Lightweight rehash of four weddings

Rating: 3/10 (15 April 2000)

I fail to understand why anyone liked this film, even if they haven't seen FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, which the writer clearly modeled it after (same writer, I guess he thought he could make a quick buck). The chief difference: four weddings was wonderful and comedic, this was lightweight fluff with a couple of cheap unfunny gags aimed at shock effect (e.g. who could confuse mayo with yogurt??, give us a break!).
*SPOILERS COMING UP, I GUESS*
The writer didn't even try to make it different from FOUR WEDDINGS. look at the similarities:
US girl with southern accent goes to england and experiences mutual love at first sight with hugh grant. hugh grant surrounded by motley support group, including one quirky funky girl with weird hair and bizarre wardrobe and heart of gold. quirky funky girl ends up with tall blond foreigner and dances with him at wedding by his picking her up off the ground. girlfriendless friend of hugh grant meets girl in last scene. hugh and love interest go back and forth on the relationship issue. hugh says 'bugger' throughout the movie. boy gets girl and vice versa in climactic final scene.
the main (and only) essential difference between the two movies is substance. in FOUR WEDDINGS, there is character depth and development. in notting hill, not. why don't we get to see julia's relationship with her career and her past? either that, or let her act and show something of the star's personality so we can see what hugh sees in her. in FOUR WEDDINGS we didn't know much about carrie, but she was a mystery and played it off well, with no explanations. in notting hill, there was a little tinkering around with the notion but it ultimately went nowhere. I mean, here is a movie star who is constantly on the verge of tears, always dresses down, and never wears makeup and never washes and styles her hair- there has to be a story in there somewhere, right? and we got nothing about hugh grant's character, though hugh played it as best he could with such a poor script and no real plot.
it's as if the writer just meandered down a path picking posies and then finally picked a predictable ending and went with it. come on, scriptwriter, don't get hung up on an earlier success! go out there and do something different, would ya!
I gave this a 3 because I was feeling generous and I like hugh grant. don't waste your money on it, not even on video, that's my best advice.