Normally, I prefer the original film to a later release, particularily when the latter is a made-for-television effort.
This film is indeed the opposite.
Cynthia Gibb, David Elliot, and little Curtis Blanck were a perfect chemistry for a heart-felt holiday film.
I love this picture so very much, and hope it will soon receive a proper dvd release.
["It’s never too late to do the right thing."]
Obviously you havenever seen the original with Janet Leigh and Robert Mitchum. Also Harry Morgan puts in a wonderful performance as the Judge, What a movie. It may be dated but very good. One of my main problems with the remake was that it did not seem to know what time frame they wanted to be in. Her boyfriend was wearing a forties type hat and Timmie was dressed fifties. Jody could have been in any time frame. The in-laws put in a very dull performance.
shareI have seen both films, and this is the basis for creating this topic/thread.
Giving credit to the first film, Janet Leigh far outshined Cynthia Gibb. But Mitchum's performance in the original was just never a believable role (to me). Perhaps those of us who have seen him in so many villain roles, (i.e. "Night of the Hunter"), find it difficult to believe he could be this type of character in a film such as "Holiday Affair". Very few actors are capable of playing a villain in one film, then a star in the next.... and do it with regularity. Some do not receive credit for this, but current actors such as Kevin Bacon and William H. Macy are very capable of such.
Not withstanding the obvious clothing/costume issues in the tv version, I do believe the character of young Timmie was ten times more believable than the youngster in the original version. Having viewed the original a few times, it seems he was merely a child actor cast in another role, and was there to be seen but not really a major part of the film. But the youngster in the 1996 version was extremely believable, and in fact very good. Examples of this are when he is ordered by his mother to say "Good night Paul", and the boy unwillingly does so. It is so believable, and he is just as much a part of the film as any of the three major adult actors.
I disagree with the characters of Paul's parents. To me, they were quite good in the 1996 version. However, giving credit to your remark about Harry Morgan, it is difficult to imagine any actor being a better and more comic judge than him. It seems he played a hilarious judge in one of James Garner's "Support Your Local...." films, but perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.
Nevertheless, I hold fast to my belief that the 1996 version of "HOLIDAY AFFAIR" is superior to its predecessor. Also giving credit to the fact that the latter release is a made-for-tv effort, I take this into consideration because films such as this rarely use top ranked or in-the-prime-of-their-career actors, and in this vein I believe the 1996 release of this classic film is indeed a gem.
And finally, I digress.
["It’s never too late to do the right thing."]
The original was made for TV also.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/review-central/index.jsp
[deleted]
I liked it. Even though it is a remake. I don't mind remakes as long as they stick as close as possible to the original. This movie did. I know some things have to be changed for updated reasons, and they were, but the basis of the story was the same.
Great holiday film.
I love it. I've never seen the original.
share