Review: 'Notting Hill' (1999)

Review: ‘Notting Hill’ (1999)

Comedy, Reviews, Romance

Review: 'Notting Hill' (1999)More than a decade after its initial release, “Notting Hill” has wrinkled aplenty of foreheads. May those be of either genuine awe or utter disgust, I care not much. This film is sheer popcorn cinema, and the earlier you understand that, the better. For years it has been the benchmark of romantic comedies; the standard of what balderdash, syrupy story is still mysteriously enjoyable. My mentioning of this doesn’t reflect my opinions on rom-coms as a whole. In fact, if done right, romantic comedies make powerful sentiments as in the likes of “Lars and the Real Girl” and the recent likes “(500) Days of Summer” and “Safety Not Guaranteed.” The thing, you see, is that like most genres, romantic comedies are littered of profusely syrupy dialogue (“I’m just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her,” is an easy example, thank you very much) and tired, conventional scripts that are further botched with sub-par direction. This film, in a nutshell, has the illusive charm of a Hollywood rom-com and its boatload of curses.

notting-hill-big-scene

If anything, after those years of hefty profit, the film becomes a parody for its two leads: Julia Roberts (“Eat, Pray, Love”) plays an American film star tainted with bad publicity and Hugh Grant (“Music & Lyrics”) plays a bookshop owner, a sweet English chap who’s trying his luck in life. May the film mock or praise the two, again, I care not much. The fact that Julia Roberts is being continually branded with all sorts of names, some of them good, some not, and that Hugh Grant has taken the industry with his goody two-shoes aura aren’t important. They work well together and they have enough chemistry. But is it enough? Any film that asks the unbelievably foolish question, can the most famous film star in the world fall for the man of the street, isn’t likely to allow so.

“Notting Hill,” in conclusion, is best encountered with an open mind. Hollywood will produce plenty of films like this–second-rate, fanciful, deceptively enjoyable–and this will continue on. Many of my issues about the film (Richard Curtis’ trite script and Roger Michell’s middling direction, are high up in my  list) aren’t calling for any mention. This is the sort of film viewed only by the subjective eye, after all. Many stomachs will get upset, many eyebrows will furrow, and many will merely enjoy the film and it’s standard rom-com fanciness.

I prefer to choose the last; I recommend you do the same.

RATING: 2 stars (out 4)

WHAT OTHERS HAD TO SAY:

  • “Not my cup of tea.” – Fogs’ Movie Reviews
  • “An underdeveloped romance that gets very predictable by the end, but the chemistry and performance…save this film and make it an enjoyable rom-com. But then again, aren’t they all?” – Dan the Man’s Movie Reviews
About these ads

2 thoughts on “Review: ‘Notting Hill’ (1999)

  1. …I always watch this when it’s on TV lol. I like Richard Curtis as a director and love Love Actually. I actually am looking forward to About Time. So yeah. I went there.

    1. The two are actually fun to watch, and I’m yet to see Love Actually, but I can’t ignore the film’s second-class direction and syrupy script. There are better rom-coms for me I guess.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s