Review of Notting Hill (1999) by Barbara D — 14 Jan 2014

When I was a little kid, I saw bits of this movie, and from what I saw at that age, I wasn't a fan. Still, I figured that as an adult, I'd give it another chance for a few reasons. One: it's written by Richard Curtis, the same person who did Love Actually, which is one of my all time favourite movies, full stop. Two: it's considered a beloved classic, to the point that there are even tourist destinations in the real Notting Hill, like the little blue door seen in the movie. Three: it's probably not fair to judge this movie based on my childhood opinion.

The premise of Notting Hill is relatively simple. It's about a man named William Thacker working in a book store (Hugh Grant) who lives in Notting Hill with his strange Welsh flatmate (Rhys Ifans). His life is turned upside down when a famous movie star called Anna Scott (Julia Roberts) walks into his shop. They have a few more chance meetings, until it develops into an affair.

Already, the premise is interesting, because it brings up a couple of tough questions. Can a celebrity really have a normal life? Can their relationship actually work? After all, with Anna Scott being famous, the press is going to be all over everything she does, especially her relationships. In other words, privacy is gone. To be fair, the movie addresses these questions in a really mature and honest way. Towards the second act, some nude photos of Anna Scott are leaked to the public for everyone to see. They're going to be out there forever, and of course, Anna is devastated. We clearly see that William is a little naive, in that he doesn't understand the full extent of what it means to be a celebrity, which is one of the things that strains their relationship.

This sounds really interesting, in that it has way more depth than the average romantic comedy, so where could the movie go wrong? Well, there are many faults in it, but I'm going to have to go over them in order before I get to the biggest one. First of all, as much as I respect Hugh Grant in other movies, I'm going to be honest here and admit I didn't like him here. He has that stuttering, floppy-haired, romantic persona we've seen in movies like Four Weddings and a Funeral, but here's the thing; you're either going to fall in love with it, or you're going to want to punch him in the face every time he's on screen. Unfortunately, yes, I wanted to knock his stupid teeth out here, which is sad because I really like him in other movies! Julia Roberts was fine. She had some great dramatic scenes, and she really captured the grace of her character. With that said, the standouts in the film were Rhys Ifans as William's flatmate, Emma Chambers as William's sister, and their entire circle of friends. These were all fun, hilarious characters who each had their own distinct personalities, and they stole the show every time they were on screen. Unfortunately though, this is something that works against the film, because I was way more compelled by these characters than the two protagonists. Hugh Grant just seemed so out of place in this fun, lively ensemble. Maybe that was meant to be the point, but I didn't think that worked.

There were many bland moments when him and Anna were just sitting down and looking at each other, while the movie's theme song 'When You Say Nothing At All' played. To be fair, I can see what the filmmakers were trying to do here. They were trying to build atmosphere, and give these characters a moment of peace from their hectic lives. That's probably why they chose that song. William has a hectic life putting up with his flatmate, and living in a busy area like Notting Hill, while Anna has a hectic life being a celebrity. What I really wanted to see was more honest conversations between them, conversations about how complicated their lives are. I know people say, 'Show, don't tell,' but there are some instances in film when dialogue is needed, and I think it was really needed here. This brings me to probably the biggest flaw with this movie; the directing.

The director of this film really couldn't decide what kind of movie this was. Was it an honest slice of life, or was it a standard Hollywood romantic comedy? I'm the kind of person who prefers honesty over Hollywood any day, but I'm not entirely against movies with Hollywood formulas. Hollywood movies can work if they're done in a campy, over-the-top style. They work if the filmmakers know they're not trying to be realistic. For example, a movie like Suddenly 30 works because it knows it's an unrealistic movie, and it has fun with it. There are many campy, unrealistic moments, but these all fit within the world the writers have constructed, and the movie just has fun with it. Here in Notting Hill, the directing style is downplayed as if they're trying to tell a realistic story. To be fair, this works when there are truthful moments, but unfortunately it doesn't work when there are cliched romantic comedy tropes like 'the misunderstanding' in the third act. By the way, the misunderstanding wasn't needed at all, because from a story-telling perspective, there was already enough drama in the premise alone. Ordinary guy falls for a movie star. He doesn't understand the intricacies of being a celebrity because he's not familiar with that lifestyle. There we go. We don't need a misunderstanding because there's already a conflict there.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that it tried. Overall, it was a mixed bag for me in that there were moments I liked and moments I didn't, but I appreciate the fact that there was effort put into it. Most Hollywood romantic comedies are shallow gimmicks designed to cash in on whoever's popular at the time, and I think Notting Hill at least tried to do something more than that.