10th Anniversary Edition
DVD + Ultraviolet
|Additional DVD options||Edition||Discs||
|New from||Used from|
|Watch Instantly with||Rent||Buy|
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Feel the love this holiday season with the Love Actually 10th Anniversary Edition! Funny, charming and heartwarming, this delightful romantic comedy follows eight couples whose lives intersect shortly before Christmas. Headlined by an incredible roster of stars, this beloved film also features early movie appearances by Martin Freeman (The Hobbit), Andrew Lincoln (The Walking Dead), January Jones (Mad Men) and Thomas Sangster (Game of Thrones). From the makers of Bridget Jones’s Diary and Notting Hill, it’s the perfect companion for every Christmas.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
So here I am, a lonely voice in the minority here, but I just didn't love this at all, and think it's sloppy, average, and kind of insulting, actually. I was so disappointed, because I really liked "Notting Hill," and am a huge fan of "Blackadder."
The movie has some good points, and of course some absolutely fantastic actors and performances. But half the storylines feel cliched, smug, and rushed, while the other half are either unutterably depressing, unbelievable, or just plain insulting.
What I disliked the most was this really strong aura of sexism, and in kind of a nasty way (and I'm cringing to even write this, as I know it sounds oversensitive and all that).
But really: most of the men who are in love in this (Grant, Firth, the guy in love with Kiera Knightley, even the little boy) are in situations where they literally have yet to say 10 words to their dream girls. They just "love" from afar. But that's not love, that's lust, dudes.
And of course all the women who are adored are hotties (even down to the gorgeous miniature Mariah Carey the kid likes). Even Colin Firth's maid has to strip down to her undies, in a totally contrived scene, so that we can see that even this unlikely person actually has the body of a swimsuit model. (And that doesn't even count the idiot who goes to Wisconsin and promptly gets invited into a foursome by some idiotic but gorgeous (of course) model-type American girls. I kept waiting for this part to be a dream -- it's that jarring -- and was shocked it was actually supposed to be believable.)
And hey, everyone likes pretty people on film so no problem normally -- but when so many of the women seem to be subservient to the men -- the maid, the PM assistant, two secretaries, lumped in with some dumb-as-dirt US bimbos -- a pattern does kind of emerge. (Ever notice how almost ALL of Curtis's "romantic" storylines -- even in his other movies -- are about men who are in "love" with a woman they barely know?)
Add to this the constant fat jokes and the movie has a weird slimy undertone to it. Especially when most of these jokes are directed at a beautiful girl, the object of Grant's crush, who is just simply not fat at all. She's probably at worst a size 8. How does that make his attraction "brave" or unique as it is evidently supposed to be? Even her coworkers are cruelly cavalier about this (invisible) weight problem (and yes there's more name-calling), and when Grant visits her at home, what do we see but that the girl's father, too, calls her rude fat-girl nicknames.
I would get it, I guess, if she was actually fat, even in movie terms (like the chubby and still adorable Bridget Jones). But she's not. And then the movie has to end with yet another slew of really cruel fat jokes yet again, this time at a character's very heavyset sister.
I guess my point is, where is the love? What's so "love"ly about a bunch of guys lusting from afar, two desperately unhappy women, a little boy who is striving for the school hottie (to the extent that he -- AND Dad -- show no sign of missing his just-deceased mother at all).... etc.? Ironically only the porn stand-ins have actual conversations (and I actually thought their storyline was charming, if completely unbelievable -- same with Firth's - as well).
But on the flip side, Laura Linney's story is incredibly depressing and unrealistic to boot. In real life, there is simply no way this woman could not have (1) a normal romantic relationship, or (2) that a truly nice or deserving guy, as her crush is supposed to be, would not understand her need to take a phone call, or to cut short a date (if it is actually "love," shouldn't he be more understanding?). But instead this guy cannot even wait 5 minutes for her to finish a phone call to her ill brother -- she has to be doomed, dramatically, to an unhappy ending that is completely unbelievable (and a real downer of a message too).
If you look at all of the stories, the only one that is actually about love is the one about the aging rock star's realization that his most loved friend is his long-suffering manager. Most of the other stories were superficial to the point of caricature, and those that weren't, and that ironically actually featured interesting women, like the wonderful Laura Linney or Emma Thompson (both fantastic with the limited stuff they are given to work with) -- were treated to cruel and really depressing outcomes.
Even Alan Rickman's unpleasant and unworthy storyline is yet again simply about lust, for his transparently eeevil secretary. If this subplot had to happen, I would have been a lot more intrigued if instead we showed this man torn by real feelings for another woman -- not just "oh I'm in lust". (But nothing in the movie is that deep, so oh well.)
Again, all this would be fine except for the title. How is this the "love, actually" -- the love that's all around? All I see is a bunch of talented Englishmen embarrassing themselves over women they think are hot stuff, but that's it.
About the bookends with the airport (and monologue about 9-11) -- I don't mind the reference to 9-11 as some here do (I will always be touched by that memory of the English playing our national anthem the next day, in tribute), but I do think it has to be earned. And Curtis didn't earn it. He didn't write a movie about love being "all around." He wrote a sloppy, muddled and occasionally semi-funny movie about a bunch of highly professional men who spend much of their time gazing and drooling adolescently from afar. The families in the airports are deeper, more touching, more real, than any of Curtis's silliness (and that's unfortunate).
Anyway. It's cute on the surface. Fluffy and harmless, lots of pretty people, ancient pop tunes, happy-happy-joy-joy (and I know some of you are already pressing that "don't recommend" button on this review, mentally telling me to "shut up, it's just a movie" - LOL). But it's a little creepy too, a little depressing, a little sadder and meaner than it needed to be. Actually.
This film is built around approximately 9 subplots, each of which is loosely related to the theme that love takes many forms and can turn up in the most unexpected places.
Several of these plots are shallow, one-joke sketches excruciatingly protracted over the course of over two hours.
The more involved ones are even more insulting and formulaic. It would be difficult to decide which of them was the worst, but my candidate would be the plot involving Colin Firth. It is entirely contrived to concoct a "romantic" final scene, the details of which I will not disclose here so as not to "spoil" (if such a thing could be done for this horrendous film) the plot. But suffice it to say that the film hurls every lame cliche at the screen at the same time -- syrupy music, a contrived final scene, ethnic stereotyping, all to celebrate a "love" that, as far as the filmgoer can tell, doesn't really exist. The film doesn't seem to care about the essence of any particular love story, as much as it does the sorts of manipulative payoff scenes that can get audiences to tear up.
If one is going to feel warm and fuzzy, one needs something to feel warm and fuzzy about. You can't just skip to the climax and expect the viewer to believe in a love that is never really shown developing in any way.
The subplot with Hugh Grant may be equally deplorable. He plays the British PM, but doesn't bother to act, it's rather as though Hugh Grant himself has been installed at 10 Downing Street. This subplot is insulting on several levels, but perhaps most because of its imbecilic take on international diplomacy. The Americans are played as sinister rubes, on up to their lascivious President played by Billy Bob Thornton.
The subplot with Keira Knightley is supposed to be moving but is instead creepy. If you think stalking is romantic, you might like that one.
The film reaches for the lowest common denominator at every turn, for a length of over two hours. Awful stuff. I'm a lover of good romantic comedies, but trust me, this is definitely not one of them. It's a cliche factory, from start to finish; by the middle, I felt insulted. By the end, I was incensed.
More offensive than the extremely bad writing though was the gratuitous addition of pornographic material. One of the many storylines crammed into the film is that of two "actors" doing a porn film who are apparently in love and when not filming oral sex scenes are going on perfectly innocent dates where both behave in a very shy and restrained manner.
If there was an audience for this kind of story, it likely isn't all the same type of person who is looking for the next When Harry Met Sally and I wish this movie had, if nothing else, been advertised differently. In fact, I wish I had never seen it and amidst my disgust at having purchased it, gave away my copy with a strong warning regarding its contents.
Let's keep romantic comedy romantic and porn in the porn aisle. Because if this is what happens when you get the genres confused, it just shouldn't happen. And as to bad writing, well...there is no cure for it and romantic comedies do seem especially prone to it.