6/10
The material is just that good and the execution isn't too shabby either
1 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The title "A Christmas Carol" makes it of course obvious that here we have another take on the famous story by writer Charles Dickens and this is certainly among the oldest as it has its 107th anniversary already this year. Dickens wasn't even dead for half a century when this was released. There were quite a few directors working on this one, especially if we take into account that it runs for 14 minutes only (the version I saw did, not just for 11 like it says here on IMDb). Sure the film is crucially hurt by the lack of sound and color, but you cannot really blame the makers for that. This also means that if you hear a score while watching, then this is not original and was added (decades) later. They still did a good job overall here, especially with the ghost sequences that are pretty impressive for their time. The actors are fine too and don't make the mistake of overacting too much, which was a common problem back in the day. The one playing the title character was in fact not even 30 here, but his gray wig hides it pretty well. Intertitles could have been more frequent for sure (another common problem back then), but you understand what's going on thanks to the famous material this is based on. And the latter is also what guarantees this to be a fine watch during the holidays. Not my favorite version (that's probably still the animated one by Disney), but it is worth seeing. If you are looking for other silent Christmas films, then my suggestion is to go for "A Christmas Accident" that came out not much later than this one here.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed