The Waltons' Homecoming

Other than the issues another reviewer already posted (I completely agree with them).. This one was missing something... Number one, WHERE IS BEN WALTON... He was played by Eric Scott in the original Walton's and wasn't even mentioned in this one... Number Two... Again in the original, didn't Grandma / Grandpa Walton live with them?

You'd think when making a re-make, they would try to get EVERY part of it correct..... What's the point of re-making something if you're not going to do it right?.....

I did kind of enjoy it though...

I remember watching the original Homecoming in 1970s, and the series when it ran and in reruns. This was a modernized, diversified, and sanitized version of the classic movie that I love. I was looking forward to seeing it, and sadly I was disappointed. It didn't have the feel of the original that showed the struggles of a large family during the depression in 1933. A time when money and jobs were hard to find, and most were living hand to mouth.

Everything from the clothing, to the house appeared too perfect, and new. That left me asking, did the production team do any research into what a family and home really look like in 1933 rural Virginia?

The characters were a bit too modern in the way they spoke and actions for 1933. Especially Mary Ellen, who should have been wearing a NOW button. Also, where was Ben???

I did enjoy Richard Thomas' narration.

The original, 50 years ago, I watched at least a dozen or more times, over the years. Here is the problem comparing the two. First, the house in this episode looked like a mansion for 1933. The original movie they lived poorer, like the real 1933, and lived in a cabin. Secondly, the original version showed the strain of possibly losing the husband and bread winner, on the face of the wife, Libby. She would be forced to raise them children without much. This new movie did not capture the worry on the face of the wife or children when John Sr was missing. Lastly, the beautiful house was well furnished with nice paintings. Sure didn't remind me of a depression era. The actors did their part without much feelings. They should never have done a remake. Let the original live on.

I wanted to like this update, but it was lacking in soul. There was a desperation to the original given the depression, the financial straits the family was in and the fear the father might be... This version was too sunny and you felt nothing of a family living in angst. Someone didn't do their homework in the language - way too contemporary references and the swearing didn't fit. I would have been open to a new holiday tradition, but alas, even the original John Boy couldn't save this half-baked turkey.

I tuned in to watch this movie thinking it was the one with Patricia Neal. I was a bit disappointed, but continued to watch. My disappointment in not being able to see Ms Neal on my screen turned into dismay when it became obvious that the film makers didn't do their homework or simply chose to dismiss it.

This story took place during the depression and involved mountain-folk. Olivia Walton wakes up with a full face of make-up and her hair perfectly groomed? This would not have happened, period. Also, throughout the portions I did watch hoping it would improve I noticed the clothing and household items appeared brand new.

Perhaps the film-makers didn't live through the Great Depression, but their parents and grandparents did. Even so, with the internet research is far easier than when the original movie was made. Even if the studios do have clothing from the period, I am sure they may not be fit to wear, but they do possess the ability to 'age' fabric and make it look like they ave been well worn as most people during that period, especially mountain folk would have worn.