Rating: 
Summary: Ho? Ho? Ho? NO! NO! NO!
Review:
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus! However... His name is Edmund Gwenn, not Richard Attenborough.
I'm normally not one of these cinema purists who gripes over remakes of great films, but the remake of "Miracle On 34th Street" may be the worst rehash job, second only to the horrid rehash of "La Femme Nikita."
There are just some movies that you just do not go and remake. Would you remake "It's a Wonderful Life?" (oooops... forgot about Marlo Thomas as a female George Bailey in a TV movie). Would you remake "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?" (wha... they made a TV series of it starring Fess Parker as Mr. Smith?) . Okay, maybe there are way too many bad remakes of classic films. Still, this is one of the most prolific in the bad rehash category.
First off, the excellent cast in John Hughes' rewrite of this Christmas classic is not the problem; the problem is John Hughes' rewrite of this Christmas classic. The tale was told beautifully the first time around back in 1947, a straightforward story pitting faith against cynicism: the happy-go-lucky do-good attorney (which makes for a great fantasy film right off the bat!) versus the Santa cynics, headed by the snotty psychoanalyst Mr. Sawyer. John Hughes seems to fancy this remake a deep work of comparative literature in need of characters with complex motivations. In 1947, Santa loses his cool with Mr. Sawyer's mean spirit toward a good-natured kid named Alfred, and he rewards Mr. Sawyer with a rap on the head. In 1994, Santa loses his cool only after a "set up," in which a disgruntled employee goads dear St Nick into a fight by alleging that his motives for being kind to kids are.....impure. PLEASE! Can't Santa lose his cool once in a century over a guy just because the shrink is an obnoxious pig?
*****SPOILER ALERT! --- if you have not seen either version of this film and intend to do so, you might want to SKIP THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH*****
The prime comparison that sticks out in my head takes place in the courtroom. In the original, Mr. Macy, on the stand, is put on the spot, and asked if he believes the man before him to be the one and only Santa Claus. Ever the old-movie sturdy-based man of business, Mr. Macy hardly changes his stoic facial expression; rather, we see a short glimpse into his mind, picturing the happy faces of the children as they watch Santa Claus in the parade. Then, without so much as a smile or a bat of the eye, he affirms that he believes Kris to be the one-and-only Santa Claus. This remake replaces that priceless scene with the court's judge leaping merrily out of his seat with a Flintstone sized grin screaming "I BELIEVE!" Oooh! Ouch! No!
Lastly, I hate to bag on such a fine cast, but Richard Attenborough's Santa looks like Scrooge in comparison to Edmund Gwenn. Gwenn knew that Santa Claus was warm, buoyant, and full of cheer. Attenborough looks as if he went through every Stanislavsky manual he could get his hands on to figure out what really lies behind Santa's moods and motivations. For the love of...HE'S JOLLY OLD ST. NICK!!!!! That's Santa's charm, he's a fantastic being in the real world, THAT'S WHAT MAKES HIM SO INTRIGUING!!!
That said, check out the version with Edmund Gwenn, Natalie Wood, Maureen O'Hara and John Payne, because it is one of the greatest Christmas films ever made.
Rating: 
Summary: A Classic
Review: A classic. Our 1 year old destroyed our VCR Tape verson, so we took the opportunity to buy the DVD. It is now one of our holidy traditions.
Rating: 
Summary: overall as good as the original
Review: Attenborough is a very satisfactory replacement for Gwynn in this remake, and the little girl is better than Natalie Wood (my biggest complaint about the original is Wood's performance; she's annoyingly precious). The romance is a little flat, but it was in the original, too. Perkins just isn't as good as O'Hara, (hardly anyone is), but McDermott is better than the telephone pole that played the lawyer in the original (it's no accident that John Payne wasn't a big star). And the "trial" makes a little more sense than in the original, although I sure missed William Frawley (aka Fred Mertz) as the judge's political advisor.Overall, I think that this is a very satisfactory remake. It doesn't quite reach some of the high points of the original, but it avoids enough of the lows to make it just fine. And my kids like it better, probably because it's in color and has a more modern feel. It's become a family tradition to watch it on Christmas Eve, and I rather look forward to it every year...
Rating:
Summary: Something To Believe In
Review: Charming, well-acted and well produced. The child star is excellent. While some items are unreal, the story is so strong that it suspends reality. Opens avenues for discussing human relationships and adult interactions. The best. Entirely held kids' attention. Made them feel sad and then happy. "Pretty cool." Best for ages 8 to 12.
Rating:
Summary: Miracle Of Movies
Review: Dorey is in charge of hiring Macy's Santas, including an old man named Kriss Kringle. He does a remakably convincing job, and he soon reveals that he actually belives himself to be Santa Claus. The authorities threaten to place the old man in an insane asylum. Meanwhile, Dorey and her daughter Susan find their own defenses melting and become reacquainted with the power of faith.
Rating:
Summary: Miraculous!
Review: Few remakes do justice to the original classic and even fewer improve on it. This one does both. Mara Wilson is wonderful and gives a once in a lifetime performance. In an effort to put a twist on the original they changed the scene where Santa speaks a foreign language to a child come to sit on his lap and instead he uses sign language to speak to a hearing impaired child. The result is a very touching scene. John Hughes has done it again!
Rating: 
Summary: A TERRIBLE AND UNNECESSARY REMAKE...
Review: First things first...why even bother to remake such a great movie. Oh, I know, it was remade in the 1970's with sebastian Cabot in a made for TV movie, but still. This is a classic that will always stand on its own. You will never be able to surpass the original, the bar is too high. You know the story...a man who looks like Santa is hired to play Jolly Ol' St. Nick at a department store and then gets into trouble when he insists he's the real deal. Unfortunately, this movie has none of the warmth, charm, humor, or magick of the original. The actors all seem to be sleep walking, the little girl playing the Natalie Wood role is annoying, and the courtroom sequence and ending is devoid of the magic that made you wonder if there really is a Santa. Skip this and stick with the original
Rating:
Summary: A TERRIBLE AND UNNECESSARY REMAKE...
Review: First things first...why even bother to remake such a great movie. Oh, I know, it was remade in the 1970's with sebastian Cabot in a made for TV movie, but still. This is a classic that will always stand on its own. You will never be able to surpass the original, the bar is too high. You know the story...a man who looks like Santa is hired to play Jolly Ol' St. Nick at a department store and then gets into trouble when he insists he's the real deal. Unfortunately, this movie has none of the warmth, charm, humor, or magick of the original. The actors all seem to be sleep walking, the little girl playing the Natalie Wood role is annoying, and the courtroom sequence and ending is devoid of the magic that made you wonder if there really is a Santa. Skip this and stick with the original
Rating:
Summary: Mawkish treacle--no replacing the original
Review: For every movie remake that improves on, or at least stands apart from, its original (1986's The Fly and 1999's The Thomas Crown Affair leap to mind), there are a dozen remakes like this one that serve only to remind everyone how superior the original is. Even presenting the remake in color seems like a mistake--George Seaton's 1947 original, with its black-and-white, almost documentary-like presentation, gives a realistic foundation to its fantasy concept. The 1994 remake, on the other hand, is suffused with a burnished glow that gives the film the look of a Hallmark card, with about as much depth. And don't look to the new script for help. As re-imagined by writer/producer John Hughes, the update's only new wrinkles are an "evil" toy-store chain to rival the "good" one, protracted courtroom sequences, and a finale that has neither the visual nor logical wit of the mail-delivery denouement of the original. Only the remake's strong cast makes it even remotely watchable. Richard Attenborough is a fine Kris Kringle, Elizabeth Perkins shines as a single mom, and little Mara Wilson is very appealing in the role originally played by Natalie Wood. It's also fun to see veteran heavies James Remar and J.T. Walsh take their villainy down a few notches. The only real disappointment is Dylan McDermott, who can't match the original's John Payne for rakish charm. On the whole, the only real significance of this film--except to make the original seem all the better--is to help chart the decline of John Hughes' once-promising career. Hughes raised the bar on teen comedy (Sixteen Candles,The Breakfast Club) and directed one brilliant "grown-up" film (1987's Planes, Trains and Automobiles) before giving up to oversee the recycling of other material, including his own, into enterprises whose ambitions never seemed to rise above "make lots of money." (Subsequent Hughes remakes include Flubber and 101 Dalmatians, and more Home Alone sequels than Federal law should allow.) In the end, the 1994 Miracle on 34th street is serviceable background fodder while you wrap presents or trim the tree, but if you want a movie to WATCH, get the original.
Rating: 
Summary: Something so much more than an average holiday film
Review: Having seen the 1947 version of this movie- I must say that it seems to me that the 1947 version set the groundwork for the story, but THESE are the sets of actors meant to play the parts. The best actor, of course, is Richard Attenborough, the gifted director of ''Gandhi'', and a superb, truly sweet actor. His Santa Claus represents something Edward Gwenn's does not. His Santa Claus is a SYMBOL of faith, a symbol of believing in a magical world of childhood and keeping it alive inside of your heart. His St. Nick project genuine innocence, kindness, and oozes vulnerability. He seems to be the only true figure untouched by the evils and selfishness of the world. Elizabeth Perkins is heart-rending as a cold, formal, non-believing mother. She brings an icy calmness to her cool, almost unlovable Dory Walker. Maureen O'Hara (in th 1947 version) did not project the coldness or the cyncial appearance that Perkins does. When St. Nick explains to her: '' I am not only a person but a symbol. All who cannot believe in me are doomed to a life to cynicism and have no escape from the actual world'', she later stands and cries softly in an elevater. That was a very moving scene. Dory has buried every bit of hurt at the loss of her husband so she can remain strong for her young daughter (a hauntingly sad Mara Wilson). Dylan McDermont is Brian Beddford, a man who is ALMOST perfect in every way- except even he, in a sense is a non-believer. He cannot truly have faith in his friend, nor does he take his friend's claims to be Santa seriously. He is a kind-hearted, but slightly cold adult. The heart of this movie is truly in it's explaination of Santa Claus- so much different from the predictable 1947 version. This movie goes deeper than the previous film (it involves a dollar bill and the words '' In God we Trust''). This film actually ACKNOWLEDGES there is a Santa Claus, the old film simply delivers mail form children stating that THEY believe in Santa. St. Nick here is heavily symbolic of innocence and utter sensitivity- of childhood hopes, and unburied emotions. Also the chemistry between Brian and Dory is tangible. In short: Watch this film if you want a new idea of the true meaning of Christmas, and the true power of believing in Santa Claus.
|
