P.S. I Love You (review)

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Do not believe those TV ads that make this look like the goofy romantic lark of the holiday season. This is not a comedy, and it is no lark. Oh my god, I sobbed so hard during this film — beginning pretty much at the beginning and stopping only because I eventually had to leave the screening room. And you know how I feel about “chick flicks”: I hate ’em, because they usually rely on the most shallow of “emotions” as a kind of shorthand to engage that teary girl gland. I want real emotion… and I found it here. Kinda like Truly, Madly, Deeply without the supernatural element, this is a gloriously down-to-earth gambol through the stages of grief — if grieving can be said to be anything like “gamboling.” That is to say, this wonderful movie — from Richard LaGravenese (Freedom Writers) and based on the novel by Cecelia Ahern — is not relentlessly grim, but it is endlessly poignant even in its lightest moments: it is a warm and human expression of the reality, which we may resist facing when we lose someone, that life does go on. Hilary Swank (The Reaping) is a New York City real-estate agent — though she longs for something else to do with herself — who expectedly loses the love of her life, her husband (Gerard Butler: 300), to cancer. But in the months of his slow decline, he crafted a series of letters to her to be delivered by a secret helper after his death, missives designed to gradually nudge her to continue living. Honestly, Swank’s Holly was just a little bit of a self-centered bitch with him, as much as she adored him (Butler and Swank spark with electric chemistry), even used him like a bit of a crutch, and we believe that she probably needed just this kind of push out of the nest of her heartache. There’s the indescribably touching romance of this: how well he knows her, and can cater to her need. There’s a chick fantasy for ya.

(Technorati tags: , , )

share and enjoy
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
notify of
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Tonio Kruger
Wed, Jan 16, 2008 5:48pm

Well, it does have some humourous bits, but you’re right. It’s not really a comedy even if it does seem a little like “Catch and Release 2.” (Doesn’t help that Hilary Swank looks more than a little like Jennifer Garner to my eyes, but at least there’s no silly Juliette Lewis character.)

Anyway, my girlfriend and I saw this last weekend, and we both enjoyed it. And I got the impression that the other people in the audience enjoyed it too.

Tue, Jan 29, 2008 5:22am

MaryAnn, it seems like you and I watched a completely different movie from the one most critics saw -or wanted to see. That’s why I admire your passionate reviews, you don’t care if you’re the only one defending a film that’s been dismissed as a tearjerker/romantic comedy.

Tue, Jan 29, 2008 2:11pm

The minute I start to care about what anyone else thinks — and start to mold my reviews to fit what those someone-elses think — is the minute any usefulness I might have as a critic is over.

Mon, Feb 25, 2008 7:37pm

Frankly, I often go and see movies on the strength of your recomendations alone. My girlfriend wanted me to go an see this with her, but thanks to the misleading trailer, I wasn’t keen. I am now.

Wed, Jan 06, 2010 11:33am

I completely refused to go and see this when it was on at the cinema as I thought it was going to be trite and just utterly awful. Then today I stumbled across it on Sky Movies (it’s a snow day, daytime TV is awful, I thought I may as well) and I’m still sniffling. It’s a corker and I never knew – why was it marketed so badly as the worst kind of chick-flick?