I'm a big fan of Kimberly Sustad who plays Audrey. But her damaged character is really self absorbed. She's always buried in her phone, wears headphones in public around other people, and wears a hoodie on a date to a fancy restaurant. She's really oblivious. And at one point there's a weird shift in tone when Audrey gets manic at work.

Brooks Darnell is very smooth as Matthew. He has a great line about "brands" in which he describes himself as a "savvy professional" and Audrey as a "stubborn, indie creative". Both descriptions are spot on. Matthew also had a good line about the "thousand years of solitude" that he spent waiting for Audrey. It reminded me of the classic Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel of a similar name.

There's also some good direction and editing. For example, right after Matthew notes that love releases the same endorphins as eating chocolate, there's some fun scenes from the refrigerator POV. And there's an amusing early scene where Audrey tries to think about love:

"Love love, love love love; Love is codependency; Sacrificing one's sense of self, that's for sure; Jealousy, distortion of reality; Loss of control."

There's also a groan funny Dad "Joke of the week" featured on the board at work:

"I want to become a chess player, but I have too much of a checkered past."

The writing may seem cheesy at times to some, but most of us Hallmark fans have a high tolerance for cheesy love lines like this one:

"I kinda like the idea that two different stars can collide and make something so different and beautiful".

I also thought the Indigo seminar was really well done. I expected to be making fun of it but, instead, I found it to be rather insightful and a clever way to reveal things about Matthew and Audrey. But then the movie slogs through an annoying and implausible conflict in the 4th quarter (an all too frequent problem with some Hallmark movies). The initial assignment (to create a market ready board game and submit it to a "tabletop" competition in just 4 weeks) was ridiculous and all too typical of Hallmark's tendency to feature plots driven by artificial and unrealistic deadlines. And there is an equally ridiculous "business" decision by The Board in the 4th quarter that makes no sense (and annoys everybody, including the audience).

It was also unclear to me why the company hired a marketing consultant to help design a board game in the first place. Plus, I never got any kind of idea about what was actually in the board game. I just saw circles on a board with some huge player pieces. We saw Evie (a customer who never leaves) playing it with a stranger and some random people playing it at Boardwalk Café and Games (which is in Abbotsford, British Columbia, not Seattle) but we never hear any of the questions they presumably ask each other or see any interaction whatsoever.

But worst of all, I just didn't buy the love story. At best, this seemed like a movie about colleagues learning to work together (although the eager beaver co-workers seemed like caricatures). They were pleasant together, but I just didn't feel the sparks. And those sparks are kinda the key to making a romance work.

There's a much better "game developers to lovers" story in "On the 12th Date of Christmas" with Mallory Jansen and Tyler Hynes.

I wasn't planning to write a review of "Game of Love," but when I read a couple of lukewarm reviews here, I felt compelled to add my voice.

So many people in our society today are "gamers" of one sort or another. My millennial older son has been a devotee of online role-playing games and card games like Magic, as has his wife. In fact, gaming drew them together. (Sadly, with adult responsibilities, neither of them has much time to enjoy those pursuits.) I, myself, am a lover of traditional board games, plus online Mahjongg, jigsaw puzzles, and so on.

What I'm getting at is: Aren't we glad no one in this movie baked cupcakes or planned weddings for a living? I'm so happy to see Hallmark opening up to horizons beyond baking, chocolate making, and so on!

This movie doesn't stun us with surprises, but I was taken in by the naturalness of the dialogue and of the situations. Kimberley Sustad and Brooks Darnell were beautifully suited to each other as actors, and carried off their roles with sensitivity and sincerity. Brooks D. Is extremely handsome. I looked at the stills from some of his films and at photos from his work as a model - and they don't do him justice! You need to see his expressive face "in action" to get how very appealing he is.

Lest I give the impression that the movie is all calm, sincere dialogue... This movie is fun. I loved that the calm, serious interactions were interspersed with excited, bouncy scenes when the four-person team was working together. Christin Park brought so much verve, sweetness and fun to her role. It was a joy to watch her. She and her team partner, "Marshall," who was acted by the always wonderful Edwin Perez, played off each other beautifully. Their "bouncing with ideas" scenes were accompanied by some great, NOT HEARD BEFORE IN HALLMARK MOVIES, music that truly enhanced the scenes. (I had begun to find hearing the same tunes repeated in movie after movie so annoying.)

All the supporting roles, such as Matthew's (Darnell) brother, and Audrey's (Sustad) friend, Evie, were very well played and added a lot to the movie - especially the Evie character. It's always nice to see Antonio Cupo on the screen. :-)

Nothing in this movie made me laugh out loud, and I didn't expect that. I enjoyed the emotional ups and downs, the colorful, different-from-the-ordinary backgrounds and settings, and the way love between the two leads grew in a thoughtful, gradually opening up sort or way.

Also, something I would never usually say about one of these movies is that I noticed and appreciated the camera work!

Two things I had a problem with: It was clear from the beginning that the secret, casual friend, game partner- texter would turn out to be the male lead. It's a device that has been overused, at this point, and we can always see it coming. The movie wouldn't have suffered any loss without it. The other thing was that - yes, of course, there was the kiss at the end - but I really wanted to see a less restrained, more full-on kiss. Wrap your arms around him, for Heaven's sake!

All in all, I feel this movie richly deserves my "8" rating. It isn't the best Hallmark has ever made, but it's very good!

Okay, bear with me, as I've actually watched this twice.

The first time -- wasn't impressed at all. It seemed like we watched the leads arguing at work, then while out on a walk, then back at the cubicle, then out on another walk, rinse and repeat. No chemistry.

Then I caught it again tonight, from the very beginning. Maybe I was in a better mood, but whatever -- I had a completely different reaction. Well, maybe not completely, but it was indeed quite well done, there IS genuine chemistry between the leads, and while not exactly Shakespeare, there's more to the story than a couple of people trying to come up with a new board game in a month.

If you watch closely, you'll see the growing attraction and admiration between the characters played by Brooks Darnell and the always reliable Kimberley Sustad. What seemed a little forced on first viewing wasn't that. I think I was probably busy making dinner or whatever, but the chemistry is there.

Their acting is also very natural and believable. The same can't be said for the guy who played the 'love advisor', but that could be the director's fault. The young asian actress was a little overcaffeinated at times, but again...probably instructed to act that way.

And Sustad has the best scene and does the best job, near the end, when she tearfully realizes how her character has pushed people away, leaving her alone, and that teamwork and connecting is a far better option than being alone. That's not a 'subplot' as another reviewer suggested -- it's THE theme -- the lesson -- of the movie.

Oh, and if Darien Martin is reading this? Get a new agent. You're a good actor, and shouldn't be settling for 1-minute walk-ons. :)