Valentine's Day

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.

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.

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.

As a disgruntledly (not a word, shut up) unemployed film critic, I must take drastic measures in concealing my opinion towards a movie you are going to wind up seeing regardless. This time, I have taken my single self to see Valentine's Day, to see if it can measure up to last year's star-sprinkled surprise-surprise hit comedy He's Just Not That into You. I wanted to see that if despite without the lovey-dovey person by my side (which has been a vacant position for a while) the movie can still deliver, entertain, and touch the soul.

Also, I wanted to see if people working at the theater would dedicate a bit of time from their ordinary day to point out that it's strange that I am watching a movie called Valentine's Day by myself. I approached the ticket counter and asked for my ticket. After momentary laughter the man at the counter presented me with my ticket. I then enter through the doors and approach the lady ripping the tickets and sending me in the right direction. After her laughter subdued, she pointed me to theater #1.

Valentine's Day works in the tradition of last year's February romantic success story, and Love Actually, a British dramatic rom-com that jump-started the technique of applying multiple love stories in a film. That way, if one story doesn't work, you have multiple other chances to still enjoy the movie. To spice things up, the movie contains one of the biggest casts of stars since the never-duplicated insanity of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. What other movie can boast the collaboration of Jennifer Garner, Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Jamie Foxx, and even Shirley MacLaine?

But of course, when you have this many stars, that means so many stories; and less time for character development. This is where the film mostly disappoints, very little developing or changing from anyone associated with the movie. Without revealing too much, there is literally 10 or 11 (lost count) plot lines mixing and intertwining together in a span of just two hours. This equals an average of 12 minutes per story. In actuality however, some stories are actually shorter than others. Katherine Fugate had the right idea when writing the screenplay, but the execution wasn't the best considering that some stories worked and some were just boring to the core. Poor Garry Marshall can only do so much, even though his best days (Pretty Woman, Happy Days) are long gone.

The limited time for acting also diminished the performances of almost every single star in the movie. However, the acting performances of the younger tots (Taylor Swift, Emma Roberts, Taylor Lautner, Carter Jenkins) were much weaker when compared to the veterans Julia Roberts, Jamie Foxx, Shirley MacLaine, and Héctor Elizondo. One other note: Ashton Kutcher, Topher Grace, and Bradley Cooper are three men that given the little time in this movie delivered swell performances that was undermined only by the writing. Their comic timing kept the movie afloat when the flick was threatening to totally flounder.

Like I said before, some stories worked, and other stories were absolutely dreadful to watch. The high school-based stories in Valentine's Day were the weakest, shortest, and the most pointless. In the meantime, the Anne Hathaway/Topher Grace story and the conflict involving Kutcher, Alba, Jennifer Garner, and Patrick Dempsey were the most entertaining to watch. Nearly all the stories had their share of clichés, with only one of them containing a surprise or two. The chemistry wasn't that intense, because there was no time for it to happen. The dialogue was never allowed to intensify or dwell deeper into the concept of love. A few good one-liners here and there, but nothing really worth remembering.

Bottom Line: The problem with Valentine's Day is very simple: we've seen it before and after 2009 being such a good year for romantic comedies, the expectations are higher. It takes more than just a bunch of big stars to propel a rom-com to quality heights; you need strong writing, good chemistry, strong direction, and a hintage of unpredictability. That's how The Proposal, He's Just Not That Into You, The Ugly Truth, and especially (500) Days of Summer made 2009 one of the greatest years for romance in a long time. This was also the issue with Couple's Retreat, the last blockbuster romantic comedy of 09. Valentine's Day has its moments indeed (Anne Hathaway is hilarious), but don't expect it to be anything better than mediocre. Simply there were too many stories and most of them with less depth than a puddle.

And none of this criticism has to do with the fact that I saw the movie by myself.

Honestly.

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)