ReaderKenka
Let's be realistic.
Matialth
Good concept, poorly executed.
Livestonth
I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible
writers_reign
Apologies to Variety for borrowing their headline (Styx Nix Hix Pix: a reference to cinema patrons in rural America objecting to the way they were portrayed by Hollywood) and adapting it to include the star of this film (Sir) Seymour Hicks. Primarily a man of the theatre this was his most famous role and he played it several times including this, the first 'talkie' version of the old war-horse. For the time it presents a solid adaptation and although it is structured around Hicks the rest of the cast are all up to snuff. Several reviewers here have expressed surprise that rather than end with Tiny Tim's verging-on-immortal @God bless us, everyone' the film ends with Scrooge taking a pew next to Bob Cratchit in church and joining him in a rendition of Hark, The Herald Angels Sing. That, however, may be splitting hairs.
Byrdz
With a story that has been made so many times and in so many different ways, the trick is to not compare versions so I won't. BUT there are several versions of the 1935 Seymour Hicks "Scrooge". There is the public domain sixty minute copy and several longer ones of varying lengths. All are available on You-Tube. I had watched a murky public domain VHS copy, and after reading the IMDb boards, found that I had missed some key scenes. I chose the longest available one on-line. Good idea ! Several mysteries were cleared up by seeing all of the film. Most noticeable is just where Mr. Scrooge suddenly got all of those nice new clothes. The interaction with the butcher alone is worth watching the longer version ... it's quite funny !Another scene that is omitted from the shortened version is a charming family piece concerning the making and serving of the Christmas Pudding.Hicks is wonderful as Scrooge. Because he is a totally unknown actor to me, I could see him as Scrooge and not be distracted by his "real" self or any other characters he had played. The same for all of the other actors. One un-intentionally funny note is the scene with Scrooge's former fiancé and her actual family... she has literally dozens of dancing children with many of them of the same age. I like the invisible Marley and the suggested ghosts. Listen to the voice of Marley and see if you agree as to who it is said to be. (Hint = invisible!) <--- edit: said to be an urban legend. The film is very atmospheric and the music is very mood setting and enhances the action. It's quite suspenseful and downright creepy at times. Scrooge's transformation seems genuine with him being eager to improve as a man as the story progresses. Recommend giving this version a try. I predict that it will be in your top 3 favorite Scrooges too.
frankdfleming
Scrooge (the 1935 version) is marked by good story-telling, a comfortable pace and workmanlike acting performances. Considering the 1935 production date, the cinematography and special effects are commendable.I enjoyed that it included scenes that typically aren't part of other productions. For example, there is a scene involving an extravagant banquet where scraps are literally thrown out the window to the poor gathered outside the kitchen preparation area. Additionally, you'll see Tim lying dead upon his bed which likely was a surprise and shock to audiences of the day.There were some disappointments as well including Marley's ghost and Bob Cratchit. Although Scrooge can both see and hear Marley's ghost, the viewer can only hear the ghost (who according to the cast list is The Invisible Man, Claude Rains himself in an uncredited role). The meeting between Scrooge and Marley is often one of the story's most powerful scenes and not letting the audience actually see Marley was a mistake. As for the actor playing Bob Cratchit, he seemed a bit too old for the part and failed to generate the sympathy so strongly felt for the character in other presentations.Overall though, for those who love the story, this is a presentation that you can enjoy.
gavin6942
Scrooge (Seymour Hicks), the ultimate Victorian miser, has not a good word for Christmas, though his impoverished clerk Cratchit and nephew Fred are full of holiday spirit. But in the night, Scrooge is visited by spirits of another color.This film has been seen by many people not because it is the best version, but because it fell into the public domain and therefore can be shown on TV for free and sold at store for as low as $1. It also is probably not the worst version, though it is hard to say depending on who you get it from. Being in the public domain means it can be copies from a copy and look or sound terrible. There is little incentive to clean up the film.The one included with the 1951 version of "A Christmas Carol" is pretty good. The picture is a bit rough at times, but not awful, and the music has held up pretty well.
