TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

utgard14 Early adaptation of the famous Dickens tale. I believe it's the earliest film version (that survived, at least). IMDb lists the runtime as 11 minutes but the only versions I could find were 3 minutes and change. They cram a lot into that 3 minutes. Points for that but I can't imagine any viewer who wasn't familiar with the story knowing what was going on. There are a few title cards but, again, unless you know the story already they don't explain much. So you have this guy being tormented by Christmas spirits with little explanation. There's clearly a lot missing. Still, the effort is good for its time and limitations and some of the technical stuff is impressive.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a very good movie. It is very scary. It also well written. 1951 version of A Christmas carol is better. But still this a great film. A miser is hunted by the dead sprite of an old friend on Christmas eve. This one best ghost stories ever. It is also on of the best moral stories ever. It is a classic. I enjoy the book a little more. But still this is a great movie. This movie is a must see. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has great special effects. I do not know any of the actors but they are good. This is a great fantasy movie. It is a hidden classic. This a great movie. The 1986 version of A Christmas carol is better. But still this a great movie.

Lee Eisenberg The oldest surviving cinematic adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" is a very truncated version to the point that the Ghosts of Christmases Past, Present and Future don't even appear. Jacob Marley shows Ebenezer Scrooge what the latter needs to know. There's apparently no available info about who the cast is. Only about half the movie exists today, and I watched it on Wikipedia. I understand that a lot of movies during cinema's infancy were adaptations of classic novels so that viewers would already know the story and there would be limited need for intertitles.Aside from being the oldest surviving adaptation of Dickens's classic novel, there's nothing particularly special about "Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost". It's actually based more on J.C. Buckstone's stage adaptation "Scrooge". I'll forgive it for looking like it does - the background looks painted - since movies were just getting off the ground. My favorite adaptation of Dickens's novel remains "Scrooged", starring Bill Murray as a greedy TV exec (one of the lines describes a TV ad as "the Manson family Christmas").Anyway, it's an OK movie.

boblipton Although the IMDb listing would have you believe this movie is 11 minutes in length, the DVD version of it as issued by the British Film Institute in 2006 times in at about three minutes --- and there isn't time enough to tell the story in any meaningful way unless you know it -- stick with the 1951 version starring Alastair Sim is my advice.Nonetheless, this movie is interesting, because it may be the earliest use of titles I have ever seen in the movies. Although in coming decades movie titles would expand into dialogue, and the writing of concise and witty titles into a fine art, at this stage, the titles are actually just that: brief chapter titles, describing the scene you are about to see. There are four of them.