Scrooge (1951)

Very best movie i ever watch

Don't listen to the negative reviews

A Masterpiece!

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

A George Minter Production for Renown Pictures Corporation. U.K. release through Renown: 4 December 1951. 7,758 feet. 86 minutes. U.S. release title: A CHRISTMAS CAROL. U.K. title: SCROOGE.COMMENT: While the sets and characters have not been modelled on Leech's original illustrations (which are far too grotesque), a commendable effort has been made to give an impression of 1843 London. That impression is more sanitized and less realistic than the 1935 movie but it is still a recognizable and lavishly realized Dickensian world. The "good people" alas are still somewhat wooden and insipid (although Roddy Hughes brings admirable life to Fezziwig), but the less angelic and more eccentric characters are brilliantly portrayed by people like Miles Malleson, Jack Warner, Kathleen Harrison and Ernest Thesiger. I enjoyed Hordern's portrait of the smug Marley, but was less impressed by his way-out exaggerated ghost which would have been more effective had he stolen a few pointers from the 1935 version. Sim enthusiastically both over-acts and over-reacts, but he is still both effective and convincing. Langley's script sticks close to Dickens and even utilizes much of the original dialogue. The movie is not only beautifully photographed but superbly set. By the oddly variable standards of Brian Desmond Hurst (who managed to mix masterpieces like On the Night of the Fire with real clinkers like The Hundred Pound Window during the course of his career), Scrooge definitely ranks as one of his more engaging and skilfully imaginative productions. It's impossible not to be moved by this account of Scrooge's fall and redemption. OTHER VIEWS: Despite the movie's present-day acclaim, contemporary reviews varied widely from the highly enthusiastic (Lionel Collier in Picturegoer, F. Maurice Speed in Film Review) to the damned with faint praise. The Monthly Film Bulletin review was typical of the latter, the critic complaining of Hurst's "not altogether successful" direction as well as the "unhelpful" music score. As for the cast, Kathleen Harrison, as usual, was singled out for universal praise, but many thought that neither Sim nor Johns looked right for their parts. Sim came over as a "dour dyspeptic" rather than as a "wrenching miser" and Johns seemed far too cheery and ebullient for a man reduced to near starvation.

Am in the midst of a "Scrooge" / "A Christmas Carol" Binge.The SIM version is / was my "go-to" version. It was the one I grew up with. It was shown annually on one television channel or other. It was the one that was showing when a group of us gathered at my friend Ari's house, made vats of popcorn and sat around his apartment and in his big bed and watched "A Christmas Carol" throughout Christmas Eve and into the dawn. It was one of those continuous loop showings and with no commercials. Ahhh ... memories ! Anyhoo. 1951's still holds its own. All of the actors seem just about perfect for their roles. None are so familiar that they stand out as actors rather than as their character ... but watch for Peter Bull and Patrick McNee in little bitty appearances.It's really impossible to say who is "best" or which version is "best" ... It's too much like choosing a favorite child. Hicks/Sim/Scott tied ! Room for all.

Peruse the reviews of any adaptation of "A Christmas Carol", and you'll probably find mention of Alastair Sim and this 1951 version. Why? Because it's generally believed to be the best. Sim is great, no doubt. So great, in fact that he reprised it 20 years later for an animated version. He's this film's greatest asset and the reason I think it is so fondly remembered. As adaptations of the classic go, I think it's up there, but it's also not without flaws and I'd argue that these are mostly forgotten due to the performance of its leading man.Perhaps the biggest problem is the pace of the film. There's a largely extended "Christmas Past" sequence which adds quite a lot of off-text detail. Some of this is almost welcome; the makers explain Scrooge's estrangement from his father by explaining that his mother died giving birth to him. This is totally off-book, but worked so well that the makers of the 1984 version recycled it.However, elsewhere there are extended sequences with Scrooge being lured away from Fezziwig by a shady character called Jorkin (invented for the film). These scenes seem totally superfluous and, to be frank, drag. The effect of this is that the "Christmas Present" sequence is slimmed down to compensate.We get the traditional visit to see the Cratchetts (although I'm afraid Tiny Tim seems neither lame no particularly tiny) but there's no ghostly visit to see nephew Fred here.For reasons I can't quite fathom; we see Scrooge's lost love Alice (Belle in the book) in the Christmas Present sequences helping the poor and needy. The intention seems to be that she never moved on from Scrooge and dedicated her life to charity instead (again, off-book). Whether the film is suggesting that Scrooge will reconcile with her is never implicitly stated, as she doesn't feature in the finale.A further issue is that Scrooge is rarely on-screen at the same time as the visions of the past, present and yet-to-come. The scenes play, almost as vignettes. This means that we seldom see Scrooge reacting in real-time, and thus we miss a gradual transformation in his demeanour.Fortunately, Dickens' wonderful dialogue is retained throughout the and, when Scrooge awakens, reformed at the finale; we believe it. I'm not sure the film needs the extended comedy scene with Housekeeper Mrs Dilber but, by this point, the film should have won you over.Not quite as good as its leading man, the film remains unmissable for lovers of Dickens' classic novella.

Although this is considered by many people to be the definitive adaptation of "A Christmas Carol", I found it bitterly disappointing. Alastair Sim gives a wonderful performance as the title character but I wish that he had given it in a better adaptation. Brian Desmond Hurst's direction is very mediocre - and I'm being kind because it is nearly Christmas - and the film is extremely poorly paced in spite of its 86 minute running time. As a result, it is never as emotionally affecting as it should be in spite of Sim's valiant efforts. Far too much time is spent on the past scenes, which means that the present and future ones seem rushed.Hurst assembled one of the best casts of any British film of the era so it says a great deal about his failings as a director that many of the performances are not up to scratch. The typically excellent Michael Hordern goes way, way over the top as Jacob Marley to the point that his performance is unintentionally funny. Shockingly, actors of the calibre of Mervyn Johns and Hermione Baddeley are boring as the Cratchits. Speaking of which, the scenes at the Cratchit household should always be the most moving ones in any adaptation of the novel but they're simply dull. Sim's frequent co-star George Cole is generally good as the young Scrooge but he was always a better comic actor than a dramatic one. On the bright side, could there have been a more perfect casting choice than Francis de Wolff for the Ghost of Christmas Past? He is as good as you would expect but he does not have nearly as much screen time as he should. Jack Warner is very good as Mr Jorkin, a suitably Dickensian villain who was created specifically for the film, but the character doesn't add too much to the proceedings. Miles Malleson and Ernest Thesiger steal their scenes as Old Joe and the undertaker respectively but that comes as naturally to them as breathing comes to everyone else so that's hardly surprising.Overall, this is an incredibly underwhelming adaptation which would have been considerably worse if was not for the fantastic central performance. The special effects are very good for the time though.