I grew up in New Orleans and minored in theater. The first play I worked on, as general backstage help was Steel Magnolias. Saw the movie when it came out the following year. Obviously it's one of my favorite Julia Roberts films.
Is there any reversal of type going on here? In the romance genre, an international story would typically have the male figure be a royal, possibly English, at the very least Central European. But here Will is middle-class, more or less, and the royal figure/celebrity is American.
So yes and in that way it feels like a gender swap and more progressive but whereas the film depicts Will with more layers to his personality (possibly by proxy of his friends who are so engaging) and definitely he has more more screen time, Anna falls short (depth wise) of the magnitude her power would warrant in that dynamic
It’s hilarious, heartfelt, and based very loosely on a true story about a guy who tied helium balloons to his deckchair and launched himself into the sky to try and impress his girlfriend. Australian movie. Wicked fun!
1. Love Julia Roberts. So much love. 'Larry Crowne' is a perfectly constructed movie. Worth a gazillion dollars, and the best cast. 'Duplicity' I mean, come on. 'Eat Pray Love' i just love for her clothes. 'Americas Sweethearts' again clothes, and a wonderful set of freak outs. 2. I am a new Hugh Grant fan. I think whatever movie he did recently when he had a beard, that was great.
Was it “The Gentlemen” - Hugh Grant bearded movie?
I haven’t seen “Larry Crown”!
I think this looks highly entertaining. “Duplicity” I’ve seen and it was memorable. I can’t get behind “Eat Pray Love” - tried twice to watch it and failed both times
Yeah, it was the Gentleman. I have a giant soft spot for Mconnoughy (or whatever). ‘Surfer,Dude’ is a top five important movies FOR ME, so just about everything he does I glance at. Hugh was barely recognizable in this movie, which I love.
Larry Crowne is a movie I enjoy. Which, as I have aged I have learned to say instead of saying IT IS GOOD. I have no idea if something IS GOOD. Others pay a lot closer, more specific attention that I do. I tend to think any movie with Ian Gomez, Grace Gummer, George Takai, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Holmes Osborne cannot be wrong.
‘Eat Pray Love’ is sort of an intersection movie for me. I spent a lot of my 20s exposed to the go to India, study ayurveda, etc etc thing. So, that is comforting. And look at that jacket, scarf, jean, and bag combo. And whatever is happening in this scene with Javier Bardem, I totally want to be a part of.
Duplicity, I mean Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. That will not be a waste of time.
I think often times there are people that I find watchable. Like Tom Hanks. I have no idea if he is as GOOD an actor as I know Patrick Stewart to be (after seeing him on stage for all the nerds) or if a movie script is as good as it could be. I do not slow down the consumption part enough to sort of see it. I mean, as a writer I am trained in how to build a play like a Mamet. I took his courses 100 years ago. So, I know I love Aaron Sorken as a writer who builds. Often times building the same thing over and over, but that which he builds is amazing.
That is a long comment for 305 in the Wisconsin morning.
1. You are wrong about the line. The line is perfect. We are the bad in the equation. You know how you know its perfect, it is forever. It is a forever line. 2. The subplot about her love for him is wrong sighted. The Credibility and THAT LOVE is the prime mover of the narrative structure. It is an exploration, and pursuit of that love. Without that working, the movie fails. The movie doesn't fail because it is the only plot. I would say that there are no subplots, save for maybe Spike and that woman who loves him. But, little or nothing swirls around Will and Anna, other than simple set pieces of this or that enduring bit of fun. I mean, the shop lifter, the terrible customer service about the travel book, the unstated questions about the actual lay out of the apartment. All of this is wonderful, but the love arc is the only arc.
Are you talking about the “I’m just a girl line”? To me it fell flat. She comes to him after rejecting him a few times and with the promise it will be more the next? And that she is asking to be loved? He loves her or is at least infatuated. That’s undeniable. She, on the other hand, seems uncertain of all this and not so impressed by him. The love story is mediocre. The foundation is strong with the actors (and I’m including big time the ensemble cast here of friends) and their chemistry + the writing
Oh no. No. It is a brilliant set up. She is damaged by fame (her amazing shift to almost cruelty in their apartment when the press show up), she is trapped in two places….one with Alec Baldwin and again the inhumane way she treats him, and two with management in the famous Horse and Hound press junket. I mean she gives him a Chagall! A CHAGALL!!! If YOU give ME a Chagall, I would love you forever. Just saying.
I think there is something amazing in the depiction of the sort of ‘system’ in place in the way. I remember professors talking about Idealism v Realism. I think that we see it here. Their is a romanticism in Will portrayal, the way time passes, the dates he goes on, the absurd amount of button down blue shirts he must own.
But, Anna is trapped by a machine that is around her, and on her. There are no portrayals of time passing for her, there are just these strange things laying upon her. The boyfriend who is a brute in the classic sense, the manager at the Press Junket oblivious to the whole thing happening right in front of him, the strange level of nonsense surrounding the movie she is initially promoting.
I have a feeling that the line is appropriate. That Anna has a sense of how circumstances, and to some extent she, has hurt Will. And is in many ways begging for another chance to try to make it right. She is in a sort of storm, and Will is a light house, and she is calling out for help. I think of that Indigo Girls lyric, which is not at all story related…
“And I went to see the doctor of philosophy With a poster of Rasputin and a beard down to his knee He never did marry or see a B-grade movie He graded my performance, he said he could see through me I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind Got my paper and I was free”
I think Anna at the time of the line is prostrating herself. Bowing her head, hoping this turns out to be a soft space to lay her heart.
It also works because he rejects her in that moment. Hurt, and aware, he knows to not accept the Chagall (I would always accept a Chagall, always) and open himself up. He proves himself WRONG, but he does reject her. Which I think strengthens that beat in the drama.
Seriously, it is 320 am in Wisconsin. What am I doing awake.
I hope he did not. I get the paintings confused at 3 am. I was probably thinking about the Rene Russon/Peirce Brosnan thing where she tosses ‘a little Monet’ into the fire to see his reaction.
Great review. You pointed out some things I hadn't noticed, and I've seen it many times. I love that soundtrack too, almost think it makes the movie. The going through the seasons scene is also something that thrills me every time I see it.
I agree that the romance doesn't quite work, and for me it was that I never took to the Anna Scott character. Since I usually love to watch Julia Roberts, I overlooked that. But it was Will's relationship with family and friends that really made it for me. Same as in Four Weddings and a Funeral, where I didn't like the Andy MacDowell character that much.
But I'll watch Hugh in almost anything, love Paddington 2, Bridget Jones, The Undoing -- he's almost better playing baddies, although I like all his romcoms too.
Totally. It’s all about the relationships! Maybe the fault lies with poorly scripted female leads in these romances like “Four Weddings” and this one. Watching Nicole Kidman in “A Famjly Affair” for example while not the same caliber as this film felt like a more fleshed out, real character experiencing love and was more credible
You hit that nail with these reviews, every time! Great choice of film. I enjoy Notting Hill, but you're right, it is a bit saccharine. The misunderstandings get a bit repetitive. I absolutely agree about Rhys Ifans. Irritating first go-round, but so funny on repeat viewings. I really liked Hugh Grant in "The Gentlemen". His more recent work is so much better, but (sucker that I am) I still fell for the early stuff.
OK. The film hinges on the premise that Anna will "get" Will. But what if it were the other way around? Will "gets" Anna but it seems like stalking. Looked at honestly, it's mutual stalking. It's really creepy. But "love" probably is creepy to begin with. Look at Spike and his frantic t-shirt choices for a date. He has to ask his friend. (That last one is hilarious with the backsideof the tee, love it.) ... but what I love about the movie is family and friends redeem Will (and, maybe Anna?) in that Will is the sad family member who doesn't partner, and Anna knows his story after she agrees with the date (THAT was a tough scene to write oh boy) to Will's family dinner. I loved it though. It showed two worlds in flux. And strangely enough, I believe the world can change, love or no love. It just has to take stories like Notting Hill to get minds revolving around possibilities such as this. Far fetched? Yup. Wonderful storytelling? No doubt.
Last thought: This was written by a man, produced by men, and theme song by a man. So, women are sort of out of the conversation in this film and I get that. Even Anna as a character is asking Will to help her with her dialogue. It's really a thing with Richard Curtis (even moreso in Love Actually, which I can't ever watch again) so...let's talk about minor characters and how they are shown in Notting Hill. I love Will's sister. She's a delight.
Mike! It’s the ultimate male gaze film which is the conclusion I was arriving at with the lackluster elements of Anna’s love for Will. And her lack of being fleshed out in general as far as her character.
The ensemble on the other hand is fantastic. Every single one of them shines. The dinner party scene is a highlight because they are all such real personalities and clearly love one another. Ah…platonic love.
I’ve watched this film so many times! And reading this makes me want to watch it all over again. I remember really liking Mystic Pizza too. But need to jog my memory on that one.
I was just reading your post today and saw you watched “A Family Affair” which I’m going to do a face- off with another movie on! / thanks for sharing!
OK this is in my wheelhouse of rom-coms and although most of my guy friends loved Four Weddings, I was smitten by Notting Hill. Let me read your take and the circle back, but wow, you hit me where I live my friend. ;-)
Haven’t read you yet but there are two things I THINK you might mention and would be on my mind about men vs. women in Notting Hill: temperaments and timing and friends and family (or lack of it in Anna’s case) which makes it a marvelous stew of emotions. Oh, and a crazy lovely sister and a wacky roommate. But let me check out what you’ve got before I say more.
This is one of my husband's favorite rom-coms, but I'm with you - I don't think the rom part actually works. I think it's a perfectly mid story with two really charismatic leads.
I grew up in New Orleans and minored in theater. The first play I worked on, as general backstage help was Steel Magnolias. Saw the movie when it came out the following year. Obviously it's one of my favorite Julia Roberts films.
Is there any reversal of type going on here? In the romance genre, an international story would typically have the male figure be a royal, possibly English, at the very least Central European. But here Will is middle-class, more or less, and the royal figure/celebrity is American.
So yes and in that way it feels like a gender swap and more progressive but whereas the film depicts Will with more layers to his personality (possibly by proxy of his friends who are so engaging) and definitely he has more more screen time, Anna falls short (depth wise) of the magnitude her power would warrant in that dynamic
It’s hilarious, heartfelt, and based very loosely on a true story about a guy who tied helium balloons to his deckchair and launched himself into the sky to try and impress his girlfriend. Australian movie. Wicked fun!
1. Love Julia Roberts. So much love. 'Larry Crowne' is a perfectly constructed movie. Worth a gazillion dollars, and the best cast. 'Duplicity' I mean, come on. 'Eat Pray Love' i just love for her clothes. 'Americas Sweethearts' again clothes, and a wonderful set of freak outs. 2. I am a new Hugh Grant fan. I think whatever movie he did recently when he had a beard, that was great.
Was it “The Gentlemen” - Hugh Grant bearded movie?
I haven’t seen “Larry Crown”!
I think this looks highly entertaining. “Duplicity” I’ve seen and it was memorable. I can’t get behind “Eat Pray Love” - tried twice to watch it and failed both times
Yeah, it was the Gentleman. I have a giant soft spot for Mconnoughy (or whatever). ‘Surfer,Dude’ is a top five important movies FOR ME, so just about everything he does I glance at. Hugh was barely recognizable in this movie, which I love.
Larry Crowne is a movie I enjoy. Which, as I have aged I have learned to say instead of saying IT IS GOOD. I have no idea if something IS GOOD. Others pay a lot closer, more specific attention that I do. I tend to think any movie with Ian Gomez, Grace Gummer, George Takai, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Holmes Osborne cannot be wrong.
‘Eat Pray Love’ is sort of an intersection movie for me. I spent a lot of my 20s exposed to the go to India, study ayurveda, etc etc thing. So, that is comforting. And look at that jacket, scarf, jean, and bag combo. And whatever is happening in this scene with Javier Bardem, I totally want to be a part of.
Duplicity, I mean Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. That will not be a waste of time.
I think often times there are people that I find watchable. Like Tom Hanks. I have no idea if he is as GOOD an actor as I know Patrick Stewart to be (after seeing him on stage for all the nerds) or if a movie script is as good as it could be. I do not slow down the consumption part enough to sort of see it. I mean, as a writer I am trained in how to build a play like a Mamet. I took his courses 100 years ago. So, I know I love Aaron Sorken as a writer who builds. Often times building the same thing over and over, but that which he builds is amazing.
That is a long comment for 305 in the Wisconsin morning.
1. You are wrong about the line. The line is perfect. We are the bad in the equation. You know how you know its perfect, it is forever. It is a forever line. 2. The subplot about her love for him is wrong sighted. The Credibility and THAT LOVE is the prime mover of the narrative structure. It is an exploration, and pursuit of that love. Without that working, the movie fails. The movie doesn't fail because it is the only plot. I would say that there are no subplots, save for maybe Spike and that woman who loves him. But, little or nothing swirls around Will and Anna, other than simple set pieces of this or that enduring bit of fun. I mean, the shop lifter, the terrible customer service about the travel book, the unstated questions about the actual lay out of the apartment. All of this is wonderful, but the love arc is the only arc.
Are you talking about the “I’m just a girl line”? To me it fell flat. She comes to him after rejecting him a few times and with the promise it will be more the next? And that she is asking to be loved? He loves her or is at least infatuated. That’s undeniable. She, on the other hand, seems uncertain of all this and not so impressed by him. The love story is mediocre. The foundation is strong with the actors (and I’m including big time the ensemble cast here of friends) and their chemistry + the writing
Oh no. No. It is a brilliant set up. She is damaged by fame (her amazing shift to almost cruelty in their apartment when the press show up), she is trapped in two places….one with Alec Baldwin and again the inhumane way she treats him, and two with management in the famous Horse and Hound press junket. I mean she gives him a Chagall! A CHAGALL!!! If YOU give ME a Chagall, I would love you forever. Just saying.
I think there is something amazing in the depiction of the sort of ‘system’ in place in the way. I remember professors talking about Idealism v Realism. I think that we see it here. Their is a romanticism in Will portrayal, the way time passes, the dates he goes on, the absurd amount of button down blue shirts he must own.
But, Anna is trapped by a machine that is around her, and on her. There are no portrayals of time passing for her, there are just these strange things laying upon her. The boyfriend who is a brute in the classic sense, the manager at the Press Junket oblivious to the whole thing happening right in front of him, the strange level of nonsense surrounding the movie she is initially promoting.
I have a feeling that the line is appropriate. That Anna has a sense of how circumstances, and to some extent she, has hurt Will. And is in many ways begging for another chance to try to make it right. She is in a sort of storm, and Will is a light house, and she is calling out for help. I think of that Indigo Girls lyric, which is not at all story related…
“And I went to see the doctor of philosophy With a poster of Rasputin and a beard down to his knee He never did marry or see a B-grade movie He graded my performance, he said he could see through me I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind Got my paper and I was free”
I think Anna at the time of the line is prostrating herself. Bowing her head, hoping this turns out to be a soft space to lay her heart.
It also works because he rejects her in that moment. Hurt, and aware, he knows to not accept the Chagall (I would always accept a Chagall, always) and open himself up. He proves himself WRONG, but he does reject her. Which I think strengthens that beat in the drama.
Seriously, it is 320 am in Wisconsin. What am I doing awake.
Dino
Great, insightful line -
“I think Anna at the time of the line is prostrating herself. Bowing her head, hoping this turns out to be a soft space to lay her heart.”
I didn’t think he turned down the Chagall though- just her. 😂
I hope he did not. I get the paintings confused at 3 am. I was probably thinking about the Rene Russon/Peirce Brosnan thing where she tosses ‘a little Monet’ into the fire to see his reaction.
It was the gesture he needed to illustrate / prove her commitment to him. Also the catalyst to chase after her. He gets to keep it.
And then we get the car ride. which I love so very much.
Oh yeah. Longtime fan of The Hugh! And speaking of Rhys Ifans… have you reviewed small but such fun movie “Danny Deckchair”?
I don’t know this film Kym! It’s funny I take it?
Great review. You pointed out some things I hadn't noticed, and I've seen it many times. I love that soundtrack too, almost think it makes the movie. The going through the seasons scene is also something that thrills me every time I see it.
I agree that the romance doesn't quite work, and for me it was that I never took to the Anna Scott character. Since I usually love to watch Julia Roberts, I overlooked that. But it was Will's relationship with family and friends that really made it for me. Same as in Four Weddings and a Funeral, where I didn't like the Andy MacDowell character that much.
But I'll watch Hugh in almost anything, love Paddington 2, Bridget Jones, The Undoing -- he's almost better playing baddies, although I like all his romcoms too.
Totally. It’s all about the relationships! Maybe the fault lies with poorly scripted female leads in these romances like “Four Weddings” and this one. Watching Nicole Kidman in “A Famjly Affair” for example while not the same caliber as this film felt like a more fleshed out, real character experiencing love and was more credible
Yes, that very well could be it. They were Richard Curtis' early romcoms, so maybe it took him a while to get women right.
You hit that nail with these reviews, every time! Great choice of film. I enjoy Notting Hill, but you're right, it is a bit saccharine. The misunderstandings get a bit repetitive. I absolutely agree about Rhys Ifans. Irritating first go-round, but so funny on repeat viewings. I really liked Hugh Grant in "The Gentlemen". His more recent work is so much better, but (sucker that I am) I still fell for the early stuff.
OK. The film hinges on the premise that Anna will "get" Will. But what if it were the other way around? Will "gets" Anna but it seems like stalking. Looked at honestly, it's mutual stalking. It's really creepy. But "love" probably is creepy to begin with. Look at Spike and his frantic t-shirt choices for a date. He has to ask his friend. (That last one is hilarious with the backsideof the tee, love it.) ... but what I love about the movie is family and friends redeem Will (and, maybe Anna?) in that Will is the sad family member who doesn't partner, and Anna knows his story after she agrees with the date (THAT was a tough scene to write oh boy) to Will's family dinner. I loved it though. It showed two worlds in flux. And strangely enough, I believe the world can change, love or no love. It just has to take stories like Notting Hill to get minds revolving around possibilities such as this. Far fetched? Yup. Wonderful storytelling? No doubt.
Last thought: This was written by a man, produced by men, and theme song by a man. So, women are sort of out of the conversation in this film and I get that. Even Anna as a character is asking Will to help her with her dialogue. It's really a thing with Richard Curtis (even moreso in Love Actually, which I can't ever watch again) so...let's talk about minor characters and how they are shown in Notting Hill. I love Will's sister. She's a delight.
Mike! It’s the ultimate male gaze film which is the conclusion I was arriving at with the lackluster elements of Anna’s love for Will. And her lack of being fleshed out in general as far as her character.
The ensemble on the other hand is fantastic. Every single one of them shines. The dinner party scene is a highlight because they are all such real personalities and clearly love one another. Ah…platonic love.
I’ve watched this film so many times! And reading this makes me want to watch it all over again. I remember really liking Mystic Pizza too. But need to jog my memory on that one.
I was just reading your post today and saw you watched “A Family Affair” which I’m going to do a face- off with another movie on! / thanks for sharing!
I can’t wait to read it!
OK this is in my wheelhouse of rom-coms and although most of my guy friends loved Four Weddings, I was smitten by Notting Hill. Let me read your take and the circle back, but wow, you hit me where I live my friend. ;-)
Yay!! Happy to do so
Haven’t read you yet but there are two things I THINK you might mention and would be on my mind about men vs. women in Notting Hill: temperaments and timing and friends and family (or lack of it in Anna’s case) which makes it a marvelous stew of emotions. Oh, and a crazy lovely sister and a wacky roommate. But let me check out what you’ve got before I say more.
Cole Haddon wrote a nice piece about the brownie scene: https://colehaddon.substack.com/p/what-that-last-brownie-really-means
For me, the "ain't no sunshine " montage is the highlight, and just really well done.
Yes! Four Wedding was good too!
This is one of my husband's favorite rom-coms, but I'm with you - I don't think the rom part actually works. I think it's a perfectly mid story with two really charismatic leads.
🙌 yes!!!