Love in Glacier National: A National Park Romance

That's how I feel about 99% of everything Hallmark makes today these days. Well, no most of it is bad but a few are lost potential. This was did a bit better. I enjoyed it for the most part but it always comes back to these days that no matter the disagreement the girl is never as wrong as the guy. Which is just tired and boring. Watching an imperfect man next to a supposedly perfect woman is so fake and obnoxious. I know people will disagree with me but I can't I see what do much if media is trying to push.

So for this movie the chemistry wasn't bad. I don't normally like this actor but he's growing on me a little. I've always liked her but this wasn't her best performance, or rather her character was a bit off putting. Arrogance isn't any more attractive in women than it is in men.

I liked the fresh take on the professions of the leads. Also, always good to have dogs. The young lady who played Samantha was exceptional. They kinda dropped the Sonia storyline which on one level was fine but for that reason it was pointless to have it to begin with. And the story line with her sister was removed but unresolved. You'll understand when you see it. Sonia and the sister's story lines had so much focus that it was weird to realize they fizzled pretty quickly.

Anyway, I give it a six overall.

It was good enough to watch at least once.

I have been watching Hallmark Romance Movies for 15 years and they almost all follow the Pygmalion formula for a romance movie ( Awkward introduction , confrontation, recognition, romance , love , disaster, reconciliation, together forever ) - This movie was the same but with a technology twist that looked different but was the same - but what really made this Hallmark movie stand out from the "Drinking Syrup all women go to bed fully dressed sickeningly sweet shows of the past ) was that the lead was actually scene in a bikini for the first time ever on a Hallmark movie. I am surprised Hallmark didn't issue an advisory - as for the movie itself - the casting was better than average and so was the chemistry of the leads - If you are in for a feel good movie - I recommend it.

Great cinematography, actors, and an actual location shoot. Was this even filmed at Glacier National Park?? Unfortunately, the script wasn't the greatest. It was completely predictable which is fine but the ending was a abrupt and underwhelming. These movies typically are dependent on a disagreement to get the couple together but in this case, that disagreement basically went on for the entire movie. Chris was disrespectful of Heather's career until he suddenly wasn't. So while Heather tries to come off as a knowledgeable professional, her sticking with Chris for so long while he puts down her work kind of negates that.

And what was the deal with Riley and IVF treatments? No real resolution there either. Not all endings have to be super happy but this is Hallmark Channel. We watch the network to escape from reality, not to see it thrown in our faces. Where was Riley's happy ending? Or in her case, her Plan B? It was also odd that Riley was going through all this without her husband present. Why wasn't he cast? I kept thinking he'd show up at the lodge and surprise her. It was just such an unnecessary addition to the script.

This movie was also oddly sexual for a Hallmark movie. Some of the skimpiest bathing suits I've ever seen on the network--compare this with last year's Groundswell where Lacey Chabert wouldn't even expose her legs on the beach. And we get a shirtless Stephen Huszar which is fine but the close-ups of Ashley Newbrough with her hands on his chest are not what you usually see on this network. And we get 2 characters openly talking to and about sperm, in a public restaurant no less. I don't have a problem with this stuff but at the same time I'm not really sure what they're going for here. Who are scenes like this targeting? None of these scenes were in the trailer so you've got existing network viewers suddenly watching a movie with a more sexual tone than usual. It just makes no sense.

I visited Juneau AK in 1988 and was up in the snowpack along the Perseverance Trail, mostly in the rain, and I was advised about avalanches in the area from time to time, and being a little too old to repeat that feat, the scenery was the main star of this movie - it was beautifully filmed in British Columbia, not Montana, but that was just fine with me.

Both the screenplay and direction were in the top tier of Hallmark movies from the last few years; Ashley Newbrough as Heather and Stephen Huszar as Chris had believable chemistry - first professional, then awkwardly romantic, then the "Hallmark Breakup", then reconciliation.

The cast seemed to really enjoy working on this, although it was really more of a drama than romance or comedy. Sure, as others have observed, there were times when the acting was a little stiff and signs of a low budget abounded, but I had no problem putting such issues aside, and the remembrance at the close of the movie perfectly fit the serious spirit of this story. Hallmark can really tell some wonderful stories at times, and this one bears repeated watching. I would love to see Hallmark put the whole company behind this effort into more movies, or even a series.

As someone who has been going to Glacier National Park his entire life, I was looking forward to seeing scenes of the park. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. There was spectacular scenery of British Columbia, but there were only two references to the real GNP: Grinnell Glacier and Apgar (which is a town at the foot of Lake McDonald--there is NO "Apgar Gulch."). Furthermore, there is only cross country skiing in Glacier--the closest downhill ski area is Big Mountain (I refuse to use the new name "Whitefish Mountain Resort") near Whitefish. Also, motorized vehicles like snowmobiles are prohibited in the park in the winter. There are so many realistic story lines that could be made in the real Glacier National Park, that it's unfortunate they picked something so completely inaccurate.