Perfectly adorable

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

This movie feels like a textbook five out of ten---it's sweet and enjoyable, but also incredibly predictable and therefore bordering on boring.Danica McKellar, who plays the protagonist Helen, is a Hallmark veteran, so viewers inevitably find themselves growing fond of her after the fifth or so movie that features her in a main role. However, she suffers from a case of eyebrow acting that never fails to be distracting---whenever possible, her expression is one of shyness, hesitance, apprehension, and almost woe, to the point where it is almost her default face, all thanks to her perpetually bent eyebrows. This is probably to make her characters more likable, less brash, more charmingly tentative, but after seeing it in the tenth movie, it feels less like an acting choice, and more like the only option Danica has for her face.The story that then proceeds to unfold around her is unbelievably foreseeable. She meets a handsome masked man, Charles, at the masquerade ball her longtime friend Henry invites her to, and feels an instant attraction to him. However, even before this moment, pointed conversations with her Aunt Carol about Henry make it clear who she's going to ultimately end up with in the film. Henry is a kind, caring friend who she's known since college, and both of them are hiding (seemingly) covert feelings for each other. Especially hard to believe is Henry's grand selflessness, which is so far off the charts he's hardly even playing a believable human anymore---it begins simply enough, with him bringing Charles to Helen after unexpectedly finding him on the street, but stretches onward to him planning dates for them, buying Helen meaningful gifts that he then gives to Charles to present her with, and even dropping off sweet notes and coffee at Helen's workplace that seem as if they're from Charles. Although shooting for extremely nice (and possibly saint-like), I found that Hallmark greatly overshot this trait and circled straight around to deceptive, as ultimately, Henry is presenting a false version of Charles that does not actually exist to Helen, giving her an impression of him that is highly inaccurate.The audience knows, however, that Charles poses no threat to the actual love story. He's working for a company intending to turn the botanical gardens that Henry works for into condos, which injures Helen, a florist, deeply, and she severs ties with him. She later refers to Charles as a "prince who was more frog," which seems awfully harsh for a man who was inadvertently made to be extremely different from his real self thanks to Henry's meddling.Henry, meanwhile, is moving to Arizona (how else will our leads work up the courage to confess their feelings if not torn apart by distance) but returns home when a teary Helen tells him she loves him over the phone. He stays in New York and decides to surprise her, calling in a flower order that Helen must deliver to the botanical gardens where he lies in wait (the fact that she had to prepare a flower arrangement that was intended as a gift for her is not lost on the audience) with a ring. This jump from "just friends" to fiances feels extreme for the movie, even if these two have been friends for more than two decades (assuming their ages are similar to the actors' own). Also quickly resolved in the last second is that Helen's specially grown rose has won first place in a competition that, early on in the movie, felt quite significant, but ended up warranting no more than a quick glance at a first place ribbon in the last few moments of the film.Overall, the movie was charming in its simplicity, but hardly challenged or surprised the audience at any moment. At no point did anyone suspect that Charles was real competition for Henry, or that Helen and Henry would not come to their senses by the movie's end, creating a lack of suspense that would have kept the movie much more interesting had it existed.

A lady falls for a man at a masked ball. But he turns out to be less suited to her than her best friend. The problem with the story is there is just no surprise or much of a difference at all. Just too predictable. It's been done before and better. There is a Cyrano like situation going on.I like Danica McKellar in these types of movies but she is a little mature not old but mature to be playing this kind of role. Her best friend who turns out to be her true love is played by Cameron Mathison who has a bit of a strange voice that isn't quite suited to the romantic lead.

This tv movie is a sweet, very romantic story about two college best friends, who discover their true feelings about one another a bit late in life. It benefits from being tied in to a serious enviromental theme of preserving a botanical garden that is at risk for being turned into a condo/mall money-maker. Both leads are established made-for-tv movie stars and are very appealing favorites. However. both seemed a bit mature in years to be experiencing such a romantic realization. Having been best friends in college, and then each going their separate way is a good beginning background story..But Danica McKellar is 43 and Cameron Mathieson is 48..leaving this viewer to wonder how the audience is expected to believe that more than 20 years had passed before they revealed their true feelings. Their romance seemed more appropriate for people in their late 20's, perhaps mid-thirties..but not at age 43 and 48. Something about Cameron Mathison's wide-eyed, innocent portrayal of a very smart botanist left one in disbelief. He is too mature and too established an actor to portray such an immature suitor. Danica McKellar is always lovely and takes her roles seriously. However, at this time of her own career, she might want to rethink all that long hair and all those tendrils around her face. She is far too beautiful to cover so much of her beauty with all that fussy hair. The second male lead, Damon Runyon, is under-used in Hallmark films. He is handsome, talented and very much leading man material. He needs to be moved out of the 'other man'/bad guy roles.

I went into this movie not knowing much and expecting an overused plot. The movie, while mantaining its hallmark (pun intended) seemed somehow different. Helen is a florist (Danica McKellar). Her best friend is Henry, who works at the botanical garden. (Cameron Mathison). While they are at a party Helen connects with this other guy and is determined to find out who he is the day after. She, of course, asks Henry to help her. Not aware he is in love with her (and viceversa).Both Danica and Cameron deliver an acceptable performance. However, I gotta admit that Danica always shines on her own. Pretty good chemistry between the two of them. Another surprise for me. At the beginning of the movie there is a mention of a contest and of course Helen has THE perfect flower to present. (I've seen this before with flowers, wine and even perfume) but I was pleasantly surprised when I didn't see the contest and not a good cause to save (wait for it).My favorite aspect of the movie was the fact that the main characters are not strangers, exes, nor colleagues who are forced to work together. And is there a better trope than two best friends who love each other but are too stubborn to admit it? Only a few. Once again, to my surprise, the "mystery man" - aka boyfriend? - was not an absolute narcissist, focused only on himself, which was a nice change.Can be talk about the fact that it was Damon Ruyan? Someone who already has movies as the main character? Dislikes? Only a few: The classic "I wanted a fairy tale story" which is extremely overused and tiring. And while the ending was lovely, I believe it was too much of a leap? But y'all be the judge of that.