I have never seen Erica Cerra in any other Hallmark movies (or anything) but she's absolutely beautiful and sparkles throughout this movie. Victor Webster is a bit lighter in tone than he's been in other roles and matches up well with Cerra. She plays Heidi, a divorced mother of two preteens who's moved them up to the Boston area from North Carolina for a new job. Webster plays David, the former "Director of the New Hollow Historical Society and Museum", a position that Heidi has just been hired to fill (David now does "historical renovations"). For Heidi, a "major perk of the job" is the right to live in Mistletoe Manor, a mansion that has not been occupied "in ages."
I had three main problems with the story.
First, how did Heidi get permission to take her kids and move over 700 miles and several states away? The dad is still in the picture and actually drove the kids to their new home in Massachusetts. What father would be OK with that? What court would allow it? Like most states, North Carolina does not allow a parent to move their children far away, or to a state other than North Carolina, without an agreement with the other parent, or a court order approving the relocation. And forcing the children to leave behind all their friends, and be deprived of regular contact with their father, is glossed over as though they're non-issues. The only way this would have been realistic would have been if the ex was dead or abusive or some sort of deadbeat. That's not how he was presented.
Second, the new job seems more like something a semi-retired person would do on a volunteer basis or for a very modest amount of money. It's unlikely that running a small museum in an old home would pay enough to support a family of three even with the free housing (which itself made no sense). Heck, a woman named Linda also works at the museum (doing what??). And the second home's ownership history and acquisition by the city is muddled at best. It's a huge and beautifully decorated home that was... abandoned? Never inherited by the previous owner's heirs? Never rented? Heck, it looks bigger than the museum.
Third, the treasure hunt is fun for the kids, but they blow off their father as soon as a tiny reindeer is found behind a painting without knowing the reindeer is part of a bigger "hunt." And that hunt essentially requires everything to have remained in place for over 60 years (since 1956) in a mansion that, in the real world, would have been lived in and/or sold. It's also tough to accept the idea that neither David nor his father ever had a Christmas tree or celebrated Christmas. And the romance gets sacrificed as part of the trade off in devoting time to the treasure hunt and the story behind it (and a needless subplot about the deputy mayor wanting to revisit the hiring of Heidi after a couple of days on the job).
Those complaints aside, the movie was pleasant, well acted and featured lots of Christmas decorations.
I had three main problems with the story.
First, how did Heidi get permission to take her kids and move over 700 miles and several states away? The dad is still in the picture and actually drove the kids to their new home in Massachusetts. What father would be OK with that? What court would allow it? Like most states, North Carolina does not allow a parent to move their children far away, or to a state other than North Carolina, without an agreement with the other parent, or a court order approving the relocation. And forcing the children to leave behind all their friends, and be deprived of regular contact with their father, is glossed over as though they're non-issues. The only way this would have been realistic would have been if the ex was dead or abusive or some sort of deadbeat. That's not how he was presented.
Second, the new job seems more like something a semi-retired person would do on a volunteer basis or for a very modest amount of money. It's unlikely that running a small museum in an old home would pay enough to support a family of three even with the free housing (which itself made no sense). Heck, a woman named Linda also works at the museum (doing what??). And the second home's ownership history and acquisition by the city is muddled at best. It's a huge and beautifully decorated home that was... abandoned? Never inherited by the previous owner's heirs? Never rented? Heck, it looks bigger than the museum.
Third, the treasure hunt is fun for the kids, but they blow off their father as soon as a tiny reindeer is found behind a painting without knowing the reindeer is part of a bigger "hunt." And that hunt essentially requires everything to have remained in place for over 60 years (since 1956) in a mansion that, in the real world, would have been lived in and/or sold. It's also tough to accept the idea that neither David nor his father ever had a Christmas tree or celebrated Christmas. And the romance gets sacrificed as part of the trade off in devoting time to the treasure hunt and the story behind it (and a needless subplot about the deputy mayor wanting to revisit the hiring of Heidi after a couple of days on the job).
Those complaints aside, the movie was pleasant, well acted and featured lots of Christmas decorations.