Analysis of that movie constitutes Chapter 3 of my master's thesis, where I compare it to Forever Young and Back to the Future. I summarize the plot first:
Late for Dinner is the story of a 1960s man, William Husband,
who, through a series of odd but not unrelated coincidences, ends up
with a bullet wound. His well-meaning but somewhat challenged
brother-in-law, Frank, gives him into the care of an equally
well-meaning doctor. Both young men are frozen. When they wake up,
through yet another series of coincidences, they find themselves in
1991. The bullet wound has healed, the outside world has changed, and
Willy is in the unenviable position of wanting to reunite with his wife,
now thirty years older, and his daughter, now grown with children of
her own.
The film is sweet and unpretentious. Despite its current lack of
popularity, it is not unimaginable that a later generation will
rediscover Late for Dinner.
Here, I will state that I greatly preferred Late for Dinner to Forever Young (a good example for a later post about how readers and viewers can love something even while acknowledging that it is flawed: art is not contingent on perfection). I rewatched Late for Dinner more than once although Forever Young was, at the time, more easily obtainable.
The reason: Late for Dinner is less about SHOCK! And more about a man trying to get home to his family. That is, what I remember from Forever Young is the kid being surprised by Mel Gibson. What I remember from Late for Dinner is the reunion at the end.
Since I rewatched it more than once, thank goodness for VHS! (I still own a VCR--tucked away in a box somewhere.)
Truth is, some things still haven't made it to DVD--or streaming. However, Late for Dinner has.
