Box-office
The film was one of the most popular in Britain in 1952,[8][9] but was a box office disappointment in the United States.
However, the film became a holiday favourite on American television where it was broadcast regularly during the 1950s and 1960s.[10]
Critical reception
Bosley Crowther of The New York Times posted a favourable notice, writing that producer Brian Desmond Hurst "has not only hewed to the line of Dickens' classic fable of a spiritual regeneration on Christmas Eve, but he has got some arresting recreations of the story's familiar characters...The visions of Scrooge's life story are glimpses into depressing realms, and the aspects of poverty and ignorance in nineteenth-century England are made plain. To the credit of Mr. Hurst's production, not to its disfavor, let it be said that it does not conceal Dickens' intimations of human meanness with an artificial gloss." Crowther concluded, "...what we have in this rendition of Dickens' sometimes misunderstood "Carol" is an accurate comprehension of the agony of a shabby soul. And this is presented not only in the tortured aspects of Mr. Sim but in the phantasmagoric creation of a somber and chilly atmosphere. These, set against the exhibition of conventional manifests of love and cheer, do right by the moral of Dickens and round a trenchant and inspiring Christmas show."[7] Richard L. Coe of The Washington Post was also positive: "This may not be A Christmas Carol of recent tradition, but I've an idea it's the way Dickens would have wanted it. It's the way he wrote it."[11] Harrison's Reports called the film "delightful entertainment", finding that "though it does have its somber moments, it ends on so cheerful a note that one cannot help but leave the theatre in a happy mood."[12] John McCarten of The New Yorker was also mostly positive, writing that "there's enough good here to warrant the attendance of all save the hardest of heart."[13]
Variety, however, called the film "a grim thing that will give tender-aged kiddies viewing it the screaming-meemies, and adults will find it long, dull and greatly overdone." It also called Sim's performance "a tank-town Hamlet."[14] Time magazine ran a mixed review, criticising the direction while praising the performances.[15] In Britain, The Monthly Film Bulletin was also mixed, finding that the film "as a whole lacks style" and that Sim resembled more a "dour dyspeptic" than a miser, but nevertheless concluded that "the film may please in its good-natured reminder of Christmas joys, and much praise is due to Kathleen Harrison for her inimitable playing of the true Cockney."[16]
The film gained popularity on TV. Patrick Macnee, who played the young Marley, cited the film as his favourite version of the story, stating that it "really seems to capture the true essence of the Dickens novel". In a 2016 review, Donald Clarke called the film "the best ever committed to film (of the book)", praising the cast's performances.[17] In 1999, Empire film critic Monika Maurer gave the film four out of five stars, feeling that while "some of the other performances have dated, Sim's haunted Scrooge stands the test of time, even today eliciting sympathy and - you just can't help yourself - joy at his transformation", and concluded, "Lashings of festive cheer and a fair dollop of fine performances will leave you in the mood for mince pies and a renewed sense of seasonal goodwill to all men."[18] Sim's performance still receives praise, with some calling his version of the character the "definitive" Scrooge.[19]
