"surreal but nice."

Rating: Null/10 (27 March 2004)

If I have to comment on this movie in a postive way, I'd say it's "surreal but nice." But given that it's titled "love actually", the term would, paradoxically, turn negative. Yes, I don't like the movie, not at all.
There are only 82 pages between the word "simple" and "superficial" in my longman dictionary of contemporary English(1987 edition). Maybe that's why I should forgive the director for his failure to tell between the two words. Or, though born UK, Richard Curtis is supposed to abide by another guideline: the Hollywood one.
Hollywood, not love nor X'mas, is all around. Love actually is a good exemple. It's like a McDonald's set lunch. The seemingly interwoven stories are actually superficially added-up, which makes the movie look like a bunch of court-metrages shown in a messy way. And for each story, time is so limited that it's impossible to include any "foreplays" or "after-plays", nor emotions. It's all orgasms, or "selling points". The kid-love, the middle age crisis, love in work place, love of the VIP, love of the "different languages"... are all the swanky "ingredients" in the recipe of "Love actually". Unfortunately, simply putting them in a big casserole doesn't guarantee a good meal. Maybe a good salad, but not a good meal.
But who cares. The movie is nothing more than an item in X'mas wish list. It just needs to be looking good. And it did.