User reviews

There's absolutely no way around the fact that every version of "A Chrismas Carol" that you will ever watch is going to be viewed through the lens of the 1951 Alastair Sim classic, even more than it will be looked at through the lens of the Dickens story itself. This very early version (the earliest "talkie" version as far as I can see) stands up pretty well in that respect. Seymour Hicks was a very convincing Ebenezer Scrooge with a different take on the character than Sim presented. Sim's Scrooge was - while mean and crotchety - a somewhat comic character, whereas Hicks seems to emphasize Scrooge's essential nastiness, making his ultimate transformation even more jarring in some ways. The story has all the basic elements, and so there are no real surprises in that sense, but there are some differences worth noting. Aside from the early shot of Marley's face in the door knocker, I found it interesting that Marley's ghost was invisible to the viewer (although seen apparently by Scrooge.) Marley's spirit also came across as stronger than in the '51 version, where he was a more pathetic creature, although afflicted in the same way. I also found the visits of the three Christmas spirits somewhat truncated - especially the visit of the Spirit of Christmas Past, who offered Scrooge only a couple of scenes revolving around his love Belle with no mention of Fezziwig and no mention of Fan. There was however some interesting additional material. The scene of the Lord Mayor's banquet seemed to put Scrooge's essential isolation into stronger focus. With no compassion for the poor, Scrooge is also completely alienated from the wealthy, and while the poor celebrate as best they can and the wealthy enjoy a huge banquet, Scrooge dines alone and then goes home to a lonely house. The end of the movie also puts Scrooge's transformation in a different context. Whereas the end of the '51 version emphasizes the relationship Scrooge develops with Tiny Tim, the end of this version has Scrooge joining Cratchet in church to sing "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing. What I took from that was that in this version Scrooge's transformation was a spiritual transformation as well as a personal one. This is a very interesting version of the story. 7/10

To many or most people, the 1951 version is so familiar that it is a bit of a shock to see a different, but equally valid, version. The Sim version is still the definitive one I feel, but ...

The Sim Scrooge is utterly plausible much of the time, but then he will be as giddy as a schoolboy, for example, giving an interpretation that an incorrigible naysayer could choose to quibble about. My reaction to Seymour Hicks was similar but, strangely, in alternation with Sim -- oh, he's better than Sim here, worse than Sim here, more realistic here, less realistic here. Any given scene with Hicks could be better, worse, or just plain different from the corresponding scene with Sim. This is partly what made seeing this version so enjoyable; you really couldn't second-guess the next scene.

There are significant differences in the portrayal of the ghosts. I think we are all familiar with Michael Hordern's eerie and frightening ghost of Jacob Marley, shrouded in chains, from 1951. In this version, Marley's ghost is invisible!! You hear the chains but you see nothing whatsoever. The Ghosts of Christmas Past and Future are also quite non-corporeal. Only the Ghost of Christmas Present is someone we recognize from Sim.

Tiny Tim is quite different. We expect Tiny Tim to be an eternal optimist, irrepressibly cheerful. But the Sim Tim (boy, I loved typing that) seems to overdo it a little. He appears to be "on something", to use the vernacular. In this version, Tim is toned down. In some ways, it's an improvement. In the Sim version, to its credit, there is a special balance however, namely, the repentant Scrooge has an exuberance which matches Tim's precisely, and they appear together in the final shot, as we all know. A perfect ending. Back to that later. A key difference in Hicks: at the tragic moment, we do not see the lonely crutch we're used to; oh no, we see Tiny Tim lying dead!!

This version has some scenes which are not in Sim. This version in general has more singing, and one of the extra scenes involves the Lord Mayor of London giving his Christmas toast to Victoria followed by the singing of God Save The Queen.

In Sim, Scrooge comes to his senses on Christmas Day and there is a warm and funny scene with Mrs. Dilber, the housekeeper. Not here. Here there is an extended scene of Scrooge and the prize turkey! Scrooge goes to the butcher shop which is closed, snow falls on Scrooge, Scrooge throws snow, snow hits butcher. Butcher opens up, Scrooge orders turkey, Scrooge goes home. Scrooge gets dressed, boy brings butcher, Scrooge still dressing, butcher tries to leave with huge turkey, Scrooge answers door. Scrooge then pays the butcher, pays the boy, and gives the boy extra money so the boy can take the turkey to Bob Cratchit's house in a cab! Scrooge then leaves the house whereupon he meets the two gentlemen who were soliciting for the poor earlier in the film and volunteers to give them 100 pounds!

So, how does the film end? There's nothing about rushing right out to buy a new coal scuttle. No mention of scuttles in this film. It's Boxing Day and Scrooge gives Bob the day off. Then Scrooge joins Cratchit in church (!) for the singing of Hark the Herald Angels Sing. The End, with Tiny Tim not to be seen anywhere. So perhaps it's the warm emphasis on Tim that really clinches the 1951 version.

There are many moments of surprise and enjoyment here if the opportunity should ever present itself.

While not as well-known as other versions of the Dickens classic (Owen, Sim, Magoo, Scott), the 1935 British film of "A Christmas Carol" is almost in their league. Among other things, it preserves, in sound, the performance of one of the legendary Scrooges of the English stage, Sir Seymour Hicks, who definitely does not disappoint. In the beginning, his Scrooge is one of the nastiest ever seen on film, his appearance that of something that crawled out from under a rock. But it is precisely these qualities that make his gradual transformation all the more affecting. At the beginning, we loathe the man, at the end, we rejoice with him at his redemption.

The performances of the rest of the cast are on the same level, with Oscar Asche's Falstaffian Ghost of Christmas Present a particular standout. And, although this is probably the one major film version of the story where you don't actually see Marley's Ghost, the anonymous actor who provides his voice, the accompanying special effects, and Hicks's reactions are enough to make the scene that much spookier.

Finally, kudos to Sydney Blythe and William Luff for their excellent camerawork. Fog-shrouded 19th century London has rarely been presented this well in ANY picture. And the play of light and shadow, particularly during the Christmas-Yet-to-Come sequence, would scare even the Scroogiest among us into repentance.

In sum, while this is not on the level with the excellent versions I've already mentioned, it has more than its' share of good points, and deserves to be seen at least once.

Not bad but not great version of the classic Dickens tale. Seymour Hicks makes for a very different Scrooge than most of us are used to seeing. Big bushy eyebrows, wild hair, and a permanent caveman expression on his face. He makes Scrooge appear more brutish than other versions. His Scrooge looks like the kind of guy you would see in films of the period that hung around the docks waiting to rob people. This is a darker Carol than most. A lot of stuff is either left out or is only alluded to rather than shown. I don't know...it's not one of my favorite versions, to be sure, but it is interesting and enjoyable enough. Give it a shot if you have seen other versions and like to compare. Otherwise, if this is your first stop for A Christmas Carol film, you'd be better off with the 1951 Alastair Sim version.

If there's a lesson to be learned from the countless adaptations of A Christmas Carol, it's that the makers should stick to the text as closely as possible. Dickens barely wasted a word in his novella; it being a perfectly judged, perfectly paced bit of fiction.

This adaptation takes a few wrong turns. It takes far too long before we get to the actual haunting, with the first 30 minutes being positively meandering. There's also a perfunctory sequence, featuring none of the main characters, where the King is celebrated. Maybe this kind of thing pleased the masses back in the thirties, but it does make the opening act a bit of a slog.

One would hope that things would get back on track when Jacob Marley appears. Unfortunately, Jacob Marley doesn't appear at all; he's a rather unimpressive voice-over. It's an odd choice; as if the makers aren't confident enough to give us a character design that will work for us.

Unfortunately, the sequence following this isn't much better. The visit from The Ghost of Christmas Past is done and dusted in less than 5 minutes (I'm not exaggerating). There's nothing of Scrooge of a boy, no mention of Fezziwig and we only really see the break-up of his relationship with Belle (and nothing of the good times Scrooge shared with her). This is a major misstep; as it fails to adequately give us Scrooge's backstory. Considering what *is* included in this adaptation, it's baffling that such a key segment was skipped over. I'm wondering if it was abridged so that they'd be no need for other, younger actors to play Scrooge, but that seems like an unnecessary compromise.

The Present and Yet To Come sequences fare better, and the conclusion to the story is really rather good as adaptations of the novella go. However, the damage has already been done.

It's a big shame as the cast are fine. Seymour Hicks may be a touch too shabby for my tastes as Old Scrooge, but he's able to give us a decent contrast in his performance (even if his redemption is far too quick, and seems almost complete after a quick glimpse at his past).

In summary, this is probably on an even footing with the Reginald Owen offering from just three years later (1938). Both have as many flaws as aspects to recommend, but both are worth a watch to aficionados of the classic story.

This version of the Dickens classic is decent enough. But it treads so lightly, ignoring key elements of the original story. It isn't bad for mood and atmosphere, but it never captivates like some of the other superior efforts. For "A Christmas Carol" to really work we must get into the head of Scrooge, to feel what it is that has made him. We got none of that here. The acting is decent, but the budget must have been a little lacking. I found the absence of an actor to play Marley's ghost to be a shortcoming, for it is here that Scrooge begins to find the error of his ways, not in a big way because he argues for the preservation of his inadequate life. The Ghost of Christmas past doesn't get into the harsh realities of young Scrooge, and so we are left without a psychological foundation. Anyway, from one who has been enamored with this wonderful story for a lifetime, I didn't feel this stacked up very well. There seems to be a kind of fat and sassy Cratchitt and Tiny Tim doesn't really draw our sympathy.

In the Victorian England, the stingy and cranky Ebenezer Scrooge (Sir Seymour Hicks) does not care to Christmas and runs his business exploiting his employee Bob Cratchit (Donald Calthrop) and clients. In the Christmas Eve, he is visited by the doomed ghost of his former partner Jacob Marley that tells him that three spirits would visit him that night. The first one, the spirit of past Christmas, recalls his miserable youth when he lost his only love due to his greed; the spirit of the present Christmas shows him the poor situation of Bob's family and tiny Tim and how joyful life may be; and the spirit of future Christmas shows his fate. Scrooge finds that life is good and time is too short and suddenly you are not there anymore, changing his behavior toward Christmas, Bob, his nephew Fred (Robert Cochran) and people in general.

"Scrooge" is another great version of "A Christmas Carol", by Charles Dickens. I do not recall how many versions of this magnificent tale of redemption I have watched, but this 1935 is one of the best, with a fantastic performance of Sir Seymour Hicks. This film has been recently released by Brazilian distributor Flashstar in black and white and colorized versions in the same DVD but edited to 60 minutes only. I found the complete version in Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=_Sr2ow_ZH9w). "Scrooge" (in any version) and "It's a Wonderful Life" are mandatory for viewer that enjoy Christmas. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Fantasma de Scrooge" ("The Ghost of Scrooge")

Keeping very well within the Narrative of 'A Christmas Carol', and indeed portraying the characters of Scrooge(Seymour Hicks) and Bob Cratchit(Donald Calthrop), this is, in my opinion, the closest, truest and most enjoyable version of the Dickens classic! An excellent example of 'sticking to the story'. Far too often have script writers and directors alike 'adapted' the classics and forgot or indeed neglected the fundamentals. Henry Edwards and H. Fowler Mear most certainly payed attention to Dickens' guidelines (the book itself!), and portrayed nothing other than the book itself. I've read 'A Christmas Carol' numerous times with great enjoyment, and this movie version is a visual equivalent.

This is a very odd film version of "A Christmas Carol," mostly worth watching, I suppose, for Sir Seymour Hicks's performance (he was a renowned stage actor, and renowned for this particular role). There is a long interpolated scene of the Lord Mayor giving a Christmas feast while poor children watch through the window that doesn't exist in the book, or in any other film version that I know of, and which seems to have eaten up the budget for the rest of the movie. The invisible Marley's ghost may have worked well on stage but is simply peculiar on celluloid. Most of the performances are acceptable, and this is by no means the worst of the seemingly billions of "Scrooges" available to film lovers, but I wouldn't put it in the same rank as the versions starring Alastair Sim or George C. Scott.

This is a very nicley done filming of A Christmas Carol. Seymour Hicks gives a marvelous performance as Scrooge,complimented very well by the rest of the cast. Unlike the MGM version of a 1938,the Cratchits in this film are in very reduced circumstances! Not a chair at the table matches,the curtains are ragged,and thier home is tiny and run down.In the Hollywood version,Bob Cratchit and his family don't seem to be in a very bad way.The sets(if they are indeed sets,and not real locations) add to the authentic feel of the picture.The only Scrooge to surpass this one is Allistair Sim's 1951 portrayal,which is probably the Ebenezer Scrooge for the ages.

To begin with, in the coming days I should be checking out all the major film adaptations of the venerable Charles Dickens festive classic "A Christmas Carol" – seven in all (1935, 1938, 1951, 1970, 1983 {animated short}, 1984 {TV} and 1992 {puppets}).

This is the first of three I watched in quick succession, being also one of only two I hadn't viewed previously. Unfortunately, it came via the trimmed 60-minute version (included as a supplement on VCI's 2-Disc Set of the definitive 1951 adaptation) – though, ironically, I came upon a copy of the complete 78-minute print the very next day! Curiously enough, while this particular narrative has been adapted to the screen countless times, its plot has rarely been updated or altered; in this respect, most versions could well be deemed superfluous...except that the intrinsic moral lesson is so timely that film-makers constantly feel the need to remake it (this line of thought was understandable back in the old days when DVD, or even TV, wasn't available – but now I find the concept unfathomable and even punishing, since no one can hope to surpass the aforementioned classic with Alastair Sim)!

Anyway, the 1935 film itself emerges to be an unsurprisingly faithful rendition of the Dickensian tale; actually, the lead actor – Sir Seymour Hicks – had already appeared in a 1913 Silent version! Still, unsurprising is the key word here: granted, the plot is so well-structured and engaging that one can't help watching (especially during this time of year)…but it's also so inextricably familiar that one tends to become impatient during expository passages, fully anticipating the next dramatic highlight or famous line. Ironically, even if this version is shorn of some 20 minutes, there's still a bit of padding – particularly the bludgeoning message inherent in the scene where the scraps of a royal banquet are flung out on the street to be picked up by beggars.

Hicks himself emerges as probably the least sympathetic Scrooge (but, at the same time, being the right age for the role – unlike most other performers of the emblematic miser figure); in hindsight, this may be due to the fact that I'm only familiar with his work through this one performance (incidentally, he co-scripted the film himself) – though, to be fair to him, I hadn't watched most of the other versions in quite some time. Similarly, the supporting cast doesn't have the many established faces one finds in subsequent versions – which, again, serves to distance one somewhat from the narrative's desired effect; that said, the Ghost Of Christmas Present is played by Oscar Asche – co-author of CHU-CHIN-CHOW, a stage musical whose 1934 screen adaptation (via VCI's surprisingly generous 3-Disc Set) preceded this very same viewing!

Artistically, therefore, the 1935 SCROOGE is workmanlike if nothing more: the silhouetted Ghost Of Christmas Future is rather effective – but, then, Jacob Marley's ghost is heard but not seen!; it's unfortunate, too, that the outdoor night-time scenes on this particular print were excessively dark.

Scrooge (Seymour Hicks), the ultimate Victorian miser, has not a good word for Christmas, though his impoverished clerk Cratchit and nephew Fred are full of holiday spirit. But in the night, Scrooge is visited by spirits of another color.

This film has been seen by many people not because it is the best version, but because it fell into the public domain and therefore can be shown on TV for free and sold at store for as low as $1. It also is probably not the worst version, though it is hard to say depending on who you get it from. Being in the public domain means it can be copies from a copy and look or sound terrible. There is little incentive to clean up the film.

The one included with the 1951 version of "A Christmas Carol" is pretty good. The picture is a bit rough at times, but not awful, and the music has held up pretty well.

Because of the overwhelming popularity of Alistair Sim's portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge this trimmer, older version may be overlooked as a matter of course. To some it may appear creaky and old fashioned, and yet after watching Sir Seymour Hick's performance it is difficult to disagree with the claim that his is the best rendition of the miser so far given. What this particular telling of Dickens' classic tale has going for it, is the time spent with the first part of the story, which focuses on the cruel & despicable Ebenezer. Hicks, with scant make-up cannot be outdone as the embodiment of a person who is to be avoided at all costs. The problem with the other films is that they spend too little time with the first 3rd of the story. One of the most important details has to be the transformation of Scrooge, and if not enough time in proportion is given in the beginning, the end result doesn't come off as strong. And as with most people who grew up watching, say, Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes personified, well then, if you viewed Hicks before Sims, you would no doubt cast your vote for Hicks, who had in fact played the part before. In the acting department the other actors do a very fine job as well. As for special effects, you'll be best forewarned not to expect any. The main question, though, regarding this motion picture is the exact running time. There are 2 editions that are shown on TV, one 60 minutes, the other a minute longer. The scene that is missing from one is when Mr. Scrooge follows after the boy to the butcher's to see the prize goose he is about to purchase. The other various minutes are as follows: video catalogs have given it 61, "The World Encyclopedia of the Film" has 67, and IMDb 78!

Twickenham Films' Christmas treat to the cinemagoing public was this handsome record of the role Seymour Hicks had played on stage thousands of times since 1901 and had already filmed as a silent in 1913 (which was also the first film version of Dickens' story to be named after horrible old Uncle Ebenezer himself).

Considering he'd played him so often on stage, Hicks isn't as theatrical a Scrooge as one might have feared. Even more surprisingly only one of the spirits actually has a substantial physical presence (although Oscar Asche as Christmas Present has enough of that for all three visitations).

Donald Calthrop is physically perfect for the role of Bob Cratchit, if a little old. Had he lived he would have perfect casting as Scrooge himself in the 1951 version.

I bought this dirt cheap in a double pack with Cyrano de Bergerac. I like the A Christmas Carol story, and expected this to be good.

There is little to recommend this version. The major characters seem miscast. Seymour Hicks's Ebenezer Scrooge lacks the confident air of a successful business man; he's more Baldrick than Blackadder. Cratchit is older than in most versions, and the Ghost of Christmas Present seems wooden and disinterested.

The special effects are practically non-existent, sub-par even for 1935. The Marley is a disembodied voice. No chains, money boxes, and ledgers. Even the 1908 and 1910 versions had double exposure ghosts.

The visual and audio quality were lacking. Not sure if this is due to bad transposition to DVD, deteriorated film, or if it was done poorly in the first place. Lines seem indistinct and muddled, enunciation is often unclear. The film could use some computer enhancement. (I have the Mill Creek Entertainment 78 minute DVD)

One of the more annoying aspects of the film is a cultural artifact. This film was made a few years after talkies were becoming ubiquitous. A continuous musical background plays that tends to overwhelm the already muddy dialog. My impression is that the director could not envision a movie without a piano player providing sound, and tried to make up for it.

On the plus side, this version is true to the dickens story. It includes the hearse, which most do not. (The hearse is the most elaborate special effect in the movie.) The scene of the charwomen fencing Scrooge's goods is particularly good.

If the story itself were not so classic and compelling, I wouldn't even give this a four.

MadKaugh

Most people are familiar with the 1951 classic version of A Christmas Carol (AKA Scrooge) with Alastair Sim. This British version was made three years before the MGM American film, and is actually better than that one, but of course not as great as the 1951 version. It is very short and to the point, in many ways different than other versions, since it is faithful to the Dickens story, and Hicks gives a brutally realistic portrayal of Scrooge. The Depression Era London setting is depicted quite realistically as well. 3 out of 4 stars.

Is it even possible that there could be a bad production of "A Christmas Carol?" The beloved tale of greed and meanness converting to kindness and charity is the most famous of all modern Christmas holiday stories. And the Charles Dickens classic has been performed thousands of times on stage and over the air, and many times on film. That answers the question I posed above. With such a great story and any effort to produce it well, a bad "Christmas Carol" production isn't likely to occur. But, surely, some must be better than others. For purposes of comparing film versions, what remains for us to be able to judge them is the differences in the script, in the technical production, in the cast and in the performances of the individual actors.

This "Scrooge" is the first production of the Dickens classic on sound film. Its emphasis is heavily on the main character. And, for that reason, it is a good film to keep in a library, along with two other later versions. That's because of who plays Scrooge. Seymour Hicks was Ebenezer Scrooge before movies were made. That is to say, he was the actor known and renowned for his many performances of Scrooge on stage. He first played Scrooge in 1901. He specialized in the role, and as a young actor bore the criticism of not looking old enough. Hicks was an accomplished actor of comedy and drama. He is credited with having done thousands of performances of "A Christmas Carol" over the years. He made the first silent film, "Old Scrooge" in 1913.

Hicks was the 13th English actor to be knighted. He was a prolific writer for the stage, with 64 plays and productions to his credit. He wrote comedy musicals for him and his wife to perform. His plays were so successful that he was able to build two theaters. The first, in 1905, was the Aldwych Theatre. In 1906, he built the Seymour Hicks Theatre – now called the Gielgud Theatre. Jerome Kern wrote the musical score for his first successful musical comedy – "The Beauty of Bath," in 1906. Hicks helped discover Alfred Hitchcock. During both world wars, Hicks entertained Allied troops in France and elsewhere. He twice received the French Croix de Guerre.

In this production of the Dickens Classic, Hicks was 64 years old, and he naturally looked for the part. He surely is the darkest of all the Scrooge roles on film. He seems to be a sinister character who relishes his tyrannical nature. This film has the dark trappings of early films all around him. They add to the heaviness of the scene. But they also haze over the fringes of scenes and people. This film is 78 minutes in length. While Scrooge is the main character of the Dickens tale, his conversion comes about by what the spirits show him of other people. And this film doesn't develop those enough to give the story its full impact. Without that, and with the Hicks' Scrooge so hardened in his ways, it's not as convincing when his heart changes.

The production values of the old print I have on DVD are not very good. Still, it is a worthy part of a Dickens movie collection for this early rendition of Ebenezer Scrooge by one of the early English actors to be known for the role.

Charles Dickens 1843 novella 'A Christmas Carol' serves as one of greatest influences, besides the birth of Christ, in how we celebrate the holiday. Cinema has embraced the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, the cantankerous money lender whose stingy habits disappear after visits from four ghosts during Christmas Eve. The first full-length motion picture with sound of the Dickens' book is November 1935 "Scrooge," starring Sir Seymour Hicks in one of the most defining roles of the penny-pinching small businessman.

Before the 1935 version, Britain and Hollywood produced eight silent films on the 19th-century tale, the first a 1901 five-minute version. Seymour Hicks, who had played the grumpy old character in over two thousand stage performances since 1901, was in the 1913 film "Scrooge." Most critics agree the reason to watch 1935's "Scrooge" is because of Hicks' performance. "Hicks makes a terrific Scrooge," writes film reviewer Morgan Lewis. "He harrumphs with the best of them, and has an air of petulant irritation about him. As Scrooge undergoes his spiritual transformation during the course of the night, so does Hicks' performance gradually warm up. He's even more fun to watch once Scrooge has been redeemed; there's such a childish glee about him that it's hard not to laugh."

The 1935 "Scrooge" differs in many ways from the other adaptations. Only one ghost, Christmas Present, is fully defined and visible on the screen. Marley's Ghost is audibly heard, but besides a short burst showing his face on the door knocker, he's unseen. Christmas Past is simply a shadowy shape while Christmas Yet to Come has only a pointing finger as his only presence. But Scrooge can clearly see them all. Rare in cinema is the scene showing Tiny Tim dead in the 1935 film.

"Scrooge" marked English actor Robert Morley's first screen appearance as an uncredited Rich Man. He began on the British stage in 1928 at 20, and constantly switched between the stage and the film studio sets throughout his acting career until the 1980s. Morley is known for his famous quip on the egos of actors: "It is a great help for a man to be in love with himself," Morley noted. "For an actor it is absolutely essential."

Scrooge (1935) is a movie I recently watched on Tubi. The storyline follows the classic Charles Dickens novel on our good friend Ebenezer Scrooge in London being his notoriously evil self when one Christmas Eve three ghosts pay him a visit. They try to help him from going too far with his evil ways while also showing him the impact of his behaviors.

This movie is directed by Henry Edwards (Beauty and the Barge) and stars Seymour Hicks (Haunted Honeymoon), Donald Calthrop (The Man Who Lived Again), Mary Glynne (The Good Companions), Garry Marsh (I See a Dark Stranger) and Barbara Everest (Gaslight).

The background music, sets and settings are well done. I enjoyed the models they used to create London. I also enjoyed the way they used shadows and various simple special effects to create the ghosts. The ghost of Christmas future and his segment was well done. The way they portrayed Scrooge with the ghosts was funny and definitely entertaining. Hicks did a solid job with Scrooge's antics.

Overall this is a slightly above average Christmas movie that's just okay. It's fun to watch the story told during this era, but there are better versions of this movie available. I would score this a 6/10.