Watch Miracle on 34th Street For Free

I love this movie so much

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

To give the movie its deserved credit, Richard Attenborough is a wonderful successor to the iconic Kris Kingle as played by Edmund Gwenn in George Seaton's seminal Christmas classic "Miracle on 34th Street" and Mara Wilson is just as good as the little girl who doesn't believe in Santa but wishes she could and only asks for a proof. In fact, she embodies our very attitude toward the film, we love the original, we want to embrace this one with the same enthusiasm, so we're waiting for the script to charm us.And it's only fair to have high anticipations, the film was made in 1994 when commercialism was as preeminent as five decades later, and written by John Hughes who could give a subtle dimension of satire and benign cynicism, all these elements could have given an edge to the 1994 remake. Unfortunately, the film doesn't really manages to deliver: when it's good, it's just as good as the original, the rest of the time, it's just a pale copy that fails to capture the the taste of its era. This film could have been made in the 80's or the 70's as well because the story is timeless, but not in the 'appealing' meaning of the word.It's incredible but "Miracle on 34th Street" manages to feel more dated than its glorious predecessor, the 1947 version starring Edmund Gwenn, Maureen O'Hara and young Natalie Wood. Maybe the remake was liable to feel dated because the 1947 classic was already ahead of its time for its take on Christmas consumerism, its portrayal of a divorced mother and a precocious girl (tired tropes today), so any attempt to duplicate the charm of the movie was likely to fail... unless it tried to modernize the original premise a little bit.The problem with Les Mayfield's movie and John Hughes' screenplay is that the two men seem to be in awe with the original and never really dare to make the original structure shatter, not a bit. As a result, we have quite exactly the same movie, and the changes operated in this one never feel as improvements but rather inspire the opposite feeling. For instance, the climactic trial scene with the bags of mail delivered on the courtroom is only replaced by a parallel drawn between the existence of Santa Claus and the faith in God which, as smart as it is, is anticlimactic and leaves many things in wanting.We all know the story is heading toward a heart-warming and magical conclusion but there's just something curiously depressing in the turn of events that lead the gentle Kris Kingle in jail and the way his aura immediately fades while the set-up of his downfall is quite obvious. There was a moment where I expectedKingle to tell that the man he assaulted had just literally accused him of the worst possible crime and had the punch coming, but the scene dangerously flirts with the idiotic plot where the lines that can get you off the hook aren't said, for no other reason that they're waiting for the right moment. I feel a bit guilty to be so judgmental, again there's that snow beard in Richard Attenborough and that glee in his eyes that makes many scenes with him very touching, I loved his interaction with the deaf girl (a smart remake of the Dutch scene), his chemistry with Mara Wilson hit the right chord, and that little girl is a genuinely good actress conveying the right mix of smartness and innocence (a bit like a real-life Lisa Simpson). But the film reminded me of that scene where Kingle and Bryan, the lawyer enamored with Susan's mother, and played by Dylan McDermott, discuss about the mother (Elizabeth Perkins) and say there's something quite sad about her.There's something sad in the film as well, sometimes, Elizabeth Perkins overplay that feeling and make any scene she's in a killjoy, even her romance with Dylan, while integral to the original happy ending, are only inserted in the movie as an 'obligation' but it's obvious these moments slow down the script more than anything. There are a few good characters in the film, the judge played by a scene-stealing Robert Prosky, the so underrated J.T. Walsh as the prosecutor but the film loses its way in many unnecessary plot points, and escalate to a trial where we feel cheated because we didn't have our bags of mail, after all, there was no Internet yet in 1994, it could work.The film is still an enchanting moment that can please any child of any age, but it lacks that little sharpness, the taste of modernity it needed, and luck, too. Macy's didn't want its name associated with the film so they had to come up with a fictional company had to invent a and make the rival an evil businessman, missing the opportunity of the 'marketing policy' subplot that made the first film so ahead of its time. It's like Mayfield and Hughes didn't trust their own material, they had so charming protagonists who could carry the film alone, who needed villains? Especially when the "system" or the world's cynicism was good enough an antagonist. A good film nonetheless, but so one-dimensional in its treatment it feels dated by the original film's standards.

Sorry, I'm gonna be the Grinch on this one. I put off watching this one for years mostly because I grew up watching the original every year with my family. It was always my mom's favorite so, naturally, that pulls a lot of weight for my review of this movie. We were looking for a Christmassy movie to watch with the grand kids the other night so I thought of this one. I was a little hesitant to go with the new one but I thought the kids would like it more. I chose to buy it from Amazon rather than rent it. I will say, first, that my 9 year old granddaughter enjoyed it. I am going to play the original this week and get her opinion on it, also. The movie in my opinion was one of those that had too much dead air time or just some awkward silence. It progressed very slowly and, to me, the acting was forced and a little over the top at times. It loosely followed the original story of a department store Santa that is a little too realistic for some people and was a threat to the competing store and a few hateful people in particular. He befriends the daughter of the head of the "Cole's department store parade", who is a little girl that is supposed to be way above her years. Kris Kringle claims to be the real Santa Claus and the evil department store CEO is determined to prove otherwise. So, naturally, the easiest thing to do is have Kris arrested and thrown in the psych ward at Belleview. He is defended at the commitment hearing by the little girl's mother's boyfriend. I'll let you watch and see how it ends. Sometimes when a movie is being remade, the director has a very difficult time capturing the the feel and the emotion of the original. That is the feel for me on this one. I really think they missed the mark on this wonderful classic. Was it horrible and unwatchable? Not really. But I did find myself getting reminded by my wife that we were all supposed to be watching the movie together, not playing on my phone. If you haven't seen the original, please do. There is a colorized version if you don't like black and white movies but I prefer the B/W for nostalgia sake. But if you do take the time to watch the original, please come back and review it and leave a rebuttal on my review. Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. Happy Holidays

This latest installment of the beloved holiday film tried to succeed, but alas, all of it's efforts failed, particularly in comparison with the two previous versions. In my opinion, once you're seen the 1947 version with Maureen O'Hara and John Payne, this failure becomes obviously and painfully apparent. There is more heat in a winter snow storm than in the odd pairing of Dylan McDermott and Elizabeth Perkins. It just seems to be "trying to hard" to be the equal of the original, updating the events to make it more au current, all the while the characters and performances seeming forced and stereotypical, without the true spirit of the B&W classic (with the sole exception of an always superb Richard Attenborough in the leading role). It appears that in a desperate attempt to come up with a truly good Christmas movie, all they've managed to do is reheat last night's Christmas dinner.

I am so happy to watch this movie 20 years after it was first released. First, i am still kicking but second, the movie has held up well. Like the first version this version seems just as timeless. For anyone who avoided the thinking the remake would not be as good. I think it's time to cast those fears away and give it a try. Much like the First, his court case is dismissed due to Federal Government's benignly coming to the rescue. Unlike the post office (which we know today would not send Santa Mail to the court) a perhaps better escape comes in with "In God We Trust" on a dollar bill... But in another 20 years this too may be something of the past considering the direction we are heading.Some scenes like the wanna-be Santa and the doctor needing a new x ray machine are missing and the tangible proof of the Cane are gone (shame since this cane was so ornate). But all in all, I found I could watch both the old and new back to back and still enjoy them both.Mara Wilson (Susan) take the spotlight just a Natalie Wood did in the first release. What is strange is her name in the credits and here on IMDb... 10th down the list here on IMDb and hard to find in the film's Cast List.... Seems the Hollywood People were to vein to give her a higher billing.... Shame... but that's Hollywood - Actors - Phhhh - almost all the same.