Hitchcoc 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.

robert-259-28954 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.

Fred Morgan 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.

Armand for the presence of Richard Attenborough. or for charming performance of Robert Prosky. but not more. because it is difficult to do a good remake to a masterpiece. because the actualization of story is not really inspired. but, if you do not know the original, this is one of touching films. humor and Christmas spirit are perfect options for entertainment and for a evening with family.correct - the reference to Saint Nicholas is a good point -it has not magic of original. is it a sin ? not but the hope is always a virtue.. a love story, a girl and Santa in his entire splendor. same story about spirit of holiday, faith and miracle. a nice film, yes, it is a nice film. with few drops of deep beauty grace of extraordinary mister Attenborough