There's No Love, Actually, In Valentine's Day

Jennifer Garner and Ashton Kutcher in Valentine's Day

A mass of stars produces a mess of a movie in 2010's version of Love, Actually.

Valentine’s Day

Director: Gary Marshall
Cast: Jessica Alba, Kathy Bates, Jessica Biel, Bradley Cooper, Eric Dane, Patrick Dempsey, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Ashton Kutcher, Queen Latifah, Taylor Lautner, George Lopez, Julia Roberts, Taylor Swift
Length: 125 minutes
Studio: New Line Cinemas, Rice Films, Karz Entertainment
Year: 2010
Distributor: New Line, Warner
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some sexual material and brief partial nudity
UK Release Date: -2010-12-07
US Release Date: 2010-05-18

Valentine’s Day, the latest from romantic comedy specialist Gary Marshall, is also the most recent attempt to duplicate the critical and commercial successes of the 2003 holiday sensation Love, Actually. Its methods, though, are more conformist than the British charmer.

Yes, they both enlist a multitude of stars. Each also use the interlocking stories structure where seemingly unrelated characters collide by fate, chance, or design. Unfortunately, the similarities end at the superficial, and Valentine’s Day never becomes the engaging, heart-warming fairy tale reminiscent of its inspiration.

One of its faults falls under sequel syndrome. Though Valentine’s Day (hence forth referred to as VD to reflect the film’s similarities to the abbreviation’s more common meaning) is technically an original work, it still tries to be bigger, brighter, and bolder than its predecessors. After all, it not only has to outdo Love, Actually, but last year’s horrific He’s Just Not That Into You as well.

As shocking as it was in its ineptitude to woo enthusiasts, VD must overpower HJNTIY (admittedly not as catchy, but still a sticky condition you’ll want to avoid) in star power if it hopes to duplicate its financial triumph. So what’s the answer according to Marshall and the gang? Well, to start with, there are more stories, and more stories means more stars to tell them.

Ashton Kutcher plays Reed, a florist who proposed to his girlfriend Morley (Jessica Alba) bright and early Valentine’s Day morning. She said yes and now he’s pumped to spend the day worshipping love and all its benefactors.

His best friend, Julia (Jennifer Garner), woke up in a similarly joyous spirit, but starts to have suspicions regarding her lover, Harrison (Patrick Dempsey), when he bails on their Valentine’s Day dinner. Luckily, she can still go to her V-day hating friend Kara’s anti-love party.

Kara is a hyperventilating mess of a sports agent partially because one of her clients is contemplating retirement to spend more time with his family (Eric Dane), but more so due to the day itself. If only she would somehow bump into Kelvin (Jamie Foxx), a television sports reporter who also loathes Valentine’s Day and all its mushy sentiments. Unlucky for him, the only available assignment is to record a series of on-the-street interviews about the glory that is this day.

It actually takes more than a half hour just to introduce all these characters in the film, and I’ve only gotten to half of them, here. Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway are just getting to know each other when they face a culture crisis (she’s a part-time phone sex operator and he’s a simple country boy from Indiana).

Bradley Cooper and Julia Roberts are seatmates on an airline flight into Los Angeles, but don’t let the simple setup fool you – they aren’t meant to be. Also, of course, Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift play stereotypes of what might happen if the two Taylors had hooked up in high school sans fame and fortune.

Ugh. I’m too exhausted to get into the rest of the gang (including another teenage couple, the world’s most annoying kid, and an inexplicably loveless Queen Latifah). Let me just assure you this inflated picture is stuffed to the gills with every love story ever told a hundred times prior and a hundred times better. The couples are carefully crafted to relate to as wide a demographic as possible. There’s the new couples, old couples, teenage couples, and best friends who may end up a couple. Some couples make it and some don’t but you know who will end up with whom by the time the introductory 30-minutes are up.

This is where VD starts to make us a bit lovesick for its mentor. There were many different couples in Love, Actually, and each one was paired up with their final mate early on in the film. However, each one got the proper amount of time, attention, and individuality necessary for people to become attached to their fates.

Fans of love stories don’t need to witness the exact same fight they just had with their spouse to identify with the onscreen couple. They have to be convinced that these two people have a deep, heartfelt love for one another. When Jamie walks into the café followed by the Barros family and asks Aurelia “to marriage me” in a somewhat warped version of her first language, it never crosses the line into schmaltz because we believe he would do that for her. Sure, it’s almost too perfect of an ending for a couple plagued by their language barriers throughout, but we simply don’t care because the writer never slighted us.

If Marshall and screenwriter Katherine Fugate would have prescribed a little restraint, perhaps their audience would have recovered nicely from the VD massacre. Instead, we end up with a bloated monstrosity of a movie whose introduction is lingering, middle messy, and ending abrupt.

It's fitting that the special features are as ample as the star total. The Blu-ray release includes a digital copy of the film, two interview-based documentaries, director’s commentary, a blooper reel, music video, and more than 20-minutes of deleted scenes all featuring individual introductions by Marshall. In each 10-15 second preface, the affable director explains why he had to cut the forthcoming scene even though it was wonderful. Well, maybe the scene wasn’t wonderful, but the actors were. Or maybe it just had one of his favorite people in it.

If you have the patience and interest to sit through the mostly forgettable clips, you may find yourself won over by Marshall’s sheer enthusiasm. After all, it seems pretty clear the man’s intentions were pure. Still, his charms may wear off, but VD won’t.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.