If one country shines above the rest in the field of television comedy its the Brits. Never hounded by the sitcom formula or network season plans, their shows might be short in number (ie. around six episodes per season) but make up for it far more with the brilliant scripting. A lot of that is due to 'Love' director Richard Curtis, the man who in part was responsible for the likes of such brilliant shows as "Mr. Bean", "The Vicar of Dibley", and the true classic "Blackadder". Curtis made the move to cinema in the 90's and again has hit major success there with the likes of "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Notting Hill" and "Bridget Jones' Diary" under his belt.
Now comes "Love Actually" and for the first time since "Bean:
The Movie" I'm sad to say I'm a little disappointed. As romantic
comedies go, 'Love' is an enjoyable puff piece - a sentimental
and sweet little ensemble which makes for a perfect date movie
and will no doubt have you leaving the theatre with a warm smug
feeling. For any other director this would be a success, yet
for something from Curtis its surprisingly ordinary. Why is
that? Well there is an old cliche that a jack of all trades
is a master of none, that applies to 'Love' which stretches
itself too far and too thin. With fourteen different characters
in at least six different subplots, your given very little time
to get to know these people and so various situations and elements
are forced whilst the mad rush to get through things and cleverly
intermingle everybody means a lot of chances for laughter have
been left by the wayside.
By being an ensemble piece, its also going to cause interesting
reaction from people who'll like some subplots but hate others.
Hugh Grant's PM and Bill Nighy's aged rocker are great storylines
and work perfectly without getting too trite - each of these
would've made a good film in and of themselves. On the flipside
Colin Firth and Liam Neeson are given rather depressing and
wasted subplots which don't click or feel poorly handled but
are saved by their energetic endings.
Kris Marshall as a US-bound
horny Brit has a fun but pointless little piece, Laura Linney's
lusting for her hunky Spanish co-worker starts out well but
again becomes too dull and worse - is left totally hanging at
the end whilst everyone else gets a nice wrap-up. Also not nicely
finished off (although its handled realistically) is Rickman and Thompson who do solid work and early
on have some great scenes but again fall into all too familiar
soap opera territory. There's a fun one-joke subplot about porn
stand-ins but it gets old, fast. Finally wedged in there, Keira
Knightley has a maturely handled story about her husband's best
friend falling for her - more than can be said for Rowan Atkinson
whose cameo is utterly wasted.
However its all going to be up to you, each of you will have
storylines which you'll like or dislike and many will have fun
debating why they prefer one over the other. Production values
of the movie are solid all around and Curtis handles the directing
job quite nicely. As date movies go its one of the better ones
of the year most definitely, but as 'romantic comedies' go it
sadly is too melodramatic in the former and too lacking in laughs
to be called a real comedy as such.
Its a perfectly servicable
film and welcome diversion for two hours, but this hasn't the
staying or rewatch value of the likes of the far more emotionally
impactful "Notting Hill", the far clever "Bridget Jones", the
heady fun mix of "Four Weddings", or the sharp wit of "About
a Boy". Its thankfully not too strong on sentiment and handles
many of its storylines in a quite belivable and relaxed way
which is why when it does take the odd 'Hollywood rom comedy'
style twist its quite visible. I have faith that Curtis will
find his edge again with the "Bridget Jones" sequel, because
in the direction he's going with 'Love' he's stepping dangerously
closer to Hallmark territory. For the cuddlers out there who
like things a little too light and fluffy.
