Learning to Love

This was a bad movie. The story was decent. The leading lady did a poor job. Very choppy in her lines and not authentic. The female lead character was arrogant in her "help" with the family. I disliked her style and she came off as "fake". The children's behavior and meannes to nannys was over the top fake and puke-worthy, in addition the children did not receive consequences for their bad behavior. For a "faith and family" movie, I was disgusted. Going to church and reading about Noah is not showing how the Lord influences life choices. I did not see it being anything outstanding . I do not recommend this for families to watch with children. Really a poorly made movie. The one positive was Mr. Boyd's character. He came off sincere and genuine throughout.

This entry from Great American Family channel deals with prayers and how God answers. There is also a romance and a "nanny" story. This is basically the dad-hires-nanny premise even though Steph is hired as their teacher. She lives in the guest house and interacts with the kids past school hours, so tomAto, tomaato.

The usual nanny story gag of the kids trying to chase the nanny away has an interesting twist.

So what about faith. This is not Hallmark, so the values here are much different. I think this movie was intended to give an example of a faith and family based streaming service so they weren't shy about dealing with it.

Harry, the father, is mad at God because God didn't "answer" his prayer to save his wife, at least not how he wanted. There have been other movies dealing with this and I think a much better one in this category was actually on Hallmark, The Gift of Peace, last Christmas. I thought the way this movie dealt with the subject was clumsy. At times they seemed shy about talking about God yet the kids actually pray to Jesus, whose name is almost never heard in movies like this. One thing that was clumsy was that the kids prayed for what they selfishly wanted and it almost seemed like they got it, while their dad's long ago prayer was at least a little unselfish and that outcome didn't happen.

The acting was fair. Not bad, but it didn't always seem natural. I liked Ina Barrón. Her enthusiasm created a good impression as far as acting. There might have been some weak moments like her confrontation with Harry at the restaurant. Philip Boyd was horrible in that confrontation and he was stiff through most of the movie.

The kids, as is often the case, added fun to the movie. I think this aspect will also appeal to younger audiences.

8.0 stars.

A bit of a slow starter, but when 'Learning to Love' kicks into high gear, you'd better have your seatbelt fastened. This reminds me of many an inspirational story seen in my days (and there are a plenty). That hopeful feeling, full of joy, encouraged that true love exists...in other words, if you are a sappy hopeless romantic, you might enjoy this film. Like I said, it starts off very slow. The first ten minutes seemed so low budget and out of place.

The lead female (definitely the protagonist) seemed odd and miscast for a while. I felt she was frumpy and unattractive, but I'm sure it was by design. Soon she is so amazing and really a beauty by the conclusion. Very crafty with the wardrobe and makeup to systematically transform her into a bombshell (somewhat). It's more her smile and expressions that are her best qualities. She's not your usual "hot", gorgeous woman, but more of a subdued and mature attractive type, and yet sometimes she is kinda "hot". I don't know, it's weird. You might agree, just take a look for yourself.

The lead male starts off on the wrong foot, no doubt. He will rub you the wrong way. But he also seems to grow on you somewhat. I think his acting is almost awkward and wooden, but he also conveys exactly what is required of him being a rich and uptight man. The way he fathers the two girls seems genuine despite his stiff exterior.

The best friend lady whose boyfriend is a chef, she's out of place too. Just the wrong casting for this whole bunch...but is it? No, it's the perfect ensemble. There is a total 360 on the experience as we move along. Things become more colorful, more vibrant, the characters shine, the story gets much better, and fulfilling, and absorbing. I am shocked at how much of a dud this was in the first 15 minutes, only to wow me right into church. Well, not really, but it's inspirational for church people too. However, the theme is nothing more than how a person who chooses to be positive in all aspects of life can transform everyone around them.

The potential for a sequel is real.

Nice standard story, but why do they have to put faith and religion in these hallmark movies. I love them as I am a hopeless sucker for romances, but this god, religion, church is too much. Trying to cater to the middle America of the righteous religion right? Gimme a break. Hallmark, please get religion out of your main story! The premise is fine, dad wanting to homeschool kids, hires cute teacher and you get the rest... and despite the standard story, acting is ok. Kids do a good job. Bff and all are good. But again, religion and faith are too central to the story. We're looking for romance, not a lesson in religion and morality, and being saved and finding your faith again.

The theme of a single father hiring a nanny, this time a teacher, who, eventually, brings love to or heals the entire family, despite attempts at rejecting her, has been presented in many shades and flavors over the years. This production comes with a different twist in the children's attitude and deeper faith undertones. The theme has been previously developed with more depth and richer emotions in "The nanny express" with Vanessa Marcil, in 2008. Yet, this entrance offers an acceptable plot and provides reasonable, family friendly, entertainment. On the minus side, the acting, particularly by Philip Boyd, appears somewhat stiff, the conflicts a bit shallow, and the romantic interest between the two leads is poorly explained. On the plus side, the main character, Steph, is a very likeable, solar personality, well played by Ina Barron. When it comes to the overt religious expressions and content, I admit I do not find them necessary, probably because I am definitely agnostic. Yet, I do not understand, why, in this and other movies, they cause so much resentment in some of the reviewers. I wonder if those are the same viewers who adore the spirituality and culture presented in movies that deal with Native American, oriental or other exotic traditions. Why are these not as irritating or objectionable?

Whatever creed or faith brings people to love, respect and mutual understanding may not need to be embraced, yet it should not detract from appreciating the outcomes.

In summary, though a weaker rendition of a tried story, this movie has nothing offensive, it has some merits of its own, and it is worth a look.