Historias de San Valentín

Oh dear, oh dear. This 2010 effort by the Americans to emulate the formula and the success of the British 2003 "Love Actually" produces a confused and limp offering. It must have looked such a great idea when pitched to the studio: a huge cast of stars, multiple story lines with cross connections, different takes on romance, lots of songs about love, and - even better than the Anglo film they would claim - Los Angeles (instead of London) and Valentine's Day (instead of Christmas).

But it just doesn't work and only underlines how subtle and clever was the original version. There are just too many relationships going on with too much confusion in the tales and, above all, a really weak and saccharine script from Katherine Fugate.

The best performance comes from Anne Hathaway but, if you just want to spot the stars, there's plenty on show including Ashton Kutcher and Jamie Foxx, Julia Roberts and Jennifer Gardner, Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine. That's right, someone for guys and gals, young and old, white and ethnic, straight and gay. Except for a couple of nice little twists at the end, it is all so formulaic and predictable - and a little moralistic.

Did you read that cast list? Gives the term 'star-studded' a new meaning. Imagine what kind of film you could make with all that talent. Well, Valentine's Day is not that film. Far from it in fact. This who's who of a cast hampers any chance of real emotion due to the need to share screen time among them all. When you start getting interested in a character you'll most likely not see them again for another 45 minutes, pretty annoying when there are so few likable characters in the first place.

What is perhaps the scariest is that despite a plethora of plots, subplots and sub-subplots – all intertwining somehow – there isn't a shred of originality. Sure, you might be surprised who Bradley Cooper hooks up with at the end, but one small unforeseen twist barely counts. Bulge and fluff replace characterization and narrative development whilst the corny dialogue comes off as cutesy more than cute. It all goes back to the bloated cast: with over 20 stars that need their quota of jokes, sobs and happy endings filled, it's majorly difficult to dedicate any real time to exploring the unique intricacies of love and loss. See the far superior Love Actually for how it's done.

Saving it from complete dreadfulness is a handful of these big names – probably not the ones you would suspect – who manage to squeeze a laugh from their one-dimensional roles. The two Taylor's, Lautner and Swift, play their love-struck high school couple with a cheerful amount of tongue-in-cheek; Kutcher proves his charisma can go a long way as a heartbroken florist; and Cooper and Roberts (Julia, that is) are intriguing as plane passengers who don't know each other. Biel should hang her head in shame though, her standout woeful performance surely an early front runner for this year's Razzies.

Save your money and revisit its British counterpart on DVD instead.

1.5 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)

I was the classic husband dragged to see this on Valentine's Day weekend as a goodwill gesture. It was every bit as bad as could be possibly imagined. Half of Hollywood's A List star as vacuous stereotypes, moronically obsessed with the holiday in question. This despite the fact they are all living millionaire lifestyles, with perfect tans and the whitest of teeth. It's Love Actually, without a sense of humour or any depth whatsoever. No- one and nothing is remotely realistic - every storyline has a trite and convenient resolution and none is convincing or interesting. There is a perfect and unlikely ratio of ethnicities and sexualities. The sex trade is entirely trivialised and sanitised. No-one stays upset about relationship breakdowns for more than one scene. People break into spontaneous dance sequences in which everyone knows the pre-rehearsed moves but the film doesn't have the conviction to show it for more than 3 seconds... Just utter pointless and patronising bilge...

Throw a bunch of famous actors in and you'll get a great movie right? Wrong.

Director: I want big names in my movie. Assistant: Which ones? Director: Yes.

You don't know what awful is until you've seen this film. I wasn't looking for a profound commentary on the human experience - I watched "Valentine's Day" expecting 100 minutes worth of harmless and fun escapism. To say that I was disappointed is a bit of an understatement.

To begin with, the film is WAY too long - or perhaps it just seems like an eternity. Minute after minute, it is sickeningly sappy and sweet, without any depth of character or plot to justify its duration. The acting is for the most part atrocious - or, at best, mediocre. Taylor Swift, in a nightmarish "comic relief" role, and the annoying little boy, in particular, stand out as paragons of annoying incompetence. However, the writing is so awful, even the greatest of thespians could not make this movie bearable. I honestly felt rather embarrassed for the actors, most of whom I'm sure are quite capable if given a half-decent script. Perhaps worst of all, "Valentine's Day" acts like it is an eye-opening and touching study of human relationships, while it's really drivel.

If there's anything I'd like the reader to learn from this review it's to avoid this film at all costs. It isn't good, it isn't even so-bad-it's-good - it's just plain dreadful.