buddylove447 Sorry, but I want to have a rant here. A number of top critics have used almost identical sentences in their reviews of this film, namely - " It shows how far America has come in its views of race and equality - and how far is left to go" This is of course complete rubbish, but sounds good. This film does show how far we have come, but how can the film show how far (as most will agree) we still have to go ? What disappointed me here was that a key civil rights case and the bigger picture are almost ignored for a love story that focuses on the couple themselves as the story. Hence, for example, the fact that Mildred Loving claimed on a number of occasions to be of Indian heritage and denied her black heritage, and that her marriage certificate identifies her as Indian is not mentioned in the film, and so the reasons behind this have been forgotten about. Instead of focusing on the bigger picture the film has to resort to creating drama when possibly there was none.......ie it is imagined that Richard Loving is pursued or followed by a car which he thinks contains unidentified persons wishing to do him harm (cue dramatic music, car chase etc)......all very exciting, for a minute (but hardly Bullitt)..... but is it true -----well there is a much evidence for that as there is him finding a brick in his car, again this creates tension and a sense of persecution. Ten minutes of the film is given over to showing Life photographer Grey Villet in their home - is that really key to this story ? Nope, but it creates a cameo role for Shannon and shows yet more scenes of the Lovings in love, as if the film needed more of them. If Nichols wanted to create a love story, and feels that is more important than the bigger picture then I would have liked to know how they met, what the attitudes of both Richard's and Mildred's families were to their romance, what barriers they encountered, but instead this is a film about an important civil rights issue masquerading as a romance. I found it disappointing and a bit dull. Performances are very good, especially from Ruth Negga.

popcorninhell The sad, shameful story of Loving comes undiluted from an American past we consistently fail to acknowledge. In 1958 Richard Loving (Edgerton), a white resident of Caroline County, Virginia wedded his young love Mildred Jeter (Negga) a colored woman. Subsequently, the couple was arrested for violating Virginia's miscegenation law, and given the choice to either leaving the state or serving a year in jail. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," the judge wrote. "The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."Unsurprisingly, Loving stands against the above sentiment with uncommon poise and magnanimity. By virtue of existing and existing at a time when racial relations in America seem to be headed backwards, Loving can be considered a valiant parable. Upon further research one can also appreciate the film's historical accuracy; Mildred Loving did in- fact mail Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and the Loving case itself was not a purposeful cause by activists, but rather a couple who naively thought the state would turn a blind eye to their love.Yet somewhere in between Loving's pre-production and post-production all semblance of enthusiasm, charisma, and charm was lost. Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga, otherwise accomplished actors, stumble through scene to scene pigeon-toed; understating everything from cautious late-night drives to the struggle of maintaining an engine block. Of course the gamble to understate everything could have worked, if we were given room to breathe. But sadly the editing is too coarse to allow our able cast to carry the scene through. It's as if director Jeff Nichols didn't have faith that audience members would have patience so he tried to have it both ways – deliberate pace; snappy editing.What's left in the scattershot is just gravitas – a film so confident in its message that it doesn't feel the need to back up its careful, albeit beautiful compositions with any real drama. Loving's complete lack of urgency follows the film like a cipher, disabling it from becoming anything more than a slow-paced drudge. Perhaps I'm more speaking to the politics of the day but the contents of this film deserves a bullhorn not a whisper.

VimalaNowlis There are so many problems with this movie. What a waste of a good story! They must have loved each other very deeply for them to risk everything and defy society. Yet, in this movie, there is no chemistry between the two leads. It's so miscast, it's hard to imagine they even like each other. I understand the focus on this movie is the couple and not the case. Yet, they made an impact at all precisely because of the landmark case. By barely skimming the Supreme Court case, it lost the point of the story. And the pacing is so slow, one could take naps between changing scenes without missing anything. It made the dramatic story very boring. What a shame! What a waste of a good story!

donaldricco A good film about a really important case in our nation's history. And it brings to late a shameful period of our collective past that we should never forget. Amazing that a case like this involved a family named Loving! Ruth Negga is awesome in her role, though Joel Edgerton never warmed up for me. And the film drags a bit, costing it a star in my mind. But the story is five stars all the way, and it is a film that should be seen by all! And that last image... wow. Powerful.