Love in Zion National: A National Park Romance

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.

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.

Beautiful desert backdrop to this Hallmark romance which was heavy on an Anasazi mystery. I love the Southwest and I am really enjoying Hallmark highlighting National Parks. I also really love Native American culture, but I am by no means an expert. I was left questioning things in this film however...like aren't Kachinas a Hopi tradition? Wouldn't it be cultural appropriation if the Anasazi are making and-or selling Kachinas? Also, I appreciated that the grandmother, played wonderfully by Monique Filips, mentions the three sister and how that was a way of planting used by the natives...but didn't explain why (how one steals nitrogen out of the soil and one puts nitrogen back in...).

The story is about a museum worker who upon unboxing donated artifacts (three Anasazi wedding vases), determines that there is a missing vase and with the donor's journal goes to Zion National Park to find the missing vessel. There she is assigned a park ranger as a guide and this is how she meets "native" Adam Proudstar, his technology loving brother Tate and his grandmother Kaya. These three are the best part of this film which is more of a mystery than a romance.

I recommend this film to mystery lovers and those who love the southwest...romantics might be disappointed...or they might also fall in love with the Proudstar brothers!

There are several negative reviews here that smash the movie for its concept, using the Anasazi, an ancient tribe, as a modern day inhabitant of the Utah area in and near Zion. So I will not comment on that, just say it represents fiction and discuss the movie itself.

Cindy Busby is Lauren, the Denver museum curator, she has a long attachment to Zion National Park from childhood when she would visit with her now deceased mother. Now an older lady has died and willed her three ancient Anasazi pottery pieces to the museum. But her grand nephew shows up, announces he will contest the will. He doesn't care about the historical value, he thinks they are worth a lot of money.

So Lauren studies the designs and figures the set had originally been four, one was missing and she would find it in a remote section of Zion, somehow this would also prevent the set being taken away. There she meets a park guide assigned to help her, and keep her safe, David Gridley as native American, Adam Proudstar.

Things develop from there, my wife and I really enjoyed the scenery, we had been to Zion but were not able to explore it much. The movie itself, it is OK but not particularly good. It was decent diversion after our usual Saturday evening steak dinner with a bottle of red Bordeaux, nothing more.

Streaming on Peacock.

These writers frequently mention the Anasazi ... referring to them as a current Native American tribe. If you're going to pick the name of a Native American tribe out of the hat, don't you think it would be a good idea to spend at least three minutes in research?

If they HAD, they'd have discovered the Anasazi were an ancient tribe and they would not have called themselves the Anasazi. That was a name assigned to them by later tribes who settled the area and came across the relics of the Anasazi civilization.

The Anasazi themselves completely disappeared circa 1000 years ago. So the park ranger character here would NOT be a member of the Anasazi tribe. The so-called Anasazi "vases" (obviously actually urns) would not be the rightful property of such a tribe since they have not existed in 1000 years.

Even though it's theorized that the Hopi and Pueblo might be some sort of descendants of some elements of the Anasazi, even that is only conjecture with no direct evidence.

How do I know about this? I wrote a flash fiction about the Anasazi a couple of years ago, and even to write 650 words, I spent a considerable time doing MY homework so I wouldn't butcher the subject as this movie does.

Outside of that, the writers even blew the legal side of contesting a will, lots of dialogue is just off, and the female lead's acting was unconvincing to me. Perky is no substitute for professional. The male lead was a bit wooden.

I gave an extra star for the scenery, otherwise I consider this film an utter failure.