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.
36 Reviews
My favorite version of the movie
sburkett-44 January 2007
With all of the comments about this version not being the original acknowledged, this one is still my favorite version of the story.
Maybe its because I grew up with David Hartman on Good Morning America and in all those sappy commercials....or maybe its because I have always been a fan of Sebastian Cabot.
Regardless, the update did a good job of bringing the story into the '70s and, even 30 years later, I find it comforting on the very rare occasion that it is shown during the Christmas season....Sebastian Cabot is fine throughout, and the updated setting, while not outshining the original, at least makes us feel like we could have been there.
So, I wouldn't place it in my "top 10" list of movies, or even consider it any kind of competition with the original.
But it does have its own, somewhat subdued, charm, and its always a pleasure to see Cabot in one of his later roles.
Maybe its because I grew up with David Hartman on Good Morning America and in all those sappy commercials....or maybe its because I have always been a fan of Sebastian Cabot.
Regardless, the update did a good job of bringing the story into the '70s and, even 30 years later, I find it comforting on the very rare occasion that it is shown during the Christmas season....Sebastian Cabot is fine throughout, and the updated setting, while not outshining the original, at least makes us feel like we could have been there.
So, I wouldn't place it in my "top 10" list of movies, or even consider it any kind of competition with the original.
But it does have its own, somewhat subdued, charm, and its always a pleasure to see Cabot in one of his later roles.
Nothing beats '47, but this is a decent remake
BatStarIndyFreak26 November 2014
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.
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.
Fun to Watch
Christmas-Reviewer27 August 2017
BEWARE OF FALSE REVIEWS & REVIEWERS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW TO THEIR NAME. NOW WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MOVIE. IF ITS A NEGATIVE REVIEW THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST THE FILM . NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 300 HOLIDAY FILMS & SPECIALS. I HAVE NO AGENDA.
A department store Santa (Sebastian Cabot) hired by divorced mother Karen (Jane Alexander) tells Karen's daughter, Susan (Suzanne Davidson), that he is the real Kris Kringle. He also sends children to the store's competitors for lower prices. When a psychiatrist (Roddy McDowall) employed by the store questions Kringle's sanity and ends up committing him to an asylum, Karen's attorney friend Bill (David Hartman) seeks to free Kringle by proving in the courtroom that he's really Santa Claus.
This is nice production of the often told tale. There has been it least 3 television productions and 2 theatrical films that I am aware of. This production is good but the treat is seeing all the old familiar faces. The casting of this film makes the whole film worth watching!
A department store Santa (Sebastian Cabot) hired by divorced mother Karen (Jane Alexander) tells Karen's daughter, Susan (Suzanne Davidson), that he is the real Kris Kringle. He also sends children to the store's competitors for lower prices. When a psychiatrist (Roddy McDowall) employed by the store questions Kringle's sanity and ends up committing him to an asylum, Karen's attorney friend Bill (David Hartman) seeks to free Kringle by proving in the courtroom that he's really Santa Claus.
This is nice production of the often told tale. There has been it least 3 television productions and 2 theatrical films that I am aware of. This production is good but the treat is seeing all the old familiar faces. The casting of this film makes the whole film worth watching!
why not a set
nursemaggy-130 November 2008
Mirricle is my favorite Christmas movie, the 1974 version i think is my least favorite but i have only seen it once a very long time ago. I just wish there was a set I could buy with all the versions on it, because sometimes I wish I could watch them all back to back. Just a thought corporate America PUT OUT A BOXED SET!!!!!!!! All of the versions have their strong suits. The original is the most widely recognized and beautifully written and I believe most everyones favorite, but I have never even seen the fifties TV version, and I would like that opportunity. The 74 version has some nostalgia for the people who saw it when they were little, and the most recent version is easier for small children to identify with. It would even be nice if they could have a version of the Broadway play but I doubt there are any copies of it running around.
Whatever happened to Mr. French?
mark.waltz14 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The popular British character actor, Sebastian Cabot, from the sappy family sitcom "Family Affair", was the Mr. Belvedere of the late 1960's long before the TV Mr. Belvedere, and starred in the TV remake of the 1947 classic which I didn't see until years after seeing this version as a kid. There has been several TV versions prior to this as well, available in public domain prints from TV anthology shows, and a more recent big screen version that isn't bad but no rival to the original. I can say the same about this version, seeing it years later after it's original TV broadcast, but I can also say that this version is quite good even if it has a lot of the cliches of TV movies of the time including those predictable fade outs before the film went to a commercial.
While a great actress, Jane Alexander does not have the sparkle of Maureen O'Hara in the original version, and she honestly doesn't have as much to do as O'Hara did. Suzanne davidson, who would go on to play Betsy Stewart on "As the World Turns" for nearly a decade prior to Meg Ryan, plays the Natalie Wood role in this and she is as cute as a button, doing exactly what the role requires and coming off quite satisfactorily. Roddy McDowell has the key supporting role as the antagonist, the Macy's psychiatrist determined to prove that Cabot is a nutcase for believing that he's the real Kris Kringle, and in major supporting roles are David Hartman, Jim Backus, a very broad David Doyle (as Macy), Tom Bosley, Conrad Janis, James Gregory, Roland Winters (as Gimbel) and the unknown Barry Greenburg, who is very touching as the Macy's janitor who becomes one of Kris's biggest supporters.
All of these actors contribute greatly to the film, especially Greenburg, but it is Cabot who walks off with the film, so perfect as Kris with his black beard dyed white, filled with warmth and feistiness and commanding every scene as if he was guiding the sleigh through the air. The only issue that I can find with the film on its own is that it does seem like a generic TV movie, but there is still magic in it in spite of typical TV movie cliches and patterns. Vintage New York locations opens this film deliciously on Thanksgiving Day with the Macy's Parade as Cabot walks confidently down the street to judge everything that represents who he is. So this may not be a perfect remake, but at 50, it's certainly better than a lot younger TV movies about the holidays because it has something much more important than what those films offer. It has heart.
While a great actress, Jane Alexander does not have the sparkle of Maureen O'Hara in the original version, and she honestly doesn't have as much to do as O'Hara did. Suzanne davidson, who would go on to play Betsy Stewart on "As the World Turns" for nearly a decade prior to Meg Ryan, plays the Natalie Wood role in this and she is as cute as a button, doing exactly what the role requires and coming off quite satisfactorily. Roddy McDowell has the key supporting role as the antagonist, the Macy's psychiatrist determined to prove that Cabot is a nutcase for believing that he's the real Kris Kringle, and in major supporting roles are David Hartman, Jim Backus, a very broad David Doyle (as Macy), Tom Bosley, Conrad Janis, James Gregory, Roland Winters (as Gimbel) and the unknown Barry Greenburg, who is very touching as the Macy's janitor who becomes one of Kris's biggest supporters.
All of these actors contribute greatly to the film, especially Greenburg, but it is Cabot who walks off with the film, so perfect as Kris with his black beard dyed white, filled with warmth and feistiness and commanding every scene as if he was guiding the sleigh through the air. The only issue that I can find with the film on its own is that it does seem like a generic TV movie, but there is still magic in it in spite of typical TV movie cliches and patterns. Vintage New York locations opens this film deliciously on Thanksgiving Day with the Macy's Parade as Cabot walks confidently down the street to judge everything that represents who he is. So this may not be a perfect remake, but at 50, it's certainly better than a lot younger TV movies about the holidays because it has something much more important than what those films offer. It has heart.
Christmas catastrophe...
moonspinner5516 April 2009
That old rivalry between Macy's and Gimbel's rages on! Allegedly a Christmas fantasy with comic and romantic trimmings, this TV-made remake of the 1947 holiday perennial turns sour mighty quickly, probing into the psychological ramifications of a department store Santa Claus who believes he is, in fact, Kris Kringle. Sebastian Cabot would appear to be a great choice to replace Edmund Gwenn in the leading role, but director Fielder Cook never allows Cabot a magical moment, keeping the camera at a distance from him--and worse, keeping Kris in a perpetually combative mood. The romance initiated between hard-working single mom Jane Alexander and attorney David Hartman by Alexander's brainy daughter doesn't work, either; young Suzanne Davidson, playing a walking encyclopedia, is full of forced cuteness and unnatural sparkle. When Davidson spies Santa Cabot speaking Spanish to a little girl, she reacts as if she's seen a miracle, dropping her mouth open mechanically. In updating Valentine Davies' original story, I guess having Santa speak any other foreign language but Spanish was considered too outlandish. Yet, that's precisely the problem with this woebegone version: it hasn't an ounce of genuine wonderment or Christmas spirit.
Doesn't hold a whisker to the original.
gbrumburgh22 March 2001
Earnest but hardly spirited TV update of the 1947 classic with Jane Alexander, David Hartman and Sebastian Cabot reprising the Maureen O'Hara, John Payne and Edmund Gwenn (Oscar winner) roles, and failing to warm the cockles of our old-fashioned hearts the way the original did. The '47 version had real bite amidst the holiday hokum; this one plays it safe and only nips. I say, you better have big, big ideas if you're gonna challenge a classic. Holiday sentimentalism ain't the kind of drawing power it used to be.
For starters, this 1974 effort makes a fatal mistake in trying to recapture the whimsy of its predecessor, which was a product of its times. Admirable maybe, but now it comes off stilted and dated. And then there are the performances...
Alexander and Hartman fail to register the same kind of romantic chemistry as O'Hara and Payne, the delightfully subtle games played by our original pair are just too pat here. The characters have less friction and are softer around the edges, making them more obvious and less interesting.
Hefty Sebastian Cabot has all the makings of a great Santa Claus, but compared with the twinkle-eyed magic of Edmund Gwenn, well, you find yourself having those nagging doubts all over again. I mean, Gwenn really WAS Kris Kringle; Cabot comes off like a Gimbel's store-front imitation.
Lastly, Suzanne Davidson doesn't hold a candle to darling Natalie Wood. The feisty Wood showed a hard-edged maturity and intelligence far beyond her age. Davidson captures none of the precocious cynicism necessary to pull of this difficult role.
In all, a game try, but still a lump of coal...with the 1994 remake hardly an improvement. If these two versions are all that's offered come Christmas time, may I suggest adding a little extra "nog" to your egg nog before settling in?
For starters, this 1974 effort makes a fatal mistake in trying to recapture the whimsy of its predecessor, which was a product of its times. Admirable maybe, but now it comes off stilted and dated. And then there are the performances...
Alexander and Hartman fail to register the same kind of romantic chemistry as O'Hara and Payne, the delightfully subtle games played by our original pair are just too pat here. The characters have less friction and are softer around the edges, making them more obvious and less interesting.
Hefty Sebastian Cabot has all the makings of a great Santa Claus, but compared with the twinkle-eyed magic of Edmund Gwenn, well, you find yourself having those nagging doubts all over again. I mean, Gwenn really WAS Kris Kringle; Cabot comes off like a Gimbel's store-front imitation.
Lastly, Suzanne Davidson doesn't hold a candle to darling Natalie Wood. The feisty Wood showed a hard-edged maturity and intelligence far beyond her age. Davidson captures none of the precocious cynicism necessary to pull of this difficult role.
In all, a game try, but still a lump of coal...with the 1994 remake hardly an improvement. If these two versions are all that's offered come Christmas time, may I suggest adding a little extra "nog" to your egg nog before settling in?
Bad remake but not a waste of time
Maestro-1523 December 2007
I will underscore what has been said here on this 1974 remake of the 1947 Classic. The 1947 was such an original classic with wonderful performances by all the leads and supporting. Here Sebastian Cabot is probably the best choice to play the Santa but just cant compare to Edmund Gwenn's twinkle in the eyes..First the Miracle song in the Main title appears so "hokey" today but it does set the tone for the rest of the movie. The film in general does a credible job in updating the story for the 1970's but it has an impossible task to overcome as the world has changed and we have grown even more cynical of the Santa Claus story. I recommend it for curiosity only and I suppose there is a reason why this version hasn't really survived in the collective memory of repeated television broadcasts.
I saw this production in the making and that's why I like it
ronyo924 June 2010
I worked on this made-for-TV-movie as a set dresser back in 1973. It was my first job as a returning Vietnam war era veteran. The art director was a woman named Jan Scott who offered me more work as Set dresser but I chose to attend college on the GI bill as an art major, with the eventual goal of teaching art, though I did continue to work on a few more film projects on occasion.
What is very noteworthy about this production was that the majority of the crew had just finished Martin Scorcese's "Mean Streets" and many of the locations used to film Mean Streets, most notably the Green Hotel in Pasedena, were used to film Miracle. In retrospect it's funny to think about how so many who had worked with Scorsese all thought that while he was a fairly good director, he was such a neurotic quirky sort that he probably wouldn't last long in the business and also no one seemed to think much of Mean Streets as a finished product. Most did, however, have a high opinion of De Niro's acting ability.
Fielder Cook the director, was an early Hollywood television pioneer having directed episodes of Playhouse 90 and many other early TV productions. He was also quite the colorful character and well-liked by the crew. The two other people who impressed me were actors Roddy McDowell and Sebastion Cabot. Cabot, for his acting ability and McDowell Because after the project was wrapped he personally and quite sincerely thanked every crew member for a job well done.
I was so impressed by Cabot's portrayal of Kris Kringle that as a college student, during Christmas vacation I got a job as a Department store Santa at a somewhat upscale large retail establishment in L.A. and played the "role" of Santa Claus much the way Cabot did and put on makeup for every "performance".
On one occasion where there was a crowd of people waiting to bring their children up to sit on my lap and be photographed by my attractive young female "elves" I noticed a distinguished looking and portly white-haired older gentleman standing in the back of the crowd watching who I swear to God, MUST have been the Real Santa.
What is very noteworthy about this production was that the majority of the crew had just finished Martin Scorcese's "Mean Streets" and many of the locations used to film Mean Streets, most notably the Green Hotel in Pasedena, were used to film Miracle. In retrospect it's funny to think about how so many who had worked with Scorsese all thought that while he was a fairly good director, he was such a neurotic quirky sort that he probably wouldn't last long in the business and also no one seemed to think much of Mean Streets as a finished product. Most did, however, have a high opinion of De Niro's acting ability.
Fielder Cook the director, was an early Hollywood television pioneer having directed episodes of Playhouse 90 and many other early TV productions. He was also quite the colorful character and well-liked by the crew. The two other people who impressed me were actors Roddy McDowell and Sebastion Cabot. Cabot, for his acting ability and McDowell Because after the project was wrapped he personally and quite sincerely thanked every crew member for a job well done.
I was so impressed by Cabot's portrayal of Kris Kringle that as a college student, during Christmas vacation I got a job as a Department store Santa at a somewhat upscale large retail establishment in L.A. and played the "role" of Santa Claus much the way Cabot did and put on makeup for every "performance".
On one occasion where there was a crowd of people waiting to bring their children up to sit on my lap and be photographed by my attractive young female "elves" I noticed a distinguished looking and portly white-haired older gentleman standing in the back of the crowd watching who I swear to God, MUST have been the Real Santa.
Did they have the script pages upside down or what?
tkarlmann26 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I give this movie 5 stars for trying to adhere to the Original. Ask yourselves, did any of these actors or the director, etc. ever SEE the original? I highly doubt it. Much of the heart, warmth, charm, and finesse or the original film of 1947 are gone. What we are left with are actors repeating lines.
Where was the son of the Prosecuting attorney? Where were all the courtroom spectators? Where was the identification of the Judge's 'advisor' as a politician? Where was the emphazima machine?
Admittedly, one of my personal thrills comes in seeing a brand-new 1947-vintage X-Ray machine! There are a few other glimpses into 1947 from the original that are lost in this film. What do we get in return? Color film.
Are we unable to even remake an older film without screwing it up?
This version of "Miracle..." lacks heart.
Miracle on 34th Street (1973) BOMB
JoeKarlosi12 December 2007
I love the original 1947 film and I just despised this totally needless made-for-TV rehash. Sort of fitting to have Sebastian Cabot as Kris Kringle (but he can't match the delight of Edmund Gwenn), and I always like an appearance by Roddy McDowall (trying his best here to little avail as the psychiatrist)... but Jane Alexander and TV personality David Hartman were just TERRIBLE as the bland leads. Same holds true for the boring young actress who plays the crucial role of little Susan (that being the rather plain Suzanne Davidson). These three dead weights can't hold a candle to the original's Maureen O'Hara, John Payne and Natalie Wood. Elements of the original classic are just covered routinely out of obligation, and this is one boring and non-festive experience which doesn't even feel like Christmas much of the time. 0 out of ****
What was the point in making this film?
mjmmjmone14 December 2019
Pretty much a word for word remake of the earlier version but changed to make it down to the smallest budget possible. - Closed court so no need to pay extras to appear as the public or press, no "public" required outside the court to react to the verdict so no props required to show support for Santa and an unfurnished house at the end to help pinch every penny. There really was no point in making this other than to show how badly something could be done - 1 star is 1 more than it's worth
Close to the original but very bland
lippy-829 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I had the opportunity to watch this version on You tube The only thing I can say about the movie that is good is that it is closer to the original than the Richard Attenborough one It was very bland No emotions No suspense No drama Even the court case was dead No public While it has its merits I still prefer the original It might have been made in black and white but the best sumation of the 1947 version is the comments made at the end of that movie with the director talking to some of the actors to get a review about the movie That movie had it all Romance Love Tenderness Drama Suspense This version AND the Attenborough version don't come a patch up to the original In fact I would even downgrade my rating of this movie from a 4 to a 2 The Attenborough one to a 1
Streamlined version of the 1947 Classic, but reasonably good
theowinthrop7 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this last night on television for the first time (I did not see it when it came out in 1973). It sticks to the basics of the story: a jolly, fat old man named Kris Kringle (now Sebastian Cabot) is hired by Karen Walker (now Jane Alexander) to replace a drunken Santa Clause at the Thanksgiving Day Parade that Macy's throws. Kringle proves such a wonderful Santa that Mr. Macy (David Doyle) hires him for the season. He soon becomes a fixture in the Department Store by his fresh honesty that brings in customers. He also becomes a fixture in the lives of Karen and her daughter Susan (Susan Davidson) and her neighbor Bill Schaffner (David Hartman), encouraging Susan to rid herself of the mother-imposed controls on her imagination and childhood spirit, and encouraging Bill and Karen to get together. The fly in the ointment is the skeptical reaction of Dr. Henry Sawyer (Roddy MacDonald here) who is certain that Kris must be a mental case, as he openly claims he is Santa Clause. Eventually all is led to an insanity hearing before a politically active Judge (here Tom Bosley) with the prosecution led by the District Attorney (James Gregory here). The results are the same as in the original film.
Familiarity supposedly breeds contempt, but here it was accepted that the audience knew the story (most audiences are aware of all the best stories connected to Christmas that have been made into films). The results is the film is still good, even if some of the edge and drive of the 1947 version are lost. For example, a definite highpoint of the original was William Frawley's funny speech of warning to Judge Gene Lockhart to be extremely careful about handling the insanity hearing. Frawley looked and spoke like the old time political pro he is supposed to be, and delivers the speech with a chirping little smile that the audience appreciates and cheers on. That speech has been dropped here, and while Jason Wingreen (best recalled as "Harry" the bartender on ALL IN THE FAMILY and ARCHIE BUNKER'S PLACE) is fine he has no really good replacement speech.
Certain characters seem wasted. Karen's assistant is played by Jim Backus, but he is never given any really memorable bit of business his comic and acting abilities deserve. The hearing is a closed one, and it lacks the noise and publicity the original film gave (which added to the pressures on Lockhart and the D.A. in that film, Jerome Cowan). Roland Winters is in this film as Mr. Gimble, and has one good scene besting his rival for publicity. But the character also ended up in the 1947 version testifying (as does Mr. Macy) at the hearing.
The biggest change (and a flawed one) is Dr. Sawyer. In the original it was Porter Hall, who really had no right to call himself a doctor, as he was not a real therapist (he just fell into the job at Macy's). He is a spiteful, despicable little worm, who eventually finds that his own actions get out of hand and ruin him. Here MacDowell is shading the character a bit. He actually is a psychiatrist, and he does believe that Cabot is off the wall, but he is also angry at Cabot's contempt for him and humiliating him in public. Something could have been rewritten to allow him to come around to seeing Cabot was right (if rewriting was part of the plans of the production).
Still for all these changes or deletions, as I said the film holds up well, and the cast gives it their all. So as far as remakes go it is a good one, and worth watching.
Familiarity supposedly breeds contempt, but here it was accepted that the audience knew the story (most audiences are aware of all the best stories connected to Christmas that have been made into films). The results is the film is still good, even if some of the edge and drive of the 1947 version are lost. For example, a definite highpoint of the original was William Frawley's funny speech of warning to Judge Gene Lockhart to be extremely careful about handling the insanity hearing. Frawley looked and spoke like the old time political pro he is supposed to be, and delivers the speech with a chirping little smile that the audience appreciates and cheers on. That speech has been dropped here, and while Jason Wingreen (best recalled as "Harry" the bartender on ALL IN THE FAMILY and ARCHIE BUNKER'S PLACE) is fine he has no really good replacement speech.
Certain characters seem wasted. Karen's assistant is played by Jim Backus, but he is never given any really memorable bit of business his comic and acting abilities deserve. The hearing is a closed one, and it lacks the noise and publicity the original film gave (which added to the pressures on Lockhart and the D.A. in that film, Jerome Cowan). Roland Winters is in this film as Mr. Gimble, and has one good scene besting his rival for publicity. But the character also ended up in the 1947 version testifying (as does Mr. Macy) at the hearing.
The biggest change (and a flawed one) is Dr. Sawyer. In the original it was Porter Hall, who really had no right to call himself a doctor, as he was not a real therapist (he just fell into the job at Macy's). He is a spiteful, despicable little worm, who eventually finds that his own actions get out of hand and ruin him. Here MacDowell is shading the character a bit. He actually is a psychiatrist, and he does believe that Cabot is off the wall, but he is also angry at Cabot's contempt for him and humiliating him in public. Something could have been rewritten to allow him to come around to seeing Cabot was right (if rewriting was part of the plans of the production).
Still for all these changes or deletions, as I said the film holds up well, and the cast gives it their all. So as far as remakes go it is a good one, and worth watching.
Could not get into it at all
atinder16 November 2014
Miracle On 34th Street 1973
I have seen the other two movies, never saw this movie before l , this was not as good as the original or 1994 remake
I just could not get into this movie at all, This movie was missing something, I can not put my finger on it!
I just didn't enjoy it, while i was watching, it took me while to get into the movie, as most of the movie scene from scene remake but scenes felt empty and still
the acting was okay from the cast
4/10
I have seen the other two movies, never saw this movie before l , this was not as good as the original or 1994 remake
I just could not get into this movie at all, This movie was missing something, I can not put my finger on it!
I just didn't enjoy it, while i was watching, it took me while to get into the movie, as most of the movie scene from scene remake but scenes felt empty and still
the acting was okay from the cast
4/10
The 70s and 34th Street Do Not Mix Well
eddielouie-117 December 2022
This attempt to update/remake/refresh the film for 1973 ultimately fails despite a spirited attempt.
I find the PROS to be 1) the full integration of Macy's which gives it authenticity 2) the on-location filming in NYC, 3) I like Suzanne Davidson who played Susan 4) some other casting such as Tom Bosley as the Judge and James Gregory as the DA.
But there are many more CONS including 1) David Hartman and Jane Alexander who lack any spark and are just boring here 2) Sebastian Cabot ultimately has not enough charm to win over viewers 3) David Doyle and Jim Backus were miscast - they should have played each other's role - Backus as RH Macy and Doyle as Shellhammer, 4) the goofy musical numbers 5) the lack of spectators in the court room - likely to save on budget for extras 6) the post office climax scenes are clumsily and hastily executed and Hartman does a poor job especially "solving the case". 7) NYC in 1973 just feels worn down and not Christmasy no matter how it is filmed.
This is for the die-hard 34th street enthusiast only.
I find the PROS to be 1) the full integration of Macy's which gives it authenticity 2) the on-location filming in NYC, 3) I like Suzanne Davidson who played Susan 4) some other casting such as Tom Bosley as the Judge and James Gregory as the DA.
But there are many more CONS including 1) David Hartman and Jane Alexander who lack any spark and are just boring here 2) Sebastian Cabot ultimately has not enough charm to win over viewers 3) David Doyle and Jim Backus were miscast - they should have played each other's role - Backus as RH Macy and Doyle as Shellhammer, 4) the goofy musical numbers 5) the lack of spectators in the court room - likely to save on budget for extras 6) the post office climax scenes are clumsily and hastily executed and Hartman does a poor job especially "solving the case". 7) NYC in 1973 just feels worn down and not Christmasy no matter how it is filmed.
This is for the die-hard 34th street enthusiast only.
Don't be drawn in to it, it's awful!
adamjohns-4257514 December 2021
Who knows why they decided to make this terrible version, that doesn't even fully follow the original storyline, when the original 1947 version is still so good? They certainly haven't added anything to what was a good story, but is now tainted with such terrible acting and over the top performances, especially from Mr Macy. Even the film quality is poor and it's rushed. The ending isn't even right, as if they ran out of money to finish it properly.
Kris Kringle himself shines out as a beacon of what the film should be, delivering a Saint Nick similar to that of Edmund Gwenn and later Richard Attenborough, but he is surrounded by a bevy of awful and somewhat strange actors, not to mention strange choices for their roles.
The worst crime here is the character of Bill, who is not the charming and sophisticated lawyer we've come to expect from Dillon McDermott (1994 Version) and John Payne (1947) and he is certainly not the hottie that these fellas are/were.
Karen Walker (Alas not the one from 'Will & Grace', which would have at least made it interesting) the mother figure was adequate enough, but it didn't really give her any focus, as it should have done.
The worst offence overall however though is the so called actor Roddy MacDowell, I have never understood why he is so reputed and this film has not improved my opinion of him. He's not acting he's just being him and it's not a nice character either.
I only watched it all the way through, because I know I like the story, having watched at least one of the other versions every year when the season arrives, but I was furious when the ending came and they couldn't be bothered to deliver it properly. I winds me up so much that film producers and directors don't give the stories the truth they deserve.
Films like 'Star Trek' (2009) and 'Rogue One' (2016) are great because they are obviously made by fans that want to deliver something worth making.
With this film I wonder if they'd even read the script or seen the original film before they started recording.
107.75/1000.
Kris Kringle himself shines out as a beacon of what the film should be, delivering a Saint Nick similar to that of Edmund Gwenn and later Richard Attenborough, but he is surrounded by a bevy of awful and somewhat strange actors, not to mention strange choices for their roles.
The worst crime here is the character of Bill, who is not the charming and sophisticated lawyer we've come to expect from Dillon McDermott (1994 Version) and John Payne (1947) and he is certainly not the hottie that these fellas are/were.
Karen Walker (Alas not the one from 'Will & Grace', which would have at least made it interesting) the mother figure was adequate enough, but it didn't really give her any focus, as it should have done.
The worst offence overall however though is the so called actor Roddy MacDowell, I have never understood why he is so reputed and this film has not improved my opinion of him. He's not acting he's just being him and it's not a nice character either.
I only watched it all the way through, because I know I like the story, having watched at least one of the other versions every year when the season arrives, but I was furious when the ending came and they couldn't be bothered to deliver it properly. I winds me up so much that film producers and directors don't give the stories the truth they deserve.
Films like 'Star Trek' (2009) and 'Rogue One' (2016) are great because they are obviously made by fans that want to deliver something worth making.
With this film I wonder if they'd even read the script or seen the original film before they started recording.
107.75/1000.
No miracles
dlfagan8 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Except for his interaction with the staff psychologist, Sebastian Cabot seemed an affable enough Santa Claus, but the writers removed any hint of magic from his portrayal of Kris Kringle. Speaking Spanish wasn't nearly as surprising as speaking Dutch, and the possibly divinely-inspired intervention by the post office was changed into a ruse by Bill, his lawyer (David Hartman). Given Kringle's condescension towards Dr Sawyer (Roddy McDowall), I almost didn't blame Sawyer for taunting the old man.
The little girl was cute, but not a great actress. Jane Alexander must have had a no touching clause in her contract because Karen's romance with Bill was hard to discern. At the end when he proposed, she sort of nodded while they were standing at least three feet apart - which made for a clumsy ending.
Of the supporting cast, Jim Backus was almost invisible, McDowell was fun to watch as always, the actor playing Alfred seemed more like Quasimodo at first, David Doyle played Mr Macy like Scrooge, and Tom Bosley was fairly humorous as the harried judge. The DA and the old pol were very minor characters in this version.
The little girl was cute, but not a great actress. Jane Alexander must have had a no touching clause in her contract because Karen's romance with Bill was hard to discern. At the end when he proposed, she sort of nodded while they were standing at least three feet apart - which made for a clumsy ending.
Of the supporting cast, Jim Backus was almost invisible, McDowell was fun to watch as always, the actor playing Alfred seemed more like Quasimodo at first, David Doyle played Mr Macy like Scrooge, and Tom Bosley was fairly humorous as the harried judge. The DA and the old pol were very minor characters in this version.
Not Original but Good!
AbeStreet12 November 2001
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 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.
Very good
vchimpanzee22 January 2009
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.
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.
Miracle on 34th Street
jboothmillard31 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I had seen the original 1947 Oscar winning Edmund Gwenn version, and the more recognised 1994 Lord Sir Richard Attenborough version, but I had no idea there was another one, until I saw it broadcast, so I watched to see what I'd think. Basically the actor playing Santa Claus for Macy's Department Store Thanksgiving Day parade is found drunk, so parade director Karen Walker (Jane Alexander) persuades the bearded man who found him, Kris Kringle (The Jungle Book's Sebastian Cabot) to take his place. Kris proves to be a sensation with the public, and is quickly recruited to work in the Macy's store store on 34th Street to play Santa for the holiday period. What gives the store really good business is that they market the fact that Kris is telling customers where to find toys, including at better prices, and he is really enlightening everyone's spirits, including Karen's own daughter Susan (Suzanne Davidson), who is intelligent but cynical to beliefs and fantasy. The store's incompetent psychiatrist Dr. Sawyer (Roddy McDowall), is hired take Kris on a case study, but they only become enemies in the process, he eventually provokes Kris and causes him to react in the a way that will cause him to taken to Bellevue for tests, and he awaits a trial to prove his sanity. Karen's friend and neighbour Bill Schafner (David Hartman), agrees to help Kris, not just to defend him for his freedom and sanity, but unbelievably by proving he is the real, and the one and only Santa Claus! It is going to take a miracle for Kris to win, but thankfully they find something that clearly proves his identity, hundreds of letters addressed to "Santa Claus", all given to Kris at Christmas, they win the case, and in the end, Susan gets the present she always wanted for Christmas, a new house. Also starring Jim Backus as Shellhammer, David Doyle as R.H. Macy, Tom Bosley as Judge Harper and Roland Winters as Mr. Gimbel. Cabot is likable as the man who may in fact be the real Santa, although I was distracted closing my eyes and imagining his voice with Bagheera the panther or the Narrator in Winnie the Pooh, the rest of the cast, apart from perhaps McDowall, aren't really worth mentioning, the story is pretty much the same as the original film, but you can tell it is made for TV, it has a predictable script, and it doesn't have any charm or pizazz, stick with the 1947 and 1994 versions, it is a fairly terrible remake seasonal family film. Adequate!
Watched for the first time in 50 years
VetteRanger20 December 2023
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.
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.
House
safenoe6 December 2021
I saw this ages ago and it was entertaining kind of at the time. Jane Alexander stars in this, and more than 30 years later she starred in the HBO series Tell me you love me which is such a contrast to Miracle on 34th Street. The materialism of house and happiness is someone simplistic for a kid, and a reboot would be quite relevant. Perhaps having an apartment as Santa's gift would be more apt.
Excellent Remake!
mistymountain19 December 2006
OK, this version was kind of lost in the shuffle when the 1994 (gasp, another one!) remake made its way to cable TV. So now these days you have your choice of the original 1947 B&W version with Maureen O'Hara or the 1994 remake with cute little Mara Wilson (Mrs. Doubtfire). What about the 1973 version?? Isn't that good enough to show on TV??? I grew up watching the 1973 version on Thanksgiving in the 1970s. The cast was definitely all-star. Sebastian Cabot (Mr. French on "Family Affair") was excellent as Kris Kringle. Jane Alexander was great as Karen Walker, the single mom, and David Hartman (former host of Good Morning America)was so-so of an actor as the attorney. Tom Bosley (Mr. Cunningham on "Happy Days") and David Doyle (Bosley on "Charlie's Angels") were both pretty good. This was kind of like a 1970s updated version of the 1947 movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
