AniInterview
Sorry, this movie sucks
Casey Duggan
It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
Rosie Searle
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
zyxnix
First things first, Rachel Skarsten is super hot. Even with that horrible hair job, she still manages to look decent. Her curls are way too tight. Painfully tight. Finally, at the end they get her hair right for about thirty seconds. Trevor Donovan is a dope...that's it...plain and simple but I've seen worse, so barely tolerable is how I would describe him. Emily Tennant will be star in the future Christmas movies...Mark the tape!The relationship will never last....no guy is going to end a superstar movie career to move to a pedestrian small town and live with a bumpkin no matter how hot she is..Did they kiss??? Because, I don't even remember it...moving...No Christmas Magic???...OK, OK his parents died, that was his one redeeming quality...commiseration. A little better than average but certainly not good.
fhvned-34619
I'm not sure this actually contains a spoiler, but I figured better safe than sorry. There are some haters on this movie and I'm not sure why. One makes it clear he/she is a full-blown legitimate reviewer who reviews every holiday movie that ever comes out, and unlike some other, she/she is always (sic) fare, then proceeds to bash it to death. From the info provided on the profile, my guess is he takes this movie review stuff very, very seriously. Another thinks Rachel's eyes are 'scary'. That's funny because her eyes are one of the reasons I was so drawn to her character. She has the ability to say more with one look than most actresses can achieve with 10 pages of script. Yes, there are flaws. There are flaws in EVERY Hallmark seasonal movie. They churn them out like cars on an assembly line. They use many of the same actors, and they re-hash many of the same plots.... There are only so many ways to make a fall-out-of-love-fall-back-in-love-happy-ending movie, and the Hallmark Channel is as expert at all of them. Many of the same producers and writers are involved as well as many Canadian actors. (There are legal reasons for that involving tax incentives and labor cost reductions when either the director or one of the main actors is Canadian). The same movie produced in Hollywood would cost 4 times what it costs to produce them in Canada. Some are shot in the US, but not many. There are some out and out bad production choices. Mainly, for me, was Johnny arriving in town driving a 4 year old Ford Explorer. His character would have been driving a Porsche Cayenne or a Land Rover. Over all, it's a typical feel-good movie that leaves you, once again, believing in some kind of Christmas magic, even if you knew it was coming. His agent was rude, condescending, selfish and completely unlikable, and not knowing any Hollywood agents, I'm assuming the character was written that way because the writer knows many like that. Everybody else was pretty true to form. I like both of the main actors and look forward to watching something from both of them again. That's not always the case with some of the actors THC uses. There is one I will not watch, no matter who else is in it. Some are shot in July in Canada and the fake snow is really evident. You can tell the real ones when the breath is visible when they are speaking. I'd watch it again. In fact, I already have. Some are pleasant juvenile fare that only require one look. Others are really, really good... Christmas Cookies for one. The Magic Stocking for another. Christmas Cookies because Jill Wagner is a really very expressive actress. I've always liked her. (Remember "You've got to put Mercury on your list?"). She just looks like the kind of person you want to have a conversation with. The Magic Stocking because of Bridget Regan. She makes any movie she's in better. I feel the same way about Rachel in Marry Me at Christmas.
rebekahrox
Nothing special here. Same old same old story partially redeemed by the character of Johnny Blake played by a well cast Trevor Donovan. The secondary characters were played by Hallmark perennials, though the 2 female leads were relative new comers to the Hallmark stable. Emily Tennant, the bride who provides the #2 lead was fresh and appealing. I see Hallmark in her future. I wish Hallmark would steer away from extravagantly beautiful heroines towards more down to earth girls . I just can relate to cute more than impossibly gorgeous. All though this is a backhanded compliment to the physical beauty of Rachel Skarsten, I was distracted throughout most of the movie by her over processed long ringlets. What is this? 1989?The success of these things, for me, depends on the existence of some dialogue with some snap to it, some humor, some surprises(a little suspense?), appealing casting, good acting, enough non-phony not needless conflict to provide some catharsis, or the comeuppance of evil-doers. Do I ask for all of these things at once? No, that would be asking too much. (though it has happened, rarely). But I need at least 2. The "supercute" (gag me) snowball fight kicked off a big fail for me.On a side note, when, oh when, is Hallmark inc. going to get on the bandwagon and start starring a few of the talented and numerous black actors and actresses as the romantic leads? And I'm not talking about black bosses, black millionaire clients, or black best friends. A.) It seriously calls into question their values, And B.), it's super stupid business wise. The most popular and profitable romances and dramas in the theatres today feature black people in the leads. Tyler Perry anyone? What about Malcom D. Lee and his Best Man movies? There are dozens of examples. Come on. I have more than a few black women friends who would jump on such a Hallmark movie like white on rice. I can't believe they have seldom been called on this. WTH?!
Ghostwriter14
I bought the book about a few months before finding out that they were turning it into a Hallmark movie, so I decided to read the book. Now I'm watching the movie and I have to say I'm rather pleased with it. There are the obvious differences between the book and the movie of course, but the differences don't take away from the storytelling. While the cast isn't QUITE how I pictured everyone in my head, they all capture the ESSENCE of the people they're portraying, especially Trevor Donovan as Johnny Blake. Donovan captures Johnny's longing to be normal and slight pushiness when it comes to his sister's wedding. A lot of actors are good at playing either the rich type or the down- to-earth guys and tend to falter when trying to portray both but Donovan does it well.From what I've seen so far, the movie is sweet and charming, and I'm enjoying it.
