Jackbv123

I like Rhiannon Fish but Emily may be the most unlikeable Rom/Com lead ever. She is clumsy, but that can be cute. She is a total moron, arrogant, and refuses all help, much to her detriment. But when she gets really desperate, she starts manipulating Ryan. For literally half the movie Emily screws up one thing after another. Ryan is an OK guy, but Emily was so frustrating it didn't help him look good. Phoebe's parents are totally mean to Emily and even though she probably deserves it, that doesn't make the movie fun to watch.

Their search is totally hopeless despite the importance of what they lost. But since it's Hallmark, I assumed the impossible will happen, but you'll have to see.

As in many of these movies, the whole tone of events changes so quickly the viewer gets whiplash. In this case, at the half way point (with commercials) the relationship settles down and the calamities get a little less depressing. Also like most of these movies, there is a conflict based on a misunderstanding toward the end, but this one comes and goes so quickly, it might as well have been skipped.

There is some great local scenery. And I was a little surprised to find this swimming "scenery" in a Hallmark movie. Not that revealing, but more than the usual.

The midpoint recovery was enough to take this movie from avoid-at-all-costs to almost watchable.

The movie puts me in mind of a cross between In My Dreams (2014) and Ghosts of Christmas Always (2023). The first is obvious and probably better than this movie. The mechanics behind the Dream making and the ensuing screw ups echoes the latter movie. It is this totally unusual approach that lifts this movie slightly above the same old Saturday night stuff on Hallmark.

I'm not familiar with either of the leads. Someone really screwed up the credits on this website because Sklyer Samuels is listed at this writing as Emily. She is actually Grace.

Most of the acting is decent, at least for the real characters. The supernatural characters maybe not so much, but the whole operation behind the dream making has a Bush League feel. They are using VHS tapes for storage. The office has a pedestrian feel and maybe dated also.

Samuels and Kapil Talwalkar have chemistry. Their characters and relationship are appealing and for me this was where any hook was.

It seemed to me like the theme of chasing your dreams was pushed a little too hard, where "dreams" in this case is like "hopes and dreams" rather than what you do while asleep. It's not uncommon for Hallmark, but it can be carried a little too far. I thought it interesting that the story set up the idea of Grace as a struggling artist barely making ends meet, even to the point of having to borrow money. But when she went chasing Michael she seemed to have a lot of money to spend.

My rating acknowledges the somewhat unusual story and quirkiness of it, but I'm not sure if this is one I will want to watch again.

When I saw the preview that the Postables would be back, I inwardly cheered and joyfully told my wife. After watching it, my excitement is somewhat muted.

There were excellent aspects of the story. The most obvious theme centers around the reality that marriage is not all the simple HEA that Hallmark rom/coms usually promise. Emphasis on the word simple. There is always potential for the HEA, but it is rarely simple. In the case of Oliver and Shane we have two people who have lived alone for much of their adult lives and that makes a new marriage even more complicated. I thought this movie did well to make that clear, although I felt there was a bit of our heroes being out of character.

My enjoyment was sapped a little by this pervading negative tone. I struggled to find the moments of quirkiness that these characters are so known for. In fact, one moment stood out with Norman. We usually see Norman come up with something extremely profound, but usually it comes as an apparent contradiction to his usual quirkiness. In this case, I was struck by his demeanor looking as profound as the advice he gave. This was a nice touch.

It's not a spoiler to say that many viewers will need their box of tissues as we get toward the end, but it seemed to me that in this episode, those moments were not sprinkled as much through the entire story.

I was glad to see Rhiannon Fish truly be a fifth member of the central group. Charlie seemed to be a better developed character than in the last one.

For me the premise seems common with several others and the story doesn't really stand out. There are no great highs or lows or surprises.

What does stand slightly apart is Paul Campbell. He is not your soft cuddly leading man. "Prickly". Yes that describes Harrington and Campbell fits the part. So the relationship with Lyndie Greenwood's April is not quite typical. It is in some ways, but a little more complicated. The biggest difference is that the antagonism lasts throughout much of the movie. For a while it gets suppressed and things look good. The conflict that all romance stories need comes not so much from secrets or misunderstandings as from the character himself.

I found the movie a little slow at times. Or maybe I should say deliberate. There is a place for that, but in this case, it didn't work for me personally. When the movie's story doesn't have any big hooks for me, I look to the relationship. In fact, in this genre, the relationship is always important. Because of the things I describe above, I didn't get invested in the relationship. Did I really want this for April?

BTW pet peeve: no texts, but at least two significant handwritten notes are too small and too quick to read for anyone without great eyes or without pausing. Why is this fault so common?

I found this movie delightful even though it followed similar lines to other movies where the protagonists are trying to find something throughout the story only to have many near misses. The viewer sees these misses but since it's Hallmark, we know the pieces will all fall in place eventually. I don't think it is a spoiler to say that almost too many things fall into place in happy ways.

Against the backdrop of the search we also have the very common trope of the two romantic leads thrown together to plan a big Christmas event. There is also the secret that the viewer knows will come out a bit too soon and hurt the protagonists. In many ways, this movie might have been a rehash of all the same old stuff, but it wasn't. Or maybe I should say it was so much more. It is fun to watch the near misses and start to imagine how the writers will bring it all together. I think that most viewers will start to come close to figuring it out even if only slightly before it happens.

Ashley Newbrough and Christopher Russell have chemistry and watching them together is part of the fun. The acting is all good and the dialogue has some good moments.

This is one to watch again.

In trying to decide whether to watch this, I sampled other reviews. One of the bad ones almost scared me away, but then based on two of the better ones, I decided to watch it.

As evil step-family goes, they were evil, but Ashlyn was able to tough it out partly because the abuse was mild compared to many Cinderella stories, including another by this director and writer. The step-fam had her doing some menial and inconvenient chores but it wasn't constant. The worst of it leads into the climax and backfires as you would expect for most versions of this classic.

One reviewer calls Ashlyn a wimp, but I didn't see her that way. For me she was self-controlled resisting against striking out. As the pressure rose, she finally had to do what was necessary, but even then it was power under control. True forgiveness is not wimpy. Maybe a little sappy though in how it came down.

The nominal romance with Noah wasn't much to write home about.

In a story like this, there is always a tendency to overplay the step-family members. In this case, their faults were not overplayed as much as could have been. The acting of the other three main characters was basically fair. I thought the necessity to play Ashlyn so restrained made Emma Reinagel seem stiff at times, even once or twice with Conor McGee.

After seeing it all, I do not agree with either the reviewer that totally dissed it or the two the praised it but I'm left in the middle. This isn't that good a movie, but neither is it horrible.

The premise is that Cassandra (Meghan Markle) finally realizes that her current boyfriend doesn't appreciate her and will never commit to her so she turns to, you guessed it, the Dater's Handbook. The handbook focusses on reliable traits in a man. The writer gives pointers that if taken with a grain of salt are usually pretty good. Right off the bat, the writer says "It's not him, it's you." And there is a valid principle there, but Cass takes this, like everything in the book, a little too literally with a lot of help from her sister.

Soon after setting about on this new course she begins to date two guys. George is reliable and maybe a bit stiff. Robert is fun and spontaneous. Cass, her sister. And her mom start rating the men. The ladies convince Cass she has to choose.

I think most viewers will figure out who Cass chooses in the end long before it plays out.

The acting is decent all around. Kristoffer Polaha can be the sophisticated guy, but in this case he is the more spontaneous. He does it well without being silly. He and Markle have definite chemistry.

The movie is very predictable. It has quirky moments without being over the top.

I have rated nearly 2500 shows and movies and reviewed over 1500. The majority are in this genre or Christmas movies. Read other reviews of this movie. Many don't ring true. Several of them are expansive with sophisticated wording far more than average reviews. In other words, several of them are too similar. Look at profiles. There are some definite Megan Markle haters. One of the really negative ones don't even accurately describe this movie or the actors and still receives more helpful votes than not.

Don't get me wrong. This movie is not good. But it is not "the worst" of Hallmark or in any category. Markle is not great, but she is a cut above some of the newbies that show up occasionally from production companies like Reel One.

Markle is playing a part of a character that is caught in the middle often or caught in a situation where she has to appear neutral even though her real opinion is negative. That character reaction is going to be uncertain and ambiguous. Almost always in this type of movie, the reaction is going to appear lame to the viewer. The actor has to show the viewer that her reaction is false and/or hiding something, but the other characters accept the reaction as real. In countless movies of this type, I have seen almost identical reactions when the character is almost caught out. Markle isn't great, but she doesn't stand out, especially not negatively.

Sammie is ridiculous. She is supposed to be. That is one of the consistent themes in the movie until her crisis. It is almost funny and some will laugh at how bad it is.

The movie follows many of the usual tropes and is predictable. As soon as Phil starts meeting people, you can see what is going to happen and you already knew how it was going to turn out for Amy. Lochlyn Munro has done several almost similar roles and usually comes off as a jerk, but there is nothing wrong with Phil in this one.

I thought it was hilarious that there was a watermain break. I used to joke that they happened in every Christmas movie to threaten some pageant. In this case it leads to a trope similar to many of those other movies.

Chemistry between the two actual leads? Yeah there is some, but it isn't sizzling.

I'm not a fan of moves that have one main character demolish a relationship between fiancés, and even more so at the last minute. I'm also old school in thinking you don't date your bestie's ex. Do they cancel or double? Not sure, but I lean toward double. Probably not a good idea to have your fiancé's ex as bride's maid. Even so, this movie may not be good, but it is more middle of the road.

Bad acting, bad dialog, cardboard characters who are also unrealistic, too many platitudes.

In act 1, before the wish, we have the ideal family despite the workaholic mom who rightly denigrates herself as a terrible mom. Yet somehow, she manages to spend quality time with her kids. And her teenage girl has none of the usual tension with her mom. Both kids act like the workaholic mom is a hero. In this section, the acting isn't great but it isn't as horrible as what's to come.

Act 2 made me wonder if this was a parody. This Dustin is the most one dimensional of all the characters. He acts like the only thing in life is to spend outrageous sums of money on his wife. All of these movies where a wish is granted to change a life path presents the main character with the problem of having the old memories and thought patterns despite a completely changed circumstance. In this case Sharron becomes creepy as like a stalker of other people's kids. Of course, to her, they are her kids, but not to them. The fact is that these same kids have become spoiled in this other family and that is supposed to be part of the morale of the story. In this act, all the acting is terrible.

I won't say much about Act 3 other than that the acting goes back to being only slightly poor.

Rebecca Dalton has had at least one real bomb but also a couple I enjoyed. Her appearance makes me think she is a model, but I can't find that in her bio. For me she is strikingly beautiful. I won't say that she is a great actress. Marcus Rosner is a veteran for Hallmark, but I have never thought he stood out.

Put them together in a movie that follows the usual lines and you get a middle of the road product which some will love and others not so much.

I will say the snowflake angle is a new one. I looked it up and found one article saying there are at least 30 types. Hmm.

The writers try to liven the story by having another photographer compete with Teagan to have an entry in the auction that one benefactor has already promised big bucks for if the lot includes that rare 12 sided snowflake. This might have added to the story if the competitor hadn't been so obviously inept. Her shady side must have been the intended hook, but just irritated me.

This movie seems to prioritize the following themes in this order: 1) Cutthroat business wars; 2) Puppies and dogs; 3) Work/life balance; 4) Scarlett and Alex's relationship. The ranking is subjective as I saw it. Regardless of that, my point is that this rom/com spent a LOT of screen time on the business wars including unethical conduct behind the scenes. I don't tune in to Hallmark to watch a cliche portrayal of cutthroat business. I suspect most people who tune in to this channel do so more for relationship development.

The theme of work/life balance has been popular on Hallmark for a while now. There is nothing wrong with it, but it gets a lot of play.

The puppies are definitely cute and are a definite plus for this movie.

Scarlett's dog treats were almost magical in the way dogs reacted so instantly and so strongly. And they are healthy too!

Acting. Something was off at times. Rather than the acting, it may have been something else. Transitions were rough at times. Dialogue seemed trite at times. And the brand Pup Chuck. I did a web search on those two words and off to the right, but at the top of the page was a definition section for the word "up-chuck". The similarity is probably intentional since the guy pushing the Pup Chuck brand was the movie's cardboard villain. He didn't have a handlebar mustache though. Maybe the thing that seemed off to me was the humor which seemed to be based on parody but didn't seem to be invested in it.

Stephen Huszar is 40 this year. The only thing I could find about Pascal Lamothe-Kipnes was somewhere between 22 and 28. That's a notable age difference for a romance story. Scarlett's character seemed youngish in the way she approached things.

For story and acting, I would probably not watch this again. The puppies and dogs made it watchable for one time through.

The acting is bad at times and OK at times. The story borrows a lot of well used plot devices. In this genre, it is common to stretch reality but this one stretches it a lot. The dialog is OK but not great.

Nina Kiri is probably one of the better actors but not totally consistent. She has chemistry with Connor McMahon who plays his role also with ups and downs. The agent was too much over the top, but I guess that's what the director wanted.

It looks like they had trouble avoiding rain especially in the long shots. There are a couple of shots of town with that foggy look you get with rain, but rain was never part of the script.

The movie climaxes with The Song which appears to be original. Brit McRae does a very nice job in the duet. McMahon sounds OK, but I can't see that he is known for his singing.

I am just surprised that the aggregate IMDb rating is so high. As of this writing, there are 8 other 1 star reviews and the highest review is a 2 star. It's well deserved.

I'm not a fan of Cindy Busby. She has no depth and usually seems to play the same flaky people. Interesting that the one notable exception for her is also with Benjamin Hollingsworth in Another Christmas Coincidence (aka Godwink: Meant for Love). Busby's performance here is bad even for her. She is so over the top, especially in the first few scenes.

Another reviewer noted that you don't send someone on a wilderness experience with no notice (less than a day). Then you blame her for being late when she had to fly over half the country to get there!!! And penalize her in a break-the-ice game as a result. If Busby's earlier scenes didn't already have me upset, this just adds on. The story continues to be bad for a while yet and it makes Mia into a very unlikeable character. Such a wimp. Mia is so lame that it might have been funny, but I didn't laugh at all. You know that will change as the story goes on.

So many of these movies have a boss ranging from annoyingly demanding to downright unethical. Marilyn is the latter. I found it disgusting that she suggests making one of Mia's colleagues lose his glasses in order to handicap him in the competitions.

BTW: such great cellphone service in the middle of this wilderness. And at least one key plot point is based on it.

The thing that grabbed my attention first was how disgusting was the scene building up to eating the baby. OK, Doctor Who always has lots of innocent people being obliterated, exterminated, whatever, but eating a baby is just too much. And if it isn't bad enough, it's done with a song and dance performance lauding the act. If you could ignore the circumstances, it is totally typical of a Disney musical scene. A Disney celebration of eating a baby!!! Celebration!!!

The Doctor is his (or her) usual self with meaningless babble which can be funny and intriguing. But in this case it didn't feel like the usual Doctor. Maybe I missed that he wasn't arguing with the bad guys, but just babbling.

Ruby shows signs of becoming a great companion. She doesn't rattle easily and her mind is quick.

The post rescue scenes didn't make sense. I expected something totally obvious and it didn't happen. This episode is about coincidences, Christmas birthdays, and lost family. There was one thing the Doctor had a perfect opportunity to do which would have fit perfectly in all these things, and he didn't do it. Maybe the show runners are saving it for later.

Obviously, this is the same Jena Coleman/Clara physically that we know from past episodes, but what is she thinking?

Clara, a.k.a. The Impossible Girl. Has seen all the Doctors' faces including the aged ones. She spent time with 3 different ones including the Grumpy one. She has been, at times, impertinent but almost always right about her assertions. Her personality is almost always cheerful and somewhat carefree. Who is this woman who takes offense so easily? She grieves 11, but come on. If anyone knows it is the same guy, it should be her. At the restaurant, it was necessary for the drama to come that she clash with the Doctor but here she was more than prickly. She was arrogant and demanding and worse than all that, she was mean. This Clara just doesn't fit with the one I know and love.

Not to say that the scene at the end with the phone call and all that follows isn't well done and poignant (if you accept the premise of her confusion). Even as much as alarms were going off in my head that her personality was misrepresented, the scene pulled me in.

The Doctor almost always has a streak of nonsense. He seems to defy all logic and act recklessly. This isn't the first time that coming out of a regeneration those traits are accentuated. In this case it reaches the point where the illogic becomes total confusion on his part. To me it becomes silliness that is more than I like, but it is part of being the Doctor.

Vastra tells Clara at one point that it is Clara who knows the Doctor better than anyone living, but Vastra certainly knows River Song.

I am unusual in that I applaud Matt Smith as the best Doctor. It is purely personal. He simply resonates with me. Peter Capaldi is a shock for me. It took me a while to stop being turned off by his Doctor. For me, this was not a good start for him.

It would be really hard not to be great with a story like this. But it doesn't stop there. The acting is good, but the dialogue is fantastic and the timing of line delivery is great. There are a ton of funny moments. Really funny. Reviews like this usually talk about chemistry between the romantic leads, and I often throw in great chemistry between an adult and a cute kid, but there is amazing chemistry almost all around. It's like all the main characters really are family and have known each other forever.

Cora Bella as Ruby is a force of nature. Such a powerful performance. Meanwhile Sarah Drew goes deep. The woman who plays Amelia's partner is real, not just a foil as a BFF.

If the movie wasn't good enough already, the climax tops it all off perfectly. And I laughed really hard at Ruby's last line.

A large part of this movie was silliness. It seemed like the director was making fun of the entire genre of heroes and mythical figures. Ridiculous silliness. The protagonists were made fun of and humiliated. The all powerful Zeus was a joke also.

As the overriding peril increased, so did the futility. Both the heroes and the antigod had whimsical magical powers with no boundaries. Just when it seemed like the heroes would claim victory, the villain triumphed and gained his goal.

There is one final faceoff. Then instead of vanquishing Grog with power, Thor appeals to love. And of course Love wins.

Periodically throughout the movie there were heroic speeches. At least they were given in heroic tones, but the words were meaningless. Also there were periodic chaotic battles with massive destruction. Just so they could show off their CGI. But then that's the standard we've come to expect in Marvel movies.

The whole movie is a joke.

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.