Finding Love in Big Sky, Montana

I wanted to like this movie. Horses, Big Sky country, horses -- it had great potential. Disappointedly, the "star" who plays Paisley was flat, unemotional, and acted like this was her first acting gig, which ruined the show for me. The scene with her tryingvto split wood was laughable. No way she was coached to rest an axe on her shoulder and swing from there. Stoddard was okay as leading man but marginally so. Honestly, Nathan Kehn would have been a Much better choice. The audio was muddy, voices hard to understand unless turned very loud, background noises too pronounced. As a native Montanan, I found it hard to believe ranchers using seat belts. Really? Too bad, this could have been a nice rom-com.

The story was okay. The pretty actress, while her acting was okay, had an emotionless voice, monotone, no feeling. There was no personality to speak of. The story starts with her narrating. There was no chemistry between the two leads.

The basic story was similar to many others, but the scenery was nice. I gave it a 6. No misunderstandings or big conflict, which was fine. Just nothing worth watching again.

I have to write 600 characters for this review to be published. So, hmm, did I say it was boring?

There were horses, trail riding, kids.

No empty coffee cups that I remember. I don't remember seeing any of the actors before.

There was money needed, and a loan was applied for. It was an extreme amount, which I thought was unlikely to be approved. And there was subsequent fundraising which of course came no where close to the large amount of money requested.

There were two couples who found romance.

I appears that we will be seeing fewer reviews here. I enjoy the short reviews, and rarely read a long one all the way through. If you got this far, you know I am trying to fill a character quota. Omg.

Hedy Nasser and Jonathan Stoddard Nathan Kehn and Raechel Wong Made this movie come alive they were so great as couples there were so much chemistry between Paisley and Josh in this movie you get your very handsome guys you're beautiful scenery the most majestic horses it's just an all-around wonderful family movie and it is also based on a book by the same name it was also filmed in Montana this is definitely a movie I would watch more than once I'm giving this movie, five stars it was definitely a very original movie don't think I've ever seen a movie out there like this one definitely not your run of the mill Hallmark movie was not boring it did keep your attention I did have one little problem with the fact that she is alone on a ranch with horses how long comes a guy and sure they were friends 15 years ago she lets him stay there and then she picks his brother up and she lets his brother stay there and would have been nice if we got to see that ranch open up to the kids but she was wanting to come but that's okay I don't know if there is a sequel to the book to make a movie.

I love Hallmark type movies and understand who they are for and how much the cost to make (Under 2 million dollars).

I can live with the short comings of a movie shot in 30 days but it all rests on the lead actors.

In this case,, it's rough.

Hedy Nasser is completely miss casted as a rancher even if we forgo the fact that she can't ride horses.

She doesn't have the charisma of someone in charge of a ranch.

She can't convey the financial difficulty that the ranch is facing.

She acts as she would be a guest afraid to speak-up on a "Dude ranch" for city people.

She can not "act" like she belongs on a ranch or near a horse.

She belongs in a "Princess story" or a "Christmas movie".

Jonathan Stoddard plays his character like if he completely depleted of testosterone.

He was way better in "Valentine's Town" and in "Baked with a Kiss".

It's rough.

On the technical side,, the cinematography is spectacular and the color grading is good (That's where the three stars I gave it come from.).

Where it all falls apart, is in the editing room.

The "ADR" (Automated Dialogue Replacement) is obvious, the music is aggressively omnipresent and and loud. The background soundtrack (children laughing) is on a 15 second loop repeating itself and it's grating to the ears.

So, here we are, left with a movie that broke the cardinal rule of the "under 2 million dollar budget" (cast) and it's rough.

Zero, I mean... zero chemistry between the actors.

The female lead was... well.. not believable. Not particularly a good fit to lead a movie, let alone a rom-com.

Meanwhile... Where's the ruggedness, the big sky energy?!errr.. in a cowboy hat? The draw of the title seemed lost here.

I know it's difficult to make a move, especially a movie with next to no budget- but this is why it's CRUCIAL to spend the money needed on a superior actor.

Production design and script issues will be more forgiven.

Okay camera work, with a propensity for golden hour shots.

Shame, it could have been something memorable.