Under the Mistletoe

While I was expecting a "not too bad" TV movie, I was thoroughly surprised at the quality of this film. I found it totally believable and especially likable. The principal characters were extremely engaging. The story was very touching and the filming beautifully done. I even found myself thinking of the characters throughout the rest of the day and even for a few days afterward, always with a warm thought.

One of the main reasons this movie works so well is because of the son, Jonathon. Many movies with kids are irritating and hard to get through because of the precociousness of the kids. Jonathon on the other hand is a truly likable young man even though he is going through a lot of "stuff". You never catch this young man "acting" and his portrayal of this character is topnotch.

I would like to say "Well Done" to everyone on this film and encourage all to watch. This is a keeper!

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.

This made for TV-film needed some re-casting. THe actors in this film were good however they are in the wrong roles.

Devoted father and husband Tom Chandler dies in a car accident, but appears as a ghost to his 11 year old son Jonathan. Now a single mother, Susan Chandler tries to concentrate on her reporter job and dismisses the idea of a ghost, but allows the school counselor, Kevin Harrison, to work with Jonathan. Now Tom's Ghost and Jonathan arrange for Susan to enter a radio show's dating game, and conclude that only Kevin, a widower and coach in Jonathan's former favorite sport, ice-hockey, will do as his stepdad, while she leans towards lawyer Greg Roberts.

I truly think that the actors playing Tom and Jonathan should have been switched. The film would of been better served. Besides you can easily see why she was so deeply in love with her husband if he was played by Michael Shanks. If Conan Graham played a school coach you would see why Susan would never "Notice Him". Michael Shanks however stops traffic.

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.

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?