ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Holstra Boring, long, and too preachy.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Byrdz The 1901 silent version of "A Christmas Carol"... who wudda thunk it ? Is the internet great or what ?This short (very short) films is known as "Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost". It's quite theatrical with what appears to be painted canvas (or cardboard) sets, very little story and a totally unidentified cast.It's terrific to be able to view what remains of what is said to be the earliest version of this Dicken's story.It has fewer than the usual number of ghosts but it does have "trick shots" with superimposed images.It's worth a look, movie history wise.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a very good movie. It is very scary. It also well written. 1951 version of A Christmas carol is better. But still this a great film. A miser is hunted by the dead sprite of an old friend on Christmas eve. This one best ghost stories ever. It is also on of the best moral stories ever. It is a classic. I enjoy the book a little more. But still this is a great movie. This movie is a must see. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has great special effects. I do not know any of the actors but they are good. This is a great fantasy movie. It is a hidden classic. This a great movie. The 1986 version of A Christmas carol is better. But still this a great movie.

MartinHafer I am not going to give this film a numerical score, as the film is very incomplete. Like so many old films made on nitrate film stock, much of the film has been lost. What remains is highly abbreviated and makes little sense unless you know the story (and today who doesn't?). In addition, films made around that time were VERY short and abbreviated to begin with--so you have a film that has limited watchability today. You can't blame the film makers for all this--this is true of many films of the era.The film begins as Scrooge approaches his house and Marley's ghost appears on the door knocker. Using superimposed images, this and the appearances of Christmas ghosts are pretty good--especially for 1901. Scrooge then eats his dinner and falls asleep--at which point the first ghost appears and shows his what seem to be random images. The film then indicates that part 3 follows--and you are left assuming part 2 was partially skipped (especially the intertitle card indicating part 2 had begun). Part 4 is poorly done--as the intertitle card pretty much says it all BEFORE you see any of the action. This describing everything before it occurs was actually very common in 1901 but it sure took out any sense of suspense! And finally, the ending is completely missing.What you have is a reasonably well made film. Considering most films made about 1901 showed very mundane things (people eating, trains arriving at the station, etc.), this is a nice attempt to tell a story. And, the camera-work for the time is good. But, on the other hand, only about half of the original film still exists and unless you are dying to see what is perhaps the first Scrooge on film, I suggest you watch only if you are a die-hard cinephile.

boblipton Although the IMDb listing would have you believe this movie is 11 minutes in length, the DVD version of it as issued by the British Film Institute in 2006 times in at about three minutes --- and there isn't time enough to tell the story in any meaningful way unless you know it -- stick with the 1951 version starring Alastair Sim is my advice.Nonetheless, this movie is interesting, because it may be the earliest use of titles I have ever seen in the movies. Although in coming decades movie titles would expand into dialogue, and the writing of concise and witty titles into a fine art, at this stage, the titles are actually just that: brief chapter titles, describing the scene you are about to see. There are four of them.