Miracle on 34th Street

Personally, I have seen all three versions of this film, and while I understand why older generations and purists stand by the original as the best one, that doesn't mean that people can't still enjoy this version. For a made-for-TV version, it has a wonderful cast, with Sebastian Cabot being the highlight. I thought the way the court case was handled was better here than in the 1994 version, and having grown up with color all of my life (and having been born only 2 years before this version originally came out), I still claim this one as my favorite. That is not to say that the original or 1994 versions aren't good--I think they all have a place for those who enjoy them. I just think that this story--like many others--is a generational one, and everyone is going to have at least a little nostalgia for the one from their generation. My only wish, which so far has gone unfulfilled, is that someone will eventually put this version out on DVD and Blu-Ray so that those of us who enjoy it can watch it again. The 1947 and 1994 versions' fans have access to their movies--why can't we? I think the reviewer who offered the option of a box set including all versions of this movie has a wonderful idea--that way, everyone's happy, and each is different enough from the others that you can watch them all and enjoy them.

It has been many years since I saw either of the most familiar versions of this movie in their entirety. I did see a few minutes of the Edmund Gwenn version while rewinding a tape on Thanksgiving, and a clip from that movie in a TV special, but that's as close as I've come to remembering how good that movie was.

There's not much point in comparing this movie to the others for that reason. I'm sure Edmund Gwenn's was better. But I saw this version because so many actors whose names I know appeared in it. Tom Bosley, David Doyle, Jim Backus, James Gregory, and Conrad Janis, to name a few. I enjoyed seeing these people and thought they all did a good job.

Sebastian Cabot is familiar to me from the original "Family Affair", but I would never have known him. Giles French was such a curmudgeon, though over the years he probably came to love children. I just don't have a clear memory of that. And yet he just seemed so natural as the Macy's Santa Claus. Could Edmund Gwenn have done any better? Probably. And yet without comparing the two, I can say Sebastian Cabot WAS Kris Kringle. Such a loving, caring man, everything Christmas is supposed to be about. A man who truly cares about children. Yes, he could get angry. But for all the right reasons.

The scenes involving the judge and the efforts to have Kris Kringle put away were really well-written. One would never know it was a kids' movie.

Suzanne Davidson was so cute. I won't say she did a consistently good job, but she had some really good scenes.

I can't remember his name now, but the other Santa Claus in the movie, the young store employee who was taught his craft by Kris, was really likable. Perhaps he could have been worthy of the job of Macy's Santa after some experience.

I am aware David Hartman was an actor before "Good Morning America". And yet he came across like the "Good Morning America" co-host deciding to try acting. Still, he had some really good scenes, mostly in the courtroom.

I genuinely despised Roddy McDowall's character. I can't even really say whether he did a good job, but the psychiatrist who wants Kris Kringle declared insane just didn't do anything for me, and I wonder if the character could have been written better.

It was a real feel-good movie. I'm glad I saw this version.

Yes, I saw this the night it aired in 1973, and not again until I found it you YouTube tonight. We'd just watched the 1947 original with Edmund Gwinn, and recalled Sebastian Cabot's shot at the role.

Cabot did a very fine job here, but the revised script suffered greatly by comparison with the original ... plus ... Jane Alexander brings NOTHING of the fire or acting ability to the role that Maureen O'Hara did. Where the lines are the same, Alexander comes off as very flat.

Early on, when Bill (the lawyer) meets Karen, the parade coordinator (and why did they find a need to rename these characters??), this script introduces a lady friend doctor of Bill's who acts in a very proprietary manner. One sees a personality conflict coming, but the doctor never appears again and is never mentioned again! LOL One can only suppose that later in production, that storyline was dropped but they were too cheap to film the "after parade in Bill's apartment again".

Next, we have alcohol in what is surely a kid's movie, and Karen asking for a vodka cocktail in the morning hours? Another mistake.

Roddy McDowall was a fine actor, but he just wasn't the right choice for Dr. Sawyer.

Finally, they made the decision to hold the hearing in a closed courtroom? No Gallery? How does Macy's decision about testifying that Kringle is Santa Clause play in an empty courtroom? It doesn't. It made no sense at all.

Again, Cabot did a nice job. David Hartman did a nice job. David Doyle overplayed Macy in a ridiculous fashion. Jane Alexander was flat throughout. Susan (the little girl) doesn't hold a candle to Natalie Wood. Jim Backus does a nice job as Shellhammer, but the byplay between the judge and his political advisor contains NONE of the humor of that element of the original. The final speech when delivering the 'letters to Santa' was repetitive and overplayed, especially when being delivered to an empty courtroom. One can only surmise the producers were too cheap to pony up for extras.

Skip this and watch Edmund Gwinn again. You won't be sorry.

First let me begin by saying that nothing exceeds the original black & white 1947 version of MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET. It is rare when a movie remake is better than the original. The 1973 version of this film by no means is better than the 47 version, for that matter nor is the 94 version. In my opinion the 94 version is the worst but I'll not comment on that here.

I feel that the 74 version does bring some good things to the table. I find the color here better than the Ted Turner coloring of the 47 version. I believe that movies filmed in black & white should stay in black & white. Turner does an injustice to movie making with his colorization process. I also like the selection of the actors for this film. Both Alexander and Hartman give good performances and come off across as ordinary looking and yet are an attractive couple. Davis did seem to overact a bit in the role of the lead child but she is tolerable.

When looking at a film I like to be able to identify what era it was made in. Both the 47 and 73 are identifiable by the autos, clothes, toys and parade floats & balloons. While not alive in 47 I was a kid in 73 and it's nice to watch a film and be reminded of images from my own youth.

So, while it is true that the 73 version does not do better than the 47 version it does not flop either.

I thought the Thomas Mitchell version as OK as we'll, while Richard Attenborough's left a bitter taste in my mouth. What stood out was that it's set up blended so well into the 70's era. I confess, I always thought of David Hartman as a newsman, but here I realize he wasn't a bad actor at all. Cabot's Santa? Loved him! Convincingly kind and gentle, and showed brilliant Santa magic.

In some ways it does feel like you'd get lost following this if you didn't already know the story, because you don't get a lot to tell you just what the characters as set up are all about, and you don't get hardly any exposition of Karen Walker as an unbeliever, but familiarity saves it. As well, I feel like i wouldn't like it as much if not for wanting some reprieve from the forced resolution I got out of the Attenborough version. The Post Office miracle doesn't feel as brilliant, but still different enough to feel fresh, a nd believable enough to appreciate as a miracle.

I won't put as much diligence into making this a Christmas season must-see, but I'll definitely get to a point where it feels like another go is in order. Not a bad version at all.