I thought the movie was carried by the quality of the acting of Devane and Baxter (though not so much by younger guy who played the "visitor"). Unlike another reviewer, I did find Meredith Baxter believable, especially when she got the news that her son had died in the war. Hard to watch that scene, as a mother.
But I found the end difficult to go with, and not for the reason you'd think. We are led to believe, by then, that the younger man is the son come back from death, and that the dad has pieced this together just as the younger man is leaving. (By that point in the film, the nice, low-key writing and good acting have gotten you to a point where that is not so hard to suspend disbelief and go with.) They have also indicated that this was a really close family, that the son's death hit them so hard that it has ruined Christmas for them for eleven years, that the dad carries the son's dog tags, and that they are almost living in the past about the loss of their son. So, when the visitor is walking away forever just as the dad has decided that the visitor is his son, why is the dad so casual? He smiles ruefully as the younger guy walks away; doesn't even react in amazement or joy. Wouldn't any grieving parent run after their son and hug him and thank him for coming back, and maybe want to have some further conversation, such as, are you OK where you are now? It is not like they established that the dad and son had a distant relationship, but the opposite. I thought the casualness with which the dad said goodbye was really not the right emotional climax for a movie with a healing-from-beyond-the-grave message.
Other than that, the only place where the slow pacing was just too slow and the moment was a bit too unbelievable is when the two men sang "Jingle Bells" in the truck. At that point, the younger guy was just someone catching a ride. Why on earth would two grown men, strangers to each other, burst into a carol along with the radio and then smile at each other in a simpy way?
Anyway, it's worth a watch, rather slow-paced at moments but mostly fine. Would be even better without the "Jingle Bells" moment.
But I found the end difficult to go with, and not for the reason you'd think. We are led to believe, by then, that the younger man is the son come back from death, and that the dad has pieced this together just as the younger man is leaving. (By that point in the film, the nice, low-key writing and good acting have gotten you to a point where that is not so hard to suspend disbelief and go with.) They have also indicated that this was a really close family, that the son's death hit them so hard that it has ruined Christmas for them for eleven years, that the dad carries the son's dog tags, and that they are almost living in the past about the loss of their son. So, when the visitor is walking away forever just as the dad has decided that the visitor is his son, why is the dad so casual? He smiles ruefully as the younger guy walks away; doesn't even react in amazement or joy. Wouldn't any grieving parent run after their son and hug him and thank him for coming back, and maybe want to have some further conversation, such as, are you OK where you are now? It is not like they established that the dad and son had a distant relationship, but the opposite. I thought the casualness with which the dad said goodbye was really not the right emotional climax for a movie with a healing-from-beyond-the-grave message.
Other than that, the only place where the slow pacing was just too slow and the moment was a bit too unbelievable is when the two men sang "Jingle Bells" in the truck. At that point, the younger guy was just someone catching a ride. Why on earth would two grown men, strangers to each other, burst into a carol along with the radio and then smile at each other in a simpy way?
Anyway, it's worth a watch, rather slow-paced at moments but mostly fine. Would be even better without the "Jingle Bells" moment.