Under the Mistletoe

I'm writing this review while watching this movie. I missed the first 40 minutes. With that being said the mom is 28 years old (real life in 2006) and the son is 14 years old. Is it me, or is there something wrong with this?

Christmas stories often have an ethereal spirit which leads the main character(s) to a new awareness or life. "The Christmas Story" is a prime example where the ghost of Robert Marley and the other "spirits" lead Scrooge to a new life of loving and giving. Much in the same vein, "Under The Mistletoe" engages the audience in the same manner, without seeming derivative. It is a wholesome, modern Christmas film, that should become a yearly favorite. Jaimie Ray Newman radiates on screen. She is totally believable as the mourning widow with a son who can not let go of his father, who has died, but remains visible to him. Burkley Duffiled as her son is a fine young actor, handsome, and natural as the loner who can only see into the other world. Michael Shanks, as the new father in his life, is refreshing in his departure from "Stargate". And Connan Graham fulfills his role as the "ghost", the departed father, admirably. The action hockey sequence is bound to engage the hockey fans and the kids as in the "Mighty Ducks". Well produced and put together film with a sure and steady hand in directing.

This brand new Christmas movie (Lifetime - made in Canada - where most new Lifetime flicks seem to originate) is an excellent one. It has the ethereal aspects many such pictures have, reminiscent of "Ghost," sans a murderer. It's not a spoiler to indicate Jaime Newman's character (Susan) and her son (Burkely Duffield as Jonathan) lose husband/father early-on in an auto accident. He remains pleasantly "around" in somewhat the same vane as Patrick Swayze in "Ghost," although more positively so, and thankfully bereft of Swayze's wooden, often annoyingly-lethargic demeanor.

There is a villain of sorts, but not with any real menace, with whom Susan becomes involved. Her son is drawn to his school's hockey coach and counselor, played by Michael Shanks (as Kevin).

The story has its plot lines, of course, but its crux is the three leads "finding" one another, in a fulfilling way for all, but without shedding the memories of the losses they've incurred.

All of these actors/characters are thoroughly engaging, and Ms. Newman, whom I had never seen, is both beautiful and likable. The film's supporting cast is also well-presented.

The youngsters in films can often be annoying with a capital "A." It is always great to find ones who are the opposite (such as Michael Douglas' daughter in "The American President," or Tom Hanks' son in "Sleepless in Seattle"). Young Duffield is every bit as pleasant, believable and most of all, likable.

This is one of the positive type of holiday films which should become one to be seen in many seasons to come.

This Christmas movie is only made palatable by its three stars who all give good performances despite what is basically an incoherent, mish-mash of a plot. Jaime Newman creates a very realistic portrayal of a caring woman dealing with the unexpected death of her husband. She isn't perfect but she still tries hard. Michael Shanks is also very appealing as the school counselor with his own tragic past. While he went far beyond what school counselors would normally do, it still seemed believable. Finally, young Burkley Duffield also did a good job in making his character real without being obnoxious. (Why do kids in these movies have such an interest in their parent's love life anyway?) However, they are saddled by a plot that really makes no sense. The ghost of the husband who hangs around seems to have little to do with the plot. The radio contest is a complete plot contrivance. Frankly both ghost and contest could easily have been jettisoned and the focus of the movie on Newman's and Shanks' characters. Why not focus on these two attractive people who have to get beyond their personal tragedies in order to actually see what it is they need? And put it in the Christmas context if you feel the need to. Now that would have been a movie worth watching.

I must admit that the main reason I was drawn to watch this film was it had my favorite actor, Michael Shanks, in it. I have never tired of his 10-year portrayal of Dr. Daniel Jackson (from the Stargate SG-1 series), because he makes every scene he is in memorable. In this film, as a school counselor, he showed convincing empathy for the family, and especially to the son, who was grieving for his father. As a counselor myself, I applaud how Shanks worked to draw Jonathan out using his interest in hockey, and by showing Jonathan that he cared by always being invitational. The direct eye contact Shanks used with every one, and his gentle, loving spirit made the ending no surprise. The only faults this movie had were writers who tried to tie everything up too nicely in the end. I would have also liked to have seen more interaction between Shanks and Jonathan's Mom, and less of the ghostly father. All in all, however, it was a good Christmas film that will not offend any one, and benefits by having good actors who care about their craft.