Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost

1901
6m

IMDb RATING

YOUR RATING

It's Christmas Eve. The miser Scrooge and his assistant Bob Cratchit finish their work in the office and go home. When Scrooge is going to open his front door, he sees the face of Marley's g... Read allIt's Christmas Eve. The miser Scrooge and his assistant Bob Cratchit finish their work in the office and go home. When Scrooge is going to open his front door, he sees the face of Marley's ghost in the door knocker. Inside he takes on his night dress, eats his supper, and falls a... Read allIt's Christmas Eve. The miser Scrooge and his assistant Bob Cratchit finish their work in the office and go home. When Scrooge is going to open his front door, he sees the face of Marley's ghost in the door knocker. Inside he takes on his night dress, eats his supper, and falls asleep at the table. Marly's ghost shows Scrooge a vision of himself at a Christmas in the ... Read all

Director
- Walter R. Booth
Writers
- J.C. Buckstone
- Charles Dickens
Star
- Daniel Smith

See production info at IMDbPro

IMDb RATING

5.6/10

668

YOUR RATING

Director
- Walter R. Booth
Writers
- J.C. Buckstone
- Charles Dickens
Star
- Daniel Smith

See production info at IMDbPro

Photos6

Top cast1

Edit

Daniel Smith

Ebenezer Scrooge

Director
- Walter R. Booth
Writers
- J.C. Buckstone
- Charles Dickens
All cast & crew
Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

User reviews13

5.6668

Featured reviews

6cricketbat

It's short, it's missing parts, yet it's still fairly impressive

Considering that Scrooge, or, Marley's Ghost was made in the very early days of cinema, and it was created only about 60 years after Charles Dickens's novella was written, it's fairly impressive. This is essentially a very short stage play with a little cinematic magic thrown in, such as superimposing images of the spirits. It eliminates much of the original story, and even some of the ghosts, as Jacob Marley (holding a sheet around himself) is the one who leads Ebenezer to the past, present, and future. Nevertheless, it's still fascinating to watch the first film adaptation of "A Christmas Carol."

6owen-watts

Pepper's Ghost

CarolQuest Part I

The earliest ever adaptation of probably the most-adapted novel of all time is mostly built around some great theatrical tricks and not much else. Wikipedia insists it's also the first use of intertitles in a film which feels quite an intense mantle to place on it. Bracingly abridged down to about five minutes, and now only surviving as three-and-a-half it's worth a gander (beyond historical fascination) for the door-knocker effect at the very least and the genuinely fascinating choice of projecting Scrooge's youth onto a curtain behind him. Not essential, but fairly atmospheric.

Kirpianuscus

nice

The only problem is when you understand be a half of film. Decent in each aspect, reasonable adaptation, great in details and message, not bad craft and, sure, theatrical at whole. But not bad. Short, pieces of an old age of cinema, testimony of a very old world.

7jacobjohntaylor1

This is a very good movie.

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.

4boblipton

Zip Zip Zip

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.