IMDb user comments for
Miracle on 34th Street (1994) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

45 comments in total

---

20 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
51 year old guy bawls his eyes out, as usual, 19 May 2005

Author: rbugtel from United States

I can't see why a retelling of a really good story gets panned. It stayed true to the original concept, that believing in something good, even if it only comes once a year, can make us better. If I may reference another Christmas classic of which there have been several worthy interpretations, "Scrooge" (1951), the young Scrooge says to the young Marley upon their meeting, "I believe the world is becoming a very hard and cruel place...". If it was that way in the 1800's, it's ten times worse today, and therefore all the more reason to be reminded of our better nature. I especially enjoyed the scene where the streets of New York City were filled with throngs of people, traffic on the bridges was stopped, all waiting for the verdict. I know NYC well, and how its people rise to such occasions. These scenes were not in the 1947 version, and I think they added a uniqueness to this version. Better, worse than the 1947 version? Neither - just different, and just as valid.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
A good effort, but not up to par with the original, 16 December 2005

Author: chrisbrogden from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This remake is a decent film on its own, but can't compare to the original version. It lost me right from the beginning with juvenile humour (making the bad Coles Santa the butt of jokes), and never won my interest back. I was particularly disappointed in the ending. The original ending drew the necessary distinction between proving that Santa existed and proving that the gentleman known as Kris Kringle was Santa. For some inexplicable and unjustifiable reason, the remake glosses over that distinction. This cheapened the rest of the film for me. I also preferred the ending in the original version. While I like the direct God/Santa comparison in the remake (suggesting that Santa works through others his miracles to perform), I prefer the manner in which the family obtains their house in the original version. It's a lot more meaningful if they have never seen the house before that minute, as the randomness factor hints more strongly at Kris's actually being Santa.

In the same vein, I thought Kris acted too mentally inadequate in this version, talking about the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny as if they were real, and addressing a local reindeer as if it were one of his own. Santa becomes less a person than an ideal of behaviour and attitude, as the overly sentimental script keeps reminding us. He inspires other people to do things instead of being able to do them himself. I suppose that's the point the film is making, but all the same I prefer the less heavy-handed approach of the original.

---

13 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Something refreshing for the holidays., 11 December 2001
Author: cmyklefty from Philadelphia

I remember seeing the original movie Miracle on 34th Street, that movie could never be replace with this version. This is the best updated remake of a classic story. There are some difference between the movies, but it is almost the same plot. If I could not find the original movie playing on TV during the holidays, this is the one worth watching.

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Do you believe? If so, why?, 23 December 2007
Author: Oct (wjphillips@clara.co.uk) from London, England

Richard Attenborough returned to acting after 14 years behind the camera in "Jurassic Park", and followed it swiftly by daring to challenge comparison with Oscar-winner Edmund Gwenn in this remake.

As a heartwarmer for those inadequates who won't sit through a 60-year-old monochrome movie-- albeit one which rivals "It's a Wonderful Life" as Hollywood's answer to "A Christmas Carol"-- this John Hughes revamp will probably serve. Anyhow, there are plenty of copies on sale at the checkout of my local supermarket. But it is a bit too laid-back and, latterly, too bogged down in argument for younger kids or older boys. It may warm more cockles among the grandparents.

The main thematic interest is how Hughes chooses to tweak the original screen story as adapted (unusually for the time) by the director, George Seaton. Whether he sought to or not, the remake has thrown up some intriguing twists for a more skeptical and secular time.

The oldie caught the mood of an America yearning to get back to normalcy amid the perils of the post-war, Cold War world. Location shooting in New York City, with much co-operation from Macys, gave a touch of realism to the fantasy, whereas in 1994 it's an imaginary store and (for Americans, at least) an incongruously "veddy British" claimant to the chair of Santa Claus- although his nationality is not the issue when the legal meanies of the State of New York try to get him confined to the bughouse.

What is striking is the judge's rationale for allowing Kris's plea for freedom. Because US bills have "In God We Trust" on them, he reasons, it means New York is allowed to have blind faith in the existence of a supernatural being who lays presents on 1.7 billion children in one night, operating from invisible workshops with reindeer which cannot be made to fly in a courtroom demonstration of his powers because it isn't Christmas Eve. Besides, the sneery prosecutor's kids were raised to believe in him, so there- case closed.

In real life the ACLU would be appealing such a judgement all the way to the Supreme Court for allowing too much religion into the law and the public square. "In God We Trust" was only put on the money during the Cold War, to cock a snook at "Godless bolshevism"; but this film is refreshingly disrespectful to the newer orthodoxy of playing down most Americans' beliefs in their films.

Kris asks if he should swear in the Bible, the Pope's ruling on Nicholas's sanctity is debated, and the ethos is quietly but unmistakably Christian. No "spiritual" Santa or "Happy Holidays" here. In a very light fashion, the film does revolve issues of how far it is legitimate to maintain a metaphor as a source of inspiration when rationalism of the Dawkins and Hitchens strain is sniping at it. The screenplay also looks quite beadily at the way commercial operators use holy myth to make money, even if the message comes muted from Hollywood.

That is the good news. There's plenty to carp at as well.

Attenborough's quiet, gentle but firm performance (most atypical of one who spent his previous acting time mainly playing unreliables or martinets) suffuses the film. He gets little competition, save from the contrasted crustiness of Windom. Most of the support is so-so, on the level of a Yuletide TV special, and not excluding little Wilson as the girl who has faith in Mr Kringle's claim to be St Nicholas. She is no Margaret O'Brien, if no worse in her way than the kewpie-doll Natalie Wood. In fact, she's a John Hughes moppet who did little later and nothing since 2000.

The narrative's departures from the well shaped original are no help. Once off the legal hook, Kris, wearing a brown suit, just disappears-- we don't see any triumphal sleigh ride to bid him adieu-- while attention shifts to a ridiculous post-midnight-mass impromptu wedding in a Catholic church. Then follows a trip out to a dream house in the snowy country, ushered by a silly salesman. The film does not seem to know when to call a halt, and there's not so much as Clarence's tinkling bell to bring back Kris at the close. It's as if the whole object of the exercise was to unite two bland characters in matrimony.

---

9 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
This is Santa???, 17 March 2006

Author: tnaliasal from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I enjoyed the original movie which has since become a classic. When the movie was remade, I was excited about seeing an updated version. The remake is not heartwarming and this sort of movie should be heartwarming. Parts of the remake are very good and, with the exception of Richard Attenborough, all of the actors were very good. The much respected Mr. Attenborough just did not seem like Santa. I watched the movie this past Christmas with family and friends (about 20 of us) and discovered that I was not alone with my discomfort with the part of Santa. The children made comments about him that were surprisingly uncomplimentary. I'm sure the comments were not intended to be commentary on him as a person but almost everyone thought that another actor could have played the part better than he did. The end of the trial, while an interesting twist, did not quite come together well as in the original movie. The end of the movie did not bring a smile to my face. I really wanted to like this movie but after seeing it again, it still falls short. While the original movie is very dated, it remains the superior movie.

---

12 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't tamper with perfection, 28 December 2002

Author: stu lewis (andiam123@aol.com)

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

If there ever was a film that did not need a remake, the original "Miracle on 34th Street" was such a film. The original featured a virtually perfect screenplay in which everything works out right against all odds. Above all, it softened the sentimentality with some genuine satire (corporate heads who are so afraid of losing sales that they have to admit that Santa Claus exists)and, above all, with a delightful sense of ambiguity as it leaves open the possibility that Chris really is Santa Claus. The remake just pours on the sentimentality and (spoiler) even changes the ending.

---

22 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
Humbug!, 10 December 2002

Author: Rebochan from Orlando, FL

On a normal level of cinema, this film is only mediocre. Where it fails is that it is a terrible remake of a well-known, well-loved film. And even worse for this film, it's a lousy remake of a well-known, well-loved film that just happens to be my favorite Christmas film of all time.

It has a few positives. All right, it has one positive, and that is Richard Attenborough. He brings a genuine delight to the role of Saint Nick, and it is not hard to believe this guy could be the genuine article. Unfortunately, his performance highlights the lousy performances of many of the principles.

Dorey Walker is played by Elizabeth Perkins with none of the sympathy given to her by Maureen O'Hara. It's impossible to even dream of her getting married to anyone. Some of this is to be blamed on the script, though, which spends so much time establishing Dorey's cold heart that it forgets she's supposed to be getting our sympathy, not our scorn. Which brings us to the flat performance of Dylan McDermott. He could be replaced with a cardboard cut-out without affecting the flow of the movie. Then we have Mara Wilson. She tends to be more snobby and over-confident than confused, but Wilson is up against Natalie Wood. To be fair, we never get to see Wilson chattering like a monkey for comparison purposes. That delightful scene was excised from the modern version.

A rather ridiculous subplot has been added to this remake with a rival store, Shopper's Express, trying to put Cole's out of business (Macy's refused to have their name put in the film). It is headed by the popular 90's villain of choice, the Greedy Evil Mean CEO, Victor Landbergh. He doesn't play much of a role, yet he is supposed to be the encompassing bad guy, evoking images of Lex Luthor plotting the demise of Superman. He even has his own flunkies who attempt to sabotage the department store, skittering around almost like Boris and Natasha. This subplot tends to weigh down on the film, feeling forced in rather than meshing with the film. The pompous psychiatrist of the original works because it was simply one guy with a chip on his shoulder instead of a wicked retail overlord. The former is funny, while the latter is overkill.

Actually, that addresses another problem with this film - it takes its subject matter far too seriously. The original film was an enjoyable farce. This one is a somber story, filled with the right glurgy turns to renew our souls or something. Basically, it's way too serious considering the subject matter (an old guy who thinks he's really Santa Claus.) The original had some laugh out loud moments of sharp humor - this one instead attempts to force you to shed tears of sadness and joy. It usually just shed tears of boredom from me.

The court decision at the end of the film is not only anti-climactic, but doesn't really address the actual issue - Kris is on trial for lunacy. The only decision to save him is to prove he's REALLY Santa Claus, thus making him sane. This movie can't seem to make up its mind why he's on trial and its ultimate answer for Kris obvious acquittal would fall upon under the lightest of legal scrutiny, where the original film made a compelling legal argument. I can't answer that, but I will say that this film's answer is far off the mark. Please, I beg of you-if you have NOT seen the 1947 Black and White original, then please correct that. This is not an adequate substitute to a film that didn't need one in the first place. They even colorized the old one, so if you hate black and white, then you still have a color option without wasting your time on this.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Not too bad for a remake, 11 July 2004
Author: Chris Morrow (morrowman2) from Pickerington, Ohio

All in all this film was not too bad for a remake of the classic 1947 Miracle on 34th street. But it was interesting because the storyline had been changed a little bit. It could never replace the original film but then again most remakes are never as good the original films. This film was heartwarming and funny though. It is just that the story and focus was changed a little bit. I usually watch this film around Christmas time for a good holiday cheer!

---

5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Miracle on 34th Street, 23 December 2006

Author: Holly unknown from Australia

I think that this movie is a perfect excuse to watch a Christmas film. The movie teaches us about religion and believing, and i see nothing wrong with that. Mara Wilson is fantastic as the young Susan Walker. I feel that even though she is the smallest of the cast members, she leads them perfectly. If Chritmas films do nothing for you, then show it to your kids, because i am positive that they will love and cherish it. While some disagree, i would say that this movie was a great remake of the 1934 film. If this movie wasn't re-made i don't think i would of even heard of the original. I think the movie was in much need of a re-vamping so that younger people, like myself, would be able to addapt the movie more and to understand it a little bit better. I felt Richard Attenborough was a great Santa who was believable. I would recommend this movie 100%.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
a wonderful movie, 25 December 2008

Author: eljaykay1219 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I first saw the 1970's version of this on TV. I had not yet seen the 1947 version until after I saw this one. I liked all three versions but I really like this one the best. I usually don't like remakes because they tend to totally change the story or they just add some unnecessary dirty words, nudity, violence or sex scenes.

This remake was very good. I don't see why people are so against it. There are many versions of A Christmas Carol and yet few seem upset by that.

I liked the dollar bill evidence much more than the post office evidence near the end. I loved the scene in which the citizens of NY city showed their belief in Santa Claus. I also felt that the reason why Kris Kringle struck out at the man was much more realistic in this version than in others.

Maureen O'Hara is one of my favorite actors. ( yes the screen actors guild uses the term actor meaning "one who acts" for males and females. ) The 1947 version is well acted and charming. The 1994 version is a movie that stands on it's own and is delightful.

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history