TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

ThiefHott Too much of everything

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

bkoganbing 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.

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 remembered. 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.

GusF Although this is considered by many people to be the definitive adaptation of "A Christmas Carol", I found it bitterly disappointing. Alastair Sim gives a wonderful performance as the title character but I wish that he had given it in a better adaptation. Brian Desmond Hurst's direction is very mediocre - and I'm being kind because it is nearly Christmas - and the film is extremely poorly paced in spite of its 86 minute running time. As a result, it is never as emotionally affecting as it should be in spite of Sim's valiant efforts. Far too much time is spent on the past scenes, which means that the present and future ones seem rushed.Hurst assembled one of the best casts of any British film of the era so it says a great deal about his failings as a director that many of the performances are not up to scratch. The typically excellent Michael Hordern goes way, way over the top as Jacob Marley to the point that his performance is unintentionally funny. Shockingly, actors of the calibre of Mervyn Johns and Hermione Baddeley are boring as the Cratchits. Speaking of which, the scenes at the Cratchit household should always be the most moving ones in any adaptation of the novel but they're simply dull. Sim's frequent co-star George Cole is generally good as the young Scrooge but he was always a better comic actor than a dramatic one. On the bright side, could there have been a more perfect casting choice than Francis de Wolff for the Ghost of Christmas Past? He is as good as you would expect but he does not have nearly as much screen time as he should. Jack Warner is very good as Mr Jorkin, a suitably Dickensian villain who was created specifically for the film, but the character doesn't add too much to the proceedings. Miles Malleson and Ernest Thesiger steal their scenes as Old Joe and the undertaker respectively but that comes as naturally to them as breathing comes to everyone else so that's hardly surprising.Overall, this is an incredibly underwhelming adaptation which would have been considerably worse if was not for the fantastic central performance. The special effects are very good for the time though.

SimonJack 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 goods 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.