Une avalanche d'amour

As someone who has been going to Glacier National Park his entire life, I was looking forward to seeing scenes of the park. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. There was spectacular scenery of British Columbia, but there were only two references to the real GNP: Grinnell Glacier and Apgar (which is a town at the foot of Lake McDonald--there is NO "Apgar Gulch."). Furthermore, there is only cross country skiing in Glacier--the closest downhill ski area is Big Mountain (I refuse to use the new name "Whitefish Mountain Resort") near Whitefish. Also, motorized vehicles like snowmobiles are prohibited in the park in the winter. There are so many realistic story lines that could be made in the real Glacier National Park, that it's unfortunate they picked something so completely inaccurate.

Whoever was in charge of continuity for this film should be fired. In more than one scene where the protagonists are skiing, the ski pants on the main actress are a different color from the ones she is wearing before and after the skiing (she is wearing a light blue ski suit with matching top and bottom, but on the hill the pants are a darker blue). So obvious and distracting.

Also the storyline with the sister just ended abruptly with no real conclusion.

And why do you pretend this is an actual location (Glacier) when it is totally filmed in Fernie. Why not try to remove all things that point to/advertise Fernie. Why even use Glacier Park in the title if you aren't willing to film there?

Hallmark has had this same issue in a movie about Banff that had parts obviously filmed in Winnipeg and Ontario.

This is not one of their best.

I have been watching Hallmark Romance Movies for 15 years and they almost all follow the Pygmalion formula for a romance movie ( Awkward introduction , confrontation, recognition, romance , love , disaster, reconciliation, together forever ) - This movie was the same but with a technology twist that looked different but was the same - but what really made this Hallmark movie stand out from the "Drinking Syrup all women go to bed fully dressed sickeningly sweet shows of the past ) was that the lead was actually scene in a bikini for the first time ever on a Hallmark movie. I am surprised Hallmark didn't issue an advisory - as for the movie itself - the casting was better than average and so was the chemistry of the leads - If you are in for a feel good movie - I recommend it.

1. The lead man was so cold. Pitbulls are friendlier than he was at the start of this movie. I'm not sure why anyone would want to be around him.

2. The lead woman was better, but everything about her felt contrived -- especially her attraction to the distant guy.

3. The sister was so corny and was uncomfortably pushy about hooking up her sister.

4. The redhead masseuse was a mustache-twirling villain who of course came across as pathetic.

The writing and production was too unnatural. People don't act like this -- ever. And I can't buy into a "romance" story when the first 45 mintues are spent watching the guy be a stiff robot while the couple demonstrates zero compatibility. Hallmark has much better movies out there where the characters are easy to cheer for.

I'll admit, I watch at least 90% of Hallmark's movies. This was unfortunately just so-so for many reasons already pointed out in other reviews.

My main objection, though, was that despite the title, the movie had nothing to do with Glacier NP. In fact, they made it quite clear in the movie that they were at Fernie Alpine Resort in Canada, 150 miles north of Glacier. Since there is no downhill skiing in Glacier, it makes since that a movie about skiing had to be filmed elsewhere. But still, why lie about it? Heck, they weren't even in the U. S.

Oh, well. Sorry for the rant. Yes, the puppies were cute and the scenery was great. Just wish it had been the scenery I'd been hoping for.