Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

ShangLuda Admirable film.

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

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Lee Eisenberg The oldest surviving version of "A Christmas Carol" is a short movie from 1901 in which Marley shows Scrooge the past, present and future. The next one is this 1910 version which includes the ghosts of the respective times. As a short movie, it has to condense the story. They manage to do this, although it's weird to see the whole plot run by in just a few minutes. I understand that a number of short movies in the early 20th century were based on famous novels to limit the need for intertitles. Since I've seen feature films based on Charles Dickens's famous novel this one seems a little bit low quality. My favorite adaptation is "Scrooged" (which contains lines like "You are a hallucination brought along by alcohol! Russian vodka poisoned by Chernobyl!"). Nonetheless, it's impressive what they accomplished with their limited resources.

MartinHafer For a film from 1910 (or 1907--I found 2 different dates for it), this is an exceptional film, though by today's standards it's pretty poor. Compared to the average Edison production, this one had much nicer sets and costumes and the short length of the film wouldn't have been seen as a problem--all films were rather short in this era. Of course, compared to later versions, this one also comes up wanting in many ways--but for its time it was dandy. As for the problems, you really need to know the story well to follow this version. I assumed audiences of the day must have been well-versed with it but again and again, things happened but because the film was so truncated you only understood it if you knew the story. Also, like most versions of the story, the poverty and responsibility to the poor were aspects of the film that weren't emphasized enough--and this was THE reason Dickens wrote the story--not just to give us a nice Christmas story.Still, for 1907/1910, this is a well made and watchable little gem that should make fans of early silents happy.By the way, if you wonder why I mentioned the Movie Channel's Bunnies, they are cartoons where an entire film is condensed into 30 minutes. This condensed format reminded me a lot of this version of A Christmas CAROL since it's so very short.

Snow Leopard For 1910, this is a good version of the classic Charles Dickens' story. Many of the scenes look quite familiar from the many more recent versions, and most viewers today will have no trouble filling in unexplained details and the like. It covers a lot of ground in only one reel of film, but even then it leaves out some very familiar details, so it really just tries to get across the main point of the story.Marc McDermott, one of the Edison Studio's best actors, plays Scrooge. He does a good job, although the techniques of the era limit him somewhat, since the story relies on an effective Scrooge to make an impact. The story moves quite quickly, which again is simply a reflection of the time. Quite a few one-reel features of the era squeezed in enough material to fill two or three times their running time.The story is so well-known and so worthwhile that almost any version of "A Christmas Carol" is worth seeing. This one is a good movie adaptation for its era, and it would have been hard to improve upon it significantly given the techniques and resources available at the time.

preppy-3 This is obviously not a full adaptation of Charles Dickens story--it only runs 17 minutes! It assumes the audience knows the story and just basically gives us the highlights. It involves all 4 visits from the ghosts (using some surprisingly good special effects for the time) and flashbacks to Scrooge's life. And it shows his complete change. It's actually very well-done and, for what it is, entertaining. But where's Tiny Tim? Nevertheless, recommended.