Love in Zion National: A National Park Romance

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.

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.

IN A NUTSHELL: The romance is directed by Sam Irvin. The writing credits go to Jacob Cooney and Bryar Freed.

Assistant curator, Lauren, is out to prove a set of ancient vases belong to the Pueblo Nation. While in Zion, she meets Adam, a native Puebloan park ranger, who helps her on her mission.

THINGS I LIKED: I had never seen any of the actors in anything before. They all did a fine job and include Cindy Busby, David Gridley, Raquel Gardner, Michelle, Murphy, Monique Filips, Bourke Floyd, and Liam Woodrum.

Zion means "sanctuary." If you're hoping this movie will include a lot of beautiful scenery of the famous national park, you're in for a real treat. The cinematography is gorgeous.

The movie shows a passion for nature.

I appreciate that some of the characters work very hard to ensure some ancient artifacts are protected and restored to their rightful owners.

We learn a little bit about Indian culture.

It made me laugh that Lauren talked about how she grew up hiking around Zion National Park and knew her way around the national park, but then got lost within minutes. Ha ha Fun fact: Zion National Park is 229 square miles of beautiful red rock landscapes and vistas. It's one of the most filmed national parks in the USA.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE: Sadly, the Anasazi disappeared about 1000 years ago, so the plot line of the story doesn't actually work. I live in Las Vegas near a street called Anasazi! A few years ago, I visited a museum on the UNLV campus that showcased a number of Anasazi artifacts. I wonder why the writers chose to feature the Anasazi Native Americans, rather than an actual tribe that had living descendants today.

It drove me nuts how Cindy Busby mispronounced the name of the park.

The leading lady's character is a bit cocky and unlikeable.

The difference between the leading couple distracted me. He looked way younger than her. He's actually 32, although he looks much younger. Cindy Busby is 40 years old.

Some of the dialogue is not very good.

It always annoys me when characters hide things from each other and don't just communicate.

There was no chemistry between the leading couple. The final kiss was super forced.

The Kachina doll looked like it was bought out of a souvenir shop rather than a handmade artifact passed down through generations like we were supposed to believe.

Are hikers allowed to actually light fires in Zions National Park? I'm thinking no. That didn't seem believable.

It just looked like not much thought went into the details. For example, the Ranger and museum curator took off for a week-long trek in the park with just a little backpack. Where were their water bottles, food, and supplies?

She was staying in a big room somewhere on site and didn't bother to put out the fire in the fireplace right before leaving for a week-long trek in the park. Stuff like that bugs me. How about you?

It was said that some judge was going to decide on the case any minute now. Without all of the facts or witnesses? That's not how the law works.

Shouldn't the Park Ranger prohibit bad guys from removing artifacts from the park? It's hard to believe he's the only Ranger in the entire park.

As an author coach, I have several clients who write fantastic romantic comedies. I wish Hallmark would tap into their talents rather than try to rush a script through and miss all of the details that make a story rich and enjoyable.

TIPS FOR PARENTS: The movie is definitely clean enough for family viewing.

There's nothing really controversial or offensive in the content.

!

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.

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.