Tiny Tim (Glyn Dearman) supposed to be, cheerful, but at least, make his character, seem a little worn down. The actor didn't even show, any sign of sickness. The worst acting in this film had to be Michael Hordern as Jacob Marley, who portray his character like an over-the-top cartoony Shakespearean actor. My God, was his ghost scene, somewhat laughable. I like how Michael Hordern got better, toward the end, but gees… that scene in the beginning, ruin it for me. If anything, I did like the supporting actors that portray, Bob Cratchit (Mervyn Johns) & Young Ebenezer Scrooge (George Cole) & Mr. Fezziwig (Roddy Hughes). They were all well-acted. Although this film is widely regarded as the best film version of Charles Dickens' story, I have to say, don't watch the colorized version of this film. First off, it has an introduction and closing segments filmed by actor Patrick Macnee that wasn't really needed, since it doesn't help push the movie plot, but second off, a lot of the nightmarish scenes filmed in black and white, lose its flavor, due to the lack of shadows. Overall: The original black and white film is the best rendition of timeless classic. A must-watch for anybody, looking for the true meaning of Christmas.