AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Nigel P The tale of Ebenezer Scrooge is my favourite of all Charles Dickens' works, and I think, my favourite Christmas story too. I rate this as the best filmed adaption of the book. No punches are pulled in the horror of it all - squalor, sickness, biting snow, poverty, even the rampant toy display longingly stared at by Tiny Tim (Glyn Dearman) in the shop window is a sinister sight: there's little comfort in the chuckling mannequins and clown-faced dolls.One of the issues I have with some adaptions is the saccharin attributes poured on the various versions of Tiny Tim. It isn't enough he is a cheerful lame boy destined to die - for some producers, his sweetness has to be laid on with a trowel. Not so much here, gladly. It is entirely possible to sympathise with his plight without feeling nauseous, although some of the Cratchett family's delight in simple pleasures threaten to overload the sugar coating at times.A second issue I have concerns Scrooge himself. This adaption is also slightly guilty of this: Scrooge's miserable meanness is given scant attention. He sees off a couple of charity workers and a debtor and that's about it. I wish we had been given more of his latter-day nastiness - as it is, we're soon given Michael Hordern's exceptionally creepy Ghost Of Marley and Scrooge's repentance begins. His self-doubt and burgeoning goodness would mean so much more if he'd been shown to be a cruel, miserly old man for longer.But what do I know? Alistair Sim is exemplary in the role, adding touches of humour to Ebenezer, even at his meanest - and perhaps if he had been too cruel, we'd find it harder to forgive him. Sim's is the definitive Scrooge. His words of onishment to Bob Cratchett for wanting 'the whole day off' on Christmas Day are pertinent even in 2018, and what a disgrace that is. Employees often aren't given the choice about working on December 25th, for fear of lessening the yearly company profit, and that shows no sign of changing. At least Scrooge has the decency to be miserable about it.Some good horror veterans adorn this. Michael Hordern, Miles Malleson, Carol Marsh, and 'Doctor Pretorious' himself, Ernest Thesiger has a disappointingly brief appearance as Marley's obsequious Undertaker.This is a beguiling, atmospheric adaption, with an amazing central performance from Sim and is recommended viewing any, or even every, Christmas.

Byrdz Am in the midst of a "Scrooge" / "A Christmas Carol" Binge.The SIM version is / was my "go-to" version. It was the one I grew up with. It was shown annually on one television channel or other. It was the one that was showing when a group of us gathered at my friend Ari's house, made vats of popcorn and sat around his apartment and in his big bed and watched "A Christmas Carol" throughout Christmas Eve and into the dawn. It was one of those continuous loop showings and with no commercials. Ahhh ... memories ! Anyhoo. 1951's still holds its own. All of the actors seem just about perfect for their roles. None are so familiar that they stand out as actors rather than as their character ... but watch for Peter Bull and Patrick McNee in little bitty appearances.It's really impossible to say who is "best" or which version is "best" ... It's too much like choosing a favorite child. Hicks/Sim/Scott tied ! Room for all.

smerph Peruse the reviews of any adaptation of "A Christmas Carol", and you'll probably find mention of Alastair Sim and this 1951 version. Why? Because it's generally believed to be the best. Sim is great, no doubt. So great, in fact that he reprised it 20 years later for an animated version. He's this film's greatest asset and the reason I think it is so fondly ed. As adaptations of the classic go, I think it's up there, but it's also not without flaws and I'd argue that these are mostly forgotten due to the performance of its leading man.Perhaps the biggest problem is the pace of the film. There's a largely extended "Christmas Past" sequence which adds quite a lot of off-text detail. Some of this is almost welcome; the makers explain Scrooge's estrangement from his father by explaining that his mother died giving birth to him. This is totally off-book, but worked so well that the makers of the 1984 version recycled it.However, elsewhere there are extended sequences with Scrooge being lured away from Fezziwig by a shady character called Jorkin (invented for the film). These scenes seem totally superfluous and, to be frank, drag. The effect of this is that the "Christmas Present" sequence is slimmed down to compensate.We get the traditional visit to see the Cratchetts (although I'm afraid Tiny Tim seems neither lame no particularly tiny) but there's no ghostly visit to see nephew Fred here.For reasons I can't quite fathom; we see Scrooge's lost love Alice (Belle in the book) in the Christmas Present sequences helping the poor and needy. The intention seems to be that she never moved on from Scrooge and dedicated her life to charity instead (again, off-book). Whether the film is suggesting that Scrooge will reconcile with her is never implicitly stated, as she doesn't feature in the finale.A further issue is that Scrooge is rarely on-screen at the same time as the visions of the past, present and yet-to-come. The scenes play, almost as vignettes. This means that we seldom see Scrooge reacting in real-time, and thus we miss a gradual transformation in his demeanour.Fortunately, Dickens' wonderful dialogue is retained throughout the and, when Scrooge awakens, reformed at the finale; we believe it. I'm not sure the film needs the extended comedy scene with Housekeeper Mrs Dilber but, by this point, the film should have won you over.Not quite as good as its leading man, the film remains unmissable for lovers of Dickens' classic novella.

Leofwine_draca SCROOGE is the most well-ed of the various film adaptations of Charles Dickens's A Christmas CAROL made over the years. That's because it's so good. It's not that the film is a blinding masterpiece of cinematic skill, or anything like that, but that it sticks closely to the format of the book and manages to recapture exactly the same kind of magic that Dickens summoned up. After all, the story is about people and their relationships, not effects or humour.Alistair Sim stars in his most famous role and he's excellent in it; really, he makes every actor who's played Scrooge since a mere imitation. The cast is full of British talent like Michael Hordern, Ernest Thesiger, Miles Malleson, and Francis De Wolff, and one of the ones who really shines is a youthful George Cole (playing the young Scrooge) in a star-making turn.The production quality is the same as in one of the contemporary Ealing classics. The film is full of sentiment without ever being sentimental, and Scrooge's character arc keeps you fully invested in the story. The supernatural aspects are kept to a minimum and are well handled in the classic tradition rather than being dated or cheesy. SCROOGE is a real Christmas cracker.