It Happened One Christmas (1977 TV Movie) User Reviews (61)

Weird enough to merit showing and DVD release

[activist_art · 5/10 · 27 November 2007]

I saw "It Happened One Christmas" in about 1978, I think on Christmas Eve, while sitting alone waiting for my wife to get off work and join me for the holiday. I hadn't seen Marlo Thomas since the original airing of "That Girl" in the '60s. It was wierdly fun to see her on something, and I had never seen nor heard of Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life." Later when I did see "It's a Wonderful Life," I immediately connected the story to that of "It Happened One Christmas," and thought it was scandalous how the original had been ripped off, and how geeky it was by comparison to the classic it had been "appropriated" from.

Today I wish I could find the knock-off on DVD. Now that I've seen Capra's original so many times, it would be fun to see the Marlo Thomas version again, if for no other reason than to bring back the nostalgic feeling of that evening that I first saw it. I remember that I was very touched by the story that night, geekiness of the treatment notwithstanding (or perhaps partly because of it!), and that it contributed to setting me up emotionally for a very special Christmas holiday with my spouse.

Remake with reversed lead roles is just fair

[SimonJack · 5/10 · 24 December 2018]

"It Happened One Christmas" is very exact in copying the original film, "It's a Wonderful Life" of 1946. But, with one twist. And that is the reversal of the leading male and female roles. So, Marlo Thomas plays Mary Bailey, in place of James Stewart's George Bailey. She marries George Hatch, where Stewart's Bailey married Mary Hatch.

The original film soon became one of an unwritten list of movies that most people would think would never - or, should never be remade. And, indeed, no one to date has tried to remake "It's a Wonderful Life." It remains a holiday favorite movie shown over and over at year's end on television. Even nearly two decades into the 21st century, people still watch and enjoy that classic Christmas film.

So, the only thing to do, if one was a female star who wanted to make another "It's a Wonderful Life," was to change the lead characters - that is, reverse the roles, for a whole different film. And, that's what Marlo Thomas did with her own Daisy Productions company. To have any chance at success, of course, the film would have to tell pretty much the same story. That's because the Hollywood record of revising hit movies in remakes was not very good. But remakes that closely followed the stories of very popular films often could achieve some success just on the coattails of the original story.

Marlo Thomas does a fine acting job in this film. But her performance lacks the passion and range that James Stewart gives in his lead role. And another thing hanging over this reverse remake was matching a considerable cast of supporting players. In the original film, several characters are important parts of the story. Not only Uncle Billy, the angel Clarence, brother Harry, Mr. Gower, Bert, Ernie and Mrs. Bailey, but Mr. Potter. Even an actor with the stature of Orson Welles, couldn't come close to portraying the tension around the smirking and domineering tyrant, Mr. Potter, as played by Lionel Barrymore. Nor could any other supporting role come near to that as played in the original film.

Besides that, some of the changes that this TV film made with the role reversals seem strange and don't work very well. In the original film, George Bailey was rejected for the draft because of hearing loss in one ear that made him 4F. In this film, George Hatch actually goes off to war when he has three small children at home. Toward the end of the war, he returns seriously wounded and no one but wife Mary is at the train station to greet him. By then, his children are older, some of them probably not able to remember their dad, as Mary notes.

The original film of 1946 didn't need to make many cultural adjustments. The scenery, clothing, vehicles and customs were not that far removed even from the earliest scenes portrayed. But, "It Happened One Christmas" wasn't able to handle that challenge convincingly more than three decades later. While the sets were designed to reflect the late 1930s to early 1940s, the cast looked like people of the 1970s put into costumes of the 1940s. They frankly didn't look their parts for the age.

This film isn't a bad one, but it's not much more than fair. Perhaps, if "It's a Wonderful Life" had never been made, this movie would seem to be somewhat better. But with an icon like the original, one can't help but compare the stories, the times, the situations, the actors and the performances. And that's what relegates "It Happened on Christmas" to just a so-so film.

Because of those strange things in the role reversals noted above, and with no superb performances to match the many in the original film, the best one can do is to give this movie five stars.

IT HAPPENED ONE Christmas; "It" being well intentioned, well made example of LEGALIZED Plagiarism, plain and simple!

[redryan64 · 5/10 · 14 December 2007]

We can all understand just why the practice of remaking certain movies was and will always be a common practice in Hollywood. During this time of year (December) we are treated to at least 6 o 8 different versions of Charles Dickens' A Christmas CAROL.

We can view as many version of this Dickens Classic as there items on a Chinese Restaurants Menu. Among other actors in the role, we have: Allastair Sim 1951 & 71, George C. Scott 1984, Patrick Stewart 1999, Kelsey Grammar 2004, Reginald Owen 1938 and Seymour Hicks 1935. Additionally from time to time we see special variety character productions, such as: MR. MAGOO's Christmas CAROL (UPA/NBC 1962), MICKEY's Christmas CAROL (Disney 1983) and THE MUPPET's Christmas CAROL (1992). And there are many others.

One can well understand all of this interest in doing, re-doing and re-re-doing a work of true classic literature, like the Dickens story. And being so widely known all around the World, ever since its being published December 19, 1843 in London, gives it a second reason. And being that the work is in public domain for some time and required no securing of screen rights, nor payment of any royalties, makes the best argument So brings us down to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) and this IT HAPPENED ONE Christmas (1977). And we have only one question to ask of Universal Television and the American Broadcasting Company; WHY??

A remake or even a rework is fair game. A remake being an all the way re-doing a story, like The 3 Musketeers, Last of the Mohicans or Moby Dick. A re-working is an act of taking certain the elements of the story to use in an otherwise storyline. This practice is quite common in the comedy field, especially the old short subjects. Take for example the following.

We have 3 different Hal Roach Studios' Laurel & Hardy Short Subjects. First we have ANGORA LOVE (silent, 2 reeler, 1929), next LAUGHING GRAVY (sound, 2 reeler, 1931) and THE CHIMP (sound, 3 reeler, 1932). Each is a story in a different setting, with a different set of circumstances. And yet, all films take a certain set of circumstances central to the plot line and crucial to the exercise of our funny bones. The re-worked bit of business is the Boys having to hide an animal of theirs from their Landlord. The animal progressively and chronologically changes from a Goat, to a Little Pet Dog and finally to a Chimpanzee.

So, just what is IT HAPPENED ONE Christmas? Would it be a remake? Or, how many vote for a re-work? Could it be "Neither of the Above"? Come on now, don't be shy, cast your vote.

All of you who voted for "Neither of the Above", go to the head of the class and get a Gold Star. The correct answer is that it is NEITHER! It's a plain and simple case of Plagiarism! Oh, they surely secured the rights to do the thing, but Lordy, it's a virtual Carbon-copy of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.

But, enough of this foolishness. It's time to get down to reviewing the Story, without our giving away too much. So…….

OUR STORY………There is no original Story here. Just go and see IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE's page. Then, after changing George and Mary's Surnames and their family positions you'll have the idea. Right family roles get switched. That makes Mary Bailey Hatch (Marlo Thomas) the Breadwinner and George Hatch (Wayne Rogers) as a 1940's Mr. Mom.

And please, don't think that there wasn't a solid effort put out here by the former Documentary Film Oscar Nominee Director, Donald Wrye and his Crew. And an energetic community performance by the cast. As well as Miss Marlo Thomas and Mr. Wayne Rogers, the cast included: Orson Welles, Doris Roberts, Cloris Leachman, Barney Martin, Karen Carlson, Dick O'Neil, Cliff Norton and even Orson Welles.

Didja say Orson Welles? Hey, that gives me an idea for a new Made For TV Movie of the Week Special. We could "re-do" CITIZEN KANE (RKO 1941) as an "updated" TV Production. We could call it "WHERE'S ROSEBUD?"

Great remake

[kburden · 23 November 2004]

While I do not argue with the fact that there is nothing

like the original classic, this remake has some wonderful

moments. I really like the twist that now it is a female who's life is turned up side down. It is a pleasure to see Marlo Thomas in the leading role. It is wonderful to see her act in a feature movie. Also, Orson Wells plays his part to

a tee. I do wish this film was availabe in some format or

at least some stations would run it again. The story is great no matter who is playing the part. I don't understand why it isn't shown around Christmas with so few good holiday movies out there.

A Cheap Remake of A Classic Story

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 23 December 2010]

This film is a remake of "It's a Wonderful Life", with Marlo Thomas taking the spot of Jimmy Stewart. The angel is now also female, being played by Cloris Leachman, Aside from a nice homage to Frank Capra, it really does not serve much purpose.

The best thing about this film is Orson Welles, but even that is a bit sad because he is too great a talent to appear in such a film. Why is he in made-for-TV fare? He is a legend and should be treated like one. Beyond that, the film is a bit tedious... of the group I watched it with, I was the only one who stayed awake. Indeed, it takes pretty much forever to get to the point. (They tell you early on all the events shown will be important. In some sense, this is true, in another sense it's rubbish.)

A turkey

[ColinBaker · 1/10 · 1 August 2005]

Allow me to correct two misconceptions from other posters. Firstly, to describe Marlo Thomas as more animated than Jimmy Stewart is fantasy of the highest order. Secondly, anyone who dares to describe It's A Wonderful Life as sickeningly sweet is missing the point completely. What's sickeningly sweet about a man who is frustrated at every turn in his efforts to leave his home town? What's sickeningly sweet about a man who is on the verge of suicide because of the threat of prison, bankruptcy..? What's sickeningly sweet about going around your home town and nobody knowing you, and your town has changed for the worse? Having asserted the brilliance of Jimmy Stewart (one of the greatest actors of all time) and It's A Wonderful Life, let's turn to It Happened One Christmas. The idea of turning the original concept on its head, so that Mary becomes the main character (with Peter Bailey as her father, and a younger brother called Harry who becomes a war hero) is interesting. Unfortunately, I couldn't avoid comparison with the original. Nevertheless, a reasonably gifted actress might have been able to convey some of the raw emotion evident - to most people - in Jimmy Stewart's portrayal. Alas, Marlo Thomas is so bad that she reminds me of the inadequacies of the worst of Demi Moore. But there are other problems. James Stewart was supported by other talented actors in 1946. Here, even the presence of Orson Welles as Mr Potter does not compare with the sheer nastiness which Lionel Barrymore brought to the part. Cloris Leachman gamely tried her best with Clara, but the whimsy of Henry Travers as Clarence is in a different league.

For me, It Happened One Christmas fails on every level. Maybe there's a case for a remake of It Happened One Christmas. Unlike its illustrious source of inspiration, It Happened One Christmas can only improve with a remake.

It Happened One Christmas

[chazzer3332000 · 7/10 · 13 November 2005]

My view of this remake of It's a Wonderful Life is that it was wonderful. Far from being a put-down of Ms. Thomas' talents, it showcased them as a positive tribute to the original movie. She struggles, and makes you believe.

This struggle of a person who wants to find a way out of what she sees as a pointless life is only sparked by Cloris Leachman as the Angel. Like the many remakes of A Christmas Carol, this story is timeless and deserves any remakes that capture the original spirit. Brava, Ms. Thomas, I would strongly recommend this remake.

If I can buy this movie, I will.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

[frankfob · 3/10 · 13 April 2002]

Add another one to the "what the hell were they thinking?" list. This feminist remake of "It's a Wonderful Life" is anything but wonderful. There are several reasons for that. One reason is that it is impossible to improve on the original; after all, what could they POSSIBLY do to make it better? Well, Marlo & Co. thought they found a way--reverse the roles of the original and put a feminist slant on it.

Didn't work.

Another way they apparently thought to improve the original was to suck out every single trace of humor that the first one had.

Didn't work either.

Last, but not least, they decided the best way to improve on the original was to have Miss Thomas give the absolute worst, most obnoxious performance of her life.

That worked. I finally turned it off.

There's an old American saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Somebody should explain to her what that means. Otherwise we'll soon be seeing Marlo Thomas remaking "The Wild Bunch" and having General Mapache's Mexican bandit gang sitting around "sharing their feelings" and "getting in touch with their inner child."

Pardon me while I lose my lunch.

Why remake a classic? Here's one example why.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 17 December 2019]

Years after the end of "That Girl", Marlo Thomas returned to TV with this remake of "It's a Wonderful Life" that is surprisingly superb. The character of George Bailey is now Mary Bailey (the wife's married name in the original), and she is married to George Hatch (Wayne Rogers) but it is her who the head of the local building and loan, having inherited it upon the death of her father at the insistence of town miser Orson Welles. He obviously wants to destroy her, both out of pure greed (the building and loan is the only business in town he doesn't own) and pure misogyny. Through the flashbacks told to angel Clara (Cloris Leachman, doing a cockney Bette Davis impression), Mary's past is told, up to her thoughts of suicide.

This gender reversal of the classic story is well thought out, and even being set in the first half of the 20th Century, the fact that a woman becomes successful in business in her small home town makes perfect sense because she's got the ambition to succeed. But the rise to success brings on a tremendous fall, and Mary sees through Clara's guidance what her hometown became because she was never born.

This differs enough from the original to have its own take on the story, and Thomas is powerful as she faces each obstacle and the revelation of what her town would be like without her. Welles is an excellent substitute for Lionel Barrymore, completely ruthless yet manipulatively charming when he needs to be. I couldn't imagine who other than Welles could have played this role in the late 1970's.

As for Leachman, her Emmy nominated performance is in line with the eccentric characters she played in all those Mel Brooks movies, but some audience members might find her laughable. She really doesn't get much screen time, but she is unforgettable. Doris Roberts doesn't get much screen time as Mary's mother either (the Beulah Bondi part), so the impact of the two sides of the character is never felt. But the point of the film is made, and the impact is still there. It may not be an excellent remake, but I couldn't imagine it being anymore wonderful.

I enjoyed this movie-it's a creative, different approach-brave, too.

[moose0423 · 7/10 · 5 January 2006]

While most remakes & sequels are generally not worth while, I really enjoyed this movie. Marlo Thomas has been a favorite of mine since "That Girl". Given that opinion, I thought her performance was refreshing. "It's A Wonderful Life" has always been my favorite Christmas movie & that has not been diminished by this remake. Like most remakes, it presents a different approach to the classic's original concept. The acting was well done-can anyone really fault the performance of Orson Wells as Mr. Potter? Having a female lead is really just another way of telling the story but definitely required imagination to make it work. Judging from the comments I read pertaining to this movie, my opinion won't be popular but differences of opinion make life more interesting & it's good that I am not alone in genuinely liking this movie. The statement "if it's not broken..." is true. However it you look at all the remakes of Dickens "Christmas Carol" it shows that everyone has a viewpoint on how even such a classic as this can been revised-my favorite was produced in 1951. If only I could find this movie in a store....

Some Classics Should Just Be Left Alone

[degibox2 · 1/10 · 14 July 2005]

I accidentally caught "It Happened One Christmas" on television a few years back. It could very much be likened to an accident. It was horrifying. My stomach turned. But I couldn't look away.

If you'd like to see a fictional epic biography about a person caught somewhere between egotism and altruism that contains elements of fantasy and spiritual allegory and just happens to climax on a snowy Christmas Eve, then for Pete's sake watch It's A Wonderful Life. It's widely considered one of the greatest movies of all time and stars one of Hollywood's most admired stars, Jimmy Stewart (He was the Tom Hanks of our grandparent's generation).

Let's face it, folks. Once in a great while there comes along a masterpiece that cannot be recreated. Attempts of this nature should be considered blasphemous. No one can repaint the Mona Lisa or re-pen the speeches of Hamlet. Next, you'll be telling me that Hollywood is making a movie based on The Honeymooners...(Rats!)

I loved this movie!! It happened One Christmas.

[lmcmackin1 · 10/10 · 28 December 2006]

I saw this movie when I was 15 years old. I never forgot it. It has remained in my heart all these years. I forgot the name of the movie but not that Marlo Thomas was in it. I have been trying to get a copy of this movie now, that I know the name of the movie. It is a great movie. I have Its A Wonderful life and its good too. I just like It Happened One Christmas better. It touched my heart and got into my soul. Some movies do that to you and this one did it for me. I loved that it was in color. I love the modern version. I liked the switch of gender. I related to the struggle in the movie. I was going through a hard time in my life at the time and it gave me hope.It also made me realize that perhaps our lives are not only for ourselves but for others as well. This movie is a real jewel. You can watch it alone or with your family. One movie is not hard to find and the other should be made available so more people can decide for themselves. I wish It happened One Christmas to everyone. We are not all going to be moved by the same movie.This movie did it for me. If you want a copy of this movie I just found a great website for those hard to find movies. Go to www.myhouseoffilms.net/TVHOMEPAGE click on holiday movies. scroll down until you find the title of the movie,It Happened One Christmas. You can also try My Houseoffilms.net/ and contact Toni and give him the name of the movie you are looking for.

I can't wait to see the movie after all these years. I have only seen it the one time. The impact of It Happened One Christmas is profound to me. I want it in my collection, and so should anyone who wants it.

The wonderful acting of Marlo Thomas makes this version stand up on it's own.

[michaelt281702085 · 6/10 · 5 January 2013]

Frank Capra's It's a wonderful life stands on it's own as a classic film with a timeless message.

Marlo Thomas whom I have never seen before, turns in a superb and dedicated performance in James Stewart's role.

This movie reverses the original roles taken by Donna Reed and James Stewart.

This movie does not have the warmth of the original, or the characterization of the original.

It is solely the acting of Mario Thomas that makes this version stand out on it's own.

If you like colorizing, you'll love this act of cultural vandalism

[WoodrowTruesmith · 1/10 · 26 August 2005]

This gender-swap vanity project goes one enormous step beyond colorization, inserting the usually-likable Marlo Thomas in place of James Stewart, in one of the great American films. If the copyright on the original had not lapsed, this crime against film history could not have occurred. It is certainly lovingly produced, and well cast...aside from the misbegotten lead and some terrifying scenery-chewing by Cloris Leachman. That Ms. Thomas' perky performance isn't up to Stewart's legendary portrayal isn't even the worst part; as producer, that she would inject herself into such a story without radically rethinking it is very much the point.

As it is, the teleplay by Lionel Chetwynd (whose contributions include such thudding, on-the-nose rephrasings as "You're just a spider, and I'm glad I didn't fall into your scurvy little web") slavishly follows the original except when it would be ridiculous not to notice that its hero is now a woman. In those scenes, the writing calls to mind Samuel Johnson's famous critique, "Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good."

If you are one of the few who have not seen the original "It's a Wonderful Life", please do yourself a favor and watch it first...even if it is in black-and-white. Warning: If you do, you will not be able to endure this one.

I wish I could get a copy

[jllawrence · 14 October 2004]

I totally disagree. This was and is a wonderful picture. I don't view things as whether they match up to the remake but if they are enjoyable and worth watching for my family. I would gladly show this to my family and have asked TCM to dig up a copy this Christmas so they can see it. Cloris Leechman is fabulous and Marlo does a great job.

I can't wait for my family to see it and enjoy both It's a Wonderful Life and It Happen One Christmas.

Go to turnerclassicmovies.com this Christmas and search to see if they found it.

I always like to see both along with The Bishop's Wife and the new one The Preacher's Wife and I hope they will find a copy of Christmas Eve for us to enjoy. Love that Loretta Young.

Should not have been made

[stomaino · 1/10 · 11 August 2006]

This is one of the most unnecessary remakes of all time. It is nothing but an ego trip by Marlo Thomas and should not have been made.

The biggest flaw was that since MARLO was producing this, her character was spotlighted so much that we got a lot less of the supporting characters like Bert & Ernie. Thus, we cared less about them.

Orson Welles is just sleepwalking through his part as Potter. He's not a patch on Lionel Barrymore.

I watched this when it first premiered and was already a fan of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. I was appalled that the original scriptwriters received no credit despite the fact that large parts of their dialog was used. This was because the movie had gone into the Public Domain at that point. The only credit was for the original story by Philip Van Doren Stern. I've read it and it can't be used as the source for the stolen dialog in this movie.

I think film classes should be shown both versions as an example of how to make such a movie and how NOT to.

I'm glad it's not available on legitimate VHS or DVD.

Simply Dreadful!

[mike24315 · 2/10 · 22 December 2006]

This was the first version I saw of this story back in the 70's as well, but I got to see the classic Jimmy Stewart version in the 80's and THAT is the ultimate version. The acting in this TV version is just horrible, all the actors walk through the scenes like it was a high school play and the emotion and passion of the original is wiped away. Horrible! Jimmy Stewart gave the best acting perhaps ever in It's a Wonderful Life and never got enough credit since he made it seem so effortless. One thing that amused me in this version watching it again tonight was seeing a young Christopher Guest as Harry Bailey. Who knew???

I'll take THIS version EVERY time. If Universal was smart they should put it on DVD!

[Moax429 · 10/10 · 22 December 2006]

I must admit, I liked "It Happened One Christmas" *much* better than "It's a Wonderful Life." As with a few other IMDbers, this was the first version of the story I ever saw; when ABC stopped running the film after 1978, and until Universal Television syndicated it to local stations in 1986, I had to settle for "It's a Wonderful Life" in the interim, which I think couldn't, and *never* will, hold a candle to "It Happened One Christmas" (for one thing, Marlo Thomas *doesn't* go screaming all the way through the scenes, like James Stewart did in the original, where she saw what life would be like without her. Much like Janet Burston in the later "Our Gang" shorts, Stewart's screaming gave me many headaches which lasted long after the film was over); for another, Ms. Thomas' version was in Technicolor; and for yet another, there was the novelty of the gender switch in the lead role, telling the story from Mary Bailey's point of view. And, there was yet another plus in seeing such up-and-coming stars as Doris Roberts and Christopher Guest in one of their earlier roles).

"It Happened One Christmas" not only holds some cherished memories of my "wonder years" (I was 15 years old when this film was first shown on ABC; little did I realize December 1977 would be my family's final Christmas in Lansing, Michigan since my father capriciously decided to move us all to Illinois in June 1978), but four years later, in July 1981, my father and I took a trip to California, and we went on the Universal Studios Hollywood tour. When I saw "It Happened One Christmas" again in 1986, there were some parts of the Universal lot I recognized where the film was shot ("Leave It to Beaver" and "The Munsters" were also filmed on that same portion of the Universal lot where the exteriors of "It Happened One Christmas" were done), so yet another pleasant memory was encoded into it!

In mid-1987, shortly after my family bought their first VCR, I wrote to MCA/Universal Home Video (as the company was then known), asking if they would ever put "It Happened One Christmas" on videocassette; they sent back a form letter essentially saying, "not at this time," along with a catalogue of their then-current releases. Two years later, in December 1989, the film was rerun on USA (which Universal had a stake of ownership in at that time, and still does today); I was lucky to have taped "It Happened One Christmas" then (USA showed the entire film uncut, not edited to fit the time slot), but now the tape is beginning to deteriorate after 17 years. (I almost rerecorded "It Happened One Christmas" when it was shown on the ion Network December 22, but was glad I didn't after seeing the "hatchet job" they did on it - all the more reason Universal should put the film, uncut, on DVD!)

All I can suggest is: To those of us like myself who DID like and enjoy "It Happened One Christmas" better than "It's a Wonderful Life," and would like to see Universal Studios Home Entertainment (as they are now known) release the film on DVD, Universal's contact e-mail and snail-mail addresses should be given at their website. E-mail or write Universal and tell them to put "It Happened One Christmas" on DVD; remember: the more requests Universal gets about this film, the faster they'll unearth it and put it on DVD (one point to emphasize to Universal when writing: they *never* even released this TV movie on VHS tape)!

I give "It Happened One Christmas" a perfect 10. And to those who thumbed their nose at this version, I'd like to paraphrase a statement the late showman P. T. Barnum once made: "The critics be damned!"

Happy Holidays!

The worst remake of all time? You bet!

[Mr. OpEd · 1/10 · 23 January 2000]

Sure, they remade King Kong and it stank (except for John Barry and Rick Baker's work). They tried to re-work Gone With the Wind and it was putrid. But it took Marlo Thomas to turn one of the most beloved films of all time and into something that smells worse than all the other remakes put together. How did she accomplish this? First, she liberalized it, putting herself in the Jimmy Stewart role. This in and of itself was not a crime to humanity, but MT's acting in this role was (and she WAS cute in That Girl). Then she sucked all of the humor out of the story. No humor? Might as well chuck the simmering sensuality and romance between the two leads. Done! And while MT's at it, she waters down the religious aspect until nothing's left but flavorless gruel (perhaps this was underwritten by the ACLU). Really, I can't say enough bad things about this celluoid stain. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Great twist on the old film "It's a Wonderful Life"

[Hoopie80 · 10/10 · 5 December 2003]

I love the original movie "It's a Wonderful Life" but I also love "It Happened One Christmas". I loved the twist in using a female. Marlo Thomas was great in this film. I only wish there was a way of purchasing this film since it not on video. I watch my copy every Christmas and enjoy it more each year.

Surely the worst, most audacious remake of all time!

[ansonia85 · 1/10 · 22 December 2006]

Mr. Truesmith and ColinBaker are the only sane reviewers of this film. Who could possibly never have seen the original? Who, having seen the original, could possibly give any credibility to this preposterous remake? Has everyone gone loony? I just watched my video copy of "It's a Wonderful Life," and am even more impressed with it today, in 2006, than I was when I first saw it a zillion years ago. Yes, it is sentimental, as are some of the greatest novels, but it offers a wonderful message about gratitude. What's more sentimental than "A Christmas Carol," yet its message is still timeless.

I never heard of this remake until I stumbled across it on some obscure TV channel. I found myself wondering if all the heirs to Frank Capra were dead, since I figured this was the only way the producers of this version would dare mimic his original. Thanks, Mr. Truesmith, for clearing this up -- the copyright has run out, hence, what you call this "crime against film history." And crime it is, indeed. Surely, Marlo Thomas is embarrassed by the very existence of any prints of this film! Oh, and I add to the list of sane reviewers, who know the difference between a classic and junk when they see it: digibox2, Leone, frankfob, Clement. Thanks for your insights and tidbits of history.

To the rest, all I can say is, Oh, my God, are you kidding?!

If all remakes were this good I would watch more of them.

[Gregsr-1 · 12 December 2004]

Not being a fan of "It's a Wonderful Life" may have made it easier for me to find "It Happened One Christmas" a refreshing change. I should first admit that I am not usually a fan of remakes. I almost always enjoy the original better, however in this case I felt that the remake was indeed done better. Even being a fan of both Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed could not keep me loyal to the original. And maybe being a fan of "That Girl" made it easier for me to be receptive to this particular remake. I thought that Marlo Thomas' portrayal of Mary Bailey was done rather well. I am not a chauvinist so having a woman play the part that may have been meant for a male did not bother me. I feel that "It Happened One Christmas" just seemed to move along better, even though it was virtually the same. I don't think because it was in color made a difference because I grew up on Black & White. I think Marlo Thomas did a better job doing Mary Bailey in the lead. I thought that Orson Welles as Mr Potter and Cloris Leachman as Clara the Angel did a fine job as well. I have looked for this to be re-aired each year since 1977. I enjoyed this movie so much that it should not have Happened only One Christmas.

Some scenes just don't play well with the woman as the lead.

[karmarro · 3/10 · 27 December 2019]

Reversing the roles so Mary is the head of the building and loan had problems. A board naming a woman in the 1940's to running the Bailey Building and loan is a stretch in that error. The whole Mr Gower scene was a bit of a stretch. She just happened to be there to see what he was doing. Mr Gower hitting a little girl just doesn't play as well has him hitting the boy in 1910's. George Hatch coming on to her in the she didn't exist world ... no. I think it would have played better if he were just in an unhappy marriage without children. Marlo Thomas didn't play the part with the same emotion that Jimmy Stewart did. Being a woman, I think she should have been showing even more emotion!.

I think a woman playing the lead could be done, but I think the script needed to be reworked more to make it work.

Worst remake ever.

[xxxray69 · 1/10 · 24 December 2006]

The people that thought that this was a good remake must be smoking crack.

This whole "reverse" concept was dumb and the acting was horrible. The main reason why the original movie was so good and special was that for the duration of the movie I had a complete suspension of disbelief. I believed that I was watching George Bailey not Jimmy Stewart. In the remake, all I could see was Margo Thomas and not "Mary" Bailey.

All I could think while I was watching the movie was, "Why is Marlo Thomas ruining her career by doing this movie and why is she hanging out with 'Trapper' from 'MASH'?" Everyone, do yourself a favour and DO NOT watch this movie and ruin your Christmas. Stay with the original Jimmy Stewart version--It's a Classic and should not be tampered with.

But for those of us who's already seen this remake, we are all now more dumb and more retarded for having watched it.

Glad it's now on Amazon Prime

[MrSitcom · 10/10 · 15 December 2018]

I saw this version on TV before I ever watched It's a Wonderful Life. So in that regard...to me...this is the original. I had a really bad copy on VHS for years, so I was able to watch it a few times. But now that I discovered it on Amazon Prime, I finally got to see it again...and in a wide-screen presentation.

It held up well. Everybody's performances were great. Good to see Seinfeld's dad in an earlier role. And I had no idea Christopher Guest had one of his earlier roles in it. Marlo Thomas did a great job.