There are many adaptations of Charles Dickens' classic tale, but A Christmas Carol (1951) is among the best. Alastair Sim's portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge is one people have been copying for decades, as he's able to be both credibly crabby and believably benevolent. Plus, this version feels like a ghost story, which seems more faithful to the original work. Don't let the black & white fool you, this film is timeless.
293 Reviews
the perfect Christmas carol
didi-519 December 2004
Many adaptations of Dickens' Christmas book have been and gone, but this is generally thought to be one of the definitive films of the story.
Brian Desmond Hurst directs a fine cast, headed by the incomparable Alastair Sim (a man who can play both malevolent and humorous) as the about-to-be-redeemed Ebenezer Scrooge. Sim's reactions are priceless and he settles down well in the role. Michael Hordern is a less successful Marley, certainly when he visits as a ghost, but the three Ghosts of Christmas are just as you imagine - Christmas Past is a wise old sage, Christmas Present is a jovial party-giver ...
Strengths of this production include the opening out of events of the past into a linear narrative (George Cole plays young Scrooge for the early segments), and the playing of Mervyn Johns and Hermoine Baddeley as the Cratchits. It is a film which has holly, plum pudding, and carol singers written all over it, from the use of Christmas tunes in the music track, to the roaring fires and snow-strewn streets in which everyone makes merry for the festive day.
Brian Desmond Hurst directs a fine cast, headed by the incomparable Alastair Sim (a man who can play both malevolent and humorous) as the about-to-be-redeemed Ebenezer Scrooge. Sim's reactions are priceless and he settles down well in the role. Michael Hordern is a less successful Marley, certainly when he visits as a ghost, but the three Ghosts of Christmas are just as you imagine - Christmas Past is a wise old sage, Christmas Present is a jovial party-giver ...
Strengths of this production include the opening out of events of the past into a linear narrative (George Cole plays young Scrooge for the early segments), and the playing of Mervyn Johns and Hermoine Baddeley as the Cratchits. It is a film which has holly, plum pudding, and carol singers written all over it, from the use of Christmas tunes in the music track, to the roaring fires and snow-strewn streets in which everyone makes merry for the festive day.
The Best Verson of A Christmas Carol
utgard1420 December 2013
Best version on film of the timeless Dickens story. There are other versions I enjoy as well, and some more so for sentimental reasons. But, objectively, I believe this is the best version on a technical and artistic level. The production is first-rate. The cast is excellent. Especially Alastair Sim, who is perfect casting as Scrooge. He adds little touches to the character that sets his performance apart from the countless other Scrooges. As for the story, well unless you have been living under a rock or weren't raised in an English-speaking country, then you should know the plot to this classic. Miserly Ebenezer Scrooge is visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve to show him the error of his ways. Obviously I recommend the book because it's a seminal classic. But, as far as film versions go, this is the one everyone should see first.
An all time classic - see it!
smg.rhill22 April 2000
The blatant plug first: If you haven't seen this film, you have deprived yourself of one of the great performances of all time. Do not miss the opportunity, order it, buy it, or just plain rent it at once.
When I was a boy my father introduced me to this version of Scrooge. I can remember how we had to all sit very quietly whilst he recorded the soundtrack from our TV using a mike onto his tape recorder. From there on in, every year at Christmas the tape would come out and we would listen to the soundtrack complete with the introduction music to the adverts. Eventually the tape became a cassette and then we had the video.
Now I am the owner of this magical film on DVD and there has not been a year pass me by that I haven't sat and watched the film at least once.
The joy of watching this version has never left me, and as other commentators have remarked, Alastair Sim as Scrooge, seems to provide everything that you could want in the part. The transition from miser to benefactor is handled well, with Sim fighting the spirits all the way: "I'm too old to change". The dizzy happiness of the final scenes in stark contrast to the character in the opening of the film.
Everytime I see this film I find myself captivated by the way Sim manages to find an inner character to Scrooge, one that has not previously revealed itself. The young Scrooge played by George Cole, may not be the nasty money grabbing character whilst interacting with his sister, working for Fezziwig, or courting Alice, but he doesn't have that intoxicated happiness, there is still something sour about him.
Perhaps that is what truly makes this film. If the novel is about redemption and a rediscovery of humanity, then Alastair Sim finds it in abundance within his portrayal.
I cannot reach the end credits without undergoing some form of renewal myself. The characterisation carries you with it. I have seen and heard this film at least 50 times and I still smile to myself whilst waiting for the words : "Cratchit! you're late." the attempt to keep up the old Scrooge breaking down very quickly.
Perhaps some more people in the world could do with a revelation such as this Scrooge undergoes. Would it be so bad if we all felt at times that: "I don't deserve to be so happy".
The other part I have always enjoyed is that of Kathleen Harrison as Mrs Dilber. Throughout she plays the put upon house keeper with great style. The comments she makes at Old Joe's are telling in their rightness and her initial reaction to the transformed Scrooge is bewilderment and terror in equal measure.
I am relieved to read that I am not alone in this world in being able to quote almost every line, and some of the these have become catch phrases in my family: "I always know" seems to be a favourite of my father :-)and a meal cannot pass without "ha'penny extra" being put forward if more bread is requested.
So to finish - let the enthusiasm of the other contributors and myself encourage you to at least try this film. And now to get this in the post: "I'll send it to Bob Cratchit. Label, label, label, label, must have a label."
When I was a boy my father introduced me to this version of Scrooge. I can remember how we had to all sit very quietly whilst he recorded the soundtrack from our TV using a mike onto his tape recorder. From there on in, every year at Christmas the tape would come out and we would listen to the soundtrack complete with the introduction music to the adverts. Eventually the tape became a cassette and then we had the video.
Now I am the owner of this magical film on DVD and there has not been a year pass me by that I haven't sat and watched the film at least once.
The joy of watching this version has never left me, and as other commentators have remarked, Alastair Sim as Scrooge, seems to provide everything that you could want in the part. The transition from miser to benefactor is handled well, with Sim fighting the spirits all the way: "I'm too old to change". The dizzy happiness of the final scenes in stark contrast to the character in the opening of the film.
Everytime I see this film I find myself captivated by the way Sim manages to find an inner character to Scrooge, one that has not previously revealed itself. The young Scrooge played by George Cole, may not be the nasty money grabbing character whilst interacting with his sister, working for Fezziwig, or courting Alice, but he doesn't have that intoxicated happiness, there is still something sour about him.
Perhaps that is what truly makes this film. If the novel is about redemption and a rediscovery of humanity, then Alastair Sim finds it in abundance within his portrayal.
I cannot reach the end credits without undergoing some form of renewal myself. The characterisation carries you with it. I have seen and heard this film at least 50 times and I still smile to myself whilst waiting for the words : "Cratchit! you're late." the attempt to keep up the old Scrooge breaking down very quickly.
Perhaps some more people in the world could do with a revelation such as this Scrooge undergoes. Would it be so bad if we all felt at times that: "I don't deserve to be so happy".
The other part I have always enjoyed is that of Kathleen Harrison as Mrs Dilber. Throughout she plays the put upon house keeper with great style. The comments she makes at Old Joe's are telling in their rightness and her initial reaction to the transformed Scrooge is bewilderment and terror in equal measure.
I am relieved to read that I am not alone in this world in being able to quote almost every line, and some of the these have become catch phrases in my family: "I always know" seems to be a favourite of my father :-)and a meal cannot pass without "ha'penny extra" being put forward if more bread is requested.
So to finish - let the enthusiasm of the other contributors and myself encourage you to at least try this film. And now to get this in the post: "I'll send it to Bob Cratchit. Label, label, label, label, must have a label."
A Christmas Gift
Hitchcoc7 May 1999
If I could take only ten movies to a desert island, this would be one of them. This movie captures all the things that "A Christmas Carol" is supposed to be. Watching Alastair Sim interpret the role of Scrooge and then looking at other actors, I see his incredible facial expressions, the loss of soul that haunts him, the vulnerability (yes, I mean it; he is actually pitiable at times), the loss of love from his once betrothed, and the terrible loneliness suffered at the hands of a vengeful father and the loss of his kind and loving sister, Fan. Then there are the wonderful images and the haunting music. The excellent supporting cast. Mervyn Johns is an excellent Cratchett, multi-dimensional and fun loving. Michael Horden as Jacob Marley (definitely the best performance as the ghost). Scrooge is shown to be calculating at every juncture, but seems to know that in many ways he is wrong. His avarice becomes his mistress and he can't forsake her. There are wonderful little scenes that I remember. When he stops to have dinner at the restaurant and is told more bread will cost extra, he decides to deny himself a little bit of warmth. There is the scene where Fezziwig loses his business to Scrooge (not a part of the original book but it works fine in the film). Scrooge hesitates for a moment and then barges on, and shows his insensitivity by retaining a worker at a reduction in salary. The scene where Marley is dying and Scrooge waits till the end of business. He then comes to the house and asks "Is he dead yet?" We all know the ending, but there is a joy, a blissful excitement not found in any of the other films. This is all attributable to Alastair Sim. He carries every moment. He shows us what real acting is all about. I treat myself to this movie a couple times a year and it never tires me. See it if you never have.
The definitive Christmas story
Bob-72420 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Scrooge is the definitive Christmas story. Ebenezer Scrooge is a wealthy businessman in Victorian London and a miser. One Christmas Eve he is visited by the ghost of his ex-partner Jacob Marley, as well as three Christmas spirits who gradually convince him of the error of his ways. As a result, he awakens on Christmas morning transformed into a veritable champion of the season and all that it stands for.
This 1951 version of A Christmas Carol (Scrooge) remains the best for an important reason: of all the versions made before or since, this is the only one that got it absolutely right.
The story--as so many have misread it--is not about an evil tightwad who hates everything and is suddenly scared into being a saint by the spirits of Christmas. It is, instead, about a good man whose life has turned him in on himself--made him bitter and miserable--primarily through the death of his beloved sister, Fan. He is not, therefore, changed in the end, but rather, restored to himself, his innate good nature emerging renewed from its cocoon of self-imposed misery.
Of course, the Spirits of Christmas must do the job for him since Scrooge can't rely on his own sense of reason and fair play to save him from himself; his position is technically valid. The opening scenes demonstrate how everyone is expecting something from him in the name of Christmas, but not in the name of what's fair: A debtor wants more time to pay--in the name of Christmas. A charity wishes him to donate money--in the name of Christmas, and Cratchit wants the day off , with pay--in the name of Christmas. As Scrooge points out, if he were to dock Cratchit's pay half a crown for a day without work, Cratchit would feel ill-used, but it's perfectly alright to ask for a day off--with pay--from Scrooge. That it is all done in the name of Christmas hardly counts as an argument, either, since Scrooge has lost sight of what Christmas is all about.
That is Scrooge's illness, and A Christmas Carol recounts this classic Dickens tale of the cure.
Thanks to Alastair Sim's wonderful performance, we can almost feel sorry for Scrooge. He suffers more from his miserly nature than anyone else. We are introduced to a reasonable man who simply wants to be left alone and we can empathize with him--in part at least. We see him, a man of great wealth, deny himself a piece of bread simply because it would cost an extra half-penny. Lit by a single candle and warmed by a meager fire, he sits alone and lonely on Christmas Eve in his large and empty house. Sim also adds a wonderfully droll sense of humor to his portrayal, thus making Scrooge more of a character than a villain, and therefore much more sympathetic from the outset.
Come Christmas morning, we celebrate with Scrooge because we know him. In spite of ourselves, we liked him even before his rebirth, and now are delighted that he is finally happy. His acts of humility and generosity come from a familiar soul and we are touched by them.
I first watched this film in 1955 on television, Christmas day. I have not missed a Christmas in the fifty-plus years since then and always find it wonderfully entertaining and inspirational. Aided by a wonderful cast and careful adherence to Dickens' original dialogue and concept, it has deservedly become a Christmas classic. I can't imagine that there is someone who hasn't seen it, but if you haven't, I certainly recommend it.
This 1951 version of A Christmas Carol (Scrooge) remains the best for an important reason: of all the versions made before or since, this is the only one that got it absolutely right.
The story--as so many have misread it--is not about an evil tightwad who hates everything and is suddenly scared into being a saint by the spirits of Christmas. It is, instead, about a good man whose life has turned him in on himself--made him bitter and miserable--primarily through the death of his beloved sister, Fan. He is not, therefore, changed in the end, but rather, restored to himself, his innate good nature emerging renewed from its cocoon of self-imposed misery.
Of course, the Spirits of Christmas must do the job for him since Scrooge can't rely on his own sense of reason and fair play to save him from himself; his position is technically valid. The opening scenes demonstrate how everyone is expecting something from him in the name of Christmas, but not in the name of what's fair: A debtor wants more time to pay--in the name of Christmas. A charity wishes him to donate money--in the name of Christmas, and Cratchit wants the day off , with pay--in the name of Christmas. As Scrooge points out, if he were to dock Cratchit's pay half a crown for a day without work, Cratchit would feel ill-used, but it's perfectly alright to ask for a day off--with pay--from Scrooge. That it is all done in the name of Christmas hardly counts as an argument, either, since Scrooge has lost sight of what Christmas is all about.
That is Scrooge's illness, and A Christmas Carol recounts this classic Dickens tale of the cure.
Thanks to Alastair Sim's wonderful performance, we can almost feel sorry for Scrooge. He suffers more from his miserly nature than anyone else. We are introduced to a reasonable man who simply wants to be left alone and we can empathize with him--in part at least. We see him, a man of great wealth, deny himself a piece of bread simply because it would cost an extra half-penny. Lit by a single candle and warmed by a meager fire, he sits alone and lonely on Christmas Eve in his large and empty house. Sim also adds a wonderfully droll sense of humor to his portrayal, thus making Scrooge more of a character than a villain, and therefore much more sympathetic from the outset.
Come Christmas morning, we celebrate with Scrooge because we know him. In spite of ourselves, we liked him even before his rebirth, and now are delighted that he is finally happy. His acts of humility and generosity come from a familiar soul and we are touched by them.
I first watched this film in 1955 on television, Christmas day. I have not missed a Christmas in the fifty-plus years since then and always find it wonderfully entertaining and inspirational. Aided by a wonderful cast and careful adherence to Dickens' original dialogue and concept, it has deservedly become a Christmas classic. I can't imagine that there is someone who hasn't seen it, but if you haven't, I certainly recommend it.
The quintessential Christmas movie
TheLittleSongbird1 December 2009
Christmas is my favourite time of year, not only is it the time to spend with my family but also to revisit the timeless Christmas classics that is like a tradition in our household. While I adore Christmas films like the first two Home Alone movies, Miracle on 34th Street, Muppet Christmas Carol, It's A Wonderful Life and White Christmas, it is Scrooge(1951) that enchants me the most. While not the most faithful adaptation of the book, since Bella's name is changed to Alice and there isn't a reference to Scrooge's mother's death, it is sheer mastery in terms of acting, music, cinematography and capturing the spirit of the book.
I also want to say I adore Charles Dickens's book. It is a Christmas literary classic, along with The Nutcracker and The Polar Express. It just has an amazing story, totally original characters and is just a delight to read full stop. Scrooge(1951), is not the most true to the book, but I do think it does do a masterly job at capturing the book's spirit, and for that reason is the definitive adaptation. The basic ingredients are all there and are expertly refined. Scrooge is just a great Christmas classic, simply put, and it is for me the quintessential Christmas movie.
The cinematography is faultless. Shot in stunning black and white, it is smooth, crisp, efficient and never jerky. The black and white looks simply amazing after all these years, and the production values are perfect. The music is outstanding; beautiful arrangements of well known tunes throughout to remind us of the festive season and the additional music is memorable and extremely touching, though the music when Scrooge realises it's him who's dead is really chilling. The story about a Christmas miser who is haunted by his partner and three spirits into changing his ways is one of the best loved Christmas stories ever, and it is not hard to see why. As a story, it is impeccably crafted, and the storytelling of Dickens is masterly. All the elements of the book are there in this film, apart from some aforementioned changes.
The acting is spot on. Alistair Sim was a fine actor, who to this day is undervalued. Here he gives quite possibly the best performance of his entire career, and for me he is the definitive Ebeneezer Scrooge. Don't get me wrong I loved Albert Finney, George C.Scott, Kelsey Grammar, Michael Caine and Patrick Stewart, but Sim was the embodiment of the character and dominated the entire movie on his own. No scene with him in rang false, and his change from miserly to kind at the end was heartbreakingly believable. There were some fine supporting performances too, with Michael Horden splendid as Jacob Marley, Mervyn Johns humble as Bob Cratchitt and George Cole earnest as Young Scrooge. At the end of the day though, it is Sim's movie. A movie that is so good it should be on the top 250. 10/10 Bethany Cox
I also want to say I adore Charles Dickens's book. It is a Christmas literary classic, along with The Nutcracker and The Polar Express. It just has an amazing story, totally original characters and is just a delight to read full stop. Scrooge(1951), is not the most true to the book, but I do think it does do a masterly job at capturing the book's spirit, and for that reason is the definitive adaptation. The basic ingredients are all there and are expertly refined. Scrooge is just a great Christmas classic, simply put, and it is for me the quintessential Christmas movie.
The cinematography is faultless. Shot in stunning black and white, it is smooth, crisp, efficient and never jerky. The black and white looks simply amazing after all these years, and the production values are perfect. The music is outstanding; beautiful arrangements of well known tunes throughout to remind us of the festive season and the additional music is memorable and extremely touching, though the music when Scrooge realises it's him who's dead is really chilling. The story about a Christmas miser who is haunted by his partner and three spirits into changing his ways is one of the best loved Christmas stories ever, and it is not hard to see why. As a story, it is impeccably crafted, and the storytelling of Dickens is masterly. All the elements of the book are there in this film, apart from some aforementioned changes.
The acting is spot on. Alistair Sim was a fine actor, who to this day is undervalued. Here he gives quite possibly the best performance of his entire career, and for me he is the definitive Ebeneezer Scrooge. Don't get me wrong I loved Albert Finney, George C.Scott, Kelsey Grammar, Michael Caine and Patrick Stewart, but Sim was the embodiment of the character and dominated the entire movie on his own. No scene with him in rang false, and his change from miserly to kind at the end was heartbreakingly believable. There were some fine supporting performances too, with Michael Horden splendid as Jacob Marley, Mervyn Johns humble as Bob Cratchitt and George Cole earnest as Young Scrooge. At the end of the day though, it is Sim's movie. A movie that is so good it should be on the top 250. 10/10 Bethany Cox
The most affecting of all the filmed versions.
soyarra-122 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I think the reason this has endured as everyone's favorite film version of "A Christmas Carol" is, of course, Alastair Sim's amazing performance, but also because it is the least sentimental of all the film treatments. The ghosts aren't pretty young girls or comic figures; Tiny Tim isn't cutesy or twinkling, but rather an unlovely, honestly sweet young boy, and London doesn't look like a Christmas card, but dark and properly harsh. Scrooge's reclamation is hard-won, but when he is reclaimed, Sim's transformation of the character is miraculous -- he actually looks like a different person.
The touch I love the most, though, is the old ballad "Barbara Allen" played through the scenes with Fan and Fred -- it never fails to make me tear up. This movie is as much a holiday must-see as "A Christmas Story" and "A Charlie Brown Christmas."
The touch I love the most, though, is the old ballad "Barbara Allen" played through the scenes with Fan and Fred -- it never fails to make me tear up. This movie is as much a holiday must-see as "A Christmas Story" and "A Charlie Brown Christmas."
A Great Movie, but NOT the truest to the novel by ANY stretch!
Nola601510 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I positively love the Alastair Sims version of A Christmas Carol... simply titled "Scrooge" upon its 1951-2 release. It's the first I recall seeing, and it began my devotion to reading just about everything Dickens has put to pen.
Now that said, I have noticed countless people who comment that this is the "truest" to the novel, and I'm sorry; but having read this particular novella at LEAST a couple of hundred times... (several times every Christmas), I can assure you that it in no WAY is the truest to the actual novel. But this in no way detracts from its own value as a moving experience in watching the transformation of the quintessential Scrooge in the person of Alastair Sims.
Where it deviates GREATLY with the book: 1.) There is no Belle, we have the girl of his love changed into an "Alice"... why this name change defies any logic I can fathom. 2.) Unlike the Belle whom we see happily married with children, giving Scrooge a glimpse of what he'd lost, (still with the Ghost of Christmas Past)... we later have her shown as a poor spinster working as some nurse or volunteer in an almshouse, poorhouse, or some such institution (and that by the Ghost of Christmas PRESENT)--completely not in the book, and, I think, an unnecessary deviation from a much better scenario presented by the book's original author. 3.) The first scene of young Scrooge left "back at school" has him practically a man, not the little boy reveling in the stories of Ali Baba, and Robinson Crusoe, and the Parrot! Fan, is practically a woman, not the excited tiny girl who had to reach up just to put her arms around her brother's neck. Again, these do not prevent it from being a good movie; but are a disappointment to a purist like myself who would truly like the movies to be more faithful to the book. I am stunned by the number of people who often think this to be one of the most faithful, when, if anything, it deviates from the actual text, if anything, MORE than most.
The manner in which Scrooge and his later partner, Marley, join forces at another business (not anywhere in the book)... the manner in which they procure Fezziwig's own business, and put him OUT of business, (not anywhere in the book), the continuing sequence of scenes of his hard business dealings (nowhere in the book)... His bedside scene where Fan dies and she makes him promise to look after her son... (nope not in the book)... the bedside scene of Marley's death... also not in the book. create a mountain of little infidelities which, while unfaithful to the actual text, DO manage to create a nice Christmas story--just, at least as I see it...NOT the one Dickens created.
The scenes created in the presence of the Ghost of Christmas Present (with the exception of the "Alice" scene), are among the few that do remain somewhat more faithful to the written story, although much is left out as well. The episode with the Ghost of Christmas future is practically inverted, with the first scene at the Cratchits, (which is practically the last in the book)... but this minor item can be overlooked as much of the dialogue at the 'Change, is faithful to the text and the BEST scene, in my humble opinion, is that of the Undertaker, the charwoman, and Mrs. Dilber in their dealings with Old Joe, which I find delightfully close to the text.
Of course we all know how it ends, the great transformation. This is handled very well, and close enough to the book to satisfy even persnickety folks like me, especially since the lad shouts "Walk-ER" instead of some of the inane substitutions made by those newer versions which feel this compulsive need to translate things into a more common language for the viewer. And with all that said, I give it seven stars... actually it merits an 8 1/2 as a thoroughly enjoyable and inspirational Christmas story... but I penalize it for its vast variance from the actual text, and in my opinion overuse of poetic license, and therefore, round it back down to seven; but here... don't let this Dickens purist and curmudgeon detract you in the least. It IS, after all is said and done... a very good motion picture! And that's MY take on it!
Now that said, I have noticed countless people who comment that this is the "truest" to the novel, and I'm sorry; but having read this particular novella at LEAST a couple of hundred times... (several times every Christmas), I can assure you that it in no WAY is the truest to the actual novel. But this in no way detracts from its own value as a moving experience in watching the transformation of the quintessential Scrooge in the person of Alastair Sims.
Where it deviates GREATLY with the book: 1.) There is no Belle, we have the girl of his love changed into an "Alice"... why this name change defies any logic I can fathom. 2.) Unlike the Belle whom we see happily married with children, giving Scrooge a glimpse of what he'd lost, (still with the Ghost of Christmas Past)... we later have her shown as a poor spinster working as some nurse or volunteer in an almshouse, poorhouse, or some such institution (and that by the Ghost of Christmas PRESENT)--completely not in the book, and, I think, an unnecessary deviation from a much better scenario presented by the book's original author. 3.) The first scene of young Scrooge left "back at school" has him practically a man, not the little boy reveling in the stories of Ali Baba, and Robinson Crusoe, and the Parrot! Fan, is practically a woman, not the excited tiny girl who had to reach up just to put her arms around her brother's neck. Again, these do not prevent it from being a good movie; but are a disappointment to a purist like myself who would truly like the movies to be more faithful to the book. I am stunned by the number of people who often think this to be one of the most faithful, when, if anything, it deviates from the actual text, if anything, MORE than most.
The manner in which Scrooge and his later partner, Marley, join forces at another business (not anywhere in the book)... the manner in which they procure Fezziwig's own business, and put him OUT of business, (not anywhere in the book), the continuing sequence of scenes of his hard business dealings (nowhere in the book)... His bedside scene where Fan dies and she makes him promise to look after her son... (nope not in the book)... the bedside scene of Marley's death... also not in the book. create a mountain of little infidelities which, while unfaithful to the actual text, DO manage to create a nice Christmas story--just, at least as I see it...NOT the one Dickens created.
The scenes created in the presence of the Ghost of Christmas Present (with the exception of the "Alice" scene), are among the few that do remain somewhat more faithful to the written story, although much is left out as well. The episode with the Ghost of Christmas future is practically inverted, with the first scene at the Cratchits, (which is practically the last in the book)... but this minor item can be overlooked as much of the dialogue at the 'Change, is faithful to the text and the BEST scene, in my humble opinion, is that of the Undertaker, the charwoman, and Mrs. Dilber in their dealings with Old Joe, which I find delightfully close to the text.
Of course we all know how it ends, the great transformation. This is handled very well, and close enough to the book to satisfy even persnickety folks like me, especially since the lad shouts "Walk-ER" instead of some of the inane substitutions made by those newer versions which feel this compulsive need to translate things into a more common language for the viewer. And with all that said, I give it seven stars... actually it merits an 8 1/2 as a thoroughly enjoyable and inspirational Christmas story... but I penalize it for its vast variance from the actual text, and in my opinion overuse of poetic license, and therefore, round it back down to seven; but here... don't let this Dickens purist and curmudgeon detract you in the least. It IS, after all is said and done... a very good motion picture! And that's MY take on it!
the classic version
rupie24 December 1999
I have not seen Albert Finney's nor George C. Scott's portrayal of Scrooge, so I cannot say definitively that Alastair Sim 'owns' this role, but I sure have trouble imagining anyone topping him; he is superb, the nitpicking comments of TinMan-5 notwithstanding. This version will always have a special place in my affections, and I am glad to see I'm not alone in holding this opinion. In my view, this is the definitive film version of this venerable and beloved tale.
1951 A Christmas Carol is a Christmas Classic
auskooper25 November 2023
This Christmas Carol movie is a classic. It released in 1951 and it is the second of many adaptations of the story by Charles Dickens (the first released in 1938). With how old it is, and how good rated it is here on IMBD, it can be an origin for modern day Christmas movies. It may not necessarily have the best camera quality with the time it released but it is still a classic. As of writing this review this is the only Christmas Carol movie I've watched besides the biographical movie about Dickens writing the story. The 2009 Jim Carrey version is 10 minutes longer than this version and the 1984 is 14 minutes longer. The 1938 version is 17 minutes shorter. I believe that the 1938 version is in black and white. That's all the difference between the different versions I could pick out as of now. I feel like this is an alright movie to help get into the Christmas spirit.
Best of all versions
jdm-224 December 1998
Some of the "Cockney" phrases and snippets of dialog were a wee bit hard to keep up with (like a foreign language), and some of the actual Dickens' novel is not in this version (but is in the 1938 movie), but all in all this is the best version. Alastair Sim should have won an Oscar for best actor.
Good Version, Brilliant Scrooge!
griffic-26 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
To a previous post, the only version I can think of in which Scrooge falls through grave and ends up in Hell is the 1970 musical SCROOGE with Albert Finney. I don't remember seeing little devils though.
As to this 1951 film, I recently revisited it again, and enjoyed it more than previously. Alastair Sim truly is amazing. He's at times sad, other times shy, and then funny. His scenes of redemption at the end are classic. In fact, when people say Sim is the greatest, I'm sure they are thinking of the final moments of the film in which Scrooge runs around his house, scaring his housekeeper (wanting to stand on his head, etc). I do believe Ebenezer Scrooge is a character open to various interpretations however. Which is why I also love the performances of George C. Scott and Michael Caine in their respective portrayals of Scrooge. All three are very different, but quite wonderful in their own ways.
The reason I don't give this version the highest review is simply because I find the pacing to be a bit off. The 1951 version spends WAY too much time on Scrooge's past. Among scenes not usually in other versions, we bear witness to Scrooge's business dealings and two death-bed scenes. While I agree Scrooge's past is important for us to see how he became such a miser, his "present" is important in showing Scrooge that the world goes beyond his counting house. And the "future" is importing in showing Scrooge the consequences of his actions. The worst part of spending so much time in Scrooge's past is we sometimes feel alone in these flashbacks. By that I mean, we don't see enough of Alastair Sim's reactions to many of these tragic moments of his life. All too often we only see his reaction at the end of the scene before transitioning to the next. In other words, we sometimes forget Sim is there during the flashbacks, making the already long Christmas Past seem quite longer.
Also, there are few too many obvious moments...moments that are a little too telling. Such as when Scrooge tells his sister she must never die...she must live forever. Or when Scrooge's fiancé makes him promise that he'll always love her despite her lack of wealth. These are moments of obvious foreshadowing, and lack subtlety.
Also lacking subtlety is the moment Tiny Tim supposes the prize Turkey given anonymously to the Cratchet's in fact came from Scrooge. It's almost as if a magical little angel whispered into Tim's ear that Scrooge is the benefactor...please!
Speaking of "Tiny" Tim, what exactly is so tiny about him? Probably the healthiest interpretation of the character I've ever seen. I thought he just sprained his ankle or something. Seriously, that boy must've been about 15 years old. He's almost as tall as his father. The sight of his huge crutch leaning against the wall is almost...ALMOST as funny as the ridiculous visual of Bob Cratchet carrying Tim on his shoulder. That moment has to be seen to be believed.
Anyway, despite all this I do like the 1951 A Christmas CAROL. Alastair Sim is so good and his redemption so joyous and touching, it would be a shame to miss it.
As to this 1951 film, I recently revisited it again, and enjoyed it more than previously. Alastair Sim truly is amazing. He's at times sad, other times shy, and then funny. His scenes of redemption at the end are classic. In fact, when people say Sim is the greatest, I'm sure they are thinking of the final moments of the film in which Scrooge runs around his house, scaring his housekeeper (wanting to stand on his head, etc). I do believe Ebenezer Scrooge is a character open to various interpretations however. Which is why I also love the performances of George C. Scott and Michael Caine in their respective portrayals of Scrooge. All three are very different, but quite wonderful in their own ways.
The reason I don't give this version the highest review is simply because I find the pacing to be a bit off. The 1951 version spends WAY too much time on Scrooge's past. Among scenes not usually in other versions, we bear witness to Scrooge's business dealings and two death-bed scenes. While I agree Scrooge's past is important for us to see how he became such a miser, his "present" is important in showing Scrooge that the world goes beyond his counting house. And the "future" is importing in showing Scrooge the consequences of his actions. The worst part of spending so much time in Scrooge's past is we sometimes feel alone in these flashbacks. By that I mean, we don't see enough of Alastair Sim's reactions to many of these tragic moments of his life. All too often we only see his reaction at the end of the scene before transitioning to the next. In other words, we sometimes forget Sim is there during the flashbacks, making the already long Christmas Past seem quite longer.
Also, there are few too many obvious moments...moments that are a little too telling. Such as when Scrooge tells his sister she must never die...she must live forever. Or when Scrooge's fiancé makes him promise that he'll always love her despite her lack of wealth. These are moments of obvious foreshadowing, and lack subtlety.
Also lacking subtlety is the moment Tiny Tim supposes the prize Turkey given anonymously to the Cratchet's in fact came from Scrooge. It's almost as if a magical little angel whispered into Tim's ear that Scrooge is the benefactor...please!
Speaking of "Tiny" Tim, what exactly is so tiny about him? Probably the healthiest interpretation of the character I've ever seen. I thought he just sprained his ankle or something. Seriously, that boy must've been about 15 years old. He's almost as tall as his father. The sight of his huge crutch leaning against the wall is almost...ALMOST as funny as the ridiculous visual of Bob Cratchet carrying Tim on his shoulder. That moment has to be seen to be believed.
Anyway, despite all this I do like the 1951 A Christmas CAROL. Alastair Sim is so good and his redemption so joyous and touching, it would be a shame to miss it.
Few omissions, but too many dreary additions to Dickens' tale
johnhuxter29 December 2004
I have only recently seen this much-loved version of the story, so I do not have the benefit of childhood tradition to colour my view of it. I am a much greater fan of Ronald Neame's 1970 musical starring Albert Finney, and I will use this version for comparison. Fans of the 1951 film by Brian Desmond Hurst may be offended by what I'm about to write!
Firstly, this black and white classic does include the majority of the scenes from Dicken's original - the musical has had a few scenes cut. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the scenes particularly helps the plot along, but they do tend to be the darker sequences, like the pawning of Scrooges possessions after his death. Including these darker scenes is good in historical respect, but bad in other ways, as I will explain.
Both versions of the story feature "added" scenes. Neame's musical includes the infamous "hell" scene. But Hurst's 1951 version suffers most from additions, because they are protracted, dreary, and push the story down a route Dicken's probably had not intended. Two scenes in particular serve no purpose other than to convince us what a truly ruthless, heartless man Scrooge is. This is not a pathetic man with whom sympathy is possible. He is cunning, and does not value honesty - even in business matters - and anxiously waits for his partners death.
The added sequences with the ghost of Christmas past occupy an enormous chunk of the film, and literally suck the life out of it. The interposing of a maid in Scrooge's "awakening" scene also seems to drag it out and adds nothing. This is a private revelation in the text, not one shared with non-existent household staff. He is, after all, a miser!
The casting and the sets were not entirely appropriate. Sims' Scrooge was overdone in his evil behaviour, and yet somehow unconvincing in both it and his transformation at the end. Perhaps his eyes were a little too big and sad for such a wicked man. Perhaps he wasn't that good at expressing ecstasy. Perhaps both. But having gone through pains to convince us of his completely wicked nature, director Hurst leaves little room for joy at his transformation. Albert Finney's far more lively and convincing Scrooge was miserable and mean to be sure, but also pathetic and in turns comical, as Dickens wrote him. I can only believe that Alastair Sim "is Scrooge" to many simply because they grew up with his interpretation. Having read the book, he does not capture the depth of the character at all.
Hurst's Bob Cratchit was rather portly for such a poor man, and his household appeared at least as opulent as Fezziwigs offices - a grave error in my opinion. The contrast with Bob Cratchit's cramped but cheery household is made perfectly clear in Neame's 1970 version, and Cratchit himself is appropriately "trim", and inspiringly jovial in the face of his adversity - again, so important in Dickens' novel. Once again, this is an area where Hurst seems to have failed to convey the spirit of Christmas as well as others.
All that said, the city street sets and costumes were quite good, and the other supporting cast were adequately played. I think the Ghost of Jacob Marley was more true to form in this version than in the musical, though I confess I found Alec Guiness' interpretation a delight.
In summary, I'd give this version of A Christmas Carol the advantage for inclusion of more of the original text by Charles Dickens. However, the added scenes build upon those darker scenes to create a version which is ponderous and largely devoid of joy and wit until the very end. There are several better adaptations of the tale than this one, and make better use of adaptation to capture Dickens' "spirit".
Firstly, this black and white classic does include the majority of the scenes from Dicken's original - the musical has had a few scenes cut. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the scenes particularly helps the plot along, but they do tend to be the darker sequences, like the pawning of Scrooges possessions after his death. Including these darker scenes is good in historical respect, but bad in other ways, as I will explain.
Both versions of the story feature "added" scenes. Neame's musical includes the infamous "hell" scene. But Hurst's 1951 version suffers most from additions, because they are protracted, dreary, and push the story down a route Dicken's probably had not intended. Two scenes in particular serve no purpose other than to convince us what a truly ruthless, heartless man Scrooge is. This is not a pathetic man with whom sympathy is possible. He is cunning, and does not value honesty - even in business matters - and anxiously waits for his partners death.
The added sequences with the ghost of Christmas past occupy an enormous chunk of the film, and literally suck the life out of it. The interposing of a maid in Scrooge's "awakening" scene also seems to drag it out and adds nothing. This is a private revelation in the text, not one shared with non-existent household staff. He is, after all, a miser!
The casting and the sets were not entirely appropriate. Sims' Scrooge was overdone in his evil behaviour, and yet somehow unconvincing in both it and his transformation at the end. Perhaps his eyes were a little too big and sad for such a wicked man. Perhaps he wasn't that good at expressing ecstasy. Perhaps both. But having gone through pains to convince us of his completely wicked nature, director Hurst leaves little room for joy at his transformation. Albert Finney's far more lively and convincing Scrooge was miserable and mean to be sure, but also pathetic and in turns comical, as Dickens wrote him. I can only believe that Alastair Sim "is Scrooge" to many simply because they grew up with his interpretation. Having read the book, he does not capture the depth of the character at all.
Hurst's Bob Cratchit was rather portly for such a poor man, and his household appeared at least as opulent as Fezziwigs offices - a grave error in my opinion. The contrast with Bob Cratchit's cramped but cheery household is made perfectly clear in Neame's 1970 version, and Cratchit himself is appropriately "trim", and inspiringly jovial in the face of his adversity - again, so important in Dickens' novel. Once again, this is an area where Hurst seems to have failed to convey the spirit of Christmas as well as others.
All that said, the city street sets and costumes were quite good, and the other supporting cast were adequately played. I think the Ghost of Jacob Marley was more true to form in this version than in the musical, though I confess I found Alec Guiness' interpretation a delight.
In summary, I'd give this version of A Christmas Carol the advantage for inclusion of more of the original text by Charles Dickens. However, the added scenes build upon those darker scenes to create a version which is ponderous and largely devoid of joy and wit until the very end. There are several better adaptations of the tale than this one, and make better use of adaptation to capture Dickens' "spirit".
My all time favourite film
King-1214 December 2004
I am sure Charles Dickens would be more than pleased with the film adaptation of 'A Christmas Carol'. A truly remarkable film that never fails to delight me. There are so many poignant scenes. When for instance Scrooge asks his nephew's wife for forgiveness for being a 'pig headed old fool' it never fails to have me reaching for the nearest tissues. However, the one scene that sticks in my mind is where Scrooge is settling down to eat his bowl of soup in his dressing gown and slippers in front of the fire. The expression on his face on hearing the voice of Jacob Marley, and subsequently dropping his spoon and its contents into his soup bowl, is for me a cinematic treasure.
Easily the best adaptation of all the ones available.
hitchcockthelegend4 March 2008
There isn't much to say that isn't written already here, or what is known as regards the story. Charles Dickens smashing fantasy A Christmas Carol is a story that stands the test of time for generations past and will do so for many generations to come. This version stands out chiefly because of it's incredible central performance by Alastair Sim as the miserly old misery guts Ebenezer Scrooge. He perfectly layers the transformation as the tale progresses, from the horrid bitter man at the film's beginning to the joyous man of heart come the finale, Sim convinces in each phase of his stripped bare journey that the ghosts take him on. The story is full of family values and messages of hope, it makes you sad and then lifts you to a very high place, it is in short, essential viewing at the holiday season, because ultimately it is the season to be jolly.
Definitive version from source, and not forgetting to be a ghost story either, Scrooge is Christmas season gold, so thank you Charles Dickens, and thank you Alastair Sim. 9/10
Definitive version from source, and not forgetting to be a ghost story either, Scrooge is Christmas season gold, so thank you Charles Dickens, and thank you Alastair Sim. 9/10
If you don't know the story, shame, shame......
Mike-76425 December 2004
On Christmas Eve in 1840's England, miserly Ebenezer Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his former business partner, Jacob Marley, who warns him to change his ways or be doomed to eternal damnation. The ghosts of Christmases past, present, and future to show him the error of Scrooge's ways and show the people who are able to keep Christmas in their hearts 365 days a year. Easily the best adaptation of the Dickens classic which can be attributed to several reasons. Sim's performance transcends all description of greatness. Hurst's direction evokes the ideal emotions at all the right moments. The rest of the cast remain faithful to the Dickens' characterizations. A perfect film to watch during the holiday season. Rating, 10.
Alistair Sim - nobody else even comes close. A holiday ritual to watch.
sgusto23 December 2014
Generally feeling a bit Scroogey myself, I cannot fully embrace the Christmas season until I see this movie (sometimes twice) and transform along with Scrooge.
For me, Alistair Sim IS the definitive Scrooge bar none. I can't say enough about his performance so I won't even try.
An excellent supporting cast just adds more with the only remotely off note being Michael Hordern's slightly melodramatic Marley's ghost scene in the beginning of the movie. Mervyn Johns is perfect as Cratchit as is the rest of the actors portraying his family.
Kathleen Harrison seals the deal as Mrs Dilber. One of my favorite supporting roles of all time. She owns her role as completely as Sim's Scrooge. In fact, she amplifies his effectiveness by being so completely believable as Scrooge's downtrodden cockney maid, Mrs Dilber - bad teeth and all. Her last powerful and moving scene with the transformed Ebeneezer on the staircase alone makes the movie worth watching. When Ebeneezer gives a terrified Mrs Dilber a Guinea as a Christmas present she is dumbfounded and asks plaintively, "For me?" It nearly brings me to tears as with those two words she coveys the heartbreakingly sad conviction that NO ONE, especially Scrooge, would care enough about her to give her a Christmas present and by doing so,lights her up and renews her Christmas spirit not to mention her sense of self worth.
For me, Alistair Sim IS the definitive Scrooge bar none. I can't say enough about his performance so I won't even try.
An excellent supporting cast just adds more with the only remotely off note being Michael Hordern's slightly melodramatic Marley's ghost scene in the beginning of the movie. Mervyn Johns is perfect as Cratchit as is the rest of the actors portraying his family.
Kathleen Harrison seals the deal as Mrs Dilber. One of my favorite supporting roles of all time. She owns her role as completely as Sim's Scrooge. In fact, she amplifies his effectiveness by being so completely believable as Scrooge's downtrodden cockney maid, Mrs Dilber - bad teeth and all. Her last powerful and moving scene with the transformed Ebeneezer on the staircase alone makes the movie worth watching. When Ebeneezer gives a terrified Mrs Dilber a Guinea as a Christmas present she is dumbfounded and asks plaintively, "For me?" It nearly brings me to tears as with those two words she coveys the heartbreakingly sad conviction that NO ONE, especially Scrooge, would care enough about her to give her a Christmas present and by doing so,lights her up and renews her Christmas spirit not to mention her sense of self worth.
Sim's wide-eyed rebirth is the most joyful of all film versions
SimonJack30 January 2015
Alastair Sims carries this 1951 version of "A Christmas Carol" without a doubt. The inimitable Sims, with the perfect physical appearance of larger than life eyes, makes the most convincing, ebullient, overly ecstatic Scrooge of any. That is, after he "sees the light" through his visits from the three spirits of Christmas. As the miserly, hard and cold Ebenezer Scrooge in the beginning, he is good, but not better than those in other films. But, Sim's interpretation of the character has a nuance that I think is very good. He soon is quick to plead with the spirits to escape what he is seeing and to change. So, when he changes, we see the greater joy he imbues.
This 1951 version of the Dickens classic is one of the very best. It is a favorite of mine, along with the 1938 film with Reginald Owen in the lead role. This version is 86 minutes long and gives more details of the times with each ghost. I don't think the main supporting cast can match that of the 1938 film. It would have been something to see that cast of Bob Cratchit, Fred, Tiny Tim and Marley's ghost do this film with Sim. The whole film would take on more life. But as it is, the supporting cast here are all OK.
This film also gives considerable attention to Scrooge's past love, and it gives him a glimpse of that lost love in the future. We see the Scrooge as a young man with his fiancé, Alice (played by Rona Anderson). After his logical talk about trying to better himself in the world, Alice says, "Another idol has replaced me in your heart. A golden idol." Then Scrooge sees her later caring for sick people. Other scenes show the joyful time he had at Fezziwig's party and with friends. These past events especially are fleshed out much more in this film, and that adds weight to the loss that Scrooge has suffered by his choices in life. All the more fuel to fire his heart when he has a conversion.
I have five films of the Dickens story. My two favorite are the 1938 and this 1951. I also like the 1970 musical with Albert Finney. And the new films with George C. Scott and Patrick Stewart are fine. But these two old films have the feel and the scenery that looks for real for mid-19th century England as well. For people who can't stand black and white, the newer versions in color are still very good renditions of the story. Not excellent, but very good. One other excellent film in color is the 1970 musical rendition. It stars Albert Finney and other top British actors.
This 1951 version of the Dickens classic is one of the very best. It is a favorite of mine, along with the 1938 film with Reginald Owen in the lead role. This version is 86 minutes long and gives more details of the times with each ghost. I don't think the main supporting cast can match that of the 1938 film. It would have been something to see that cast of Bob Cratchit, Fred, Tiny Tim and Marley's ghost do this film with Sim. The whole film would take on more life. But as it is, the supporting cast here are all OK.
This film also gives considerable attention to Scrooge's past love, and it gives him a glimpse of that lost love in the future. We see the Scrooge as a young man with his fiancé, Alice (played by Rona Anderson). After his logical talk about trying to better himself in the world, Alice says, "Another idol has replaced me in your heart. A golden idol." Then Scrooge sees her later caring for sick people. Other scenes show the joyful time he had at Fezziwig's party and with friends. These past events especially are fleshed out much more in this film, and that adds weight to the loss that Scrooge has suffered by his choices in life. All the more fuel to fire his heart when he has a conversion.
I have five films of the Dickens story. My two favorite are the 1938 and this 1951. I also like the 1970 musical with Albert Finney. And the new films with George C. Scott and Patrick Stewart are fine. But these two old films have the feel and the scenery that looks for real for mid-19th century England as well. For people who can't stand black and white, the newer versions in color are still very good renditions of the story. Not excellent, but very good. One other excellent film in color is the 1970 musical rendition. It stars Albert Finney and other top British actors.
"Mankind was my business"
bkoganbing27 December 2016
Looking at this version of A Christmas Carol back to back with the Reginald Owen one done in Hollywood by MGM and probably the most frequently run on television J. Arthur Rank sacrificed traditional sentimentality for class warfare. Odd considering that Mr. Rank in life was a most conservative gentleman.
It was the dog eat dog world of capitalism that turned Ebenzer Scrooge into the miserly individual he was. At least that's what it seemed to be to this viewer. Look at how Scrooge turns on his initial benefactor Mr. Fezziwick, look also how the firm of Scrooge&Marley was born, to save Mr. Jorik from prison and ruin. Their actions made Alastair Sim and Michael Hordern as Scrooge and Marley both wealthy men, but at a price. When Hordern's ghost comes calling Sim you see exactly how those chains were formed that he now carries.
Rank put together an impressive list of players to support Sim as the man who learns the welfare of mankind not only is his business, but the government's as well. Better to vote for elected officials intent on keeping Christmas's spirit.
No accident that this film was done during the reforming Labour government of Clement Attlee. That government essentially remade British society to what it is today. The welfare of British mankind was most assuredly its business.
An interesting and alternative look at A Christmas Carol.
It was the dog eat dog world of capitalism that turned Ebenzer Scrooge into the miserly individual he was. At least that's what it seemed to be to this viewer. Look at how Scrooge turns on his initial benefactor Mr. Fezziwick, look also how the firm of Scrooge&Marley was born, to save Mr. Jorik from prison and ruin. Their actions made Alastair Sim and Michael Hordern as Scrooge and Marley both wealthy men, but at a price. When Hordern's ghost comes calling Sim you see exactly how those chains were formed that he now carries.
Rank put together an impressive list of players to support Sim as the man who learns the welfare of mankind not only is his business, but the government's as well. Better to vote for elected officials intent on keeping Christmas's spirit.
No accident that this film was done during the reforming Labour government of Clement Attlee. That government essentially remade British society to what it is today. The welfare of British mankind was most assuredly its business.
An interesting and alternative look at A Christmas Carol.
Perfect
boblipton24 December 2022
This is in my list of perfect movies. I don't know how many times I've seen it. Call it 50 times. There have been many fine performances of the role of Ebenezer Scrooge. Alistair Sim's is the best. Kathleen Harrison offers one to compare to his. So does Theresa Derrington.
It was also my entrance to Charles Dickens' writings. He and Michel de Montaigne taught me how to write well. Dickens wrote about interesting people. He wrote about real problems. He wrote about things he knew. He wrote about absurdity and evil. His life was not an exemplar of how a man should behave. So what? He wrote of aspiration. He wrote of redemption. May we not aspire to be better people? May we not hope for redemption?
It was also my entrance to Charles Dickens' writings. He and Michel de Montaigne taught me how to write well. Dickens wrote about interesting people. He wrote about real problems. He wrote about things he knew. He wrote about absurdity and evil. His life was not an exemplar of how a man should behave. So what? He wrote of aspiration. He wrote of redemption. May we not aspire to be better people? May we not hope for redemption?
Enjoyable but definitely NOT "definitive!"
Whythorne2 January 2009
While worth watching (and owning), this version of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is all too often inappropriately described as "definitive."
For a film based upon a book to be described as "definitive," one would expect the film to be extremely faithful to the book, or at least to the author's intent. Unfortunately, "Scrooge" too often departs from both, even with regard to its title. One has to ask with extreme irony: how can this film be considered "definitive" when it can't even get the story's title straight?
Alistair Sim generally does an excellent job in portraying the title character without resorting to caricature. And the black and white cinematography is wonderful, adding to the mood and period feel of 19th century London. I love the scenes where Ebeneezer first appears at his home, and is going through his rooms after being spooked by the apparition in his door knocker. Those scenes would be far less effective in the Technicolor style that was popular in the fifties when this was made.
Further, I don't even mind that some liberties have been taken with Dickens' novel, especially in scenes involving Scrooge's time with the Ghost of Christmas Past, or his reveling at the expense of his house maid near the end. I am fine with filmmakers reading between the lines, and fleshing out more of the story, as long as it is done in a competent fashion. Unfortunately, I think Dickens would hardly have approved of the scenes that were added that actually changed his storyline.
For example, in this version, there is an invented scene in which Scrooge and Marley actually cause the financial ruin of old Fezziwig. The problem with this, of course, is that Ebeneezer is supposed to have been someone who always revered Fezziwig, but had just forgotten with the passage of time and his growing obsession with self and money what an ideal employer the jolly old fellow was. That fact allows the Ghost of Christmas Past to use Ebeneezer's history as well as his emotional ties to Fezziwig to drive an effective point home to Scrooge about his poor treatment of his own lone employee, Bob Cratchit. If Scrooge never cared for Fezziwig, then he makes an ineffective role model and the comparison is useless.
In addition, the scene in which Scrooge is taken by the Ghost of Christmas Present to observe the goings-on at his nephew Fred's place is far too short. It doesn't communicate at all the merrymaking and companionship that Ebeneezer has been missing out on for years. It is woefully out of balance with the time spent on other scenes.
The Ghost of Christmas Present then takes Ebeneezer to a place where his former fiancé Belle (re-named "Alice" for some inexplicable reason) is helping out at a homeless shelter. This replaces the scene from the book where Scrooge witnesses her married, showing him what a large, happy family he could have had, if he had been a better man in his youth. Again, the lesson of wasted opportunity is missing, and this change in the script defeats the purpose Dickens intended.
Alastair Sim is likewise often described as the "definitive" Scrooge. Although I thoroughly enjoy his portrayal of the character, I think Sim lacks the physical appearance to be "definitive." His face is a bit too round and comical to have the look that is reminiscent of the drawings approved by Dickens that were done by illustrator John Leech. That Scrooge is far more gaunt and flinty. Actually, of all the Scrooges that have been portrayed on screen, I think Seymour Hicks from the otherwise lacking 1935 version may have been the closest physically to those illustrations.
I won't nitpick the supporting cast, with the exception of pointing out a couple of things. One, is that I have to disagree with reviewers who loved Michael Horndern as Marley's ghost. I thought his hammy, over-the-top acting style was of the kind that is usually associated with melodrama in the silent era.
Far more importantly, Tiny Tim is not nearly tiny nor sickly-looking enough. That huge casting blunder alone is enough to prevent this version from assuming the title of "definitive!"
One last criticism, that has nothing to do with the debate over "definitive" is with the music soundtrack. It is far too loud and blaring in spots, especially when the tune (ironically) "Silent Night" is drowning out some dialog.
At any rate, while I disagree with the verdict of "definitive," I have to say this is nonetheless a very enjoyable adaptation, and certainly close enough to the spirit of Dickens' novel to be recommended. While it lacks the natural subtlety and congruity of the George C. Scott version, it is head and shoulders above the version starring Patrick Stewart, which, while very literal in its treatment of the novel, falls extremely flat.
For a film based upon a book to be described as "definitive," one would expect the film to be extremely faithful to the book, or at least to the author's intent. Unfortunately, "Scrooge" too often departs from both, even with regard to its title. One has to ask with extreme irony: how can this film be considered "definitive" when it can't even get the story's title straight?
Alistair Sim generally does an excellent job in portraying the title character without resorting to caricature. And the black and white cinematography is wonderful, adding to the mood and period feel of 19th century London. I love the scenes where Ebeneezer first appears at his home, and is going through his rooms after being spooked by the apparition in his door knocker. Those scenes would be far less effective in the Technicolor style that was popular in the fifties when this was made.
Further, I don't even mind that some liberties have been taken with Dickens' novel, especially in scenes involving Scrooge's time with the Ghost of Christmas Past, or his reveling at the expense of his house maid near the end. I am fine with filmmakers reading between the lines, and fleshing out more of the story, as long as it is done in a competent fashion. Unfortunately, I think Dickens would hardly have approved of the scenes that were added that actually changed his storyline.
For example, in this version, there is an invented scene in which Scrooge and Marley actually cause the financial ruin of old Fezziwig. The problem with this, of course, is that Ebeneezer is supposed to have been someone who always revered Fezziwig, but had just forgotten with the passage of time and his growing obsession with self and money what an ideal employer the jolly old fellow was. That fact allows the Ghost of Christmas Past to use Ebeneezer's history as well as his emotional ties to Fezziwig to drive an effective point home to Scrooge about his poor treatment of his own lone employee, Bob Cratchit. If Scrooge never cared for Fezziwig, then he makes an ineffective role model and the comparison is useless.
In addition, the scene in which Scrooge is taken by the Ghost of Christmas Present to observe the goings-on at his nephew Fred's place is far too short. It doesn't communicate at all the merrymaking and companionship that Ebeneezer has been missing out on for years. It is woefully out of balance with the time spent on other scenes.
The Ghost of Christmas Present then takes Ebeneezer to a place where his former fiancé Belle (re-named "Alice" for some inexplicable reason) is helping out at a homeless shelter. This replaces the scene from the book where Scrooge witnesses her married, showing him what a large, happy family he could have had, if he had been a better man in his youth. Again, the lesson of wasted opportunity is missing, and this change in the script defeats the purpose Dickens intended.
Alastair Sim is likewise often described as the "definitive" Scrooge. Although I thoroughly enjoy his portrayal of the character, I think Sim lacks the physical appearance to be "definitive." His face is a bit too round and comical to have the look that is reminiscent of the drawings approved by Dickens that were done by illustrator John Leech. That Scrooge is far more gaunt and flinty. Actually, of all the Scrooges that have been portrayed on screen, I think Seymour Hicks from the otherwise lacking 1935 version may have been the closest physically to those illustrations.
I won't nitpick the supporting cast, with the exception of pointing out a couple of things. One, is that I have to disagree with reviewers who loved Michael Horndern as Marley's ghost. I thought his hammy, over-the-top acting style was of the kind that is usually associated with melodrama in the silent era.
Far more importantly, Tiny Tim is not nearly tiny nor sickly-looking enough. That huge casting blunder alone is enough to prevent this version from assuming the title of "definitive!"
One last criticism, that has nothing to do with the debate over "definitive" is with the music soundtrack. It is far too loud and blaring in spots, especially when the tune (ironically) "Silent Night" is drowning out some dialog.
At any rate, while I disagree with the verdict of "definitive," I have to say this is nonetheless a very enjoyable adaptation, and certainly close enough to the spirit of Dickens' novel to be recommended. While it lacks the natural subtlety and congruity of the George C. Scott version, it is head and shoulders above the version starring Patrick Stewart, which, while very literal in its treatment of the novel, falls extremely flat.
The best Christmas film there is.
theshadow9085 March 2006
I have been in love with this movie ever since I first saw it when I was about 5 or 6. Ever since then, every Christmas I have sat down to watch this amazing classic film about a wicked man who is visited by three spirits who hope to make him change his ways.
It's obvious that this is the best film adaptation of Dickens' novel in existence, and it's probably the most well known. The movie is made so well, it was really a milestone for films back then. The special effects in this movie are really good for their time, and they still hold up today. This movie just has a Christmassy feel to it. You get that Christmas feeling when you're watching it, just like you might get the Halloween feeling when watching Halloween. The performances in this movie are something else. Alastair Sim gave the best performance of his career in this film.
I truly believe that A Christmas Carol set the tone for Christmas movies of that era and of today. It really is the best Christmas movie ever made, and not only that, but it is an amazing movie outside of the Christmas season as well. This is a classic that will still be going strong in another 55 years.
10/10
It's obvious that this is the best film adaptation of Dickens' novel in existence, and it's probably the most well known. The movie is made so well, it was really a milestone for films back then. The special effects in this movie are really good for their time, and they still hold up today. This movie just has a Christmassy feel to it. You get that Christmas feeling when you're watching it, just like you might get the Halloween feeling when watching Halloween. The performances in this movie are something else. Alastair Sim gave the best performance of his career in this film.
I truly believe that A Christmas Carol set the tone for Christmas movies of that era and of today. It really is the best Christmas movie ever made, and not only that, but it is an amazing movie outside of the Christmas season as well. This is a classic that will still be going strong in another 55 years.
10/10
A Christmas Carol ,1951
shagya495 November 2005
The only real criticism I see is an attempt to colourize the film somewhere back in the eighties ... really awful and quite pointless. This version of Dicken's classic was made in 1951 and the monochrome adds intensity to the harsh atmosphere of early nineteenth century London. In comparison the interpretation made in 1984 with George C. Scott as the principal character came across as Disneyified mush. Sim's Scrooge is the product of the immediate post WW2 period where social democratic ideas were strongly felt particularly in England. This is reflected in the strange combination of sincerity and sentiment which is seen in many other films of that period. Might also explain the liberties that were taken with the original story and some of the mistakes ( like Scrooge's younger sister which couldn't be if the mother died in childbirth ).
In some ways "Scrooge" is the soft "family" version of Bogarts "Rick" in Casablanca. Personal strength in the service of that which is good. In a postmodernist age this concept must be as foreign as the horse-drawn cabs in Soho.
In some ways "Scrooge" is the soft "family" version of Bogarts "Rick" in Casablanca. Personal strength in the service of that which is good. In a postmodernist age this concept must be as foreign as the horse-drawn cabs in Soho.
Meh, another subpar version
aidanratesmovies15 November 2021
Charming and an excellent use of tone, but rather dull and at times silly- Scrooge hardly manages to hold up as much as it is highly praised- and simply just feels like another missed opportunity. Alastair Sim sars as the titular character in this adaptation of the classic tale. His performance can be well done at times, and certainly more so than the Scrooge performances before its release, but at times his emotions on display can be rather silly and it just takes you out of the experience completely. The film is well shot, although nothing extraordinary, and all the supporting cast does a rather decent job as well. The tone throughout is brilliantly executed, and you can see the director truly know what he was doing when this film came into his hands. The editing however can feel a bit clunky, as well as its pacing, which honestly stretches out far too long for it to be truly entertaining. In the end, Scrooge (1951) is a mediocre but far from terrible adaptation of the classic story. It has its moments, but it sadly just isn't enough to be quite memorable or worth another watch.
My Rating: 4.8/10.
My Rating: 4.8/10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
