Well, 45 minutes into the movie and I'm moving on.
Didn't really catch my attention and it just seemed like the characters were very superficial. Now, it's supposed to be a modern re-telling of Much Ado About Nothing, so maybe that's the way they're supposed to be. And all new actors (to me). Only thing that kept me watching as long as I did was the varied British accents all muddled up in one storyline.
I watched
Much Ado About Christmas too. I agree that the beginning 35 minutes was way overacted at the beginning.

It didn't have much resemblance to Much Ado About Nothing, other than the cutesy title.

I've come to a theory: When the pressure is on for an Academy Award level actor to do a a great job, they become still, go deeply
internal, their thoughts and feelings are expressed in the subtleties of their face, especially in their eyes, as the camera zooms in for a close up. Just watch
The Quiet Place where there is almost no dialogue and Emily Blunt and John Krasinski have to keep still so many times, yet we know exactly what they are going through. It's written all over them, even in their stillness. (I know wrong movie genre for this Hallmark thread.

)
Whereas, when the pressure is on for B & C level actors to do a great job, they become more
external. Hyper-expressive. Their actions, body movements and facial expressions get bigger and exaggerated. They do weird things with the dialogue, trying to make it sound interesting, or how they think it should be said, and it just comes off as cliche or unnatural. If they could pull off going deeper, they;d be better than B-level actors.
The sets & costumes on
Much Ado About Christmas were lavish. The crew brought every Christmas prop they could find to dress the Christmas sets. They filmed in Budapest instead of Canada. The budget must have been enormous. I think the pressure was so great on this cast to do a great job and represent the new GAC brand that they all went "big" with all the over the top movements & facial expressions and cutesy dialogue and interactions. And of course, the phony British accents. Except the female lead, who represented America.
I agree that beginning was unbearable to watch. Susie Abromeit (the female lead,) was mooning over the male lead with an expression like she was 16 and not 38, which she is in real life.

We know she can act, she was the evil girlfriend in
Snow Bride. And she was in some other, older Hallmark movie where she finds out she's pregnant in the movie. Her acting was okay in that. But, she and this whole cast seemed to feel like they suddenly had to do
more.
I was also going to turn off the movie, but I thought it has to get better than this?

Why would GAC use THIS movie to be their first one out of the gate, unless all their other movies are
worse?
So I sped through the first part to see if the movie got better. At about 35 min, after an over the top karaoke scene and a snow ball fight, the actors seemed to settled down.
Then it got much better. It finally became the same, classic "Hallmark" type movie we are used to. Whew!
The female is an heiress, hiding the fact, as she wants to find a guy who will love her just for her, without the "title" and money. There is a huge, lavish ballroom scene with dancing, reminiscent of movies with royal princes that are Hallmark favorites, like Danica's
A Crown for Christmas, or Lacey's
A Royal Christmas. Only this time Susie Abromeit is in the "royal" role, being an heiress.
I found a link to the whole movie on YouTube.
People can watch it there. Yet, I URGE you guys speed through or skip the first 35 min. It's a story we all have seen before. Not hard to follow coming in late.
Much Ado About Christmas