Very well executed

From my favorite movies..

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

I didn't realize until I'd started watching this film that is isn't the one with Fred Gwinn as Kris Kringle and Maureen O'Hara as Doris. Still, I've no objection to a remake: but this movie has made a lot of changes that don't improve it, only make it worse. (Spoilers follow.)The original is in B&W; this one is color. That's better, I suppose, but sadly the lightheartedness of the original has been replaced by something much colder and harder. This shows in many ways: Kris Kringle's cane in the original is a simple wooden cane, not very heavy; its replacement in this one is a much fancier, heavier silver-headed cane. That wouldn't make much difference- unless someone was tapped on the head! This fancy cane could easily have killed someone, while the earlier version would have only delivered a harmless- though painful!- thump. The department stores in this version aren't merely competing, at least one is in deadly earnest; plots are hatched. The drunken Santa who Kris Kringle replaces isn't just a harmless drunk, he's an alcoholic with a mean streak who takes money and lies about his replacement. Everything in this film is just a bit nastier than in the original, and for a holiday film aimed at kids this isn't any improvement!The big scene in the courthouse is changed, again for the worse. Instead of thousands of letters addressed to Santa, dramatically delivered in the court, we have long dissertations about "In God We Trust" on our currency. Bleh.The ending of this film is painfully unbelievable, and leaves Santa out entirely. The scene where Fred & Doris get married, at night in an empty church, without telling Susan-? You've got to be kidding, right? Sadly not!This film isn't terribly bad, it just seems that way compared to the pure gold of the original. The acting is mediocre (except for Richard Attenborough, who was excellent- but his performance made the rest seem wooden.) There's nothing much really objectionable about this film, it's just been "sanitized" for modern progressive audiences. As a result, it doesn't hold a candle to the original.Accept no substitutes for the 1947 Miracle on 34th Street; because there really aren't any!

With so many people upset with the fact that they enjoyed the original and have been watching it on TV their whole lives, this remake should never have been made. Remember that the beloved one is also a remake. I agree that the former was superior, but like other holiday movies, isn't it fun that we try to update and try things differently? Think about something like "A Christmas Carol" which has had numerous incarnations. For me the Alistair Sim version still rests on top, but does that mean we shouldn't have Albert Finney's version or, especially, that of George C. Scott (quite well done). I know that actors and directors interpret things differently. We are in a different world now, and personalities are going to be different. There are still the trials and the usual naysayers and the tools of the government presented in their utter humorlessness. It isn't perfect but it's still worth watching. Also, I enjoyed watching Mara Wilson as the little girl.

Miracle on 34th Street is a good movie with a reasonably well developed plot and a great cast. It is a very sweet, heartfelt Christmas movie on which we follow a ton of controversy erupt after a man claims to be Santa Claus. Richard Attenborough shines as Kris Kringle himself, embodying the role significantly, he is quite possibly one of the most believable of any movie Santas, feeling close to the real thing, he was just as good, if not better, than Edmund Gwenn. In comparison to the original 1947 film, it simply is not as good, even John Hughes' writing presence could not help that. The magic and the Christmas atmosphere feels a lot more forced here, as newer movies simply are less subtle about getting a message across, and everything is very in your face here. Santa Claus is also not nearly as much developed as a character here, he is well established and his personality is brought tremendously in the original, however, he is a lot more two dimensional here. I not blaming Attenborough, but the writers for only giving the character cliché Santa dialogue.It shows that remakes always try too hard to be bigger and better than the original, which is often their biggest downfall. While its certainly flawed, the Christmas spirit is alive and well here, I would recommend Miracle on 34th Street to anyone looking for a good movie for the whole family to enjoy. A man who claims he is the real Santa Claus is forced to prove it in court. Best Performance: Richard Attenborough

Dylan McDermott (Mr. Gailey), Richard Attenborough (Kris Kringle), and Mara Wilson (the girl) are fine, but Elizabeth Perkins is miserable as Mrs. Walker, the girl's mom. She mumbles her lines with no intensity or feeling. Also, in the original there were some dramatic twists that were interesting and advanced the plot; here, all the twists are planned ahead of time and telegraphed to the audience. I liked the Walker girl watching the parade out of Mr. Gailey's window -- all the floats were (in color!) right there. And, Dylan McDermott does his best to be an engaging boyfriend wannabe, and Richard Attenborough tries to be a charismatic Santa, but the movie really falls flat with poor writing, poor acting by Elizabeth Perkins, and probably poor pacing, staging, and dramatic narrative by the director. Take a pass on this faux remake and go back to the original with great actors like Edmund Gwenn, Maureen O'Hara, and Natalie Wood, and a narrative that was actually dramati, real, and interesting.