Maddie, an art historian, travels around the world to find the Lovers Stone, but when she meets Fitz, her search may lead to a true love of her own.Maddie, an art historian, travels around the world to find the Lovers Stone, but when she meets Fitz, her search may lead to a true love of her own.Maddie, an art historian, travels around the world to find the Lovers Stone, but when she meets Fitz, her search may lead to a true love of her own.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Tanya Christiansen
- Catherine
- (as Tanya Christensen)
Morgan Christiansen
- Festival Attendee
- (uncredited)
Sheri Lahris
- Restaurant Patron
- (uncredited)
Luis Reyres
- Archaeology Student
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Reused plot as in Pearl in Paradise with minor efforts of writing, directing etc, some nonsense and errors here and there, but nice locations, great lead actress, main actor had less expressivity, but I find it understandable. No great chemistry, but an enjoyable movie overall!
It was cute, but so incredibly unrealistic.
Those damn heeled boots she wore to go hiking in?!! I mean, what the hell!? ANY experienced hiker (and archaeologist) would know never to use that kind of footwear! And when they were digging in the sand, with a pickaxe!? Honestly, those might have been little things, but I found them so annoying to the point of hilarity.
I managed to make it to the end, which is something. A one-time watch if you can make it through.
Those damn heeled boots she wore to go hiking in?!! I mean, what the hell!? ANY experienced hiker (and archaeologist) would know never to use that kind of footwear! And when they were digging in the sand, with a pickaxe!? Honestly, those might have been little things, but I found them so annoying to the point of hilarity.
I managed to make it to the end, which is something. A one-time watch if you can make it through.
Legend based on myth or truth? Of course. Maddie thinks it's true. At least she hopes it's true. The future of her museum depends on it.
Meanwhile, Fitz needs something to save tourism for the island he loves.
Thus starts the search for the lover's stone. And that's the story. It's not surprising they had to throw in Fitz's girlfriend to liven things up. It didn't help. I never saw anyone so unenthusiastic about proposing to his girlfriend and that was before he really got to know Maddie.
I was not familiar with Katrina Norman. I didn't recognize Tilky Jones but I had seen him in a couple of forgettable roles. The two had some mild chemistry. Like the story, nothing very exciting and no surprises.
The ending is more cheesy than sappy. I like sappy, but this was too over the top for me.
Meanwhile, Fitz needs something to save tourism for the island he loves.
Thus starts the search for the lover's stone. And that's the story. It's not surprising they had to throw in Fitz's girlfriend to liven things up. It didn't help. I never saw anyone so unenthusiastic about proposing to his girlfriend and that was before he really got to know Maddie.
I was not familiar with Katrina Norman. I didn't recognize Tilky Jones but I had seen him in a couple of forgettable roles. The two had some mild chemistry. Like the story, nothing very exciting and no surprises.
The ending is more cheesy than sappy. I like sappy, but this was too over the top for me.
I tried to get onboard with this but within the first 5 mins the lead actress had already manhandled a incredibly badly made arts and crafts "artefact" like a child from there it just got worse and worse... i know its supposed to be romantic and we all need to suspend belief and invest in the journey etc but when she started stomping through a tropical garden (which I'm assuming was supposed to replicate a wildly overgrown jungle) as an unconvincing female Indiana Jones in.... wait for it.... Hot pants and heeled platform lace up boots i could no longer bear to watch.
Also the 2 lead actors had zero chemistry so even that couldn't bring it back round for me.
Also the 2 lead actors had zero chemistry so even that couldn't bring it back round for me.
One of so many romances suported by impressive locations and a presumed erudition. Nothing original or realistic or romantic. But good ocasion to use a fairy tale theme in superficial manner. And this is, in good measure, what real matters.
Not so bad acting ( sure, with some indulgence), not awful story ( the dose of indulgence becomes more serious ) . The air of presumed air of treasure hunter, the legends and the diaries, books are good tools for reasonable chain of adventures and illusion of romance. The good point - the comunity spirit.
In short, a poor film with some presumed sparkles. And this is all.
Not so bad acting ( sure, with some indulgence), not awful story ( the dose of indulgence becomes more serious ) . The air of presumed air of treasure hunter, the legends and the diaries, books are good tools for reasonable chain of adventures and illusion of romance. The good point - the comunity spirit.
In short, a poor film with some presumed sparkles. And this is all.
Did you know
- TriviaThe name of the island Cordecil is a misspelling or a corruption of the phrase in French "Coeur du Ciel" which translates as Heart of Heaven.
- GoofsIn the very first scene when Maddie is looking at the art pieces, there is a radical change in her voice when she says a sentence turning to the woman who asks how she can tell they are fakes. She explains "The signature..." in her first recorded voice, but then continues the sentence "is in Arabic, not hieroglyphs" in a deeper, louder voice clearly overdubbed and poorly edited.
- Quotes
Andrew Fitzpatrick: So we're currently driving on the first modern road on the island, Highway 1.
Maddie Turner: Is there a Highway 2?
Andrew Fitzpatrick: No.
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 29m(89 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content