Une bonne étoile pour Noël

Most of these Hallmark stories are not for rocket scientists but are just pleasant holiday fare. And I always see mistakes. This movie was supposedly set in Massachusetts and its environs. The woman lived an hour from Boston. But when they were "in town" buying a Christmas tree you could see huge sheer cliffs and ocean in the background. Clearly NOT Massachusetts. I wish the producers would give viewers more credit for intelligence and pay more attention to details like this. My other objection is that the credits at the end are squished into about a #2 font so that you cannot read them. This is the fault of the network. I like to see location and music credits and even some of the other actors' names but it is impossible when they reduce the credits to practically nothing. Many of the channels do this and I find it frustrating.

If it weren't for the romantic Christmas factor, which is clearly what attracts the favorable ratings, this movie would be a real stinker. That alone rates a seven. And the acting is overdone (does Hallmark just have bad directors, or don't any of their Christmas movie actors know how to act?), every scene seems to have an added dose of melodrama. That drops it another couple of points.

And the entire plot with the dog, starting from the point that it ran away, was ridiculous. No self-respecting pet lover would keep a dog that belonged to someone else if the owner was found, especially not as in this situation where the dog was the pet of a soldier who was killed and then was the soldier's wife's reminder of him.

Not to mention the fact that no shelter would ship a dog out so quick clear across country. It came in with a collar with his name on it, meaning he has an owner and a family, and no shelter would ship it across country so quick without doing everything it could and taking several weeks to try and find the owner. Even then it would normally get fostered in the area were it was found, instead of adopted out.

And nobody ever addresses why it had no tag or wasn't chipped. That is irresponsible pet ownership. This would have been a great opportunity to spread the word about making sure your pet has a license tag on its collar at all times, along with a name and address and phone number tag (something you can get for $5 at your nearest Walmart where you can always find an automatic pet tag engraving machine), and to also get it chipped if you can. No pet should ever stay lost for long, it's traumatic for the owner AND the pet.

With all that said, it just stretches the imagination that a supposedly good man would be so selfish as to keep that dog away from its rightful owner, and to teach his daughter that it was OK. Just because she has had a difficult time doesn't mean you suspend teaching responsibility and kindness and generosity.

Understandably, to a child who has just suffered a major loss, it could be traumatic to suffer even further loss, but they'd only had the dog for two weeks, so for heaven's sake, if a dog is what the girl needs, teach her that she can't just keep another person's dog and go get her another one.

To the guy's credit, he did work to sway the girl's mind, but not at first, and a good parent would have just laid down the law and said we must do the right thing and give the dog back. That just isn't something you let a kid think is OK. And what is this bunk about letting the girl make the rules? Don't they even teach good parenting on the Hallmark Channel anymore?

At some point in the movie, there is a discussion that legally the man can keep the dog. I'm pretty sure that is not true. A lost pet does not legally change ownership if the original owner is found only 2 weeks after it ran away in a storm.

And the guy's sister questions that the original owner would want to take the dog away because the guy and his daughter have fallen in love with the dog? Come on.

And the daughter says, "I'm sorry Dad, but Buddy (the dog) is part of our family now." What? The girl honestly can't even empathize with the dog's owner's loss, especially after just suffering loss of her own? Is she a sociopath or something, unable to understand the pain of others? Normal people would be even more sensitive to the needs of others when they've suffered a fresh loss like that.

And when they take the dog back to its owner, the guy says, "I just wanted to make sure that we've done the right thing (bringing the dog back), but I can see we did." What? Again, what? First, you don't know you've done the right thing bringing the dog back to its rightful owner, then you have to gall to pass judgment one way or another? Even though you've previously met the dog's owner and know she is a good person and the dog still knows her and they care for each other? I'm still scratching my head on this one.

Not to mention, the girl doesn't seem upset at all by her separation from the dog. So what was the big deal again?

I like Hallmark Christmas movies, even the sappy ones. But this one just has all kinds of wrong all over it. Sorry, but I'm not a fan, it stinks. As a pet movie of any kind, it shows a total ignorance of every pet issue that should be addressed in the movie. And the parenting examples are horrendous.

If I had to guess, this was some clueless screenwriter who has lost touch with the real world, because the plot is so far off base it smacks of wacko Hollywood. I think that to like it, you couldn't understand parenting or pets very well.

This movie has such an unrealistic storyline. First of all the dog runs away after being frightened in a rainstorm, but in reality he would have run back home after the storm, and not keep running away! Then there is the fact that the dog had a collar on with his name on it, so it was obvious he had an owner. Finally, the poor owner was searching for her dog for 2 weeks before finding him, and there is no way due to the surrounding circumstances, that pet adoption was legal. There is no court in the land that wouldn't order that the dog be returned to it's rightful owner. I also doubt any owner would have left that dog behind, even temporarily. I know that there is no way I would have done so! Finally, it is unrealistic the way the family that adopted the dog was pretty much refusing to give him back to his owner, that a relationship between the father and daughter would have so quickly evolved with dog's owner. I think Hallmark could have done much better with this movie.

This is one of the Hallmark Channel Christmas movies for 2014 -- they have been producing twelve of them every year for the last few years. It's one of their dog-centered pieces, as a German shepherd plays the go-between for the two romantic leads, Teri Polo and Mark Cummins and the effect is well done, with a nice, quizzical beast in the title role.

I have some issues with the production. It is supposedly set in Massachussetts in November, although there are several outdoors shots with trees wearing their summer leaves. There isn't much to it except for the central cast: widowed Teri Polo and her dog, widower Mark Cummins and his daughter, played by Jordyn Ashley Olson. It's a sentimental woman's movie that should please its intended audience of adult women and dog lovers.

It's about a selfish father and daughter that refuse to return a dog to its rightful owner.