One of my all time favorites.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Based on the novel 'Points of Light' by Linda Gray Sexton.This is another one I bought for the sole reason that it stars Peter Strauss. As always, Strauss is excellent in the role given him, lending both a sense of a literary character and a real person. That said, it's not an easy or involved role and it's more of a support to the mother and son...This is my first Marlo Thomas film and her performance here as Jessie reminds me somewhat of Shelley Duvall in The Shining.The main story is about Jessie's trauma after the loss of her favourite child, Jamie. Exploring from grief through to possible hauntings, insanity and dangerous hallucinations, the attachment and loss felt by Jessie is clear.Less obvious is the nature of Jamie's sudden and disturbing reappearance. For a while the viewer is unsure whether the child is actually a hallucination or a ghost and the direction and cinematography cast quite a creepy scene as the mother explores these strange occurrences.Unfortunately, what isn't made clear is the family background. The first half of the novel deals with Jessie's perspectives on life and how ill-matched she and her husband Sam ought to be. They come from very different walks of life, yet work very well together. This is never explained in the film, so we just see an oddly paired couple.Missing too, are fuller explorations of Jessie's reasons for being so detached from her family - Whilst it is obvious why she is/was so close to little Jamie, the film does not incorporate her reasons for being so distant from Jamie's twin sister Meggie, older sister Anna or her husband and his mother-in-law.Lastly, a lot of the family dynamic in general is ignored, aside from the most salient of plot points. Good actors were cast in this film, but were given nothing to do for the most part, so when their few 'big scenes' come along (the aforementioned salient plot points) they must act with all their worth. As a result, the scenes appear overly dramatic, overacted and simply tacked on because the characters have been so ignored thus far.Being so ignored by the main plot of mother and son, the other characters can appear aloof and uncaring. The reasons for this are explained in the book, but not even given so much as lip service here in the film. This may have been intended by the director to make the audience dislike the family and identify better with Jessie, as later on the suggestion seems to be that Jessie is going mad. After some heartfelt expressions by Sam and Anna, Jessie seemingly endangers the life of her other daughter, Meggie. We are then drawn more to empathise with the rest of the family and their own struggles, both with the loss of Jamie and now a mother and wife possibly losing her grip on reality.This film would definitely appeal more to parents than casual viewers, although it does well enough for a Sunday afternoon psychological thriller.

The story line is what compelled me to watch the movie. I was genuinely spooked every time the boy showed up, but there were certain problems that made it very unrealistic. The casting makes it totally unbelievable. Marlo Thomas was 57 years old when this was filmed, and she looks it too. We are supposed to believe she gave birth to the twins at the age of 52??? Frances Sternhagen (the Grandmother) was 64 years old in 1994, which of course is appropriate for the movie and Marlo Thomas, her daughter-in-law, is 7 years younger.I have always loved Marlo Thomas. She has been a very good actress as far as I'm concerned, but when I see a practically elderly woman playing a new mother - and I notice that a lot lately - it bothers me. Are they afraid to admit their age???? I am forty-six and proud of it, so it bothers me, as if they are trying to hide it.

Reunion is one of those movies where the words "I'm back" are supposed to hold many deep and profound meanings in addition to the literal one. However, all it does is make you laugh at it's absurdity and choke up the popcorn you were dozing off on.What could have been a touching story about motherhood and family, or a moving film exploring the pain of loss and how it was dealt with, or a smart psychological thriller or even a little horror flick a la Pet Sematary - has been rendered utterly pointless and horribly boring due to an inane amateurish school-playish script.Though the lead actress must be given due credit for her face distorting performance as the distraught mother, it is hardly her fault that her melodrama could not live up to a script that has her babbling motherly nothings to her kids (both dead and alive) throughout the movie.Other actors need no special mention for guest appearances and cardboard props could probably have done better justice to their presence on screen.The kids, however, being an integral part of the movie, ruin it even further beyond belief with their atrocious acting skills coupled with the equally wooden lines they had to mouth.But though the scriptwriter has stolen from the story any glimmer of verisimilitude and turned it into an over the top tale with below average dialogues, could not the director have salvaged the movie with some amount of respectability to the intelligence of the unfortunate viewers? Well, he does try. At times the scenes between Mother and child, shot in bluish dark soft light, attempt to evoke tenderness in the hearts of the sleeping viewers. But then the very next instant he scares you out of your reverie with gimmicks straight out of horror movie textbooks. And the next moment the viewer is treated to spooky music pasted on scenes depicting the mother being affectionate to her children.And though the scenes by themselves might be half effective as to what the director hopes to achieve in the viewer's mind, they fail to come together as one complete movie. The viewer is left feeling sympathetic for the child, then spooked out by him, then feeling sorry for the mother, then suspicious about her, and so on and so forth. By the end of the movie the viewer has no idea what he just watched.Of course, the director must also be lauded for his heavy use of symbolism throughout the movie, which the idle viewer is compelled to notice (and often invent) for lack of anything truly interesting in the film. For example, breathing life into the child (literally!), macadamia nuts (to explain that she is going a little nutty now), gingerbread-man (the little one who has run away)... and many more (don't even get me started on the horses!). If you happen to be subject to this movie some day, I suggest you entertain yourself by spotting some more. Assuredly, they are mostly unintended anyway.And to cap it all on a good note, the lights are well used, the snow looks nice, so do the animals. This won't hurt your eyes. Only your intelligence.

...but it was a little creepy. Marlo Thomas and Peter Strauss are a very loving couple who live with his mother on the family farm. They have a daughter and then she gives birth to twins, a boy and a girl. For reasons I can't go in to, she has a very strong bond with her son. When a tragedy occurs in the family, Marlo flips her wig and engages in some very odd and sometimes dangerous behavior.The story here is very good, the characters are believable, and there was lots of snow, which I love! There is a very creepy overtone in this movie that had me shuddering at times, especially during the climactic scene of the movie. If this had been in black and white, this movie could have been almost gothic; it had that feel to it. I highly recommend this movie if you like to get the heebie jeebies. I saw it on Lifetime, so look for it there.