Reviews

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.

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.

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?