No offense, flork, but I thought this movie was actually pretty good, right around a 6 or 7, and I think that a movie you like, Atonement, was pure drivel. Keira Knightley is horrendous, and if that movie followed the book, I'd never read it. Fortunately the people I've discussed the book with found it far more realistic and less melodramatic, overacted, and sophomoric (read: bad) than the movie. The academy did well to give it a look for its music, which is above average, but even still, Greenwood should have won with his haunting and perfect score (unfortunately he couldn't be nominated). To consider Atonement literary, at least in its adaptation, is to consider novels that carry you along solely on sentimentality and banality literary. Harlequin romances are not, I repeat NOT literary.
Likewise, to argue that a movie's acting ruins it based solely upon them not being actor is to ignore much of Italian neorealism, French New Wave, and many classic movies, which is a faux pas indeed, and the acting in this movie was not nearly as bad as you say it was.
The script is uninteresting? Name another script that challenges the public perception of erectile dysfunction. The love story here, though not refined in the least, was entirely believable, which is a lot more than I can say for.. anyway. More believable than most love stories? Without a question.
I would argue that this movie is probably better than I first thought, simply because of two points: both songs by The Refused. For a director to use songs like these is to nod toward the political grassroots underground in a sly, faux-regular way. The movie seems so typical and "uninteresting", but underneath it is a real challenge to mainstream concepts and reality, done through humor and song - typically the only way we can challenge big, amorphous concepts like race, class, and gender.
This movie was really good and so was Kopps. Classics!