TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Micitype Pretty Good

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Byrdz It's 1949. It's early television. They are trying to present a classic novel in 23+ minutes. Yet, that doesn't excuse its problems. The actors recite some of the lines from the book and give a very bare bones rendition of the story, so credit for that but not much else.Vincent Price, in that honey-ed voice of his, "reads" the story as if reading to a child. Taylor Holmes playing Ebeneezer (more about that later) Scrooge is from New Jersey so he can be forgiven for not sounding particularly English but why does he sound like Gabby Hayes ? His reactions smack too much of silent screen acting to be acceptable in a 1949 production. His laugh at the finale is more crazed than amused.The prize for worst performance ever as one of the ghosts must go to one George James. He has the look and stance of Superman and seems angry rather than the usual jovial presentation of this ghost. Another prize for bad acting would go to young Bobby Hyatt as "Tiny" Tim. The kid looks so pleased with himself after remembering his Bless Us Every One line that ... well... strangling comes to mind.Back to the extra EEs. Not only is Mr. Scrooge called that in the credits but on his tombstone as well.To top it off the title cards call it "THE Christmas Carol".Got a list to check off? Remember, you've been warned.

Christmas-Reviewer BEWARE OF FALSE REVIEWS & REVIEWERS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW TO THEIR NAME. NOW WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE FILM. IF ITS A NEGATIVE REVIEW THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST THE FILM . NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 200 HOLIDAY FILMS. I HAVE NO AGENDA. I AM HONEST! The Christmas Carol is a 1949 low-budget, black and white television special narrated by Vincent Price. Compressing the Charles Dickens classic story into a half-hour, it is stated to be "the oldest extant straight adaptation of the story" for television.The production will be considered primitive by modern standards; it is also noted for misspelling Ebenezer Scrooge's name as "Ebeneezer" in the opening credits. This special is worth watching for many reasons. There is something about watching an old black and white movie about Christmas. The production is not the bet ever adaption of the Charles Dickens classic but none the less it is well thought out and executed.Older adults will like this. Kids will be bored. It is worth seeking out. There is a "Timeless Vibe" to this that big feature films seldom capture.

MartinHafer The problem with "The Christmas Carol" (1949) is that it's a VERY familiar tale--with quite a few versions out there--including the classic versions with Alistair Sim as well as Reginald Owen, a musical, some wonderful made for TV versions and it's probably the most ripped-off plot used in sitcoms! So, because of this, a SHORT version with cheap sets is already at a huge disadvantage--even if it had Vincent Price narrating. Most of the acting (except for the Ghost of Christmas Present) is decent and it's okay for 1949 TV. But, shoving this into such a short time slot and the poor ending at the Cratchit ending didn't help. Overall, it's worth a look if you are curious but my advice is to see the made for TV version starring George C. Scott--I really think this is the best of the lot.This show is like white bread--inoffensive and a bit bland.

tforbes-2 This was not the earliest television version of "A Christmas Carol," but it seems to be one reasonably available for viewing. It is a product of its time, given its limited production values. That was par for the course.And yes, it is a little odd that some performers have British accents, while others don't. But then, George C. Scott didn't exactly have one when he played Scrooge in 1984.Taken on its own terms, though, it is fun to watch, knowing that it was filmed in 1949. Vincent Price does a fine job as the narrator, and seeing a nine-year-old Jill St. John as Missie Cratchit is fun. This was her second television appearance, and the second of her child actress performances she did from 1949 to 1952.Both she and Mr. Price would go on to more notable performances, he in horror films, she in various ingénue roles, in the years ahead. While this production may not rank with the 1951 version with Alastair Sim or the George C. Scott version made 33 years after, it remains an interesting relic of the late 1940s, and an interesting artifact of the infancy of television.