Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

Some companies (Westlake Entertainment being one) have the complete version. 85% of the DVDs are the shortened 63 minute film. But the extra 15 minutes or so add some very touching moments, especially in the Christmas yet to come scene at the Cratchits. The editing process of the shortened version leaves gaps and unexplained situations. One is that Scrooge cuts his nose while shaving-waiting for the poulterer to bring the turkey for the Cratchits. The is why he has a cross of plaster tape on the tip of his nose. And of course the very ending of the film with Scrooge going to church is a nice touch. An excellent version and one of my top 3 choices of this beloved classic.

So live most of your life with selfish greed, ignorant of the suffering of others, angry with anyone who appears to hint at joy or happiness, and overall be your average major ahole. GREAT!! Have a nightmare and think you will die, wake up and VOILA, everyone just loves you with open arms and life is grand. Not really a redeeming enough Dickens theme imho.Typically his novels have it's main character experience much emotional and physical torment and then via Deus ex Machina transform with honor and pride. I wonder why this particular story lacks this cause and effect method. Perhaps I need to read the actual book and see for myself as I am incredulous at the preposterous notion of instant acceptance and love by all.So Humbug on this whole mess while I complain about not being able to see Alistair Sim and his wild and crazy antics which were much more enjoyable to experience. At least he cleaned up half decent. This version barely had Scrooge comb his hair for cryin out loud!Slight recommend for a few scenes of holiday celebration and that super FIRE pudding!

There have been tons of versions of "A Christmas Carol"--perhaps more than any other film. Because of this, only a very few stand out in a positive way--the rest are just copies of copies of copies and nothing more. I would put this 1935 film in this latter category, as it is competent enough in most ways and tells the story but absolutely nothing more. And, to make matters worse, much of Dickens' original social commentary has been deliberately muted.Before I talk about the quality of the film, I should say something about the quality of the print now available from archive.org. While downloads from this site are free since the films are in the public domain, a few of the films are a bit of a mess and could use some restoration. This is DEFINITELY the case with this film as the sound track and film are way out of sync. The only to deal with this was to periodically stop the film and re-start it--but soon it returned to the soundtrack being way ahead of the film. I am not sure how to fix this, and judging by the mediocrity of the film, it may not be worth doing.As for "Scrooge", this 1935 version is from Twickenham Studios and it boasts a cast of relatively minor actors. In the lead is Seymour Hicks who was reasonably good in the lead though he looked a bit older, gruffer and grouchier than most Scrooges. I won't beat a dead horse and discuss the plot--we ALL are familiar with it. However, I was very surprised that this film seemed to strongly de- emphasize the negative commentary about the rich and their duty to their fellow man. Apart from Scrooge, ALL the rich folks are wonderful and there even is a completely superfluous scene which I've never seen in another version that shows a lot of rich swells (led by the Lord Mayor of London) toasting the health of the Queen. Why? I guess to say, in an indirect way, that the mega-rich are really the salt of the earth and backbone of the British empire. Whatever. All I know is that the whole poverty angle was apparently distasteful to the blokes who made this one and they really gutted this aspect of the film. Additionally, at times, the film took some liberties which made it look cheap...which it was, actually. You do NOT see Jacob Marley's ghost AND the Ghost of Christmas Past is an ethereal thing--more of a cloud than a figure. Overall, this is a great version if you don't want to bother with social commentary, excellent special effects or top acting. It's sort of a cheaper version and considering how many nicer looking ones are out there, I see no real reason to see this one.