Love in Zion National: A National Park Romance

Great scenery but unrealistic in all other aspects,does Hallmark even care? I think quality over quantity matters. The leads had no genuine-acting chemistry,that would be fine if this wasn't a romance themed movie.. What didn't help was,the appearance in their ages. Cindy isn't a horrible actress,but not a first choice & maybe do a casting call for new talent or ethnicities as leads not side characters. Being so unprepared for their park adventures,was a bit foolish especially considering he was a professional ranger. Also what park has those type of accommodations,yes its a movie but how about keeping it realistic.

Sad but seems this was filmed in Canada,pretending to be other locations.. Hallmark are you that poor or just cheap,to use some actual places or not stock footage? If they wanted to do a background around culture & so forth,at least keep it accurate or stick to another topic.. Altgough glad it wasn't about a festival,etc.

Overall casting to acting is average,decent cinematography & as mentioned scenery.. Music over talking was ok,is it worth seeing? If bored,like park views or the actors.

IN A NUTSHELL: The romance is directed by Sam Irvin. The writing credits go to Jacob Cooney and Bryar Freed.

Assistant curator, Lauren, is out to prove a set of ancient vases belong to the Pueblo Nation. While in Zion, she meets Adam, a native Puebloan park ranger, who helps her on her mission.

THINGS I LIKED: I had never seen any of the actors in anything before. They all did a fine job and include Cindy Busby, David Gridley, Raquel Gardner, Michelle, Murphy, Monique Filips, Bourke Floyd, and Liam Woodrum.

Zion means "sanctuary." If you're hoping this movie will include a lot of beautiful scenery of the famous national park, you're in for a real treat. The cinematography is gorgeous.

The movie shows a passion for nature.

I appreciate that some of the characters work very hard to ensure some ancient artifacts are protected and restored to their rightful owners.

We learn a little bit about Indian culture.

It made me laugh that Lauren talked about how she grew up hiking around Zion National Park and knew her way around the national park, but then got lost within minutes. Ha ha Fun fact: Zion National Park is 229 square miles of beautiful red rock landscapes and vistas. It's one of the most filmed national parks in the USA.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE: Sadly, the Anasazi disappeared about 1000 years ago, so the plot line of the story doesn't actually work. I live in Las Vegas near a street called Anasazi! A few years ago, I visited a museum on the UNLV campus that showcased a number of Anasazi artifacts. I wonder why the writers chose to feature the Anasazi Native Americans, rather than an actual tribe that had living descendants today.

It drove me nuts how Cindy Busby mispronounced the name of the park.

The leading lady's character is a bit cocky and unlikeable.

The difference between the leading couple distracted me. He looked way younger than her. He's actually 32, although he looks much younger. Cindy Busby is 40 years old.

Some of the dialogue is not very good.

It always annoys me when characters hide things from each other and don't just communicate.

There was no chemistry between the leading couple. The final kiss was super forced.

The Kachina doll looked like it was bought out of a souvenir shop rather than a handmade artifact passed down through generations like we were supposed to believe.

Are hikers allowed to actually light fires in Zions National Park? I'm thinking no. That didn't seem believable.

It just looked like not much thought went into the details. For example, the Ranger and museum curator took off for a week-long trek in the park with just a little backpack. Where were their water bottles, food, and supplies?

She was staying in a big room somewhere on site and didn't bother to put out the fire in the fireplace right before leaving for a week-long trek in the park. Stuff like that bugs me. How about you?

It was said that some judge was going to decide on the case any minute now. Without all of the facts or witnesses? That's not how the law works.

Shouldn't the Park Ranger prohibit bad guys from removing artifacts from the park? It's hard to believe he's the only Ranger in the entire park.

As an author coach, I have several clients who write fantastic romantic comedies. I wish Hallmark would tap into their talents rather than try to rush a script through and miss all of the details that make a story rich and enjoyable.

TIPS FOR PARENTS: The movie is definitely clean enough for family viewing.

There's nothing really controversial or offensive in the content.

!

These writers frequently mention the Anasazi ... referring to them as a current Native American tribe. If you're going to pick the name of a Native American tribe out of the hat, don't you think it would be a good idea to spend at least three minutes in research?

If they HAD, they'd have discovered the Anasazi were an ancient tribe and they would not have called themselves the Anasazi. That was a name assigned to them by later tribes who settled the area and came across the relics of the Anasazi civilization.

The Anasazi themselves completely disappeared circa 1000 years ago. So the park ranger character here would NOT be a member of the Anasazi tribe. The so-called Anasazi "vases" (obviously actually urns) would not be the rightful property of such a tribe since they have not existed in 1000 years.

Even though it's theorized that the Hopi and Pueblo might be some sort of descendants of some elements of the Anasazi, even that is only conjecture with no direct evidence.

How do I know about this? I wrote a flash fiction about the Anasazi a couple of years ago, and even to write 650 words, I spent a considerable time doing MY homework so I wouldn't butcher the subject as this movie does.

Outside of that, the writers even blew the legal side of contesting a will, lots of dialogue is just off, and the female lead's acting was unconvincing to me. Perky is no substitute for professional. The male lead was a bit wooden.

I gave an extra star for the scenery, otherwise I consider this film an utter failure.

I enjoyed the first National Parks romance and was looking forward to this one, but even the spectacular scenery and landmarks of Zion could not help this movie. It was so historically inaccurate that it spoiled the plot. Also, the ages of the characters did not work. The grandmother, a lovely character, looked about 50. Cindy is now 40 but was paired with a male lead that is 32 (and looked 25) and they had no connection at all. And I hope that David actually has ties to native heritage. His bio is sparse. They set out for a 6 day hike with small backpacks. Where was their food, water, clothing, supplies, etc. Just not believable at all. Even the vases looked fake and simplistic. This is a popular park but they did not meet anyone on their hike. And are campfires safe these days what with all of the fires burning across the west? There were just so many little annoying features that took away from the story. If there are others in this series, I hope they are much better and more realistic than this sad excuse for a movie.

It appears that Hallmark planned this production with a triple intent: shell out their weekly romantic flick, while highlighting Utah's natural beauty, and paying homage to a relevant form of Native American heritage. Quite an ambitious , perhaps too ambitious, project. It would have required a far less superficial understanding of, and a deeper respect for the subject. The profound historical absurdity of the story has been well exposed by two previous reviewers. What's more, the misuse of traditional elements, thrown into the movie, rather than paying homage, makes it unwillingly offensive. The producers could have elected to create fictitiuos names for the "Anasazi tribe" and symbols of their culture. After all, the entire plot is a fantasy. Isn't it regularly done, in movies with Royals of nonexistent Kingdoms, somewhere in Europe? Instead, they chose real traditions and names and even conferred a major role to a "Kachina" doll. Now, just a few Nations could rightly identify as descendant of the Ancient Puebloans and carry on with this tradition. The Proudstars must share into Hopi or Sio (Zuni) heritage, where the Kachina [a Hopi word) tradition mostly belongs.

Here is where things do not square out.

The rudimentary vases that play a role in the movie, share little in common with the much finer Hopi or Tewa-Hopi pottery, adorned with very different motifs and patterns, still similar to those produced centuries ago. Grandma Proudstars lives in an environment, filled with generic southwestern styled decorations and fake-Pendleton blankets, that suggest nothing of Hopi making or that would be cherished by a person purportedly deeply immerse in her traditional spirituality. Kachina dolls were and are carved in the image of spiritual beings who appear in ceremonial dances, to teach children and women how to recognize them. They were not used as amulets. It is hard to believe a true Hopi would give one as a "guiding spirit", let alone to a complete outsider! The doll in the movie, itself, is not a Kachina. It is a horrible imitation with mask and garments that do not fit the appearance of any of the about 300 authentic ones which are known, beside, apparently, not being carved out of cottonwood roots, as tradition dictates. It suspiciously look like one of the cheapest tourist-fakes produced in spades by Navajos. Which is ironic, when one considers that the term "Anasazi"is a Navajo etymon for "Ancient Enemy" and the Hopi Kachina that represents the neighboring Navajo is named "Tasup", for "Head-basher".

Coming to the other intents of the production, the romantic story is poorly eventful and moderately insipid.

Zion Park, on the contrary, is as beautiful as expected and the filming renders it justice. For this accomplishment alone, the movie may be worth a look, and my rating was not completely negative.