Jackbv123

I often think that the setup in Hallmark-type movies is extended too long, especially when it is overdone tropes like this movie starts out. Come on, I think, get to the real story. Well this movie shows me that concept to a miserable extreme. Another extreme that goes along with that was the cardboard caricature of the jerk fiancé. Such a creep and he was bad from the first second on screen. (I'm sure the actor was playing it the way he was told.)

All this might be OK if the leading lady was OK. Jocelyn Hudon had definite moments of being likeable, when her character was halfway normal. In fact, she is one of Hallmark's most likeable young lady actors. She killed it in some of her outfits. But Maddie is more than just quirky. She is flat out neurotic and crazy. To make it worse, the movie rushes her through first neurotic, then normal, then neurotic again, then normal again. Some of the confusion might make sense since this is a woman who had been put down first by her parents (backstory) and then by her fiancé. Mike and her sister show her freedom from that. This all might have worked in the story, but the transitions were rushed and the traits were exaggerated. It all left me cringing. She makes instant decisions that are absolutely insane towards the end. Maddie's character arc was not the only thing rushed, but it was the most significant.

Hudon and Dan Jeannotte are good together after they get past the ridiculous meet-cute, which wasn't that cute. Their relationship is also rushed with a lot of screen time being spent on shots of them enjoying Niagra scenery. Niagra was the star of the movie.

The family is a disaster. In fact, all the cliches about an unruly and inattentive family are shown to prove it. Yet somehow the tone remains mostly upbeat. Yes the kids seem to have been trained to let mom do all the work. It is a sort of parody of that kind of family. So mom gets disgusted and takes off with her unmarried and glamorous BFF. Much of the movie is them having a great time. They have such a good time that Laura, the mom, even outdoes Trish in the fun department. The parody is that Laura becomes a sort of Trish. Meanwhile back home .... Let's just say that maybe the kids and husband do love the mom.

If you want to look at this as a story about a good family, there are lots of details to ruin that, at least for a while. I saw a comment to the effect that kids and people don't change overnight, but maybe deep down these kids were raised right but drifted into bad habits.

As I said, the tone was mostly upbeat with some fun antics followed by some sappy sentimentality. Sure it was totally predictable. But it was fun. Bonnie Somervile does a nice job keeping the mood light while she transforms.

The plot is fairly simple. There are no great surprises. There is an implied tension of the threat to the marriage, but there is never really a threatening feel.

There is a subplot about Trish and her lifestyle. Again no great surprises.

I enjoyed it. Watching in 2024, it is nothing like most of what appears on Hallmark on a Saturday night these days.

The story surprised me. A lot of the Hallmark-like movies from 20 or so years ago are different from the same old stuff on a Hallmark Saturday night these days. This is a Paul Kaufman film and I saw it on the Hallmark streaming channel, so it is Hallmark adjacent if not nominally Hallmark.

I'm not sure what I expected, but probably some sort of romance. It is in a way, the same way the Mrs. Miracle movies are. Emma is the Mrs. Miracle nanny. But she is also the kids' grandmother, so she has a personal stake and unlike Mrs. Miracle her emotions get involved. (If you aren't familiar with Mrs. Miracle, she is a little like an elderly Mary Poppins who comes to the family to fix what is broken.)

There is a subplot where the retirement home and police are trying to find the 75 year old Emma.

One thing that stands out in this story, especially in the earlier parts, is that none of these characters are role models. We learn that Emma as Joy's mother made a lot of mistakes leaving Joy feeling less than fully loved. Joy is trying as a wife who has been cheated on, but she makes mistakes also. The young Emma, the nanny, starts out with motives which are slightly selfish. She mostly just wants time with the only family she has left.

The acting is mostly good. Many of the situations are unlikely such as how quickly Joy accepts Mame (an anagram of Emma) and even more so how quickly the kids fall in love with her. I think the retirement home director and the cop are supposed to be funny, but they just annoyed me. For the most part, the pace is good.

The story starts out like so many. A woman has a really bad day and loses her high paid job and her boyfriend is in bed with someone else when she goes to see him. So her world is shaken and she retreats. For most of the rest of the movie, the tension is that she is leaving the city permanently. Then she meets a guy by accident. And he is hiding something, maybe nothing big. For much of the movie, that's the story. The relationship is hook in the movie.

Later in the movie, there are a couple of bumps, the biggest one being something seen that is misunderstood. The bumps occur with a good bit of time left and one of them is kind of stupid on one person's part and the other is stupid on the other person's part. This dinged my enjoyment, even if you know everything's going to get worked out. In a very predictable way.

I thought the frequent meetings with the BFF for advice was a little overplayed.

Maybe some of the appeal for me was Kristi Murdock, whom I have only seen one other time. She has a beautiful smile.

If you are looking for a complex storyline, this isn't it. Anything but. But, if like me, you like developing love stories with good dialogue especially between the two leads, then maybe give it a chance.

Another reviewer said that those searching for a romantic comedy would only be half satisfied. From what I saw, no one will be satisfied that this is a romantic comedy, not even halfway. This is a family story. There is a very quick rivalry for the lead woman between two men, along with an equally quick whirlwind romance. I'm not sure why the writers bothered with the rivalry. The romance was to enhance other elements that followed.

There are at least two intense plot lines. As that other reviewer also said, one is never completely resolved. The other is probably the more significant one and it is family drama. There are some ugly moments in the family. The apparent resolution was abrupt. In fact, it is unlikely that the resolution shown at the end of the movie would last. It could, but there would need to be more work and more healing. Both of the big plot lines would need more healing after the final credits.

The acting is good. The dialogue is good. The story is fast paced and has a lot of elements. I think the script tried to do too much. I would like to have seen some of the minor elements dropped and more effort put into the conclusion including building up to it.

I could voice the classic complaint that it is not the same as the book. Actually, it surprised me both for and against that. This and Part One are remarkably faithful to the book with a caveat in the next paragraph. Perhaps that is what lulled me into being a little surprised where it differed. I read the book at least twice and all 6 of the original book series at least once. Plus at least one of the earlier movies and the Sci-FI miniseries. It had been a while so I picked the first book up again today and jumped to the last scenes which parallel Part Two but have obvious differences.

My caveat is that I think these movies must be difficult to fully enjoy all the nuances without having read the book. I kept seeing them and recognizing them from the book, but I can't believe anyone not familiar with the book would understand them and possibly not even acknowledge them. Also, while trying to pay homage to so many elements from the canon of the Dune series, there is too much going bye too quickly and without enough depth. Perhaps that causes the first time viewer to go back to the book. It is almost like easter eggs for the faithful which will be missed by the newcomer.

The acting is great. The storytelling is good. I prefer a little less darkness and obscurity in the visuals, but then this is about Arrakis covered in sand. The sand gets everywhere.

There is one character that I really didn't understand the thinking that was going on especially toward the later scenes and this was mostly due to departure from the book. And I didn't like that departure.

Also because of departures, the third movie will cover some completely new ground. Perhaps it will use themes from the second book, but it seems more likely to me that it will be original themes.

Aimee Teagarden is one of my favorite actors committed to Hallmark. She has done several movies for them that go beyond the simple rom/com and I think they have been something special. This movie, also, goes beyond the simple rom/com. It is more focused on Amanda's relationship with Lori, but the romance with Derrick is at least a close second if not equal in significance to the story.

I always cringe at two things especially when they are linked. The premise is to save the family farm by winning a contest. Amanda is a complete novice at floral arranging, which seems a little odd given that her farm is the source of flowers for arrangements. The movie takes a shot at explaining this and is mostly successful in that regard. But for the novice to even hope to complete with contestants with years of experience, especially Constance who has won several, is the prime example of why I cringe at this premise. However, that hail-Mary hopefulness is not that unusual with this premise.

But, viewer, don't lose hope. Instead of the usual plot line where the romantic interest helps prepare for the contest (or competes against her, or both), Derrick has nothing to do with teaching her the craft. Instead, his mom, Lori, is the sensei and Amanda is, not the grasshopper, but the ladybug. There is some definite creativity in the writing despite the overly common premise.

There seem to be a few subtextual themes. The most dominant themes are love and forgiveness. I think I will need to watch this again to explore the interplay of those different themes and see if there really are more than just the two.

Teagarden and Benjamin Hollingsworth have some romantic chemistry despite their relationship not getting the majority of the screen time. Actually, Teagarden and Frances Flanagan have good chemistry in a mentoring relationship. In short, the acting is good. The dialogue is good but not quite sparkling. The issue of the farm's financial future is the central tension, but it is not overplayed as is sometimes the case. This movie is more about relationships than financial problem solving.

Two secondary criticisms. One is the ending. All I can say is that it is overdone, but so are most Hallmark movies. The other is a question. Is that view looking out at the farm in bloom live or a mural, or perhaps a green screen? The appearance was idyllic and had a fake feel to it. It looked like a painted wall about 10 feet past where the actors were standing.

There are strong spiritual themes related to a person who feels lost finding hope in God. I was ambivalent when Hannah prayed and received an immediate answer, albeit one of mystery and ambiguity. I was afraid that this movie was going to make her spiritual journey overly simplistic. It didn't take long to see that she was going to be led on quest regarding the watch which was going to be the process that led to spiritual solutions. These Hallmark-like quest stories often have deeper implications, but in this case the quest has the underlying spiritual purpose.

Yes, this movie is unapologetically about God. There is even a brief sermon about Jesus. And there is preaching, some by the pastor, and some by the newfound friend, Franklin. The story is really about his spiritual mentor relationship, not nearly as much about the relationship between Hannah and her husband, Rowan.

I watched the premiere on GAF network with an introduction by Candace Cameron Bure. She categorized the story as one about rebirth and resurrection with the obvious tie-in to Easter. While the central focus of Easter is the resurrection, the underlying purpose of it is not a simple rebirth. Romans 4:24-25 tells us that the Father raised Jesus from the dead because he was "delivered up for our trespasses and raised FOR our justification." (My emphasis.) In other words, Christ died a sacrificial death to pay the penalty for our sins, but the resurrection was needed to prove that it was sufficient to that end. And to show that God indeed gives life after death. This part of the Easter message was glossed over by the movie, and worse, there was no discussion of the need for repentance or faith. The message of this movie is incomplete. It would be easy to conclude that this sacrificial atonement applies to all, everyone, regardless of faith.

The acting and script were good. The background score was just as it should be - background.

There are so many of the usual elements in this movie including several of the usual plot components. Jess' family business is in jeopardy, and they need the contest money. Jess is bitter about what she believes was Luke's betrayal years ago in keeping quiet about his father then. As usual in this genre, the animosity gets quickly overlooked almost as if Jess' memory was wiped clean.

There were three ways the contest could have gone. There were two ways Luke's dad could have gone and in this case it is the more common one. But there was really only one way Luke could have gone. Luke knows he should tell Jess about his dad's plan, but any regular rom/com viewer knows how that will turn out. We also know what choice he will make in the end. Kudos for a little twist adding some complexity to the conflict between Luke and Jess that threatens to ruin what is starting to rekindle but it still goes the usual direction. As an astute viewer might guess it creates its own opportunity.

It often seems like Tyler Hynes can have chemistry with anyone opposite him and he does here with Katherine Barrell. The acting is mostly good although it seemed at times that Barrell tried to hard.

I'm not a fan of TV contest shows. They steal screentime from the romantic relationships. There are predictable within a few outcomes. You at least know the lead with financial trouble will make the final and somehow the results will provide what is needed. And so often, the epilogue, not the romantic one, is basically the same and it is here.

In short, we have a write by numbers plot with one small twist. The actors make the entirety watchable but no great highs or lows.

I am not a fan of Royal movies. This movie turns most of the stereotypes on their ears. Yet, the two lead characters are just as much from different worlds as the typical Royal movie. It's that they are both common people. But Angelica is a cultured nerd while Ramone is an uneducated jock. The twist on the usual is making that jock is the "prince", or heir to the throne. Angelica is the one who is the cultured one whose job is to train the prospective prince.

The movie catered a little too much to the juvenile side. It emphasizes that in Ramone, but it really goes overboard in the conspiracy to make Ramone fail. At first, the head conspirator who is also the king's aide, dresses up like a cliche spy wearing sunglasses indoors to watch Ramone's progress.

The story is surprisingly interesting. While the conspiracy is overplayed in a silly way, it adds spice and a little bit of threat to the outcome. About halfway, a new hiccup is added to the conspiracy. There is a moment of doubt about who will end up with Angelica romantically, and the main relationship doesn't get much development. Perhaps the fact that the story was far more than the one relationship that made this one of the more interesting Royal stories I can remember, and I've seen a lot of them.

There is a cute twist on the arrogant and clueless sales lady gag.

I've never seen any of these actors which is not usually a good sign for acting ability, but the main characters were mostly natural in their roles but still had some lack of polish. The dialogue has both good and bad moments. Sets are cheap. The "best restaurant" in Miami looked like a cafeteria.

Despite some less impressive production values, the story made up for it.

Many Christmas movies are about saving the family _______ (mill). Many are about high school sweethearts with a bad parting. So, if we are going to watch a movie based on those very common threads, with a predictable ending no less, then what's the hook? It should have been rekindling the relationship between Mia and Brady. The story went there, but with way too little screen time and almost no development of that relationship. A few conversations, half about the mill and only half about the good old days, do not a hook make. Way too much screen time is spent on efforts to save the mill, all along the usual lines for a community icon. Also with a few ornamental exceptions, this movie could have been about any time of year, not just Christmas.

CMM and Chista Taylor Brown had little or no chemistry. CMM is more than a decade older than Brown and looks it here. (Yet they were the same age in high school.) Brown plays an appealing Mia. Her acting is fair and far better than one of CMM's less notable performances. He had no energy. Brown was fine with a lower energy performance but at least there was life to Mia. Other acting was poor to good. Dialogue had little spark. Background music varied with sometimes being distracting (which is a common complaint I have for this network.)

To make matters worse in terms of rooting for the relationship, I lost faith in Brady from the start. He is supposed to be experienced, so Brady could not possibly have believed a verbal promise would stand up. If he really valued Mia's family, he would have told mum to put it in the contract. At times Brady seemed shady, or lazy.

The lead characters are very unlikeable at the beginning. Ryan is horribly rude at the flower shop and then doubles down by embarrassing Brooke at her presentation. He lies back on her couch with his shoes on it while they talk through the coming test run. She is the cliche of a PhD who believes that science trumps feelings and that love can be measured with biometric devices.

And then like most of the other movies in this genre, they instantly drop all the animosity and warm up to each other and completely forget the horrible start. Even the acting, which starts out as poor, gets better and the two seem almost natural. Some of the supporting cast, like Brooke's boss, are poor throughout.

Predictably, the audience knows where this is going. The conflict or bump in the road was pretty tame. Along the way there were plenty of the usual tropes. Some of the dialogue was a little catchy.

Despite some rough spots, I found myself enjoying the movie once it got past the ridiculously overplayed animosity. (The personalities displayed there were not true to the real characters.)

Even though this isn't Hallmark, you still have a pretty good idea of the ultimate outcome. Getting there is a little crazy. Both Sarah and Jake spend a lot of time with other love interests and there are a lot of embarrassing moments, especially for Sarah. And don't forget Sarah's sisters and friends who are called upon repeatedly for encouragement. Still Diane Lane and John Cusack had good chemistry.

There are a lot of funny moments and funny lines. For me, a movie is exceptional if I laugh out loud even once and there were several of those in this movie.

There are a few things that either I disliked directly or thought could have been better. The title is about dogs and yet I thought there could have been more with the dogs. This movie goes back aways sitting in 2024 and I am tired of awkward date scenes. Not only were they really awkward, but there were more than I'm used to and they are sprinkled throughout the movie. My worst complaint is the commentary on men. I don't think there is a line that "men are dogs", but that is the message, except for Jake. The worst was the father. It is one thing to make Sarah's dates out as shallow with women, but why did her father have to be? And he might have been the worst flaunting them in front of Dolly.

What happened to Jen was truly horrible. Cruelty like this can't be compared one incident to another. What happened to the girls who were killed was awful, but they won't live with it for decades like Jen, unless she takes her own life.

Then along comes the cop. How was Jen left alone with him? No lawyer, no family. (Always ask for a lawyer even if you aren't yet accused of anything. Most cops are good, but there are enough like this monster.) She is obviously a victim of Stockholm Syndrome and yet the cop verbally and visually abuses her and accuses her of being part of the crimes.

Others have noted the bad acting, directing, everything. Don't forget exploitation. Through almost the whole movie they managed not to show any nudity. Likewise for violence, other than the fairly tame abduction itself and the captivity of Jen. Then in the closing part of the movie they show a girl covered only by a sheet being slowly stabbed to death with one slow stroke, and then fairly lengthy shots of a topless girl running and then blood spraying on Jeremy as he bludgeons her.

The most positive thing I will say about this movie is that it is unlike all the other usual Hallmark rom/com stuff. Much of the comedy is a little on the silly side for me, so this doesn't get top marks from me for that. As for romance, these couples have already reached the point of getting married, but I really wonder how any of them made it that far. We really don't get to see much of what brought them together. Even so, Erin and David seem like a good couple, but mom is so awful I don't see how Erin got past that to the altar. How did Stella not see Mark's domineering character? Casey and Nick might have been good together since what caused their problems doesn't show up until after the wedding. In their case, the basic red flag I see is Casey's insecurities.

I mentioned the silly humor. Much of it was based on over-exaggeration like some of the things the dog did, or Renee. There is definitely an audience for this kind of humor, but I like a little less over the top. There are some good lines.

There isn't much romance. Every time something romantic was about to happen, there would be either a comical or annoying interruption, or both. Given that, and splitting screen time among three couples, there's no real chemistry.

There is at least one thing that doesn't turn out like I expected. A twist, if you will, given the genre, but it made as much sense as anything else in the story.

Admittedly this is more than a few years ago before Hallmark went totally woke, but I am still a little surprised that there was a bit of parody about obsessing over being Green.

Lindsay (Megan Park) is obsessed over making the world Green. That is part of what makes her so shallow. It's kind of funny because the word shallow implies a lack of layers in a character but Lindsay actually has several layers of shallow. For most of the movie she is willing to practically sell her soul for these things. Being a big shot in the corporate world, having her dream home, dream guy, dream project. It's too bad because I find Megan Park appealing and not just for her good looks. But in this movie, for so much of it, she had to go against the sweet girl persona she does so well. That girl is usually upbeat, but Lindsay comes off as kind of sad.

If Lindsay isn't bad enough, Billy is downright annoying. I wish I thought that part was funny, but it was just annoying.

While the wish plot theme is a bit unusual, this story isn't that far off the typical format for when the lead female isn't seeing her best guy friend right in front of her. You know in general terms what is going to happen. And of course she has to make a grand gesture.

I can't help but think of the movie Birthday Wish which is also a Hallmark TV movie even though there are big differences. The biggest difference is that it is actually upbeat and funny.

The acting was as bad as any Reel One Entertainment I can remember. Most of the main characters were terrible, especially Harris and Stoddard. Add to that how distracting and annoying the "background" music was and this movie was hard to watch. Background music should not be noticeable. This was. The dialogue was fair.

The story was a typical Quest which throws the romantic leads together on their search, in this case, for Eternity which is who set up their blind date. The reason for the quest was unusual and stretched credulity that they would both put so much effort into it. Harris and Stoddard had zero chemistry or worse. The conflict was overplayed although there was something Ellen said that made me pause to consider her point of view. There is the typical lie of omission. She makes the comment that he is a lawyer, so he knows how to lie without technically lying. The usual "cute kid" wasn't that cute.

If the acting wasn't bad enough, the stereotypical antagonistic first meeting is overdone. He was horribly rude, and she started to return in kind. But his rudeness pointed to character traits that really shouldn't go away so easily. Their mutual antagonism lasted way too long.

I am surprised by the ratings and reviews. I have reviewed over 1500 movies and tv shows with a strong leaning toward the smaller screen products. I rate based on enjoyment and I really enjoyed this. I am a fan of Fantasy, especially if there is some romance involved, so this hit my wheelhouse (to badly twist an expression).

The story is clearly immersed in magical realms, but there is a surprising amount of reality in the character portrayals. Also there is a generous amount of sappiness. Perhaps it is that last which elevates my liking above the rest of the crowd for this movie.

Kaya Scodelario convinces me of the wonder she undergoes both with the mermaid and with the setting in Versailles including the King. Brosnan almost convinces me of the cynicism and political savvy in his character, the King. The scenes of his confessions to the priest present an interesting juxtaposition to that savvy, but with obvious hypocrisy. Then as the movie progresses, we see some of his humanity trying to peek out. Hurt presents a priest who is a little more sincere in his faith than I am used to after seeing more than a few Three Musketeer stories. The political intrigue and dominance of the King is sanitized some leaving a hint of the brutality without resorting to anything grisly. However, if you think about the life Marie-Josephe had at the convent, it was one so miserable as to be abusive. It is extraordinary, and perhaps even hard to believe, that she retained an independent and even contentious spirit.

I would hope that Scodelario and her real life husband Benjamin Walker had good chemistry! But there was so much going on that their relationship was hardly the central focus of the story. As I discuss above, the acting was fine for me in that it at least conveyed the characters and their emotional conflicts. The story had real drama and there was decent dialogue. As to scenery, I'm not sure I have ever seen Versailles presented so expansively.

BTW - am I the only person wondering how they all travelled 150 plus km to the ocean so quickly or on one horse each?

Seems like I really like a lot of rom/coms with Jake Epstein in them. He can be very funny with great delivery. Becca Tobin's resume isn't as long, but I give many of her movies positive reviews.

This movie skips the early relationship building between them, but it gets off to a good start with witty dialogue. The tone early on is upbeat without much negativity. Then comes the wedding planning, and especially the opinionated moms. Adam's job also adds tension. A lot.

There is a lot of tradition and family sentimentality. The climax is so sappy, it borders on cheesy, but not quite. It really is a good sappy.

I love Kelley Jakle, but I wonder about casting an obvious blonde in a role where that would be a definite handicap for the character trying to make inroads in the midst of a community with strong cultural values that border on xenophobic at times. The movie even makes references to that by using pejorative labels for people from outside.

As if xenophobia isn't enough negativity, Leah has a competitor for promotion who plays dirty using sexism against her and a boss who plays into it. "Women have to work twice as hard to get half as far." Unfortunately, at a time when Leah should be focusing on business, she decides to concentrate a lot of effort on socializing and Hula and seems to ignore what she was sent for.

Interestingly neither of these things is the focus of the movie. There is a lot of screentime spent on Hulu dancing. This combines with the romantic plot thread, but it also shortchanges that a bit.

From the minute Leah meets the hotel events coordinator, Ikaika, and then the property owner at least part of the general outcome is predictable. This becomes apparent before the midpoint. Another theme that seems to be universal in this type of movie is that of the Evil Developers who want to destroy everything beautiful putting only buildings in their place. (Are all Developers really that stupid?) I thought there were some rough parts in getting there because not everything made sense. To explain what I mean would be spoilers and I don't want to do that.

I love to hear Jakle sing and she does one song,

This movie has potential and it is one that many people will enjoy. There are definitely some fun parts. But it has parts that many will find slow and others too chaotic which is how I found it.

The story may appear to be different but is really very similar to other rom/coms in many ways. Failing business entrepreneur faces family afraid to admit the truth while the family puts intense pressure on her not only professionally but even more so romantically. The plot device of the five blind dates seems unusual but boils down to forcing some awkward date scenes while the obvious choice isn't considered which is similar to many other movies. And there is a problem even there. The obvious choice really isn't obvious. They have so little screen time together and their eventual getting together doesn't make that much sense.

The blind dates have awkward elements, but they aren't all totally lame like many movies do. There is some creativity and fun in the awkward part of each one.

There is some cultural flavor especially as to how tea is used in Chinese traditions. One reviewer was offended at the "racism" where he thought the Chinese people were denigrated. I didn't see it that way and I have been close with several first and second generation Chinese people. The quirks of the main characters were more personal than national or cultural.

I watched this movie for only one reason. I love Erin Cahill. I wanted to see her in a rom/com before her Hallmark days and one not limited by Hallmark's regular G ratings. What a mistake.

There is bad acting, although who can tell in a movie this silly and stupid. The dialog was definitely bad, not even counting what was worse about it. The dialogue was crass, crude, obscene. There may not be any sex shown, but the inuendo would make frat guys blush. (OK maybe that's not possible, but you get the idea.) Actually it was probably made by frat guys. The sets are cheap. The background music is often extremely distracting. Sometimes the background sound is chaotic, even beyond what fits that particular scene. And something I have never commented on in over 1500 reviews, the lighting was bad several times. In one close up scene, there were random shadows across both actors' faces. One closeup of Cahill aged her a couple decades. The story is unusual but silly and stupid. There is a lot of drug and alcohol abuse that has a bearing on the story despite the intention to be funny. In short, there isn't just one slight flaw that I overemphasize, every aspect of this movie is bad.

Was it funny? I'm sure the frat guys this movie is aimed at probably found some laughs. I found one snippet funny and I apologize for it because it was as crude as anything in the movie - the elevator scene. The gag that led to that and followed it was way overdone.

As to whether there is any ballot box stuffing - if you look at the rating distribution, it is heavily in the 1 to 5 star range (69% of the votes at this writing). The only indication of ballot box stuffing is all the 10 stars.

TV show host ends season and goes back to hometown. She spends time with her former sweetheart. Her parents are selling the family restaurant where she learned from her dad and grandmother. There is a cooking contest. I could keep going right up to the end where I totally knew what was going to happen in the very last scene. That's because I've seen it all before. There are probably a couple previous movies that follow this plot point for plot point.

The acting is decent. The dialog also, but not sparkling. There is a rival who seems evil but it is only talk.

I love Erin Cahill. This is probably the best of her last four Hallmark movies. One of those was equally unoriginal as this. I don't think the letdown in any of them was her fault. Why does she keep doing bad stories? Could she be coasting?

I give this movie my default for OK but not good - 6 stars. And that's all because of my prejudice for Cahill. I wasn't impressed with her opposite or the relationship between them.

The most famous of this fictional Brooklyn's success stories is Hollywood couple Bradley and Angelica. Seriously? Certainly, there are more substantial things that could be said about Jessica Lowndes' script, but this low hanging fruit is all but fallen on the ground. I saw a comment wondering if Lowndes wrote this as a parody, and this would seem to be one factor leaning towards that. Since many Hallmark movies tend to be so alike, almost any of them could be seen as a parody in some way.

Years ago, I was very much unimpressed with Lowndes' acting, but in more recent years she has grown on me. This must be an example of those earlier years because her acting here is fair to poor. One scene that caught my attention in this regard is with Brooklyn and Mia at lunch where Brooklyn is moping. Not only is Lowndes the star and writer, but she is an Executive Producer. Wes Brown's acting is solid.

The storyline of matchmaker obviously being attracting to her opposite yet having to set him up with someone else is not overly common, but it has been done, at least since 2019 when this came out. Both characters here have such obvious moon eyes for each other from an early point in the story, even after the 12 year gap. The awkward first date between Devin and Stephanie is definitely awkward but in a slightly unusual way. There's a scene of comfort ice cream (including a spoonful larger than Lowndes' mouth that never gets eaten) which leads to a strange sequence of phone conversations. Then there is the Cyrano Bergerac takeoff which immediately follows. It all seems contrived and maybe is another nod towards this being parody. The charade of pushing Stephanie at Devin actually reaches the point of a secret lie that hangs over Brooklyn and is bound to come out at an inconvenient time. The story continues to tweak common rom/com themes like nostalgia and secret love. So, is this a clumsy script of contrived circumstances, a parody, or possibly some cleverness on the part of Lowndes? I think I lean towards clever. There are definitely some clever aspects including some good dialogue.

Wes Brown does some singing. The take at the wedding is vapid but his original song is decent. Lowndes even gets in at the end and brings the performance up a notch.

BTW, most movies use different actors to do the backstory scene from high school days, but this movie uses Lowndes and Brown. I was surprised at how close they came to looking like teenagers.

The stories based on one of the leads hiding a significant truth from the other is always hard for me. Should it be doubly so if both do? The viewer knows at least one thing that is going to happen and that is that at least one of the lies is going to come out at an awkward time. There are couple of interesting things that go along with how the truth comes out here and they involve the dad and the wannabe boyfriend and business associate. As far as I was concerned, Kate was far too forgiving of Charles. The fact that she and dad both overlooked it shows that these rich people really are snobs and doesn't bode well for Jack's long term relationship with either.

Erika Christensen and Paul Greene had a nice chemistry. On the other hand Christensen didn't play Kate tough enough to be a CEO of a large corporation, but then everything about her approach to the situation with Debbie bossing her around was just as unlikely. I also thought that the excuses for both Jack and Kate putting off the truth grew more lame as time went on.