In the early seventies, there was a sitcom called "Love American Style". Its format consisted of a few vignettes of couples in love. The stories were sometimes cute, and the endings were happy. Writer/Director Richard Curtis took the same idea but juggled 5 to 8 (I lost count) segments that vary a lot in tone, from farce to literate and endearing, all in the running time of a commercial movie. When most movies have difficulty doing 1 love story well, Curtis risked confusing his audience with so many characters and story lines that I think some deserved more development or movies of their own. It's an adult romance at a time when studios make much more money with teenage romances. He assembled a top cast but gave them relatively little to do, as if each actor was doing a guest appearance, but they do it well. Both director and his middle-aged actors deserve credit for their courage. I'm probably a tough grader. I like this film, though it could have been really nice. After 3 DVD viewings, I'm warming up to it. Others have discussed the stories in detail and the angst over the rating. I will add my 2 cents to the dispute over the rating and discuss the DVD features, as well.It is rated R for good, albeit unnecessary, reasons. To me, the common usage of vulgar language and humor among the adult and child characters did not add anything or seem part of the story, and therefore seemed gratuitous. At first, the nudity may seem just as gratuitous as the language. But as one person below well noted, the naked body doubles on the movie set are not "naked" to each other. That is, even though we see them simulating sex several times in the movie, it takes them until the end of the movie to get to the first romantic kiss (with their clothes on). The nudity and sex had nothing to do with it. They fell in love despite it all. This may be a clever way to make a point but also may be lost on an adult audience too distracted to care. If it's not necessary to film a movie for an R rating, then why do it? It's the story that matters. The DVD has 2 special features that are notable, the commentary track and the deleted scenes. The commentary seems little more than wise cracks from Hugh Grant and Bill Nighy than anything else. It's interesting that it includes commentary from 12-year-old Thomas Sangster (a cousin to Hugh Grant), who was too young to see the movie he was in. The commentary recording session was the first time he'd seen it. Still, it casts a little light on the production, how the film was made, and Curtis's fine sensitivity to aging lovers. And, there is one deleted segment that Curtis should strive to restore, if he ever revisits his film. This is a version of Sangster's run through an airport pursued by security police. Sangster is a gymnastics prodigy. This deleted version shows him demonstrating his athletic prowess, like Douglas Fairbanks Jr., as he flees the guards toward the young girl he loves. Seeing him perform that scene and considering the craft he brought to his sensitive acting, one wonders that he would have been a superior choice over Jeremy Sumpter for Peter Pan in last year's film. This scene is more exciting and fun than the one Curtis included in his movie. When you see it, I think you'll understand what I mean. Also, it nailed the notion for me that the film wanted to be as much satire as romance. In conclusion, I believe this film has a good heart, overall, for it only needed a gentler, smoother beat to live in my heart.