Love in Zion National: A National Park Romance

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.

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.

6.7 stars.

Nothing stands out as this being a re-watchable Hallmark duplicate of a duplicate plot. I feel sorry for Busby who is cast in most of the Hallmark national park, state park, outdoorsy movie sets. I can't differentiate between them after a while. Was this already done in 'Marry Me in Yosemite', or 'Warming up to You', or 'Chasing Waterfalls', or 'Love in the Forecast'? Take your pick. Here is a quote from my review of 'Chasing Waterfalls': "Trust your instincts, because YES, you've seen this movie before..."

This is a movie about a single woman who works at a museum, and let's face it she aint getting any younger (Busby looks really good for her age, actually). She goes on a hunt for a Native American artifact to complete a set of four vases that a money grubbing man is trying to claim and sell on the market (if and when he discovers the secret). It's an interesting plot, but it's too generic and lacks adventure and mystery. It's basically just a couple of people walking in the hills talking about lore and stuff and some quasi native history that is not believable. The park ranger's grandmother looks about 50 years old, and he's like 30.

I don't know, there is a lot of lost potential here. The end was good, however it's about preservation of Native American vases from hundreds of years ago, which had a lot of missed potential (like I said), but the romance was lacking. However, the cinematography was brilliant and the ending was uplifting enough for a higher rating than originally planned.

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.

This movie was average. I'm not a big fan of Miss Busby, her acting leaves a lot to be desired. The scenery was beautiful. I was a little taken back that she never wore a hat out in the sun and the heat of the day. She took very little food or water on her six day journey with the park ranger. Many people have complained about the age difference between Busby and the leading man who turns out to be her love interest... They're only seven years apart. I take offence to that since my husband and I are eight years apart. She doesn't look like a senior citizen she's a young woman of 41 and was actually not even 40 when she made this movie. Ageism has become quite a problem in the United States.