Things wrong about Love Actually

[TheAverageJoanne]

Liam Neeson copping off less than five weeks after burying his wife.

Andrew Lincoln being a dreadful best friend.

Laura Linney putting her life on hold when she really can't help her brother. And Karl being a wimp.

Natalie swears too much.

Love the film though. I'm watching it this evening a little bit late.

I also don't agree with the assertion it's not diverse enough for its time. Mixed marriages, mental health, death, divorce, possible bromance going a bit further, mix of affluent and working class characters - what more could you want?

Keira Knightley being 17 and therefore her - married!!!! - character looking really inappropriately young.

Also, what would've happened if her husband had opened the door to Whatshisface holding the CD player and placards? He was in the house so could just as easily have opened the door instead!

Not another one. There’s already eleventy billion threads about LA.

She also says 'you don't like me, you never talk to me' (or something)

So he's decided he loves her entirely based on looking at her. From

So I gather. Almost as many as there are posts saying so!

It's the McDonalds of the film world- utter shit with no nutritional value, doesn't even taste very good, but every now and again it hits the spot even though you kind of hate yourself for it afterwards.

It's weird but I don't think Keira Knightley looks 18 she looks older.

@MNUse I've seen the deleted scene, it's on the DVD.

The deleted plot line was Bernard (Emma Thompson's "horrid son") behaving badly at school and Emma Thompson being called in to see the head mistress (played by Anne Reid). IIRC, the head mistress didn't come across as very nice but then you saw her with her same-sex partner (played by Frances de la Tour) who was dying and Anne Reid was nursing her.

If they'd need to shorten the film can see why it was cut, to be honest. It's very separate to the rest of the film, which I suppose would lay the producers/writers open to the accusation that they'd shoe-horned in an unnecessary LGB storyline.

There is another deleted plot line where you see the African women in the poster on the wall in Alan Rickman/Mia/Laura Linney's office. They're talking about their relationships. Again, it was separate to the other interwoven plot lines so I can see why it was removed for the sake of brevity.

The main thing that bothers me is the idea that a primary school is holding its nativity on Christmas eve. Just no, highly implausible.

which I suppose would lay the producers/writers open to the accusation that they'd shoe-horned in an unnecessary LGB storyline.

Yes I expect it would to people who consider any sort of LGB storyline ‘unnecessary’ (which translates to: something I don’t want to see), but I don’t give a shit about those people. No fictional storyline is actually ‘necessary’ to the world, so it’s not a very useful criterion imo, plus it raises the interesting question of who gets to decide what’s ‘necessary’ and what isn’t.

The theme of the film is love stories, love is all around us, and from what you’ve described the deleted bits fit that theme as well as anything else. I’d say a story about someone nursing their long-term partner is more relevant and ‘necessary’ to that theme than a story about a young British man going off to the US as he believes all American women will shag him due to his nationality, nevertheless that was left in, despite me finding it completely unnecessary and not particularly integrated with any of the other storylines either.

Joanna Page in uneccessary naked scences while Martin Freeman is covered, hated this when I first saw this at the cinema when it first came out, expected better from Richard Curtis for some reason, really creepy scenes.

I say this every time I watch it!

Which is every single year. Because I take it for what it is - a ight hearted Christmas romcom. Not a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, sexist and hate filled production that needs to be banned from our screens!

@MNUse What I meant was that it didn’t really interweave with the other plot lines in a relationship sense (the guy who went off to America was friends with guy who worked on the film sets with the two stand-ins etc) so it could come across as tokenism. I doubt many people would have had an issue with a LGB storyline in 2003 - after all, 4 Weddings had a gay couple in 1994.

How were women depicted in the film OP?

• a mistress
• a doormat / carer
• a "chubby" grateful grafter
• a cheated upon wife
• a leched upon new wife
• a "skinny" waitress needing to be recused from her tragic circumstances
• a porn star

Let’s not forget the sister of the ‘skinny moron’ referred to as ‘Miss Dunkin Donut’ by her own father…

Those are very much bit characters. And the choir, seriously? Do you know their names?

The main characters are all white. Which is fine, but don’t pass it off as a diverse cast please, that’s a condescending insult.

Agreed OP!

Great movie! Those who don't like it can, we'll, not watch it!!