Has A Christmas Carol aged well? That depends on how much you think you can take things like Charles Dickens or early/mid 19th century London, England of the period, or about morality stories involving the rich coming to grips with what they've done in life (which, of course, as I'm sure Dickens was well aware, barely ever happens, so if his story isn't pitched at them it's pitched at us - so we can try and be better people even if someone like Ebeneezer Scrooge cannot). Within this fantasy of the 'Three Spirit' visitations over a night - a hallucination, a dreamscape, a step into the surreal alternate/upside down dimension where time exists forever in the past in the sorta-present (kind of the future too, just within the next several hours), and the future as in not *too* far ahead - we get the ultimate 'guilt trip' story, but in a way that's a good thing. I mean, who wants to be a scrooge on Christmas except... Scrooge himself? Something I wondered seeing this for the first time (though it's not my first time around with this story as I've seen other iterations, mostly done for children, which by the way is interesting as this should be a story geared more for adults): why go into the future? Is there more to see that will suddenly make Scrooge even more set in his ways - should he still choose, I imagine there's ultimately some existential element here, as in he could potentially *not* become a better person starting December 25th - than what he sees in the past and the present? Especially in the past in this segment, we see how much Scrooge experienced actual tragedy, with the death of his mother that brought him into the world (the Tyrian Lannister thing, you know), and then that it happens to his sister as she brings his nephew into the world too. And, naturally, what money does to a person when hurt and pain leaves nothing but material possessions and the promise of the Almighty Dollar does to a man. Goodness, what if it was simply after the *past* that he got shook up? As far as what this particular version goes, by the time the present segment comes up, one could argue "alright, we get it, we GET IT!" A law-of-threes might be what Dickens was working at, however, and that the Greatest Fear (Death itself) is what should drive everyone to be at the least decent to one another. Otherwise, by this point, it's practically overkill as far as how much is laid at Scrooge's way. I think the power of the story is that people can and do look at it in not simply one way, and how people's levels of empathy and sympathy for fellow human beings will come out based on how they see Scrooge and those he interacts with (not to mention the idea of if the "world changes you" or you change the world sort of thing, which Ebeneezer's young could-be-wife says to him when she realizes he has changed).All the while that this film, which moves at a fairly brisk pace at 86 minutes, gives us Alistair Sim. He's a Scrooge who is able to go from being the despicable, cold "Covetous old" character with believability, though he does start to look more stark raving mad when he becomes his 'good' hearted self and is laughing sort of like a British Joker. I think at first the bigness, if one can call it that, of his acting threw me off, but the more the film went on I got into how his performance was going, as well as the supporting players (when the actor who plays Jacob Marley shows up as the ghost... well, make sure your speakers aren't *too* loud for when he does his wails). Perhaps the acting hasn't aged as well as the story, but here too there's spots where there's deliveries of lines and pauses in action (look how the actor playing Cratchett looks when Scrooge offers him a raise near the end) that can keep your attention.What can be said about this that hasn't been said by others? If the movie isn't as timeless as It's a Wonderful Life or, for younger people, A Christmas Story, it has its appeal as being true to its source so strongly that other versions end up paling by adding color or being in widescreen. Lastly, I enjoyed the visual effects, which were done with what was available at the time at that studio or with that budget, such as the simplicity in making a character in the same frame faded out to show he is a ghost, or the image of the sands of time in the hour-glass coming forward as time moves to another period. Even an image like the books showing the passing of years is effective.

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.

SCROOGE is the most well-remembered of the various film adaptations of Charles Dickens's A Christmas CAROL made over the years. That's because it's so good. It's not that the film is a blinding masterpiece of cinematic skill, or anything like that, but that it sticks closely to the format of the book and manages to recapture exactly the same kind of magic that Dickens summoned up. After all, the story is about people and their relationships, not effects or humour.Alistair Sim stars in his most famous role and he's excellent in it; really, he makes every actor who's played Scrooge since a mere imitation. The cast is full of British talent like Michael Hordern, Ernest Thesiger, Miles Malleson, and Francis De Wolff, and one of the ones who really shines is a youthful George Cole (playing the young Scrooge) in a star-making turn.The production quality is the same as in one of the contemporary Ealing classics. The film is full of sentiment without ever being sentimental, and Scrooge's character arc keeps you fully invested in the story. The supernatural aspects are kept to a minimum and are well handled in the classic tradition rather than being dated or cheesy. SCROOGE is a real Christmas cracker.

This 1951 adaptation of the oft-told Dickens novella is among my favorite movies of all time. There's no doubt in my mind that it is the best Christmas Carol film; Alastair Sim is perfection incarnate as Scrooge and the atmosphere is Gothic brilliance.Sim manages to take a character who could easily be a cardboard figure and endows him with a sense of inner life and deep sadness. This is not some Snidley Whiplash figure who bathes in other people's money; he's an isolated miserable soul who has made bad choices in life, a misanthrope who desperately tries cutting himself off from humanity. It's a marvelous performance all around, and I never fail to smile once he undergoes his redemption and jumps about with giddy joy on Christmas morning.The atmosphere is dark and ghostly. It's easy to draw comparisons with the expressionist look of David Lean's 1946 Great Expectations. The whole film is drenched in shadows; the streets of Victorian London are in equal turns grim and enchanting with old-time Yuletide traditions. The score also adds to this Gothic atmosphere, with lots of minor keys and such.The 1951 Carol has a plethora of other values: the supporting cast, cinematography, and tiny changes made to the source material are all excellent, adding to the success of the film. Outside of the George C. Scott version from the 1980s, no other film adaptation comes close to this one.