Christmas-Reviewer Now I am a huge fan of the original. That film I just discovered about 2 years ago. I knew there was a remake so yesterday I finally I got to see it it. In 1992, this remake of Christmas in Connecticut was made, starring Dyan Cannon This made-for-TV movie, was directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who also made a cameo as the man sitting in front of the media truck. In this remake, Elizabeth "Blane" is the hostess of her own cooking show. When her manager, Alexander Yardley, introduces her to Jefferson Jones—a forest ranger who lost his cabin in a fire— he asks her to make Jones Christmas dinner live on her show. As in the original, Elizabeth isn't as talented as she seems. This version was not as well-received as the original. As one critic wrote, "You'll be hungry for a better movie after suffering through this film. I will say this film is not as bad as that critic has stated. The film starts off great but it does lose steam. The worse casting decision is that of Tony Curtis who is too over the top here. The film has a believable set-up and when the film sticks closely to the original it shines. In the last half of the when this film strays from the original is when this film encounters trouble. The first half of the film the original material is works great.

James Hitchcock "Christmas in Connecticut" is a made-for-TV remake of a feature film from 1945, which I must admit I've never seen. Elizabeth Blane is a famous television chef, whose public persona is that of the perfect All-American housewife. She lives in a large house in a rural part of Connecticut with her husband John. She has a daughter, Mary, a son-in-law and two grandchildren, Kevin and Melissa. At least, that is the story put out by her publicity machine and her manager Alex. In reality Elizabeth is, and always has been, single without any children and lives in a penthouse in New York. To make matters worse she cannot cook and has no idea about housekeeping. All the dishes featured on her show are actually cooked by her assistant Josie. (Elizabeth also claims to be too young to be a grandmother, but as Dyan Cannon was actually 55 when the film was made, that claim should be taken with a pinch of salt).One year, Alex has a great idea for a Christmas special. Jefferson Jones, a forest ranger from Colorado, has become a national hero after saving the life of a young boy during a blizzard. Unfortunately his home was burnt down shortly afterwards, and as he was rumoured (wrongly) to be a great fan of Elizabeth's TV show, Alex invites him to spend Christmas with Elizabeth and her "family". This, of course, involves a certain amount of deception. He finds an old farmhouse to stand in as her home, casts himself in the role of John and Josie as Mary and persuades various acquaintances to represent the rest of the family.This is one of those films which could have been much funnier than it actually is. The basic idea is a good one, and "Christmas in Connecticut" could have been a devastating satire on the dishonest way in which the mass media manipulate the truth, something along the lines of "Network" or "The Truman Show". The final result, however, is nowhere near as good as either of those great films. I don't think it matters that the film's central concept is an improbable one. In 1945 it might have been possible to deceive the public as to a celebrity's domestic circumstances and culinary abilities. By 1992, however, the inexorable rise of the paparazzi and of the scandal-raking tabloids would have made this sort of deception virtually impossible. Satirical comedy, however, has always been a genre which has enjoyed a licence to stretch the bounds of the probable, and even the bounds of the possible; "The Truman Show", for example, is based around a central concept even more improbable than this one.There are, however, three reasons why this film does not work as well as it could have done. The first is that the film is both a satire and a romantic comedy; Elizabeth and Jefferson find themselves falling in love, even though he at first wrongly believes her to be a married woman. The heroine of a rom-com must always be sympathetic enough to retain the audience's affections, which means that the script never satirises Elizabeth as mercilessly as it could have done.The second reason has to do with the first word in the film's title. Any film with a Christmas theme is virtually guaranteed endless repeats on television every December. Yuletide, however, is the season of goodwill to all men, even to dishonest and manipulative television stars and executives, so Christmas movies must always contain a strong feelgood factor. Nobody wants to watch anything depressing while recovering from an overdose of turkey and mince pies, so over the holiday season sentimentality is in, mordant satire out. The third reason can be summed up by those words "TV movie". Hollywood can sometimes (as with "Network") produce a brilliant satire on the television industry; television producers tackling the same theme tend to pull their punches for fear of biting the hand that feeds them.On the credit side, the acting is generally good, with Cannon making an attractively lively heroine, Kris Kristofferson a genial if bemused Jefferson and the late Tony Curtis showing that he was at much at home in comedy as he was in serious drama. Arnold Schwarzenegger's direction, however, is rather heavy-handed; this is to date his only film, and he was probably wise to diversify his career by going into politics rather than into film directing. Overall, "Christmas in Connecticut" is not such a bad film. It just could have been so much better. 6/10

chem_bio_chick I know, I know. It probably sucked. And i really don't like Dyan Cannon; talk about a chick who's afraid to age.But i LOVED this movie. It was a total 'feel good' production... no big downers, only delight.try it, with an eye towards entertainment. i'm sure you'll like it!(admittedly, this is no "Auntie Mame" :)

B.B.-2 The original was a gem; beautifully written, charmingly acted,well directed. Why remake it? There is nothing about thisversion that works. The premise does not work in the 1990s, thestars are flat; the direction insipid.Save two hours of your life. Skip this and rent the original