Staffed with enough firepower for half a dozen movies, the best thing I can say for Love Actually is that it's an interesting failure.

It's an ensemble movie, but that's not the problem.  It's trying to tell eight different stories, and that's part of the problem.

But here's the real problem.  It's a genre-hopper.

The eight stories, which are not told anthology-style one at a time, but which are visited in bits throughout the run of the movie, are all different genres.  The effect is disconcerting, as if you went to the multiplex and spent two hours popping in and out of the various theaters to catch snippets of different movies. 

Hugh Grant, of course, is starring in a Hugh Grant movie.  In this version, he's the Prime Minister (check the closing credits; that's how he's billed), new to office and infatuated with the young girl who brings his tea.  He's playing that-character-that-Hugh-Grant-always-plays, which of course works well for him which is why he does it, and this part of the movie is romantic comedy. 

But Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson are checking in from another movie altogether, some very adult sad and subtle thing about a middle-aged man gradually making the decision to cheat on his wife and his wife gradually coming to the realisation that her husband has come to that decision.   Drama. 

Colin Firth is a writer who discovers his girlfriend cheating on him, so he goes to France to work on his novel and falls for his Portuguese maid.  Romantic comedy.

Liam Neeson is a new widower trying to connect with the stepson he's now raising alone.  Family drama.

Bill Nighy is a washed up rock star trying for a come-back with a song that he knows is crap.  Comedy.

Kris Marshall is a young fellow who believes that the best way to get a girl is to fly to America where all the hot babes are and charm them with his British accent.  Sex farce.

And so on. 

All the bits and pieces are well done, both well-written and well-acted, so there's a lesson in here somewhere.  Something about a bunch of good bits not making a good movie unless they're assembled correctly.  But these bits don't even belong together. 

If you rent the DVD (and heck, why not? - at least it's an interesting failure), go ahead and watch the deleted scenes, because there are a lot of them.  The Liam Neeson plot had a lot of stuff cut out that you might find enjoyable. 

The deleted scenes, in fact, explain one of the plotlines, which in the theatrical release wound up being a joke without a punch line. 

This plot involved a young couple meeting, conversing, and gradually going from strangers to acquaintances to deciding to date - on the set of a porn movie.  Cute but puzzling, because the young couple are naked, going through motions that simulate sex... and yakking away the whole time.  I was wondering what the heck is going on, are they filming a silent movie?  

The deleted scene explains it - they're the stand-ins!  They're the people who occupy the space the stars are going to occupy, dressed (or undressed) like the stars and making the same basic movements, while the lighting and camera crews get everything set up for the real actors. 

Nice to know, but I wonder what the people who saw the film in theaters made of it?  

Back to Joyce's Pix of the Flix