Love in Zion National: A National Park Romance

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.