Love in Glacier National: A National Park Romance

1. The lead man was so cold. Pitbulls are friendlier than he was at the start of this movie. I'm not sure why anyone would want to be around him.

2. The lead woman was better, but everything about her felt contrived -- especially her attraction to the distant guy.

3. The sister was so corny and was uncomfortably pushy about hooking up her sister.

4. The redhead masseuse was a mustache-twirling villain who of course came across as pathetic.

The writing and production was too unnatural. People don't act like this -- ever. And I can't buy into a "romance" story when the first 45 mintues are spent watching the guy be a stiff robot while the couple demonstrates zero compatibility. Hallmark has much better movies out there where the characters are easy to cheer for.

I've always enjoyed Ashley Newbrough and she doesn't disappoint me here. Her character is upbeat, but more importantly she is highly intelligent and more than competent in the snow. I did have a problem with Stephen Huszar's Chris. This man is ridiculously unprofessional in several ways. His total disregard for the science is close to criminal negligence given the importance of his responsibilities. The viewer knows something is behind this but the movie waits toward the end to reveal it. It's not hard to guess though. But beyond that he is misogynistic toward Heather as he makes several successive assumptions that are quite rude and, as I said, unprofessional. Of course this is the usual early antagonism between the romantic leads that seems to be required in these movies, but I thought that it was done in a way that detracted from the story AND I thought some of it carried on far too long.

The story is predictable with no great highs or lows. The viewer could see the climax coming almost from the start. Throw in the tween motherless daughter who of course falls in love with Heather. The dialogue was OK. Newbrough and Huszar do get to establish some chemistry and seem quite comfortable together.

The scenery was outstanding which given the location was inevitable. There was a lot of education about avalanches including practical advice for sports people who encounter the risks. I assume most of it was accurate.

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.

Whoever was in charge of continuity for this film should be fired. In more than one scene where the protagonists are skiing, the ski pants on the main actress are a different color from the ones she is wearing before and after the skiing (she is wearing a light blue ski suit with matching top and bottom, but on the hill the pants are a darker blue). So obvious and distracting.

Also the storyline with the sister just ended abruptly with no real conclusion.

And why do you pretend this is an actual location (Glacier) when it is totally filmed in Fernie. Why not try to remove all things that point to/advertise Fernie. Why even use Glacier Park in the title if you aren't willing to film there?

Hallmark has had this same issue in a movie about Banff that had parts obviously filmed in Winnipeg and Ontario.

This is not one of their best.

I'll admit, I watch at least 90% of Hallmark's movies. This was unfortunately just so-so for many reasons already pointed out in other reviews.

My main objection, though, was that despite the title, the movie had nothing to do with Glacier NP. In fact, they made it quite clear in the movie that they were at Fernie Alpine Resort in Canada, 150 miles north of Glacier. Since there is no downhill skiing in Glacier, it makes since that a movie about skiing had to be filmed elsewhere. But still, why lie about it? Heck, they weren't even in the U. S.

Oh, well. Sorry for the rant. Yes, the puppies were cute and the scenery was great. Just wish it had been the scenery I'd been hoping for.