I think this movie is hilarious. It's cheesy, it's camp, it's over the top, it's a tad retarded, but it's funny. And just for the record, I hated Dumb and Dumber and am usually a fan of more highbrow comedy, but I could watch this movie over and over again. It reminds me of my girlfriends in goofier moments. Maybe people find it difficult to watch attractive women acting silly and/or crass? Jenny McCarthy seems to garner more vitriol than warranted, and I can't help thinking that the way she looks might have something to do with the anger being spewed in some of these reviews. In any case, if you are female and not afraid of a few fart or period jokes, and are looking for something slightly mindless to watch on a Saturday night, give it a chance.

I often find myself morbidly fascinated by movies that have been labeled as "the worst movie of all time." So one evening while searching in vain on Netflix, I decided to give "Dirty Love" a try, having read so many horrible things about it. I knew it probably would be an awful movie, but the question was whether it would be so bad it's good or just simply be bad.This movie seems to fall into the latter category.There's not much to laugh at in this movie whether the comedy be deliberate or unintentional. Everything about this shoddy production reeks of cheapness: bad lighting, bad writing, bad acting, even bad spelling (a scene at an acting audition has a sign that reads "Quite Please" instead of quiet, seriously). All of this creates a perfect storm of badness that comes to a head in the infamous supermarket scene, a scene that would be nauseating if it weren't so laughably fake looking and over the top. The only reason I could find to continue was to see how much worse it could get.One thing that's really noticeable is the bad cinematography. Many scenes come across as being shot in a dark room (even ones in broad daylight) and the lighting is so unflattering to the normally beautiful Jenny McCarthy that her face looks like the surface of the moon here. Kathy Griffin also looks like she's been ridden hard in a dimly lit psychic parlor. I'd have to wonder if bad makeup jobs were partly to blame here since everything else in this movie is poorly done.The rest of the blame for this travesty sadly rests on Ms. McCarthy's shoulders. Her terrible performance is prominently on display since she is the main character. Her acting is wooden and her delivery is so stilted and unnatural that the scenes that call on her to display actual emotion fall flat because she isn't the slightest bit convincing. She would be the worst actress in this movie were it not for some hilariously inept supporting players and the presence of another legendarily bad actress (more on that later).In a movie this collectively bad, it must also be pointed out that she wrote it too. Thus we are treated to bad characterization, bad plot, and bad dialogue for all. The failed relationship which kickstarts the plot (if you can call it that) comes off as shallow as does the heroine's histrionic reactions to it. Part of the failure is that the ex-boyfriend is portrayed as so irredeemably nasty that one wonders what she saw in him in the first place, and since the relationship is reduced to a short opening monologue, we never find out. From there we are treated to a pointless quest by our jilted heroine to find a guy to make him jealous. We all know that such a guy wouldn't care and to hammer it home, she runs into him everywhere she goes. Other classic hallmarks of bad writing are on display here as well: tired old stereotypes, bad date mishaps, the best friend who truly loves the heroine but can't say it, nor can she see it. The worst is when the script tries to force a moral out of McCarthy's ditzy actress friend by having her tell off a movie director who makes prolific use of the casting couch when she spent the entire movie trying to do the same thing herself. I'm not even going to mention the period scene as its absurdity and contrivances speak for themselves, except that it's badly done in every way imaginable, lack of poor taste notwithstanding.Fortunately, Jenny surrounds herself with a supporting cast that is just as bad as she, if not worse, to take some of the heat off. Honorable mentions go to the spastic magician and the "touch my bass" guy. Their performances are so bizarre that they become distracting. However, none of them can hold a candle to the incomparable Carmen Electra. She plays a street thug wannabe(not so unusual), but her actual "performance" would make Tommy Wiseau proud. I will say one thing though: she really tries here. God love her, she tries. To the film's credit, a character does call out her overall silliness.Credit must also be given to a slumming Eddie Kaye Thomas who displays enough acting chops that his scenes temporarily elevate the film. You almost feel sorry for him in that this is what his career has sunk to. So many bad acting performances can only lead me to add "bad director" to this film's many shortcomings.The most tragic thing of all is that this was clearly a labor of love for Jenny McCarthy. She wrote it, starred in it, and got her then-husband to direct. Since it's so cheap, I'd wager that she probably financed it too. Sadly, the movie can perhaps best be summed up in the audition scene. A man sits next to McCarthy and remarks that she's a shoo-in for the part, to which she replies "Oh, I'm not an actress." Truer words have never been spoken.

What an entertaining movie!I share the critical consensus, that it is poorly made and a failure in all its intended dimensions. But I watch movies a different way, and that allows me to get a lot out of it. In this case, it matters that this is Jenny McCarthy's project.If you do not know her, she was a nude model with artificial breasts who achieved the golden prize, the 'Playmate of the Year.' She was able to create a marketable persona as a lovable ditz. Later, she would become a spokesperson for one of the more dangerous ignorant memes; that vaccines caused her son's autism. What is salient here is that she is a dumb model with an act like the early Goldie Hawn and who married a filmmaker.She gets enough leverage to make her own movie. This was written by her; she plays the main role and her husband directs. So what is it about? Both sides of her: a vacuous supermodel who has no understanding of 'real love' and who spends the movie involved in embarrassing his hapless lover. She physically plays that target, who is a photographer like her husband..Among the embarrassments we are supposed to find comedic: her jilted tantrums; being vomited on; publicly slipping in a pool of her menstrual blood; having her breasts exposed in public; volunteering for casual sex with a couple losers; any number of silly 'girl talk' episodes; an extended drugtaking sequence and the final wrapup (where she finds her true love) triggered by a ridiculous belief in fortunetelling.To emphasize the embarrassments, we have two on-screen observers in her roommates, also extreme stereotypes. One, played by Kam Heskin, is actually effective because it finds the comedic balance Jenny misses.So, the fold here is simple: a woman's real life, exploited by her. It is supposed to leverage a dumb blond stereotype on screen and fails, but succeeds if you know that the created it herself.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

i love this movie! i watched this film and i thought it was just OK. Later, i found myself telling my friends about this film, as parts of it are just hilarious. soon i found myself watching this movie again with friends,family and coworkers and everyone loving it, at times i had to hit the pause button to wait for people to stop laughing so they wouldn't miss anything. my feelings towards this film quickly changed, I LOVE THIS MOVIE! i would not change a thing. i thought it was a good story, well directed, a good soundtrack, and the facial expressions alone are too much. i do not understand why so many of the other reviews here seem to be so angry. Its a fun film! relax and enjoy.