Scrooge

Though overshadowed by later versions, this 1935 Seymour Hicks version of "Scrooge" is pretty good, with the main strength being Hicks's effective portrayal of Scrooge. Aside from Hicks, most of the other characters do not have that much of a presence, and it does not have the kind of lavish detail that enriches, for example, the great Alastair Sim version. But the atmosphere works, and the story is faithfully told and moves fairly quickly. Every actor who portrays the famous miser has his own interpretation of the role, and Hicks himself is above average, lending appropriate nuances to his character's personality change while remaining believable.

The story has been filmed so many times that it's hardly possible to avoid making comparisons among the various versions. This is not going to be anyone's favorite version, but it's not a bad one, either.

If there's a lesson to be learned from the countless adaptations of A Christmas Carol, it's that the makers should stick to the text as closely as possible. Dickens barely wasted a word in his novella; it being a perfectly judged, perfectly paced bit of fiction.

This adaptation takes a few wrong turns. It takes far too long before we get to the actual haunting, with the first 30 minutes being positively meandering. There's also a perfunctory sequence, featuring none of the main characters, where the King is celebrated. Maybe this kind of thing pleased the masses back in the thirties, but it does make the opening act a bit of a slog.

One would hope that things would get back on track when Jacob Marley appears. Unfortunately, Jacob Marley doesn't appear at all; he's a rather unimpressive voice-over. It's an odd choice; as if the makers aren't confident enough to give us a character design that will work for us.

Unfortunately, the sequence following this isn't much better. The visit from The Ghost of Christmas Past is done and dusted in less than 5 minutes (I'm not exaggerating). There's nothing of Scrooge of a boy, no mention of Fezziwig and we only really see the break-up of his relationship with Belle (and nothing of the good times Scrooge shared with her). This is a major misstep; as it fails to adequately give us Scrooge's backstory. Considering what *is* included in this adaptation, it's baffling that such a key segment was skipped over. I'm wondering if it was abridged so that they'd be no need for other, younger actors to play Scrooge, but that seems like an unnecessary compromise.

The Present and Yet To Come sequences fare better, and the conclusion to the story is really rather good as adaptations of the novella go. However, the damage has already been done.

It's a big shame as the cast are fine. Seymour Hicks may be a touch too shabby for my tastes as Old Scrooge, but he's able to give us a decent contrast in his performance (even if his redemption is far too quick, and seems almost complete after a quick glimpse at his past).

In summary, this is probably on an even footing with the Reginald Owen offering from just three years later (1938). Both have as many flaws as aspects to recommend, but both are worth a watch to aficionados of the classic story.

This is a very nicley done filming of A Christmas Carol. Seymour Hicks gives a marvelous performance as Scrooge,complimented very well by the rest of the cast. Unlike the MGM version of a 1938,the Cratchits in this film are in very reduced circumstances! Not a chair at the table matches,the curtains are ragged,and thier home is tiny and run down.In the Hollywood version,Bob Cratchit and his family don't seem to be in a very bad way.The sets(if they are indeed sets,and not real locations) add to the authentic feel of the picture.The only Scrooge to surpass this one is Allistair Sim's 1951 portrayal,which is probably the Ebenezer Scrooge for the ages.

This version of the Dickens classic is decent enough. But it treads so lightly, ignoring key elements of the original story. It isn't bad for mood and atmosphere, but it never captivates like some of the other superior efforts. For "A Christmas Carol" to really work we must get into the head of Scrooge, to feel what it is that has made him. We got none of that here. The acting is decent, but the budget must have been a little lacking. I found the absence of an actor to play Marley's ghost to be a shortcoming, for it is here that Scrooge begins to find the error of his ways, not in a big way because he argues for the preservation of his inadequate life. The Ghost of Christmas past doesn't get into the harsh realities of young Scrooge, and so we are left without a psychological foundation. Anyway, from one who has been enamored with this wonderful story for a lifetime, I didn't feel this stacked up very well. There seems to be a kind of fat and sassy Cratchitt and Tiny Tim doesn't really draw our sympathy.

Not bad but not great version of the classic Dickens tale. Seymour Hicks makes for a very different Scrooge than most of us are used to seeing. Big bushy eyebrows, wild hair, and a permanent caveman expression on his face. He makes Scrooge appear more brutish than other versions. His Scrooge looks like the kind of guy you would see in films of the period that hung around the docks waiting to rob people. This is a darker Carol than most. A lot of stuff is either left out or is only alluded to rather than shown. I don't know...it's not one of my favorite versions, to be sure, but it is interesting and enjoyable enough. Give it a shot if you have seen other versions and like to compare. Otherwise, if this is your first stop for A Christmas Carol film, you'd be better off with the 1951 Alastair Sim version.