Reviews

Let's begin clarifying that I found the characters appealing. Amanda Schull is lovely in her role. Dr Rachel is a kind, wholesome person. Brendan Penny has a charming, solid male role, as Detective Jack. Even their sentimental interaction is played with subtle, gentle touch.

The mystery is somewhat convoluted, yet acceptably engaging.

Where the shows falls apart is in the details, that some may want to overlook, if concentrating in the pleasantness of the characters, but disturbing to any viewer who approached the thriller with a critical mind.

As seen in other Hallmark mysteries, it makes poor sense that an amateur sleuth, a family practice physician in the present one, could go around meddling with official police investigation so easily. Why should all possible suspects even pay attention to her inquisitions? And why should the detective in charge let her get involved and share in his investigations?

Then, the highly intelligent and inquisitive physician is portrayed as a medical jackass. How could a physician ordered an MRI, just to please a patient, clinically in excellent shape, to screen for a prostate cancer? It is an idiotic abuse of an expensive test, and a choice that would make a physician fail any examination, besides never been approved by any Insurance plan. And how could she make a firm diagnosis of "diverticulitis" in a patient just admitted in hospital?. While the diagnosis should be suspected as a possible cause of symptoms, it would take time and complex testing to prove it. And How could a family practitioner spend considerable time meddling in a police investigation for days? Does she not have patients to attend?

Then, before the cause of the victim's death is known, Jack states that a suspect had a solid alibi. How does he know what time the alibi should cover?

Unfortunately, the above is nothing, compared to the main issue. The coroner in the case is made to look like an unprofessional idiot. How could a M. E. dogmatically state that a man, apparently in excellent health and found suddenly dead, has died of natural causes and no autopsy is needed? If the law has not recently changed, the event requires a certificate of cause of death by an attending physician. In this situation the only attending physician would and could not sign such document, in all conscience. By law, an autopsy should have been mandatory and exhaustive enough to keep searching for a cause. No coroner should be satisfied to declare the death as due to natural causes, if the initial results of the autopsy reveal no apparent causes. Where was Dr Quincy all this time? So, the entire drama of the first half of the movie, spent by family and authorities opposing to a medical examination of the corpse is total nonsense.

Finally, I hope I have not missed it, I do not recall if the movie explains how the poison was administered to the victim. Somewhere a hypodermic needle was mentioned.

If so, how could the victim let anybody do that to him? There was no evidence he was rendered unconscious, and the scene of the crime showed no evidence of struggle. Was not this an essential element in reconstructing the crime?

In summary, a reasonably entertaining show, with serious flaws. The script writer should be ashamed of putting together a story with absolutely no understanding of basic principles of medicine, medical legality, and logic.

Let's see: an American fashion psychologist with no detecting background, who does not speak a word of French, goes to Paris for the first time in her life and manages to solve a crime. Meanwhile the hirsute detective, supposedly in charge, ineptly bumbles around and allows her to meddle in in official police matters. Seems like the perfect plot for a novel Pink Panther movie. Unfortunately, this was intended as a serious film, not a farce.

First of all, what the heck is a fashion psychologist? Then, how can a total stranger, unable to speak the language, easily navigate through Paris, even its unseemly places, and effectively question all possible murder suspects?

And, why would all of them so easily oblige, when she has neither the authority, nor the language ability to do so? In addition, why would the policeman in charge allow such person, unknown to him, to do it and even share information with her? Or, why should the French police always be two steps behind such an unlikely sleuth?

Again, Inspector Clouseau comes to mind, which is not a compliment for French Police and the character viewers are supposed to admire as the charming hero of the production.

Gilles Marini in his role is made to look like an uncouth idiot and Lauren acts as a presumptuous brat. Personally, I saw no reason to enjoy their interaction, though I guess they were made for each other. Hallmark shows no mercy for the faithful viewers. The end of the production clearly indicates that sequels are planned.

I was really looking forward to see this movie. I do have a predilection for Laura Vandervoort and Benjamin Ayres always portrays roles of a solid, wholesome man. I cherished the story of a single woman adopting a newborn, Natalie, just before Christmas, who gets constrained by bad weather in a town named Bethlehem and is offered shelter by a wonderful family. That they own an old barn transformed into a permanent Nativity scene seemed like the cherry on the cake of what could be the epitome of of Holiday values. Surely a Grand Finale for this year Hallmark Christmas productions. Overall, the plot unravels along the expected lines. Mary Ann is a refined, independent lawyer who was abandoned by her former husband, because unable to bear a child. Her gentle soul seeks completion in creating a family of her own, by adopting a baby girl. Joe is a burned-out ex rock star musician, turned into a mechanic, who is convinced by his kind sister to guest the stranded lady and child, since he has a guest room. Predictably, romantic feelings develop between the two, while the entire Joe's family warmly embrace her. So, everything peachy?

Actually, quite a few details mar the execution of the sweet plot. The would-be-affectionate Joe is a juvenile slob, who lives in a pigsty and treats girlfriends like disposable objects. Does this smell of commitment phobia? His look, possibly thought to appear rugged, definitely uncouth in my opinion, could not be more polar to her graceful, neat persona. When he plays: "This little light of mine" for the infant, poorly fingering his guitar and singing like a drunken donkey, one could hardly believe he could have ever been a popular musician. When I heard her comment that it was beautiful, I felt the urge to scream; 'For crying out loud, we have ears!'. Despite his hidden good nature, how she could rapidly find in him her Knight-in shiny- armor, especially after watching him dismiss his girlfriend like a patronizing heel? Would this be expected from a sensitive, intelligent woman who has all reasons to protect herself from being hurt again in her life?

Then, there is the newborn, who cries almost relentlessly, keeping mother and host sleep deprived and exhausted, yet making no single peep for lengthy hours when the family is involved in events. Then, how about an exhausted young woman who miraculously manages to transform a pigsty into a spotless model home, while tending the baby, solving the family's legal issues, flirting with the man, and sharing in social activities? Not by chance Laura Vandervoort played Supergirl in a preceding TV series! Also, we have to swallow the notion that an old barn, adhibited as a Nativity for 15 years, would unquestionably qualify for Historical Landmark status, which, by the way, is quite a stale gimmick, overused in TV movies. Yes, the family offers a warm loving background, perhaps a bit too sugary and superficial. In my book, only Amy Groening, his sister Frankie, is convincing as a kind, sunny soul.

In summary, a beautiful idea turned into an uneven show that fails to convince, let alone charm. A totally missed attempt to soar.

Lexie, played by Jana Kramer, returns to her Texas hometown and faces unresolved grudges with her family, while attempting to convince a local rancher, Coby to sell his ranch to investors her company represents. Coby is a single father of a girl, abandoned by his ex, if I understood correctly, and stubbornly opposed to selling. Overall, the story follows expected patterns to a renewed family understanding and romance, sweet or sappy in differently expressed opinions. While the plot is not innovative, it has its good moments and could have run as a reasonably pleasing drama. What makes it limpy are a number of incongruences, some already pointed out by other reviewer. In the attempt to spice up an otherwise sappy story, the production flaunts more explicit sexual content and even a bland sexual scene. I do not have a problem with either, though, once included, the sexual sequence could have been more intensely romantic. The problem is that these elements seem forced, and muddle the story, rather than adding to it. The psychology of the lead characters becomes schizophrenic.

Lexie starts out as a woman who picks up a stranger in a bar, throwing herself for a one-night stand, and, soon later, in the process of getting laid mumbles: "Merry Christmas to me". Then immediately transforms into a selfless, loving Christmas angel, ready for a life of commitment. Coby begins resisting the lures of a strong attraction, stating that is not a one-and-done kind of guy, just to go for it a day later, deciding that you-are-here-now is a good enough concept. Clearly, this is realistic and it would be quite appropriate in a different kind of movie. Yet, how to reconcile this mundanity with the sudden change into a fairy tale finale? Should a single dad, with strong reason to protect his daughter, and should the viewers believe a one-night-stand woman to be a credible choice for a devoted wife and stepmother? The movie tries to be too many things. A well told, realistic story of sexual attraction sounds fine. A Christmas-y sentimental fantasy would have its merits. You just cannot mix them both, half-baked, and make them believable.

In the process, none is developed well and values and messages are contradictory, when not confused. Somehow, I feel relieved that,this year, Lifetime has drastically cut down its involvement with Christmas productions.

Under a close scrutiny, one could point out many holes in this story, totally surreal, and decide this movie is not much about Christmas. Yet, premises accepted, one gets transported in a wonderful fantasy, with charming characters, rich of nostalgia, and delivered at a fast pace.

Bethany Joy Benz is at her best as Lucy Hardgrove, a young writer charged with writing a new script for the remake of a famous 1940'ies Christmas movies. While exploring the making of the original film, in historic Biltmore Hotel, she is magically transported back and forth between that time and the present. Interacting with the original cast and crew, she is able to help the production and bonds with intriguing actor Jack Huston, played by Kristoffer Polaha. Little dramas, tender moments, sparks of humor, and flashbacks of post-WW II life, in rich period costumes, fill the action that never gives a boring minute. Polaha, though showing a little aging, is true to his lively, benevolent persona.

As a result, I feel this production ranks among the very best by Hallmark, a fresh, original show, captivating for viewers of all ages.

Hallmark comes with their version of a Christmas farce-caper, probably with the aim of appealing to many tastes and ages. It seems that, with the coming new installation of the "Haul out the Holly" saga, which I have, personally, found idiotic, and other entries to come, they have decided that ingredients like mystery and farce may add flavor to their productions, progressively hampered by a vanishing Christmas spirit. In this, they cannot claim any originality, either. ION TV has overused the concept in the last couple of seasons. Here stars Luke Mc Farlane, memorable for several enjoyable, when not brilliant, roles in the past. In my opinion, he seems somewhat uneasy in this one, and definitely subpar, as a result.

The film walks the thin line between cute and silly, with some undeniably charming moments and many others that feel trite, when not awkwardly stupid. Italia Ricci, whom I like an respect, is kind of wasted in the hodge-podge. In the attempt to provide too many things, the movie ends up not charming enough for children, not funny enough for adults, inane as a mystery, and rather insipid for the romantic viewers. It does have some attractive moments and is suitable viewing for all ages, for which I would not classify it as a total failure. Where has Christmas Spirit gone, though?

Once again, Hallmark dresses a rather unsubstantial romantic story, this time at Christmas, with the background of an appealing, historical destination. Heidi, an American artist of German heritage has the opportunity to exhibits her hand-made Christmas ornaments at the fabled Heidelberg Christmas Market, while discovering her family's roots. Hosted at the Oppermanns' guest house, she is welcomed to share their Holiday traditions and bonds with their son, Lukas, also an artist with a kin soul. With some twists and turns, that shall not be revealed, the story follows to a predictable outcome. How does it work?

LOCATION: the movie offers appreciable glimpses of the historical vestiges and the culture of this city, that I regret never been able to visit. This is a definite plus.

PLOT: some original elements are inserted in an otherwise fairly bland story.

PERFORMANCES: frankly, I am not overly impressed neither by the acting abilities of Ginna Claire Mason and Frederic Brossier or their chemistry in this production.

ATMOSPHERE: despite some charming sequences, Hallmark shows the usual superficiality in handling other cultures. Somehow, the feeling of a real German experience is missing in most of the scenes. A major omission, which could have been easy to provide, with a little attention and minimal cost, is real German Christmas music. Germany has an enormous wealth of beautiful traditional music, dating back to the Middle Age, that could have created a magical background for the action, Instead, other than a token rendition or "O Tannenbaum" and a short run of 'Es ist ein Ros einsprungen" melody, the soundtrack is quite generic and uninspired. In my book, this is a badly missed opportunity.

Overall, the film is "Christmas-y" and family-oriented, with some endearing moments and worth a look, though it could have been so much more.

In their third new movie of the 2023 Christmas schedule GA Family proposes two true and tested stars: a no-nonsense and unbelievably fit Jill Wagner and rugged, wholesome Paul Greene, still a real presence at nearly 50. They do perform at their highest, in a canvass of endearing moments and rich Christmas spirit. A love message found in a WW II uniform sends them in a joint quest trying to discover what happened to the original wearer, Army officer Orin Newton, and return these precious testimonies to his legitimate heirs, for Christmas. In a series of hit and miss encounters, they revive significant memories of the World War, reconstruct the mysterious life of the soldier, and discover each other. The film moves at an engaging pace, with heartwarming cameos and gentle, yet palpable chemistry between the protagonists. I feel their interaction is totally captivating. A secondary, nice idyll, interwoven with the main story, adds, rather than detracting, interest to the action. Somebody could object that a story about a world where everybody seems nice and kind is unrealistic and too sappy. Nor is the movie free of inconsistencies. Es an example, Orin Newton's friend, who served with him in 1941-1944, would be at least 100 years old, definitely older than the actor playing his role. Yet, if you enjoy, like I do, a clean, uplifting Christmas movie, one that wants to bring you a little magic and warm your heart, you may not help being grateful to GAC for wanting to produce and delivering this type of entertainment.

GAC's fourth installment in their 2023 Christmas productions comes with new faces, Ash Tsaj, who plays the role of a famous influencer, turned model, and Joey Heyworth, the limo service owner/driver that takes her in a winter charity tour and journey, through bad weather and unplanned deviations, to an L. A. destination, important for her career. Forced to stop at his family home, they bond, while she revels in the simple joy of a family's Christmas activities and he deals with the ghosts of a previous relationship. What makes the story somewhat original, and typically GAC, is that she is absolutely no diva, a wholesome, kind person, totally unselfish and genuine. I found Ash Tsaj quite charming in her part and hope GAC plans to grace future productions with her talent. Joey Heyworth looks, perhaps, a little less at ease in his acting, though he does contribute to the atmosphere of warmth that the entire cast and the story creates. The only harsh character is the manager, who fails at molding her into a self- absorbed, greedy personality. Which makes me ponder on the difficulties self imposed by GAC and Hallmark of old. How can you create entertaining drama without the crude situations, stunning effects, perverted feelings, flawed characters, and scandalous behaviors that are main, when not sole, ingredients of much of modern cinematography? When all characters are, admittedly, unrealistically wholesome and good? As far as seen in the initial entries of their Christmas movies line-up, GAC appears to have successfully achieved their intent and provided real Christmas movies.

The movie follows two intertwined romantic stories, both developing in a Planetarium. Kat, a should-be astronaut, grounded after an accident, is teamed to work at creating an exhibit with David, the divorced father of a preteen girl on wheelchair,. Kat's buoyant younger brother, Andy, who is trying to find a role in his life, helps Celeste, a volunteer in charge of decorating the location. To add some zest to the otherwise ordinary amorous themes, this production inserts marginal references to space traveling and astrophysics, less than relevant Christmas content, and the necessary, superficially dealt with, human message that disabilities do not hamper human dreams. In reality, the movie is not about space traveling and little about Christmas. The main romantic story is bland. Ryan Paevey looks unexplainably subdued and Jessica Parker Kennedy alternates graceful moments with many others where her gestures, poses and expressions are awkwardly exaggerated. Being Italian, I do understand speaking with your hands, but her body language appears inappropriately on steroids. Andrew Bushell, as Andy, is quite vivacious and single-handedly offers moments of genuine warmth. Overall, the film is inoffensive, family-friendly and watchable, though way more generic than the window dressing tries to sell it for.

This movie was, obviously, planned with great ambitions and its theme is perfect for Christmas. Addy, played by Lyndsy Fonseca, has lost proper balance in her life, focusing on material goals, and forgotten her Christmas spirit. Back to her hometown, once the epitome of Christmas yuletide, she finds her family and friends struggling with real life constraints that mar the seasonal joy. She wishes a life without Christmas and wakes up in a black and white world. The story leads us to understand that only finding real joy and love can bring (back) color to a drab life. In this production, the huge metaphor is carried far, perhaps too far. Situations are somewhat overblown and characters feel stereotyped, a bit empty. The love connection of Andy with the somber town mechanic, played by Michael Rady, is poorly developed and unconvincing, with minimal chemistry between the two. Essentially, the movie fails in the attempt to create the magic that could have resulted from the premises, with a more insightful script.

The wonderful metaphor of gray vs color life could have been a winning point, if it had not been stolen, and not so well played, from the successful 1998 movie 'Pleasantville'. In summary, I feel this film is watchable, family-friendly, great on intent, yet weakened by a less than inspired execution. Accepted that real sentiments and emotions provide color to our life, where are the colors in this movie?

While watching this new Hallmark production, I just could not help wandering back to the 1974 project where bits and stretches of Fred Astaire and other dancers' old films were glued together under the title: "That's entertainment!" This is entertainment!

It is refreshing that somebody at Hallmark has dared to forgo patent or hidden messages and overused cliches, to produce something innovative, light and "spirited", with the only intention to offer a couple of hours of levity and fun. Actually, under its gaiety, the movie conveys deeper sentiments, rich emotions and its own moral. It takes a ghost to chase Anna's ghosts and lead her to find herself.

All is done with a pinch of pleasant silliness, as expected in a total fantasy, softness and delicate humor. The story is gentle, with endearing characters, including the the most captivating specter since Casper, with elements to please many tastes. Among the background of a fascinating historic house and lively flashbacks to the roaring 1920ies, we get to explore the bonding developing between Anna and the ghost, Ruby, separated by a hundred years and, yet, sharing much in common, in a friendship that enriches one another. Julie Gonzalo is at her best in the role of Anna, Chris McNally is rock-solid and Madaleine Arthur simply fantastic as the spirited ghost. Even the final revelation, perhaps a bit forced and anachronistic, fits well in a work of pure fantasy that warms the heart. Which proves that, when one puts heart and mind into it, one can, still, produce valuable and enjoyable cinematography without sensationalism, perversions, and expensive special effects. Conscious that gems come rare to find, I hope Hallmark will continue trying for selective quality, rather than easy quantity.

Once again, Hallmark takes us to a romantic location, in the intent to add flavor to an otherwise unoriginal love story. This time is wonderful Venice, and the production creates a better feeling of authenticity than that seen in other cultural salads recently proposed to their viewers. Amy enrolls in Venetian Chef Marcello Favero's, erroneously listed as Marcello Barone in these credits, culinary course, trying to obtain his collaboration in the production of a ready made health food line her company would produce. Their interaction generates reciprocal attraction, with predictable outcome. The movie provides a generally realistic feeling of every day life in Venice and offers ample views of the unique beauties of the city and the surrounding landscapes. The chemistry between the lead characters feels genuine and the overall romantic story is reasonably sweet. As an Italian born viewer, yet, I cannot help pointing out details that stray from a real Venetian experience and suggests, once more, that Hallmark productions do not spend enough efforts in understanding cultures and, one way or another, miss the veracity mark. As the movie was actually filmed in Venice, would it have been so difficult to avail of real Venetian consulting and or acting support?

For one, it is , at least, strange that a great Venetian Chef would include making pizza as one of the tasks in a short culinary course. Then, the accent of the Chef, purportedly of true Venetian descent, is markedly central-Italian, including his rendition of the English language, which is surprising, as the actor was, reportedly, raised in London. The few street or marked vendors seen in the movie do, also, speak Italian with a heavy southern accent. Nearly not a single person appearing in the movie shows any Venetian inflection. The background music seems the choice of an American with southern-Italian origins and would be more appropriate for a plot cast in, let's say, Naples.

I found particularly horrifying the scenes of an Italian Chef sampling long-cut pasta dishes by filling his mouth with huge forkfuls, sucking it up, Chinese-style, biting the edges off and spitting them in the plate. Any minimally educated Italian would pick a moderate quantity and roll it well on the fork, so it would easily fit in the mouth, and would consider any other way as bovine, bad manners.

These details aside, the film is fairly entertaining and the photography is attractive enough. The production is simple, with good sentiments and nothing objectionable, making it a suitable viewing for the entire family.

A single mom and a single dad find each other, with some help from their respective daughters. Stated as this, the movie could very well be one more light fare, uninspired romantic com, as I have come to expect from Hallmark in recent years. Happily, this one numbers in the shrinking tier of their better productions. The sentimental story is enriched by judicious doses of other interesting themes that are interwoven with the main plot, with proper balance. The mom, Emma, is a Thunderbird pilot, convincingly played by Heather Hemmens, which justifies the inclusions of spectacular acrobatic aerial stunts. The dad, predictably well done by Niall Matter, is a tender father, devoted to his daughter who is afflicted by a congenital heart malformation. Young Georgia Acken is adorable in this role and her immediate friendship with Emma's daughter, enjoyably portrayed by the other young actress, Pietra Castro, adds warmth to the action. There are necessary elements of drama, that should not be revealed to avoid spoilers, none overplayed and all quite appropriate. All of the main characters have endearing qualities and honest emotions, which contributes to render the film a wholesome show, one with more than sufficient elements of attraction for entire family viewing.

The theme of a single father hiring a nanny, this time a teacher, who, eventually, brings love to or heals the entire family, despite attempts at rejecting her, has been presented in many shades and flavors over the years. This production comes with a different twist in the children's attitude and deeper faith undertones. The theme has been previously developed with more depth and richer emotions in "The nanny express" with Vanessa Marcil, in 2008. Yet, this entrance offers an acceptable plot and provides reasonable, family friendly, entertainment. On the minus side, the acting, particularly by Philip Boyd, appears somewhat stiff, the conflicts a bit shallow, and the romantic interest between the two leads is poorly explained. On the plus side, the main character, Steph, is a very likeable, solar personality, well played by Ina Barron. When it comes to the overt religious expressions and content, I admit I do not find them necessary, probably because I am definitely agnostic. Yet, I do not understand, why, in this and other movies, they cause so much resentment in some of the reviewers. I wonder if those are the same viewers who adore the spirituality and culture presented in movies that deal with Native American, oriental or other exotic traditions. Why are these not as irritating or objectionable?

Whatever creed or faith brings people to love, respect and mutual understanding may not need to be embraced, yet it should not detract from appreciating the outcomes.

In summary, though a weaker rendition of a tried story, this movie has nothing offensive, it has some merits of its own, and it is worth a look.

Let me see: what is the opposite of "uplifting"? You need a dictionary of synonyms to qualify this production and meet the 600 words minimum requirement. A real review would be an inexcusable waste of time, second only to the time wasted watching the movie. Gross, uninspired, juvenile, idiotic, insipid, offensive, amoral, irritating, farcical, amateurish, senseless, plain stupid, misdirected, purposeless, buffoonish, demencial, inane, unreasonable, illogical, inconsistent, demeaning, are some of the adjectives that come to mind. Perhaps, one should add atrocious. I have heartily embraced GAC, expecting a paladin of clean, constructive, family friendly productions. With stuff as this, I do not see where they are heading. About the single positive reviewer, who wonders what kind of lives all others live, one must comment he/she just defined him/herself. This world is beautiful because we all are so different!

This new Hallmark production offers a beautiful actress, Taylor Cole, playing Sara, a conservationist hell-bent to save the world, who finds romance in a tropical paradise. So, what could go wrong? One gets the first hint at the beginning, when Sara first reaches her luscious resort destination and is kindly welcomed by the handsome manager with a lei of flowers. In a thoughtful display of good manners, her first words are to inquire what kind of recycling they have in place. Soon after, when Manu, the manager, offers to take her outside the resort to find a venue for her friend's wedding rehearsal, she thanks him complaining that the vehicle uses a lot of gas, further wondering if they own a large fleet. The movie does not specify whether Sara, to avoid using fuel, has reached the Hawaii by windsurf or swimming through the ocean. Unfortunately, these are most of the spice in the entire film, if one excludes the overplayed conflict between Manu and his overbearing, unpleasant parents. The rest of the story has no drama, very lukewarm romantic or emotional content, and questionable chemistry between the lead characters. Essentially, it feels that somebody at Hallmark has decided that an inane script of overused banalities can be salvaged by a superficial "save the planet" message and the background of a tropical island.

The players have been miscast. Kanoa Goo appears, and likely is, much younger than Taylor Cole. The rest are unimportant, as all play roles with no substance or depth. By age and personality, Greta Thunberg would have made a better match for the main role. As a peeve of my own, I regret that Taylor Cole, whom I have always liked, seems to get less significant roles each year that goes by. I may be wrong, yet I feel she could manage more mature and deep characters and a chance to work in more intelligent productions.

Next time Hallmark plans another such exotic adventure, they should devote more space to views of the nature. At least, when the viewers get bored and fall asleep, they may be lulled by tropical dreams.

I must confess I approached this new Hallmark production with caution. Did we really need one more spin on the plot of a dissatisfied person allowed to live an alternate life? What's more, I was not much impressed with a previous couple of movies starring Vanessa Lengies. Yet, this is a fresher look that somewhat departs from the old ones. The heroine, Renee, is not a Scrooge-like individual who needs to mend her ways and, actually, does not even try to dwell in her new successful life. From start, her only concern is to win back the love of her real life husband, Aaron, firmly asserting the fact that her basic priorities have been sound all along. This, I have found endearing .Also, I have developed a greater appreciation for Lengies, who, I believe, shines in her role.

At a close scrutiny, many details of the movie do not make much sense. Yet, should anyone expect sheer rationality in a fable where a person is granted by a Christmas Elf to experience an alternate life?

Let's take this movie for what it is: a tale, with a little Christmas magic, in which an intrinsically wholesome and loving woman learns to let go of her inner fears, to embrace her true life priorities, and how to better express her love for her dear one. Seen in this light, the film is a success, conducted with measure and gentle tones, that offers some moving moments and leaves you with a little Christmas spirit. You may probably agree with me that it takes Hallmark a step forward and proves that somebody there has not lost the heart.

The Aurora Teagarden series has been a successful, staple product of Hallmark Channel. The recurrent characters are true and tested, have enlivened the uneven plots, and are expected by viewers with some fondness. Candace Cameron, no matter how much you like her, has a presence, a warm personality that brings animation to the shows. Now Hallmark proposes a prequel, with almost entirely new actors, though including Marilu Henner, who should best be cast as the grandmother of the younger Aurora. It is only natural that viewers would made comparisons with the old cast and feel uneasy in adopting so much change.

The mystery, itself, works reasonably well, albeit far from spectacular. What does not, and falls unconvincingly flat, is the chemistry of all new characters and the general acting ability of new cast. Do not expect much warmth or animation from most performances. A particular letdown is the new Aurora. Skyler Samuels conveys no warmth whatsoever. Her acting has a certain wooden quality, little expressive. Her body language is often awkward and inconsistent with the action. Even her, rare, smiles look more like contemptuous smirks. Essentially, her Aurora turns out difficult to warm up to.

So, why mess up with a good thing and rehash it? Hallmark would do better creating a new series with new characters. The audience would not feel betrayed in their expectations and, possibly, swallow it less painfully.

This thriller wanted to be too many things: a romantic story, a mystery ,dancing entertainment, and a showcase of Malta's attractions. The mystery action is choppy, with two sleuths that seem far too distracted, flirting or dancing, to devote their attention to serious investigations. Of course, there was not enough time to highlight Malta's scenery with sufficient depth.

The premises, themselves, were farfetched. A flighty and arrogant dancing teacher who transforms instantly into a detective and a 'tenacious' detective who has never danced in her life and masters various dancing styles, to a competition level, in a few days. The results are a somewhat forced love story and an insipid thriller, interspersed with almost painful dancing acts and a few snapshots of the island.

Thankfully, whatever seen of Malta was beautiful.

The fourth installment concludes the Love Club series on a higher note. This movie, too, would have stood much better on its own merits. The connection of the story with the adventures of the other three heroines feels very artificial and their continuous interventions only dilutes the plot, while serving no substantial purpose and reminding how unsavory the characters had seemed in their first appearance. Essentially, it detracts rather than adding to the movie's appeal.

The drama of this story, itself, is somewhat artificial and carried to illogical extremes. Here we have a thirty-something-year-old, apparently successful and adjusted to life, who fabricates an enormous, tangled web of lies to avoid disappointing her mother's expectations temporarily, without concern that all would soon cause far more disappointment and hurt. What's more, the mother turns out to be much more reasonable and understanding than feared. The entire drama could have been avoided with a minimal of trust and truth. Of, course, there would have been no drama left for the movie!

Thus said, the Love Club members act less insanely than previously seen, Tara shows real emotions, and her chemistry with Noah feels real. Even their music and singing is pleasant. Overall, the film has some endearing moments and offers reasonable entertainment. In the end Love prevails, despite the Scheming Club.

After watching the first installment of the Love Club, I had resolved to avoid the three sequels then planned, as I had found it one of the very worst Hallmark productions, frankly disgusting. Then, I read the first couple of reviews for the second film, both quite positive and I decided to give it a chance. I must agree it is a definite improvement, which is a little accomplishment, if one considers the abysmal qualities of the first one. Yet, I feel the story would have better stood on its own, without the intrusion of the three meddling friends, which serves little purpose to its core and only artificially prolongs a plot that could not have filled the allocated time. Unfortunately, it also ties Sydney's fairly gentle love story to the memory of the bunch of superficial, amoral feral cats seen in the first movie. The bad taste left in the viewer's mouths corrupts the appreciation of the little goodness offered by the present action.

Sydney turns out to be the gentler one in the group. Yet, she is so totally spineless and clueless that it almost justifies the unabashed meddling her three friends(?) exercise on her life. It is hard to believe that a thirty-something-year-old, purportedly intelligent and independent, could not navigate her own feeling until the very end, let three other women invade her privacy, and passively accept all their scheming. And what about the other three thirty-something-year-olds? Do they not have a life of their own? How could they, all three, drop everything else and install themselves at Sydney's place to rearrange her house, snoop through her private belongings, and presume to determine her love choices? What normal person could or would do so, for the very unessential reason implied in the movie? And, again, how could she find this natural?

Essentially, while Sydney's romantic wanderings superficially follow gentle lines, the underlying psychology of the story is somewhat corrupt and does not inspire a warm embrace.

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.

One more take on the "fake boyfriend" scheme. Rhiannon Fish plays Rory who, with her dorky-adorable sister Cleo, joins their parents, in a renewal of their vows at the very B&B where they fell in love. This is, definitely, not one of Rhiannon's better performances. There, she unexpectedly finds her ex and his new love interest, and becomes unglued. Impulsively, she convinces the B&B owner, Noah, played by James William O'Halloran, to pose as her new boyfriend. The rest of the plot develops along predictable lines. At first, Noah appears almost like a hapless klutz. Yet, he soon proves to have appreciable human dimensions and turns out to be a real "prince". Rory's family are very warm and pleasant people with captivating qualities. The problem with the show is Rory's character. Her embarrassment and discomfort are so enormously overplayed that she appears childish, emotionally disturbed, if not semi-hysterical for a good half of the movie. Honestly, I felt uncomfortable, just watching it all. Happily, she tones down in the second half. From there, the movie offers some sweet moments and glimpses of family values and sensible romance, as one would have expected. While this may reassure that a usually endearing actress has not totally lost it, it is not enough to completely salvage the production.