Scrooge

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.

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.

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.

Most people are familiar with the 1951 classic version of A Christmas Carol (AKA Scrooge) with Alastair Sim. This British version was made three years before the MGM American film, and is actually better than that one, but of course not as great as the 1951 version. It is very short and to the point, in many ways different than other versions, since it is faithful to the Dickens story, and Hicks gives a brutally realistic portrayal of Scrooge. The Depression Era London setting is depicted quite realistically as well. 3 out of 4 stars.

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.