You are here: Home > films > bad films > Love Actually? It’s bilge actually

Featured Posts

  • Interview with Greg from Twirling in the Light
    This week’s interview is with Greg, who will be familiar to regular readers as a commenter on this blog under the name of his alter ego, Steg. I wasn’t at all surprised when he offered to help me out with an interview, he’s one of the internet’s good guys, and over the years has gone from being a fellow blogger to a firm friend! Greg is also a talented writer and poet, you can find his [...]
  • An interview with writer Kathleen Maher
    This is the first in a series of interviews with people who responded to my request for interviewees in this post. I was delighted to receive a response from the hugely talented fiction writer, Kathleen Maher, who was a finalist in both 2007 and 2008 in the Weblog Awards for Best Literature Blog. Kathleen blogs at Diary of a Heretic and The Vitruvian Woman, she also contributes to the magazine, The View from Here. Your [...]

    • Love Actually? It’s bilge actually

    Tuesday, 7 July 2009, 14:42
    Category : bad films, films
    Tags : , , , , , , ,

    On Sunday night, I finally got around to watching Love Actually all the way through having been told it was “funny” and “good”. It is neither.

    I admit, I’m not the ideal viewer for any romantic comedy because they tend to be, oh, what is it? Oh yes – formulaic and clichéd with almost no plot or character development. (Call me picky, but I just don’t like that in a film.) However, of all romantic comedies out there, the worst kind are those directed by Richard Curtis.

    Mr Curtis is a very talented man, but his films suck. They are populated with annoying, flat characters living unlikely lives, experiencing unlikely scenarios, and mostly being oh-so stereotypically English it makes me want to vomit. Love Actually is no exception.

    The plot revolves around a group of loosely related people who are all in various stages of relationships. As the film progresses we see each of them reach a resolution, and it ends with a cringeworthy scene in an airport which involves lots of hugging and everyone going home happy. Just like real life!

    Good things about this film:

    - Umm, it was nicely made, looks good.

    - Rowan Atkinson is amusing.

    Bad things:

    - Hugh Grant stars in it, and his storyline is possibly the most irksome and icky.

    - Everyone is far too middle class and wonderful to be believable.

    - It’s not funny, which last time I checked was a prerequisite for a comedy.

    - It’s not romantic, it’s cheesy, which is not the same thing at all.

    - What happened to poor Laura Linney? Her storyline was just depressing, as though  someone had inadvertently included extracts from a Ken Loach script.

    If you’ve already seen it, you have my sympathies. If not, I wouldn’t bother, but if you still insist on watching it, don’t say you weren’t warned.

    I appreciate you dropping by,
    Please leave a comment, don’t be shy



    Comment policy: No spam, no hate, no flaming, just play nicely. To see this in more detail go here.

    9 Comments for “Love Actually? It’s bilge actually”

    1. 1LizSara

      wrote on 7 July 2009 at 15:40

      You are totally and utterly right! It absolutely sucked

    2. 2kateblogs

      wrote on 7 July 2009 at 16:27

      lol It does! I should known, I hated Notting Hill and Four Weddings, why would this be any different?!

    3. 3rachaelblogs

      wrote on 7 July 2009 at 16:41

      Now see I'm the exact same as you when it comes to rom coms however…Love Actually…something about it softens me. I admit to having a good cry at the part where Emma Thompson's christmas gift is exposed or the bit where Andrew Lincoln tells that skinny lollipop head he loves her.

      Love Actually serves a great purpose. If you've just gone through a break up or if you're feeling a bit lonely it's an amazing pick me up. Least of all because you don't feel so pathetic at the end of it, see your points above for why.

      Although one important point is that it should never, ever be shown in July. It's a predominately Christmas film and should be watched in the deepest of winter with the fire a glass of red wine and the duvet – and ideally to be watched alone so no one can see your shame.

    4. 4Chairman Bill

      wrote on 8 July 2009 at 7:32

      Actually loved it.

    5. 5kateblogs

      wrote on 8 July 2009 at 21:39

      lol @ skinny lollipop head – she is INCREDIBLY thin! I must admit, the Andrew Lincoln story was the one I warmed to the most, but otherwise, I found it all a bit sickly. And I'm not sure about it as a break-up film, I'd find the ending a bit hard to take – everyone going off happy while I was still alone. That might just be me though lol

    6. 6kateblogs

      wrote on 8 July 2009 at 21:40

      Well you would have to be contrary :-p

    7. 7Vlad Zablotskyy

      wrote on 9 July 2009 at 16:54

      Thanks for warning Kate. My wife is in charge of our NetFlix account so I will ask her not to order it.

      Hugh Grant was not the only big star to be featured in the film, but some times when you have too many famous actors is not a good thing either.

    8. 8kateblogs

      wrote on 9 July 2009 at 20:27

      That's true! It was a good cast, but I felt they were wasted. It might have been better with a couple of stars and a strong supporting cast.

    9. 9ladywriter

      wrote on 12 July 2009 at 8:05

      Do you know if there's an online group for people who think ? There should be. If I can find one I'll join it. I just search, didn't find what I'm after. If anyone finds what I looking for, please tell me.

    Leave a comment


    You can add a link to follow you on twitter if you put your username in this box.
    Only needs to be added once (unless you change your username). No http or @
     Twitter