eapepin-01129 Okay, where do I start. First of all it's a pleasant enough movie with the usual feel-good Hallmark ending, but there are some items that just poke at the continuity director instinct in me that make me fidget.Fergus, the king's assistant shows up at her apartment (how?), has had her investigated (how?), and nobody seems to notice or care. The next day she's in Europe, driving up a snow-covered road with Fergus, who asks, "Would it be fair to say you've never traveled abroad?" Her response? "Does Staten Island count?"... So, how exactly is she flying out of the country, the very next day without a passport? She obviously doesn't have one, and I'm guessing from her back story, never had a reason to have one. Just one of those minor details that should not have been overlooked. Fergus would have asked her if she had one, and there would be some plausible reason given as to why she did.... or, if not, he would have suggested his embassy (or consulate) would make a special request to speed up the process. Instead, it is not mentioned at all, leaving detail-oriented viewers like me shaking their heads. Speaking of continuity, what exactly are they doing in the greenhouse? Why are they putting worm-filled dirt in glass jars? I'm guessing that's just a vehicle to create a scene showing them getting to know each other, but it seems like an odd activity. Her character transition keeps shifting from the overwhelmed, out-of-her-league bewilderment to the aggressive super-confident women who stands up to the king yet cowers from the head of the household staff. Too many little things get in the way of the flow, that keep bringing up more questions than they answer.... Like where did she get the frames for the pictures she drew at the end? And the boxes she wrapped them in? She never left the castle. Anybody think about that? Where did she find the time to do them? You don't crank those out in a few minutes and it looks like she drew a dozen of them.The one bright light in the movie was the girl who played Theodora. She is an absolute delight, and hopefully, she will have a long and successful career. Hallmark is very good at casting thoroughly unlikable characters, like the fiancé and the king's councilor, and they played the role very well.Overall, it was and enjoyable diversion. The Hallmark Movie Channel Christmas spirit machine at work.

gehewe After I watched the movie I discovered the actress played Winnie in the Wonder Years 1988-1993 she is now about 40. She plays a 31 year old in this film which was fine. I enjoyed it and it was fairly well done but I probably would not watch it again because it got a bit too predictable at the end.The lead actress was great and yes there was a purposeful imitation to the Sound of Music. Her character was to be adored by all. When asked to give a toast "here's to those who have seen us at our best and at our worst but cannot tell the difference" Enjoyed seeing the King being taken with her "speaking her mind" manner. Loved the King's daughter. Much was very well done in the movie. The horse scene with the King was excellent.

machenewsgroup Whilst it is a stereotypical Christmas film it is an archetypal example of what a Christmas film should be. Anyone sitting down with their notepads out analyzing a film like this is just a Scrooge. It doesn't need to be over-thought, it is a Hallmark production which follows a strict guideline as to what a feel-good Hallmark production has to be (family).To criticize Danica McKellar in the lead-role seems an odd thing to do. You know what to expect from a family film. Any other actor would have had to act the part in exactly the same way. There isn't room in the role or in the movie as a whole to be experimenting with method-acting or "what's my motivation?" and getting deep and dark with the character - again - it's a Hallmark film. As well as an actor, Danica is a mathematician (or the other-way- around?) and would suggest her accepting this role was purely for fun and to have Christmas months in advance! She chooses roles that won't clash with her scholastic career too adversely and must balance these two very different careers. The interaction between herself and the young lead comes from a genuine place. Being so bound to a past role when a child is the bane of all actors - the character she is eternally manacled to is an anagram of "epic inner woo". Danica is epic as an example of how to avoid finding too much of your inner woo and going of the rails when vulnerable and young. She survived early-fame, looks even more attractive now and can wryly smile to herself that she has the credentials to play a part like this without any fear of any dented Porsches coming back to haunt her. For this reason alone, the film is just that much more charming and is what gives it the propulsion it would have lacked had just about anyone else played her part. It has a start, a middle and a fairytale ending...but we already knew that!

vrht This is a standard Christmas TV movie by Hallmark so my expectations were not super-high, not super-low.However, I was pleased that all of the performances (with the exception I'll mention later) were actually pretty darn good. The actors did a very nice job -- from the actress who played the daughter, to the valet, to the cook in the kitchen ... even the housekeeper who, at the end, showed some real emotion. Rupert Penry-Jones (a very good British actor) was the standout: He did a great job with his limited material - he came off very authentic with just the right touch of reserve crumbling in the face of unexpected feelings.I was ready to accept this movie for what it was, and was pleasantly surprised. However, it was totally ruined for me by Danica McKellar's bad acting. Her range seemed to be limited to one facial expression (furrowed brow); that, coupled with the fake eyelashes (really distracting and who wears those nowadays?!) resulted in my actually enjoying the movie when she wasn't in the scenes! Too bad. This could have been much better with even a slightly higher caliber actress.