Posted on 01/05/2009 5:21:37 PM PST by Fishtalk
Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh, yes he of the famous conservative radio show, got me to watching this movie.
Indeed Rush went on and on and on about this movie, lambasting it all over the place. When he mentioned an airing of the movie to come soon, well how could I resist?
I thought I’d ending up hating the movie like my hero, Rush. I thought it would be a hilarious compendium of liberal thought and it was.
But I loved it! It’s called “Love Actually” and it’s British weird.
We begin 2008 with a New Year’s Resolution. For the first time in my life, said resolution does not include losing weight. But it’s just as important in terms of my (and husband’s) personal happiness and I even have a way to make it happen.
Plus the big events of 2008 and why husband and I will be happy to see it gone.
Finally, Guest writer Michelle is a killer and a crippler. Who’d have thunk?
(Excerpt) Read more at patfish.blogspot.com ...
I loved Love Actually too. It was quirky and fun.
I loved Love Actually too. It was quirky and fun.
Great movie.
It’ll get ya laid, guaranteed.
I love this movie, it is one of my favorite feel good movies !!!!!!!
So it’s better than My Bloody Valentine 3D?
My wife LOVES this movie and watches it several times a year.
And she does seem frisky afterwards, come to think of it!
-ccm
A little too sugary. And you have to like Hugh Grant, or be able to stand him.
I’m there dude!!!! I am into getting laid....
I am just so surprised so many of you liked it.
It kept me interested the whole way through.
Two thumbs us from our conservative household for “Love Actually.”
I suppose Hugh Grant is no more objectionable than a whole host of others.
My wife (who absolutely loved it) talked me into watching it, and I enjoyed the movie. It had a “chick flick” flavor, but it was not overpowering in that sense.
Rush may be a bit cynical about such things, and I can’t condemn him for it.
Boy... I remember hear Rush talk about this. Either I heard him wrong, but I thought he liked the movie.
Hugh Grant is cute but Liam Neesom is HOT.
I loved it too, but where did you get that the groom was homosexual??? I completely missed that one!
My wife’s cellphone has the theme song “All I Want for Christmas is You” as the ring. I’ve had to watch the movie more times that I care to admit: to keep the piece (so to speak). I went to college my Freshman year in England and enjoyed it very much (1977-78) so I enjoyed the scenes from London.
I thought the movie was sweet, well-done and was a statement on the different kinds of love in different relationships. I especially like the step-dad’s response to helping the little boy tell the little girl he loved her. (a little far-fetched, but fun) I took away from it - if you love someone, tell them, NOW - no matter what! Even the friend who was secretly in love with his best friend’s girl, he finally fessed up to it to the girl, but it explained why he had been so distant. All the stories were sweet - even the husband who almost cheats. I loved it!
From my review of Curtis's following film, The Girl in the Cafe:
HBO is still showing their awful original movie The Girl in the Cafe. It's about a young woman who singlehandedly shames the G8 summit into throwing enormous amounts of money at Africa in order to "save the children," and it's a kind of summit of awfulness. Its awfulness is that special, lofty kind of awful known only to those familiar with the magnificently awful work of its author Richard Curtis, the British writer-director whose previous film, Love Actually, was awful in an almost hypnotic way. The Girl in the Cafe isn't nearly as ambitious, because it has a different purpose; it sacrifices Curtis's trademark aesthetic awfulness in the service of political awfulness.
The film was made to coincide with an actual real-live G8 summit in early July 2005. The ever-helpful CNN even produced a documentary on the G8 summit that featured segments of the film to help "explain" the "issues" to confused viewers.
TGITC presents us with characters who have no personalities at all except to serve as megaphones for the writer's political viewpoints, which are, as survivors of viewing Love Actually could tell you, leftist and anti-American; the effect is something like an Ayn Rand novel, only with all the dialogue spoken by toddlers. The adversaries are the thick-headed Americans and the Euro politicians who need to curry favor with them.
The stupid obstuse Americans speak in their stupid flat American accents singlemindedly about such abstractions as "economic growth" and "free trade"...demanding that aid to Africa "work" as if the mere act of throwing money wouldn't suffice.
In fairness, Curtis's script doesn't caricature the American point of view: The arguments out of the Americans' mouths are those that any person with a grasp of economics greater than that of a five-year old might use. But because Curtis--like socialism itself--is trying to appeal to the five-year old in all of us, the Americans, the only grown-ups in the film, must play the heavies. (Recall the scene in Love Actually whose primary political complaint was that Tony Blair had been "bullied from pillar to post" by those Mean, Mean Americans. They pick on kids who are smaller than them! It's not fair!) It's somehow significant that the previous role of female lead Kelly MacDonald was...Peter Pan in Finding Neverland.
The dialogue is designed to appeal to the simplest sort of understanding that human beings can possibly have while retaining the ability to feed themselves with a fork. "There are cows in Scotland that are subsidized to the tune of L12,000 a year." And my favorite, "You should have more pictures in these papers so you can see what you're talking about." Me, I'm hoping for future G8 summits narrated by cartoon animals.
While Curtis may have little or no faith in Western politicians and their commitment to the poor, he retains a messianic faith in the UN Millennium Goals, which promise to "eradicate extreme poverty and hunger" in the world. Period. Provided, of course, that the Goals are "fully funded," which is the crux of TGITC: There can't be any half-measures when it comes to starving children, dammit. Just shut up and give 'em all your money--to be administered by the hard-working public servants of the UN, of course--or else you're a thug.
Now, it would be cruel of me--indeed, thuggish--to point out that, so far this millennium at least, the most suffering, starving, deprived children in the world are in North Korea, a country completely unmentioned or untouched by the Millennium Goals. Or that millions of children are in imminent danger of starvation in Zimbabwe only because that country is run by a vicious monster who deliberately ruined his country's agriculture for political reasons. But public criticism of North Korea and Zimbabwe is too...how shall I say...American, so we'll have none of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.