Spoonixel
Amateur movie with Big budget
Mabel Munoz
Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?
Kien Navarro
Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
Byrdz
It's 1949. It's early television. They are trying to present a classic novel in 23+ minutes. Yet, that doesn't excuse its problems. The actors recite some of the lines from the book and give a very bare bones rendition of the story, so credit for that but not much else.Vincent Price, in that honey-ed voice of his, "reads" the story as if reading to a child. Taylor Holmes playing Ebeneezer (more about that later) Scrooge is from New Jersey so he can be forgiven for not sounding particularly English but why does he sound like Gabby Hayes ? His reactions smack too much of silent screen acting to be acceptable in a 1949 production. His laugh at the finale is more crazed than amused.The prize for worst performance ever as one of the ghosts must go to one George James. He has the look and stance of Superman and seems angry rather than the usual jovial presentation of this ghost. Another prize for bad acting would go to young Bobby Hyatt as "Tiny" Tim. The kid looks so pleased with himself after remembering his Bless Us Every One line that ... well... strangling comes to mind.Back to the extra EEs. Not only is Mr. Scrooge called that in the credits but on his tombstone as well.To top it off the title cards call it "THE Christmas Carol".Got a list to check off? Remember, you've been warned.
HarlowMGM
This half-hour digest telling of Charles Dickens' Christmas CAROL from 1949 is one of the earliest American television programs to survive. Taylor Holmes (a character actor perhaps best known for as Henry Spoffard Sr. in Marilyn Monroe's GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES) is well cast as the sour Mr. Scrooge. Although he is a bit over the top in a few of his early scenes, he is very good otherwise and there is a unusual touch of poignancy in his performance that often is not in other actors as Scrooge, possibly due to Mr. Holmes' having lost two of his sons (including the well-known actor Phillip Holmes) within the previous five years, thus giving him perhaps an emotional link to Scrooge's inner sadness that some actors couldn't quite reach. This little drama is moves quickly of course given the time frame and the cast of mostly unknowns does very well (although the ghosts are fairly ridiculously costumed, particularly the ghost of Christmas present who resembles some actor in a king costume for a 1960's cereal commercial). It's an effective little piece of television and Christmas nostalgia. It won't be anyone's favorite rendition of the classic story but it's worth seeing and rather endearing.
didi-5
Mainly because of Vincent Price's excellent and tongue-in-cheek narration, reading the celebrated Dickens story, this works better than it should, especially given the ridiculously over the top performance of Taylor Holmes as Scrooge, acting in a way one associates more with the worst excesses of silent cinema.However, in twenty-five minutes this production does include a scene in Scrooge's office, Jacob Marley and all the three ghosts, as well as a glimpse at Scrooge's redemption and celebration of Christmas.As an example of early television's attempts to film the classics, it is very good indeed. There are of course better adaptations of this tale, but this one is worth seeking out even if is just the once.The version I watched is rather muddy picture-wise, but the sound is clear and understandable, and everyone has clear voices which serve Dickens' text well.
tforbes-2
This was not the earliest television version of "A Christmas Carol," but it seems to be one reasonably available for viewing. It is a product of its time, given its limited production values. That was par for the course.And yes, it is a little odd that some performers have British accents, while others don't. But then, George C. Scott didn't exactly have one when he played Scrooge in 1984.Taken on its own terms, though, it is fun to watch, knowing that it was filmed in 1949. Vincent Price does a fine job as the narrator, and seeing a nine-year-old Jill St. John as Missie Cratchit is fun. This was her second television appearance, and the second of her child actress performances she did from 1949 to 1952.Both she and Mr. Price would go on to more notable performances, he in horror films, she in various ingénue roles, in the years ahead. While this production may not rank with the 1951 version with Alastair Sim or the George C. Scott version made 33 years after, it remains an interesting relic of the late 1940s, and an interesting artifact of the infancy of television.
