Take 3: Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Face to Face Review

On August 11, 2025August 10, 2025 By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

Any time I receive the opportunity to review a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, I try to prioritize titles that are either VHS exclusive or harder to find. This decision has been made to help give those titles more recognition, as well as encourage more people to check those films out. One of these films is the 1990 picture, Face to Face! As far as I know, this Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation was not released on VHS or DVD. It also premiered months prior to the Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, Caroline?, which I have reviewed on 18 Cinema Lane. The synopsis is what intrigued me toward seeing Face to Face, as the story (according to IMDB) is about “an American paleontologist and a British miner get in a conflict over who has the rights to dig on a site in Kenya”. A conflict about two differing parties at odds over a shared problem isn’t often covered within the Hallmark Hall of Fame collection. In fact, the only movies I can think of that fit this description are The Summer of Ben Tyler and Sweet Nothing in My Ear. Face to Face’s Kenyan backdrop also provides a unique element to the movie. Africa is a setting that is rarely incorporated in Hallmark Hall of Fame’s films.

Hallmark Hall of Fame’s *Face to Face* poster created by Hallmark Hall of Fame Productions, Robert Halmi, and CBS

Things I liked about the film:

The scenery: As I mentioned in this review’s introduction, Face to Face takes place in Kenya. The creative team behind the film took advantage of the Kenyan landscape by featuring long and medium shots of the story’s natural surroundings. One example is an establishing shot of a sunset. Half the shot is engulfed in an orange and yellow sky, with a grey mountain at the sunset’s root. Nearby trees adopt a black hue, standing out against the sky’s bright colors. The ground appears to be a mix of rustic red and brown, warmed by the light’s glow. This establishing shot is so gorgeous, I doubt pictures would do it justice.

The dialogue: In my recent review of 1973’s From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, I praised the film’s dialogue. I mentioned how some lines were so well-written, they became a memorable part of the movie. Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Face to Face shares the same strength! The film’s dialogue was not only witty and clever, it was also, at times, thought-provoking. During one evening, Face to Face’s protagonists, Diana and Tobias, are listening to the sound of a flute. This music is created by a young man named Enjoro, who works with Tobias. Impressed by Enjoro’s talent, Diana says “Just think what he could do with an education”. Tobias quickly replies by asking “Isn’t what he’s doing enough”? This conversation is a great example of how good intentions may be quite different from what a person wants or needs. Earlier in Face to Face, Diana’s arrival in Kenya is met by a colleague named Dr. Brinkman. On a nearby map, Dr. Brinkman is trying to locate Diana’s dig site. As he’s searching for the site, Diana says to Dr. Brinkman “You’re close”. When he asks her “How close”, she matter-of-factly tells him, “Got the right country”. The exchange between these two characters showcases the wittiness found in Face to Face’s script!

Enjoro’s subplot: Like I just said in this review, the flute music is created by a young man named Enjoro, who works with Tobias. But music is not his only passion. Enjoro is also a talented artist, with his drawings impressing Diana so much, she gives him an art set. Unfortunately, these artistic passions are frowned upon by his village, who would rather see Enjoro become a warrior. This personal struggle between village tradition and personal pursuits provides a subplot in Face to Face. A conflict like Enjoro’s is rarely incorporated in Hallmark Hall of Fame’s movies. In fact, I found Enjoro’s part of the story more interesting than the main plot. Had this film focused primarily on Enjoro’s personal conflict, I think the overall movie would have been more compelling.

Illustrated African landscape image created by Macrovector at freepik.com. Background vector created by macrovector – www.freepik.com

What I didn’t like about the film:

An unlikable protagonist: I recognize the creative team behind Face to Face was trying to utilize the “enemies to lovers” troupe when it came to Tobias and Diana. I also acknowledge they were trying to give Diana and Tobias an “opposites attract” dynamic. Unfortunately, these parts of the story were not as effective as they could have been. One reason lies with how unlikable Diana was. For the majority of the movie, she was a static character; close-minded, stubborn, and entitled. When Tobias offered a compromise or tried to make peace with her, Diana shut down his offers and even saw him as beneath her. Even though Diana and Tobias eventually develop romantic feelings for each other, that attraction felt abrupt. If Diana’s change of heart had been more gradual, not only would she be a more likable character, the build up between her and Tobias’ attraction would have been stronger.

The audio: Face to Face premiered in 1990. Therefore, I’m aware of how film-making technology back then was not as advanced as it is today. But one of the signs of these times was the bad audio heard in the Hallmark Hall of Fame film. Most of Face to Face takes place outdoors. This means not only were the cast’s speech picked up by microphones, background noises were picked up as well. The collection of sounds sometimes made it difficult to understand what the characters were saying. Face to Face could have benefitted from using ADR (automated dialog replacement).

The “insta-love” troupe: When I talked about how unlikable Diana was, I brought up the “enemies to lovers” troupe Face to Face’s creative team tried to utilize. I also brought up how Diana and Tobias’ attraction for one another felt abrupt. This was caused by Tobias and Diana remaining “enemies” for more than half the movie. So much time was spent showing Diana and Tobias bickering, disagreeing, and being negative toward each other instead of the protagonists building a romantic bond over time. When Tobias and Diana eventually fall in love with one another, the “insta-love” troupe unnecessarily makes an appearance in Face to Face. Having the protagonists stay “enemies” for too long also made Elizabeth Montgomery and Robert Foxworth’s on-screen chemistry seem weak.

Image of male lion created by Wirestock at freepik.com. Animals photo created by wirestock – www.freepik.com

My overall impression:

With the publication of my Face to Face review, I have now seen all three Hallmark Hall of Fame movies released in 1990. Out of these films, I find Caroline? the best one. As for Face to Face, I thought it was just ok. This is one of those movies where a better story idea was buried within the presentation Hallmark Hall of Fame gave its audience. I honestly wish Enjoro’s story had been chosen as the main plot. His personal conflict between village tradition and personal pursuits provided a compelling narrative. I also wish Tobias and Diana had spent more time developing a romantic relationship and working together to solve their shared problem. These creative decisions would have prevented flaws like the appearance of the “insta-love” troupe. Face to Face features merits such as the dialogue and the scenery. But I can think of better movies also featuring these merits. Though there are interesting ideas woven into the script, I can kind of see why Face to Face became lost to time.

Overall score: 6.1 out of 10

Have you seen Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Face to Face? Are there any Hallmark Hall of Fame films you’d like to see reviewed on 18 Cinema Lane? Please tell me in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: The Lion Review

On July 24, 2021 By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

I haven’t participated in MovieRob’s Genre Grandeur since April, when I reviewed the 1966 movie, Born Free. To make up for some of that lost time, I decided to review a film for July’s event. This month, the theme is “Movies of the Outdoors”. That means the majority of the film has to take place outdoors or the movie has to significantly feature nature within the story. In a search for ideas, I turned to a book that I’ve had in my possession since last year: Leonard Maltin’s TV Movies & Video Guide 1989 Edition. The pages of this text revealed a title I had never even heard of before. In 1962, 20^th Century Fox released a live-action production titled The Lion. Leonard gave this project two out of four stars, saying “Beautiful scenery of Kenya is far better than melodrama about young girl attached to pet lion, with family concerned it is turning her into a savage”. With curiosity getting the better of me, I chose to seek this movie out as my contribution for July’s Genre Grandeur! But will I end up agreeing or disagreeing with Leonard? Keep reading in order to find out!

*The Lion* poster created by 20th Century Fox.

Things I liked about the film:

William Holden and Capucine’s banter: While The Lion is the fourth film of William Holden’s I have seen, it is also the first film of Capucine’s I have seen. Despite this, I really liked hearing the banter between their characters, Robert and Christine! After Robert arrives at the game reserve’s guest house, Christine reminds him how he is now on a game reserve. In a nonchalant manner, Robert tells her that he won’t bite the animals. In this film, there was a hint of a laid-back persona with William Holden’s character. Even though this was not Robert’s strongest character trait, William pulled it off flawlessly, making his line sound like a piece of natural conversation. Another collection of banter between these characters carried a more serious tone later in the film. When Christine questions Robert’s reason for coming to Africa, he says “I’m here, aren’t I”? In my review of The World of Suzie Wong, I said that William Holden’s performance in that movie was consistent. His and Capucine’s performance in The Lion was consistent as well, each actor delivering their lines with effective execution!

The scenery: The natural landscape of Africa is one of the reasons why I chose to watch this film. Similar to the 1966 movie, Born Free, the African fields served as the principal scenery for The Lion, almost like the landscape itself served as a character in its own right. When Robert’s plane first flies to the game reserve, an establishing shot of a massive mountain is predominantly featured in the background. It was such a beautiful piece of earth, with its white and light blue hues glistening on screen. Like Born Free, the African plains are given multiple opportunities to be featured. But in The Lion, there were other locales that were shown. When Tina, Robert and Christine’s daughter, is on her way to introduce Robert to her pet lion, King, she walks along a winding path. One part of this scene shows Tina and Robert walking past a huge waterfall. While I wish this waterfall had been shown for a longer period of time, it highlights how there are various types of landscapes within Africa.

Pamela Franklin’s performance: I am not familiar with Pamela Franklin’s filmography. However, she gave a solid performance in The Lion! While watching her portrayal of Tina, I couldn’t help being reminded of Hayley Mills in films such as The Parent Trap. This is because, like Hayley, Pamela carried herself with confidence and a strong sense of self, especially for a young person. These qualities in character paired nicely with Tina’s headstrong personality. Pamela also brought enough emotionality to make her role sympathetic. Whenever she is instructing her per lion, King, on what she wants him to do, you can tell Tina truly cares about him. In one scene, King is leaving with a mate. As Tina is begging him to stay, desperation could be seen and heard in her eyes and voice. Everything I’ve been saying allowed Pamela to still the show!

What I didn’t like about the film:

Use of the words “wild” and “savage”: In The Lion, there are a few moments where Robert and Christine use the words “wild” or “savage” when referring to Tina’s interest in the local wildlife and African tribe. At one point, Christine fears her daughter will grow up to be “wild”. I know the ‘60s were a different time compared to the 2020s. But that is not the reason why I didn’t like the characters’ use of the words “wild” and “savage”. By them choosing those words to refer to Tina’s interests, they fail to understand the importance of these subjects. Throughout the movie, Christine, Robert, and even John worry about who Tina will grow up to be in the future. Instead, they should have taken the time to get to know her in the present. Since Tina’s passion for wildlife and her appreciation for the local African tribe is common knowledge to everyone in her life, her parents could have chosen to homeschool their daughter. Those aforementioned interests could have served as the basis for various academic subjects, with Tina’s parents guiding and protecting her along the way. Tina’s upbringing in Africa and a strong educational foundation might afford her a good chance to be accepted into a reputable university. If her parents took the initiative to nurture their daughter’s love for animals, maybe she would have become a veterinarian or operate her own wildlife sanctuary. Some people say “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. However, Christine and Robert’s words fail to recognize a middle ground where all parties are satisfied.

Poor special effects: As I just said in my previous point, the ‘60s were a different time compared to the 2020s. One way this is made apparent is the quality of the technology used in cinema. Sometimes, actors will be placed in front of a green screen, in an attempt to present the illusion that the actors are in a particular location. A few scenes in The Lion showed some of the characters driving through the fields of Africa, with pre-filmed shots of this landscape shown in the background. But during these on-screen trips, a faint but visible blue glow could be seen outlining the characters. This technological error prevented me from getting fully immersed in these scenes. Toward the end of the movie, rain was shown falling in one scene. But the special effect used looked like small images of raindrops lay on top of the scene’s picture instead like looking like the raindrops were falling in that world. That also ruined the illusion of being in the movie’s space.

A drawn-out conflict: Like I already mentioned before, Tina’s parents worry about her future. The way they talk about this conflict sounded like a dire situation. But throughout the film, there was no sense of urgency to find a resolution. Instead, several scenes focus on a safari trip John leads. While I enjoyed seeing Africa’s scenery, these scenes felt like padding to make up for the main conflict being drawn-out. Another part of the story that received more attention than the main conflict was the customs and politics of the local African tribe. I will admit that this part of the script was interesting. However, it took time away from the main conflict, causing its final outcome to be stalled. Even though Tina’s parents solve their problem, the answer doesn’t feel satisfying because of how long the problem was drawn out.

My overall impression:

Because this month’s Genre Grandeur theme is “Movies of the Outdoors”, I knew The Lion would be the perfect choice for this event. As expected, the scenery in the film presented a pleasant picture to look at. But like I quoted in my review of To Catch a Spy, “The scenery can’t save you”. That is certainly the case for the 1962 movie. The pieces of a good project were there; from the strong acting performances to interesting conflicts. But the overall direction wasn’t focused. Instead of working to find a resolution to the film’s main conflict, the story traveled down side paths. This placed more emphasis on other parts of the plot and caused the overarching narrative to be drawn-out. I was also frustrated by the lack of initiative from Tina’s parents to help their daughter reach her full potential with the resources they already had. While I understand they wanted the best for her, they never took the time to ask Tina what she wished for. Honestly, I’d recommend Born Free over The Lion. The story of the 1966 picture is not only straight forward, but its script is also stronger.

Overall score: 6.2 out of 10

Have you seen The Lion? Which “outdoor movie” would you prefer? Tell me in the comment section below!

Have fun outside!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: Born Free Review + 340 and 345 Follower Thank You

On April 23, 2021 By 18cinemalane1 Comment

Earlier this month, 18 Cinema Lane received 340 and 345 followers! Before I continue, I’d just like to say thank you to each and every person who has chosen to follow my blog. I appreciate you taking the time to read my articles and listen to what I have to say. Speaking of articles, let’s back to the review! For April’s Genre Grandeur, the theme is “travel films”. Because this topic is so broad, it took me a while to figure out which film I would write about. Then I remembered I had the 1966 movie, Born Free, on my DVR. While Joy and George Adamson, the story’s protagonists, do travel within the movie, it is not the central component of the story. I also have participated in Thoughts From The Music(al) Man’s Star/Genre Of The Month Blogathon, with my review of China Seas being my first contribution. April doesn’t have a theme, so I thought Born Free would be the perfect choice for the blogathon! Prior to writing this review, I had heard of, but not seen, the 1966 picture. This is because I was familiar with the movie’s theme when it was featured on the soundtrack for the film, Madagascar. Now, the moment you’ve been waiting for; the start of this review!

Because I recorded this movie on my DVR, I took a screenshot of the movie’s poster from my phone. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.

Things I liked about the film:

How the animals were showcased: While I liked the acting in Born Free, it’s the animals that steal the show! Animals were showcased in a natural way, allowing them to be shown in situations that are more realistic. None of the animals were given voice-overs, giving the audience a chance to witness their authentic expressions. A great example is when Elsa, the lion Joy and George take care of, interacts with a male lion. Throughout the scene, Elsa and the male lion take turns roaring. They also can be seen fighting over food. The way these lions were presented made it look like they were having a conversation. The human characters’ conversations about these animals also gave them a humanistic quality. After Joy and George leave Elsa alone with the aforementioned lion, Joy compares the experience to waiting for a daughter to come home from a date. The cinematography and script gave the animals just as much importance as the human characters!

The scenery: The majority of Born Free takes place outdoors, as the African landscapes serve as the principal scenery for the story. Toward the beginning of the movie, Joy is painting in her front yard. A clear blue sky enveloped a large space of plains. This specific location appeared peaceful as long shots were used to capture it on film. Another impressive location was the beach that Elsa, Joy, and George visit. Once again, a blue sky is visible, soaring over the blue of the ocean and bright beige of the sand. The beach was very photogenic, with long and medium shots helping to showcase that location!

The music: I liked the use of music in Born Free! The pieces of instrumental tunes provided the tone for each scene it was included in. When a suspenseful and tense moment took place, the sound of beating drums could be heard. This sound elaborated on the seriousness of what was happening in that particular scene. One example is when, toward the end of the film, Elsa is fighting with another female lion. For more light-hearted, joyful moments, the movie’s theme played in the background. Some scenes that featured this piece of music revolved around Elsa and her sisters as lion cubs.

Mother lion and her baby cubs image created by wirestock at freepik.com. Animals photo created by wirestock – www.freepik.com

What I didn’t like about the film:

An inconsistent narrative: When a close friend named John suggests Elsa should be placed in a zoo, Joy is completely against the idea. This decision has even resulted in a heated argument between Joy and George. Joy’s decision for wanting Elsa to remain wild is understandable. However, earlier in the film, she doesn’t object to sending Elsa’s two sisters to a zoo. Joy also takes in a baby elephant that Elsa happened to be chasing one day. This specific narrative was inconsistent, which prevented me from getting fully invested in Joy’s side of the story.

The run-time: According to IMDB, Born Free is an hour and thirty-five minutes. But because the story is a simpler one, I don’t think this movie needed that run-time. While watching the film, I noticed how some scenes contained montages. For example, when Joy, George, and Elsa go to the beach, a montage lasting several minutes featured these characters playing on the beach and in the ocean. I feel these montages were placed in the film to satisfy its run-time. Had these montages been shortened, the movie could have had a run-time of an hour or less.

Unnecessary voice-overs: Throughout the film, Joy provides voice-overs to explain what is happening in the story. These voice-overs were beneficial in understanding Elsa’s journey. But there were some scenes where Joy’s voice-overs were not necessary. At the beginning of a scene where Joy, George, and Elsa are at a camp, Joy explains how, one night, she heard the roar of a lion who was eating the livestock of a nearby African village. If the voice-over had not been included in this scene, the on-screen event could have spoken for itself. Having the voice-over only reminded the audience of what they already knew.

Colorful travel suitcase image created by Pikisuperstar at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/beautiful-illustration-of-travel_2686674.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/watercolor”>Watercolor vector created by Pikisuperstar – Freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

When you think of “travel films”, a movie where the protagonist takes an extravagant and adventurous trip will likely come to mind. However, traveling can mean different things for various people. In the case of Born Free, Joy and George Adamson travel from England to Africa. Throughout the film, they also travel to town and several African villages. As I mentioned in the introduction, Born Free does not focus on the travels of Joy and George. Instead, it prioritizes the relationship these characters share with Elsa. While I liked the natural portrayals of the animals, these depictions are more suited for an older audience. This is also a simpler story, calling for a shorter run-time than the one it received. Not only were some of Joy’s voice-overs unnecessary, but her stance on keeping Elsa out of a zoo was inconsistent. Despite these flaws, I thought Born Free was a fine film! If you are interested in the subject of animals, I feel this is the movie for you!

Overall score: 7.1-7.2 out of 10

Have you seen any “travel films” lately? Do you have any films to recommend for the next blog follower dedication review? Let me know in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen