Checking out the 1935 Scrooge: It's weirdly hollow but I couldn't look away

Is it worth the watch?

If you're looking for that warm, fuzzy holiday glow, honestly, look somewhere else. This 1935 version of Scrooge is chilly, stiff, and occasionally downright strange. But if you're the kind of person who enjoys watching 80-year-old celluloid pop and crackle while people in nightgowns act very confused, you might find something here.

Skip this if you need high production values or if you're allergic to movies that feel like they were filmed inside a very small wooden box. It’s not for the casual viewer who just wants a lighthearted festive romp.

My notes from the couch

Seymour Hicks as Scrooge is... a lot. He plays the miser with such intensity that I half expected him to start chewing on the furniture. There’s a frantic, jittery energy to him that feels miles away from the more grounded versions we usually see on TV today.

The ghosts? Man, they barely show up. It’s like they had a budget of three dollars and a half-eaten sandwich for the special effects department. When the spirit of Christmas Past arrives, it’s mostly just a guy standing in the dark looking moody. It’s barely a movie, really. It feels more like a radio play where someone remembered to turn on the camera halfway through.

Some odd observations

• The sound mixing is a disaster. Sometimes the dialogue is right in your ear, and then it drops off into a cavernous echo.
• I spent about ten minutes wondering if the wallpaper in Scrooge’s bedroom was actually just painted cardboard. It probably was.
• The scene where he’s wandering through the streets feels strangely claustrophobic. Like the set ends three feet behind the camera.
• It has that same weird, stagey feeling I got while watching The Thoroughbred, where everyone is acting to the back row of a theater that isn't there.

There's a moment toward the end where Scrooge finally 'sees the light,' and it happens so fast you’ll get whiplash. He goes from 'humbug' to 'let's go buy a giant turkey' in about thirty seconds. It’s not character development; it’s a sprint.

I kept thinking about how this compares to the scale of something like King Kong. Obviously, there’s no comparison, but there’s a similar 'early cinema' charm to the way the shadows are used. It’s all very dark and moody, which actually fits the miserable vibe of the first half pretty well. 👻

Ultimately, this isn't a movie I'd recommend to everyone. It’s a curiosity. It’s the kind of thing you put on while you're doing dishes or staring at your phone, just to have that black-and-white atmosphere in the room. Don't expect to be moved. Just expect to be interested in how they pulled it off with next to nothing.