I watched "Dear Santa" knowing the premise. Though I wasn't expecting much, my hope was for an entertaining hour or two and a few solid laughs. On that front it underwhelmed. (The biggest laugh for me was the "Red Rum Hotel". Old reference, but still funny as the name of an actual hotel.) I felt like the producers put all their hope on "Jack Black doing his thing" and invested little in having a decent script. It was just "meh". Others have complained about the child actors. I thought they were fine. (If there is any fault to be found there, I'd put the blame on the direction and the script.)
But my biggest issue with "Dear Santa" was the terrible ending. It seems clear that this movie -- though trying to be PG-13 "edgy" -- was still aimed at children and families. (This is not "Bad Santa" or "Violent Night".) And it could be argued that movies aimed at children -- particularly Christmas ones -- should abide by an implicit contract: Have fun with the fantasy elements, but when it comes down to the really important issues, be responsible; and if you choose not to convey an important, meaningful message, at least don't convey a bad one. With "Dear Santa" it seems the message is: If you make a Christmas wish for your dead brother to not be dead, you might actually get it. How terrible is that? Not only is it a terrible message for children, it completely undermines the only somewhat meaningful scene in the movie; where the parents talk in the car about the death of their son and how neither blames the other. That was real growth in their relationship. But I guess now that never actually happened? One more thing: The granting of the dead brother Christmas wish is in clear contradiction to what "Satan" said earlier in the movie. I'm paraphrasing here, but he made it clear that he could only grant wishes "within reason"; that he couldn't go back and change things that had already happened (e.g. The war of 1812), but only things "going forward". But apparently going back to make it that a kid never died is totally doable? Really bizarre choice.
But my biggest issue with "Dear Santa" was the terrible ending. It seems clear that this movie -- though trying to be PG-13 "edgy" -- was still aimed at children and families. (This is not "Bad Santa" or "Violent Night".) And it could be argued that movies aimed at children -- particularly Christmas ones -- should abide by an implicit contract: Have fun with the fantasy elements, but when it comes down to the really important issues, be responsible; and if you choose not to convey an important, meaningful message, at least don't convey a bad one. With "Dear Santa" it seems the message is: If you make a Christmas wish for your dead brother to not be dead, you might actually get it. How terrible is that? Not only is it a terrible message for children, it completely undermines the only somewhat meaningful scene in the movie; where the parents talk in the car about the death of their son and how neither blames the other. That was real growth in their relationship. But I guess now that never actually happened? One more thing: The granting of the dead brother Christmas wish is in clear contradiction to what "Satan" said earlier in the movie. I'm paraphrasing here, but he made it clear that he could only grant wishes "within reason"; that he couldn't go back and change things that had already happened (e.g. The war of 1812), but only things "going forward". But apparently going back to make it that a kid never died is totally doable? Really bizarre choice.