Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

1More Film Blog

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Love Actually (Curtis, 2003) — 10 Years Later

Love Actually (Curtis, 2003) — 10 Years Later

Last updated on: July 26, 2014 at 8:36 pm by Kenneth R. Morefield

Love Actually (Curtis, 2003) — 10 Years Later 2014-07-26T20:36:52-05:00 Kenneth R. Morefield

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Love Actually did not make a strong enough impression on me ten years ago for me to be able to honestly use words such as “despise” or “loath.” I remember disliking it. I remember it being popular enough to be surprised by my dislike. I didn’t review it. If I didn’t have this column, I wonder if I would have spared another thought for it.

As 2013 draws to a close, I made a final review of prominent films from a decade ago. I was surprised to find Love Actually on IMDB’s list of the “most popular” movies of 2003. Critics were less kind to the film, though it remains barely “fresh” (63%) at Rotten Tomatoes. Typical narrative, I thought: general public embracing something that critics are less thrilled with. I tend to like populist fare more than some of my colleagues–heck I had Pirates of the Caribbean as my favorite film of that year–so maybe time would make me less of a self-conscious snob? Plus Richard Curtis wrote Notting Hill, which I liked, and both wrote and directed About Time, which my colleague Alissa Wilkinson indicated was better than the trailers made it look.

Alas, no. No to all of it. No to it being a holiday film, a love film, a romantic film, or a feel good film. No, above all to it being truthful about the world we live in. No to the masses being smarter than the critics. No to some of the best actors of our generation elevating mediocre material. I still can’t bring myself to hate this movie, but I do feel sympathy (and yes, if I’m honest, condescension) towards those who embrace it.

What I Said Then

I did not review Love Actually for Viewpoint in 2003. According to my user account at Rotten Tomatoes (I wasn’t a Tomatometer critic at the time), I recorded 1 and 1/2 stars (out of five) and a one word commentary: “tedious.” I love that the film apparently engendered such indifference in me that I couldn’t even be bothered to capitalize the “t.”

Andrew Sarris claims to have “thoroughly enjoyed” the movie (until the end), while Stanley Kauffmann credits the actors for making it “delightfully moving” despite its “wobbles.” Richard Roeper simply calls it a “terrific film.” Roeper’s then partner, Roger Ebert, cites it being a little too crowded as its only flaw, saying it is full of “warmth and laughs.”

The naysayers? Rex Reed takes a sideways swipe at the Coen brothers while saying it is “uninspired and unoriginal.” Peter Travers of Rolling Stone faults the writing more than the direction for the film’s failure. A. O. Scott calls the film “A patchwork of contrived naughtiness and forced pathos.” Finally, Boston Globe writer Ty Burr says “will delight moviegoers who think that more really is more.”

What I Say Now

I might as well be up front about the complaint that will most likely win me the least traction. The story line about a pair of stand ins for sex scenes gradually forming an emotional attachment while nude and simulating sex automatically takes this film out of consideration (for me) for being a holiday film or an innocuous family comedy of the sort that could be watched each year at Christmas. What is this plot line–and that of Bill Nighy as a too besotted to give a damn musician telling kids to become performers so that they can get free drugs–doing in the same film as Liam Neeson’s arc in which he must convince his grade-school son to confess his puppy love to the most popular girl in school? Feel free to tell me I am a prude or that Brits and Europeans are more casual about nudity and sex than Americans. It’s not that I think a movie can never have these elements, but they do seem out of place in a movie that is trying so hard for “warmth” as well laughs.

The film is unapologetically upbeat in its insistence that coming clean with your feelings is the only thing standing in the way of the lonely and their eventual happiness. Are you in love with your friend’s newlywed wife? Tell her! It’s Christmas, after all, and as long as you insist you are doing so with “no expectations” then threatening her (and his) marriage is a brave and noble thing to do.

At least three of the story lines end with handsome, powerful males emotionally humbling themselves before the women they love. Think of it as the “I’m just a girl standing in front of a boy, asking him to love me” speech delivered by Julia Roberts in Notting Hill, only with the genders reversed. I understand on a cultural level the message that we all–but men especially–could stand to be more direct in communicating our feelings. But is that the only thing that needs to happen to have healthy, happy relationships?

I pondered two additional points on revisiting the film. First, of all the films I revisited from 2003 this year, this is the one that looked and felt as though it could have come out yesterday. I don’t mean that as a compliment. Sure, Keira Knightley and Bill Nighy look a little younger but Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth, and Laura Linney are of an age where their faces and body shapes have not altered much. Beyond that, though, this observation speaks to the generic nature of the movie. It’s neither topical nor memorable. Each of the story lines has one obstacle, one idea, and there is not much to be done but wait for it to be approaching its conclusion for the characters in it to have their epiphanies. (A classic example of the film biding its time is a scene in which Alan Rickman’s character is trying to get jewelry gift wrapped before his wife shows up and is thwarted by a tediously unfunny Rowan Atkinson. You could drop this scene whole into any romantic comedy/adultery movie and it would play exactly the same way. There is nothing distinctive about it or how the characters in it respond. There are only one dimensional, stock characters here.) If poetry is that which defies narrative summary, Love Actually is one of the most prosaic movies I’ve ever seen. That it is so while being about one of the most poetic of human concepts–love–is in large part what makes it so tedious.

One final personal note. Perhaps one of the most significant things that happened to me in the last decade was the death of my sister-in-law. She was a smart, vibrant, funny woman who, much to my surprise, adored this movie. There is a dissertation to be written somewhere (else) about how critics are influenced–or not–by personal friends and family members. It’s easy enough to call the hoi poloi morons or idiots when they embrace some fare that you find less than adequate. It is harder when those idiots have a face, a name, and a history of sound judgment in your life. Non-professional friends and family members have occasionally saved me from too quick misjudgments. Even more so, they have on a few occasions saved me from too much snark, reminding me–and I need to be reminded–to try to limit my comments to the art object and to be careful about making judgments towards those who value it differently.

After I pretty much knew my opinion of the film had not changed, I spent most of the second half trying to see it through another’s eyes, to understand what in it resonated with her even if on some formal or intellectual level the film hadn’t (in my mind) earn the endearment she so strangely gave it. I have my thoughts about what I learned from that exercise, but they are deeply personal and so I’ll keep them to myself. I will use this conclusion as a teachable moment, however, to remind myself and my readers that as an exercise, trying to understand why others love something (or someone) is much more rewarding than explaining to them why they shouldn’t.

Previous Post

December 8, 2013

Blackfish (Cowperthwaite, 2013)

Next Post

December 16, 2013 Enough Said (Holofcener, 2013)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 10 Years Later 1999 Top 5 2007 Top 10 2008 Favorite Discoveries 2008 Top 10 2009 Favorite Discoveries 2009 Top 10 2010 Favorite Discoveries 2010 Top 10 2011 Top 10 2012 Top Ten 2013 Top Ten 2014 Top Ten Best Picture Winners Christian Spotlight on Entertainment Christianity Today Coming Soon Disclosure Disclosure--AS Disclosure--Book Disclosure--DVDS Disclosure--SEOL Disclosure--Travel Dissenting Opinion Elsewhere Emergenetics Essays Featured Film Fest DC--2014 Film Festivals Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2010 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2011 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2012 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2013 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2014 Headline Interviews Laura on the Oscar Winners Podcasts Quick Impressions Reviews RiverRun Film Festival 2014 Television The Criterion Collection The Thin Place To Stream or Not to Stream? Top 10s and Other Lists Toronto International Film Festival 2009 Toronto International Film Festival 2010 Toronto International Film Festival 2011 Toronto International Film Festival 2012 Toronto International Film Festival 2013 Toronto International Film Festival 2014 Uncategorized Video Virginia Film Festival 2011 Virginia Film Festival 2013 Women's Film Festival 2012

Select a Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the primary light source in Biblical times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Oil lamp Bonfire Torch Candle