Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Cranky review of Love, Actually

I don't much care for Love, Actually and I always thought it was because, before I saw it, a fellow Rickmanista told me it was the greatest film in the whole world, so I had high expectations that weren't met. But this gets at some other reasons why I don't much care for it. (These reasons also apply to most romance plots, filmed or told in other media.)

...it offers up at least three disturbing lessons about love. First, that love is overwhelmingly a product of physical attraction and requires virtually no verbal communication or intellectual/emotional affinity of any kind. Second, that the principal barrier to consummating a relationship is mustering the nerve to say “I love you”...and that once you manage that, you’re basically on the fast track to nuptial bliss. And third, that any actual obstacle to romantic fulfillment, however surmountable, is not worth the effort it would require to overcome.

This entry was originally posted at http://firecat.dreamwidth.org/829018.html, where there are comment count unavailable comments. I prefer that you comment on Dreamwidth, but it's also OK to comment here.


( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 9th, 2013 08:02 pm (UTC)
Love, Actually seems to be one of those movies that one loves, or that one hates.

I and one of my live-in partners really like this movie, and do watch it as a holiday tradition. (The other LIP hates the Rickman storyline, and tends not to watch with us for that reason.) We know about all its foibles, and like it anyway.

In one of the critique's comments, the commenter states that the movie might originally have been 2 or more hours longer. I agree, and some of the deleted scenes on the DVD help bear that out. I think they did wimp out, though, in cutting the lesbian storyline. We thought it was sweet, and added another dose of bittersweet realism.
Dec. 9th, 2013 08:46 pm (UTC)
That's a shame, yeah. Glad you got to see the deleted scenes.
Dec. 9th, 2013 08:58 pm (UTC)
I think this reviewer missed a great deal. I offer here just two examples.

"There are other subsidiary relationships ... Linney’s needy, institutionalized brother)." Linney's relationship with her brother is not subsidiary; it, and not her relationship with her colleague, is the primary one, the one that is about love.

"Firth and Moniz, meanwhile, fall in love despite not sharing a word of language in common. Moreover, the movie telegraphs very clearly that the moment when Firth really falls for Moniz is when he watches her strip down to her underwear." IF that's the moment he falls in love with her--I don't think it is--it isn't because she strips down to her underwear, it's because she does so to rescue his manuscript from the lake. These people spend a great deal of time together, and one can learn a lot about another person--enough to fall in love--without words. For some people, what we DO speaks much louder than what we SAY.
Dec. 10th, 2013 07:28 am (UTC)
Good analysis, I don't remember the movie very well but I think you're right.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2018
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars