The Miracle of the Cards

[1] apart from Thomas Sangster (of "Love Actually" fame), the American actors' "English" accents are appalling.

[2] the acting is so wooden.

[3] the "English" scenery (especially local church and "Royal Marsden" exteriors) is so American!

[4] the general 'direction' is so amateurish, and obviously "Made-for-US-TV".

It's a shame, as the story is real, and inspiring.

So why is it that US directors/actors all think that everyone in England speaks with a plum stuck in their cheek?

We don't!

And why use US actors and US sets but a UK boy in a UK story?

I really enjoyed this film. Although it isn't "oscar-worthy" it is a wonderful, delightful film about faith and hanging onto it. I felt the best attraction about this film was actor Peter Wingfield. He pretty much carried this film. Without his brilliant acting it wouldn't have been quite as good. It is a nice film overall to watch and enjoy.

A bit slow, but it makes you involved in the movie and care what happens to the people. It is a pretty good movie, and not alot of people have seen it, but its still a nice movie. Not award winning, obviously, but it is worth the watching if nothing better is out. SEE IT 5\10 average

When I learned the premise that The Miracle of the Cards is based on, that discovery was met with an inward groan. Here it is: a young boy with a brain tumor, not likely to survive, wants to break the Guinness Book of World Records count for receiving get-well cards. I was glad to see that the movie is based on a true story, at least, and not some urban legend or internet hoax.

The story is told mostly through flashbacks during a sceptical reporter's interviews with the young patient's parents. From the mother's nightmares of seeing her son in a coffin (which began before his first symptoms), to his hospitalization and diagnosis with a rare form of cancer and his pursuit of the record for most cards received, this sentimental story is worth watching IF you keep reminding yourself that it is based on a true story and that it's not a sappy takeoff on an urban legend / internet hoax.

Good production values, a few solid performances and what could have been a more compelling story line are unfortunately offset somewhat by a premise that has been defamed by internet hoaxes and by the length of the film at 89 minutes. Whether or not an hour and a half was needed to tell this story is debatable, but when a movie feels too long, it probably is.

In case no one bothered to read, the film was shot in Canada. Not the USA. So even still, of course you're going to see a lot of things USA in it, since I would guess Viacom is an American company. Things get shot in Canada, because it is a lot less expensive then shooting in the USA. Many popular movies and TV shows were done there.