Selfmageob This was not a good film.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Leofwine_draca SCROOGE is an early British adaptation of the famous Dickens story, A Christmas CAROL. It features a strong central performance from noted stage actor Sir Seymour Hicks who makes his Scrooge a dastardly creation who you enjoy seeing getting his comeuppance. Despite the low budget, a lot of effort has gone into making this an atmospheric piece with fog-swirling streets and the like.Obviously, SCROOGE has dated a fair bit since release, and more recent Scrooges have made this all but forgotten. It's dated and a bit creaky, as are a lot of 1930s films, and it doesn't help that the quality of the print has deteriorated significantly over the years. The low budget is sometimes apparent when we only hear rather than see the ghosts. Nonetheless, I think it does a good job of capturing the spirit of the Dickens original, and the effort of the cast and crew can't be faulted.

gavin6942 Scrooge (Seymour Hicks), the ultimate Victorian miser, has not a good word for Christmas, though his impoverished clerk Cratchit and nephew Fred are full of holiday spirit. But in the night, Scrooge is visited by spirits of another color.This film has been seen by many people not because it is the best version, but because it fell into the public domain and therefore can be shown on TV for free and sold at store for as low as $1. It also is probably not the worst version, though it is hard to say depending on who you get it from. Being in the public domain means it can be copies from a copy and look or sound terrible. There is little incentive to clean up the film.The one included with the 1951 version of "A Christmas Carol" is pretty good. The picture is a bit rough at times, but not awful, and the music has held up pretty well.

MartinHafer 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.

utgard14 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.