Love in Zion National: A National Park Romance

This movie was average. I'm not a big fan of Miss Busby, her acting leaves a lot to be desired. The scenery was beautiful. I was a little taken back that she never wore a hat out in the sun and the heat of the day. She took very little food or water on her six day journey with the park ranger. Many people have complained about the age difference between Busby and the leading man who turns out to be her love interest... They're only seven years apart. I take offence to that since my husband and I are eight years apart. She doesn't look like a senior citizen she's a young woman of 41 and was actually not even 40 when she made this movie. Ageism has become quite a problem in the United States.

Great scenery but unrealistic in all other aspects,does Hallmark even care? I think quality over quantity matters. The leads had no genuine-acting chemistry,that would be fine if this wasn't a romance themed movie.. What didn't help was,the appearance in their ages. Cindy isn't a horrible actress,but not a first choice & maybe do a casting call for new talent or ethnicities as leads not side characters. Being so unprepared for their park adventures,was a bit foolish especially considering he was a professional ranger. Also what park has those type of accommodations,yes its a movie but how about keeping it realistic.

Sad but seems this was filmed in Canada,pretending to be other locations.. Hallmark are you that poor or just cheap,to use some actual places or not stock footage? If they wanted to do a background around culture & so forth,at least keep it accurate or stick to another topic.. Altgough glad it wasn't about a festival,etc.

Overall casting to acting is average,decent cinematography & as mentioned scenery.. Music over talking was ok,is it worth seeing? If bored,like park views or the actors.

I enjoyed the first National Parks romance and was looking forward to this one, but even the spectacular scenery and landmarks of Zion could not help this movie. It was so historically inaccurate that it spoiled the plot. Also, the ages of the characters did not work. The grandmother, a lovely character, looked about 50. Cindy is now 40 but was paired with a male lead that is 32 (and looked 25) and they had no connection at all. And I hope that David actually has ties to native heritage. His bio is sparse. They set out for a 6 day hike with small backpacks. Where was their food, water, clothing, supplies, etc. Just not believable at all. Even the vases looked fake and simplistic. This is a popular park but they did not meet anyone on their hike. And are campfires safe these days what with all of the fires burning across the west? There were just so many little annoying features that took away from the story. If there are others in this series, I hope they are much better and more realistic than this sad excuse for a movie.

Other reviewers have pointed out the cultural and historical mistakes rightfully. But I would like to point out the modern ones. The main character stays in a spacious lodge for one. She leaves, including for a trip of a week, without turning off the lights, locking the door, or even putting out the unneeded fire in the fireplace.

She and the park ranger never wear a hat for protection against the sun. They have no canteens of water or are seen staying hydrated. If I were going out in the wilderness for a week, I would charge up my cellphone, spotty reception or not. She did use it to take pictures with.

She also told the ranger she was taking only a few power bars for food. It also might have seemed more authentic to have at least a few Native American cast members as extras.

The inside of the grandmother's house looked like a modern suburban house. Many Native Americans living in rural isolation have a jerry-built home or an old trailer house. These are just a few thoughts off the top of my head. The scenery was the bet part.

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.