It's very likely you've seen some version of "A Christmas Carol"...and probably quite a few of them. So you might wonder which versions are best and which, well, are far from it. If your standard of 'worst' is which film veers the farthest from Dickens' novel, this 1938 version from MGM might just be it. It looks great...but also adds a major subplot that wasn't in the original story, adds a LOT of new material AND omits quite a bit since the movie is only B-movie length...which is about 20-40 minutes shorter than most movie versions.
I won't bother regurgitating the entire plot. It's incredibly familiar. What ISN'T familiar are the roles played by Bob Cratchit as well as Scrooge's nephew, Fred. Neither were all that important to the other films but here they add scenes between the two of them, Scrooge firing Cratchit as well as Fred later going to work running Scrooge's company! It certainly DID deviate a lot from the novel.
Despite the changes and shorter version, is this film any good? Well, yes...but if you really want to see Dickens' vision, the 1951 version or the 1984 made for TV version stick much closer to the story...and are, as a result, better films. Also, despite being made by the premier American studio at the time, the 1951 British film looks better because it didn't look as if it was filmed inside on movie sets...the 1938 movie clearly was made completely indoors. What is good about the film? Well, the acting is very good and the story still is compelling. Overall, worth seeing IF you've seen the better versions first.
I won't bother regurgitating the entire plot. It's incredibly familiar. What ISN'T familiar are the roles played by Bob Cratchit as well as Scrooge's nephew, Fred. Neither were all that important to the other films but here they add scenes between the two of them, Scrooge firing Cratchit as well as Fred later going to work running Scrooge's company! It certainly DID deviate a lot from the novel.
Despite the changes and shorter version, is this film any good? Well, yes...but if you really want to see Dickens' vision, the 1951 version or the 1984 made for TV version stick much closer to the story...and are, as a result, better films. Also, despite being made by the premier American studio at the time, the 1951 British film looks better because it didn't look as if it was filmed inside on movie sets...the 1938 movie clearly was made completely indoors. What is good about the film? Well, the acting is very good and the story still is compelling. Overall, worth seeing IF you've seen the better versions first.