MovieChat Forums > Pollyanna (2004) Discussion > Hayley Mills version better

Hayley Mills version better

posted 20 years ago by Apophos
25 replies | jump to latest

This was just on cable TV. I thought I was going to see Hayley Mills version but instead got this new version with a lot of characters/actors I couldn't care less about.

To make a beautiful movie you have to have beautiful people playing the important roles. How many people would have gone to see Titanic if Steven Buscemi had played Jack. The new Railway Children version was magical because you cared for the characters and the actors/actresses that played them.

Call me shallow but if I can't 'connect' with the cast it puts me off the movie.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] velcronewsletter 19 years ago

the new version was truer to the book like when pollyanna was run over which is in the book, she didn't fall out of a tree. i think the hayley mills version is too sickly sweet and dated, while this one is a bit edgier

When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] UltimateJoolsFan 17 years ago

after seeing this version I can see the difference. While I'll still treasure the Hayley Mills version, it was a bit too sickly sweet, in the nicest way though. I do love the book though!

"It's not appropiate for royalty to jingle"

[–] velcronewsletter 17 years ago

i have to admit, i'm not sure i liked the hayley mills version so much. it was just too sickly sweet

------------------------
OOOOH MATRON!

[–] UltimateJoolsFan 17 years ago

now thast I can see the difference between the two, yes it is very sickly sweet. I'll still watch it when I feel like it though :D

"It's not appropiate for royalty to jingle"

[–] jetlag31 12 years ago

<<the new version was truer to the book like when pollyanna was run over which is in the book, she didn't fall out of a tree. i think the hayley mills version is too sickly sweet...>>

Don't you have that back to front?

By all accounts the book was much the more saccaharine. Taking out much of that saccahine was one of the ways the 1960 version diverged from the book yet made the story more acceptable to modern tastes. If the 2003 version is truer to book then it would seem to follow that they must have left much of the saccaharine in which David Swift (the screenwriter and director of the 1960s version) took out.

<<...and dated...>>

The 1960s version was set in 1912. Calling a film set in the past "dated" sounds kind of weird.

Does that mean that the 2003 version is set in 2003 (ie contemporary times, just as book came out in 1913, and thus set in the then present day)?

<<...while this one is a bit edgier>>

That is not necessarily a good thing. By all accounts it was Disney's demand for Pixar's "Toy Story" to have more "edge" which nearly ruined it. (And ditto for their "Rapunzel Unbraided" before it became "Tangled".)

[–] blainefielding 17 years ago

I like the 2003 version with Georgina Terry better. It is more sophisticated.

Btw,usually we Americans steal movies from the Brits. But here they stole an American story. I guess turnabout is fair play though.

Blaine in Seattle

[–] LadyAnne608 17 years ago

pollyanna is an american story?

[–] blainefielding 17 years ago

Yes, the original novel was by an American and set in America- as was the 1960 Hayley Mills movie version.

Btw, the novel was a best seller when it came out in 1913 and moved up to number 2 in 1914. The sequel was also a best seller in 1915.

Blaine in Seattle

[–] LadyAnne608 17 years ago

i think it's better with this movie's britainized version.

[–] UltimateJoolsFan 17 years ago

it was originally set in Vermont, USA, but I agree. It's much more interesting with British people. And generally speaking, they are less open about certain personal things, making the character of Polly very extreme in her closed-off-ness.

[–] LadyAnne608 17 years ago

i'll only watch this version.

[–] blainefielding 17 years ago

I agree this 2003 British version is much better. The Disney Hayley Mills version was aimed at a very young audience in the early 1960s. This one is more sophisticated, and its characters- not only Pollyanna herself- have more depth.

Blaine in Seattle

[–] WarrrEagle 15 years ago

This British version was very good. I especially liked the little girl who played Pollyanna. She was very likeable in a realistic/charming way.

The only part of the Disney version that I missed in this version was the transformation of Karl Malden as the preacher. Remember that scene where he preaches the "happy verses" of the Bible, and then urges everybody in his congregation to attend the carnival/fund-raiser? That doesn't happen in this version, which probably means it didn't happen in the book, either.

But it was still a great scene!

[–] gracie-of-rvale 14 years ago

i've seen three versions of pollyanna and read the book and am currently reading it's sequel and the 1970 made for tv version is the best one i've seen thats true to the book but it's an enetertaining movie. i must say i detest the hayley mills version its so sickly weet and disney and not true to the book at all!!! pollyanna was popular enough to be adapted becaus of the original plot i don't see why you should digress from it so far it's ruined.
i also feel the sequel should be adapted ;)

heartbreak high is coming back!! on the new channel abc3 sunday to friday 8:30 pm ;)

[–] rebekahrox 11 years ago

One of my favorite scenes in any movie is the one with Hayley Mills' Pollyanna and Karl Maldens' Rev. Ford in the field where he has the epiphany thanks to Pollyanna. That discussion of the happy verses and her own father's frustration with his congregation and reading the quote from her locket is just very moving. For me, as appealing as this BBC Pollyanna is and the quality of this production, nothing will match Hayley Mills portrayal or the movie as a whole, thanks in large part to her interaction with Reverend Ford, and also Agnes Morehead as Mrs. Snow. As a Child, it was so frightening when she fell out of that tree, and the scene where the whole town congregates at her home is unmatched. Pollyanna made Hayley Mills a star. Where is the actress who played the role in this production?

[–] laurence01 11 years ago

Pollyanna made Hayley Mills a star. Where is the actress who played the role in this production?

You might as well ask where is "Mara Wilson" now. Not every child actor makes it (or wants to make it) as an adult. You also have to remember that Hayley had very influential parents behind her.

Let Zygons Be Zygons.

[–] nick-cooper-1 9 years ago

This version wasn't made by the BBC. There are other networks in the UK.

[–] Sylvie17 14 years ago

I didn't think the cast of the Disney version was that much more attractive than the Masterpiece version, though they had more star power. I liked the new version better, though it was just as sweet, but seemed more real, and not so glossy.

[–] cookiela2001 13 years ago

Well, anything with Miranda Richardson in it is going to be miles better than a Hayley Mills movie! I can't bring myself to watch the Disney version, because I am diabetic and I'm sure I'll go into sugar shock!

The little girl who played the lead here was adorable.

[–] laurence01 11 years ago

Well, anything with Miranda Richardson in it is going to be miles better than a Hayley Mills movie! I can't bring myself to watch the Disney version, because I am diabetic and I'm sure I'll go into sugar shock!

Miranda Richardson is not in this.

Let Zygons Be Zygons.

[–] Fatal_When_Swallowed 10 years ago

I watched this British remake of Pollyanna by chance on BYU-TV tonight. I far prefer it to the sickly-sweet Haley Mills Disneyfied pap, which I've always despised. The only complaint I have about the UK film is that it ends too abruptly with a still-shot of Pollyanna. I'd rather have seen it conclude with Polly's complete wedding to the doctor! Aside from that small gripe, I enjoyed this version of Pollyanna very much. I would happily watch it again.

[–] vrmoen 10 years ago

The moment I turned to this version of Pollyanna I could tell immediately it came from the UK. It's sets are dull, the cast stiff, and the dialogue boring. Maybe viewers of today who like more "edgy" movies because Hollywood has inundated them with so much violence and immorality like this version or is it because it comes from the UK that they seem to sing its praises. Yes, I prefer Disney's version. Our children need to see the good in the world instead of trying to emulate all of the garbage on television and in the movies. Disney was an extraordinary story teller even though brainless people have blamed him for the stereotypical "Stepmother" that was in many movies. Stories that came from all over Europe, not of his creation. Or those who whine that certain characters degrade certain races. Those ideas only reside in the minds of those who are racists themselves and not in the movies. Value Disney's Pollyanna for good will and the positive lessons it promotes. If you like the stagnate performance in this updated version, more power to you, but don't denounce something you obviously couldn't comprehend in a million years.

[–] alien777 9 years ago

Well, the Disney version was very loosely bаsed on the book. (Which is true for most American films, I'm afraid) This one follows the plot a lot more accurately.