I expect a slight bit of backlash to this one. Before I crack on with it I will say that I went ‘Love Actually’ (2003) with an open mind, but that was made harder by this being my second time watching the film. Also, although I don’t think this needs to be said, my opinion of the film is not a reflection on the quality of the film or whether you can enjoy it or not. Different strokes for different folks and all that. That being said this film is crap and everyone who loves it has terrible taste. I’m joking obviously but having seen this film twice now I still don’t get why people love it so much. The film takes on several connected narratives all revolving around love and relationships during the Christmas period. It covers all bases of love, the highs and lows, tos-and-fros, young and old, romantic and platonic, all played out with a cast of almost every name British actor to have ever existed.
On a technical level, this film does exactly what it needs to do. It is well shot and edited without ever going so far as looking ‘artistic’ or pushing the boat out in terms of creative direction. But it isn’t trying to, nor does it need to. After all, Richard Curtis is a screenwriter first and director second, and so the technical side of the film is second to the narrative. You see what you need to see, and it doesn’t try to complicate things with fancy camerawork or editing, and I don’t mean that in a critical sense. I will get on to the narrative a little more in the second half of this review, but for now, I need to focus on the performances in the film. There are so many and they are all solid so I can’t go through each actor or I would have a dissertation size review going, so instead, I will focus on some of my favourites. First of all, Bill Nighy who I don’t think has ever been cast better than as an old-timer, crass, rock star. He is clearly having a ton of fun in the role and in turn that makes him fun to watch. Colin Firth and Hugh Grant are both fun as well as doing their usual shtick. Fortunately, I quite like that shtick, so it is no issue with me. Alan Rickman is obviously great, and alongside Emma Thompson has some of the more powerful moments throughout the film. But my favourite performance and I have no idea if this is an odd ball choice or not, is Liam Neeson. I think he is great throughout the whole film. He has to run the gamut of emotion throughout the runtime and he nails it each time. He is sympathetic whole being charming and funny and I let more connected with his character and story than the majority of others in the film.
I feel like I have said this before, but an issue faced by films which are telling multiple narratives is the difficulty in keeping all of them interesting. This film does have this issue, and unfortunately, it is for the majority of the narratives that I didn’t particularly care for. Like I said, I like the Liam Neeson narrative but think that is more down to Neeson himself. And the best part of the film is also the shortest, and that is Martin Freeman and Joanna Page simulating sex while making small talk. The juxtaposition of the what the two are doing compared to what they are saying works comedically. Apart from this, the stories being told are a mixture of fine to terrible. In fairness, there is only one truly terrible narrative in the film, which is incidentally also the most famous narrative of the film. I am of course referring to the best mate being in love with the wife narrative. And this is not all to do with the creepiness of it all, because it is creepy as hell. But it is also just completely unengaging, the performances are the weakest throughout the whole film, and every time it popped up, I fully checked out of what was happening. I had more fun fake retching at the soppy as shit dialogue and getting annoyed at Richard Curtis’s apparent disdain for banoffee pie (I fucking love banoffee pie). It almost lifts all the other narratives by comparison. And this is why I think this film is a bit crap. If you are a film that is over two hours long, telling multiple narratives and you have only two enjoyable ones, several mediocre ones, and one terrible one then you have done a bad job. At least I think so, but I am very much in the minority.
I have a star ranking system on Letterboxd, and ‘Love Actually’ falls perfectly into the 2-star rating category of ‘a bit crap’. It is a solid film technically and the majority of performances are solid. But narratively it is so up and down that I could never get fully involved and the fact that it is over two hours long is just an extra notch on the reasons I don’t particularly enjoy this film. Is it terrible? No. Would I watch it again? If it happened to be on telly and I had nothing else to do maybe. But I just don’t understand the love for it at all. So, if you are one of the people genuinely let me know because I am genuinely curious. Enlighten me.
Comments