Marlo Thomas was 57 in 1994. It seemed unlikely she'd have young kids or fit this role. The father seems too old as well.
8 Reviews
...
staciarose2031 August 2021
This was a pretty good movie...
dreba12 September 2003
...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.
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.
Interesting movie, spooky, but casting was very poor!
cibersis22 September 2007
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.
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.
a good story, ruined.
addytorials14 October 2005
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.
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.
Sentimental and creepy, an excellent ghost story
rnf00056 July 2004
Marlo Thomas may be the most under-appreciated and unrealized talent in the history of Hollywood household names! The story revolves around a woman named Jessie Yates, who, with her husband Sam, has three children, the youngest of whom, Jamie,almost dies at birth and then later perishes in a tragic accident. Directed by actress Lee Grant, "Reunion" shows how one family deals, or attempts to deal, with the death of a child, a child who makes ghostly appearances witnessed at first by Jessie, then later, we are told, by another of the children. The script manages to tiptoe, then jump, into a dramatic and ghostly thriller wherein an angst-filled woman becomes tempted to cross over to the other side of reality--or is it insanity? The movie is a roller coaster ride of scary, tearful, suspenseful and warm moments, especially the surprise ending, which resounds like an earthquake of emotional drama, well-directed, well-scored and excellently played by all. Robin Fletcher, Denton, Texas
One of Marlo Thomas' finest moments on screen
parkrd5822 June 2006
It's part drama, part ghost story. Some slow moments, but it pays off. Marlo Thomas is excellent as usual and should have won an Emmy for this one. I don't want to give away the plot (unlike everyone else here), but I will say it is a deeply touching film. The final scene will bring tears to your eyes and stick with you long afterwards. Peter Strauss is also wonderful here playing the confused and grieving father. His admission of guilt scene is proof of what an underrated actor he was. REUNION is powerful, emotional, haunting and a beautiful piece of TV movie making. This film was directed by actress Lee Grant. This should be released on DVD!
The Reunion
hall42938 July 2004
I am a Mother of a 4 year old boy and a 5 Year old girl. when I saw this movie for the first time yesterday, I cried all day.
I was even angry at the husband saying don't go I even felt some anger towards the mother. I felt anger, I felt hurt during this movie.
The little boys ghost broke my heart. If you have not seen this movie, have some tissues ready. I still cry thinking about it. Was this a true story? I was wondering because most movies on LMN are true. Such a sad movie True or Not. Don't forget the tissues if you have not seen this.
I was even angry at the husband saying don't go I even felt some anger towards the mother. I felt anger, I felt hurt during this movie.
The little boys ghost broke my heart. If you have not seen this movie, have some tissues ready. I still cry thinking about it. Was this a true story? I was wondering because most movies on LMN are true. Such a sad movie True or Not. Don't forget the tissues if you have not seen this.
A family-friendly psychological thriller
ttaskmaster20 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
