Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Catherina If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

ladymustang-12160 I had heard good things about this movie, so I was looking forward to it. But this is the first Hallmark movie that I can remember where there really is nothing redeeming about it.First off, as someone who used to show dogs, their entire depiction of dog shows was just absolutely laughable. There was nothing even remotely realistic about it. There are some dogs in the ring, but then the female lead gets called in separately by number? And then leaves again and then comes back for final review? Yeah, no, that's not how it works. The so-called judge barely touches the dog. And why are there several different types of dogs in the ring at once? And no, they don't hang the ribbons around the necks of the handlers. Oh my gosh. Just no. Completely absurd.Now I've got that off my chest, this is a rare Hallmark movie where there is absolutely zero chemistry between the leads. And the story itself was so poorly crafted that it was impossible to believe these two were falling in love. They barely spent more than 5 minutes together at a time; they never really talked in any kind of depth to get to know each other; he was supposed to be the rude one, but he came across as being fairly polite while she was always rude, so why the heck would he fall in love with such a witch? Even the subplot with the privileged dad who got her fired was absurd. It started out okay with him getting her fired. I can believe the board taking the side of the rich patron over a teacher, but the idea that he would sue her was beyond stupid, and having him show up at the party was nonsensical. The man got what he wanted when he got her fired; the rest of it was just overkill and just lazy writing.I generally love Hallmark movies and can forgive a lot in them because they're usually just fun, but this one was a waste of my time. I was so disappointed in it. Just nothing unfortunately to recommend it. :(

nhskyemom Movie is cute, but, having shown dogs is the real world, the dog show scenes are very poorly written. NEVER would a handle and judge have the conversations in the ring as written in this movie.

whbischoff Having read some of the reviews I felt that as a person that enjoys the simple things in life, I could add a comment or two. Perhaps I am not familiar with all of the literature re Pride and Prejudice, but I loved the movie and have watched it so many times I cannot give an accurate count. Of course Ryan Paevey is a humble and interesting person ... I would love to share his thoughts as in real life he loves the natural beauty of the earth, photography, and my hope is that he meets and marries a young lady like Cindy Busby. Cindy came across as a principled person who was did not run after "Donovan" but waited for him to see her inner beauty. I would love to have the opportunity to visit with Ryan and Cindy to form a true to life opinion. I feel that the parts they played in Unleashing Mr. Darcy gave an insight into who they are and the kind of people they are in real life. Ryan obviously loves children and puppies ... Cindy was very comfortable with her role as a sister and her love for animals was obvious. I am eager to purchase the disc for my TV.

judsonm If you're a Jane Austen fan, you may not like this movie, because it deviates from the book in ways that have no purpose, and make no sense.For example, the names. 'Donovan' Darcy? Why not 'William' Darcy? Jenna's (not Jane's? We don't have 'Jane' these days? It's the 77th most popular female name in the U.S.) love interest a 'Henry Robson', while there's a token 'Mr. Bingley' character? Why 'Scott' instead of Bennett'? I can see modernizing the names (probably not many 'Fitzwilliams' these days, at least in the U.S.). But what's the point in making them more different than necessary, or switching them to different characters? Why have a 'Mr. Bingley' at all, if he isn't to be Jenna's (Jane's) love interest?Why Elizabeth's sudden one-scene-to-the-next turnaround about Darcy? In one scene, Darcy cleared up the problem at her school, getting her job back with a raise, for which she said "Thanks, but no thanks", then in the very next scene, she's desperately in love with Darcy, calling him again and again, even moving to New York to be close to him. No transition scene? After all, it's the pivotal point of the whole story, don't we get to see even one scene about it?Simplifications are necessary in most book adaptations, particularly a long book like Pride and Prejudice. I have no problem with the dog shows, only two sisters, etc. But why change what isn't necessary? Do these producers and directors not 'get it' that Pride and Prejudice has survived for over 200 years for a reason, that it's the most widely read novel in the English language for a reason? Jane Austen was a legendary author, "don't 'fix' what ain't broke".I love the book 'Pride and Prejudice'. My favorite adaptation is the 1995 BBC production, but I also love the 2005 movie, as well as the 2003 movie and the 2004 'Bride & Prejudice', both modernized adaptations that maintain the heart of the story. So I'm not a Jane Austen purist snob.I was really looking forward to seeing 'Unleashing Mr. Darcy'. But, unfortunately, this movie is far short of what it could have been, with just a little more thought and care, and without blowing the budget.