Booooring!


If this movie were 1 hour shorter maybe it would be an ok picture, but its scenes are too slow, meaningless and linger foverer and ever.....the whole plot is shown in the first 30 minutes of the movie, and then the rest of it is just circling around the same lame story. Besides, the acting is really bad, which is understandable in a movie that shows explicit unsimulated sex (good actors probably refused the role, so they have to go with whoever was available). Anyway, its a very weak, long and boring movie. Soundtrack is good and some of the sex scenes are beautifully shot, but that's about it. When the movie ended, I was relieved the torture was over.

reply

I am a fan of "I Stand Alone" (which is my favourite of his), "Irreversible" and "Enter the Void". I am aware that Gaspar Noe is not the world's greatest filmmaker. But I respect his conscious effort to overwhelm the audience with excess (or that which is difficult to watch).

However, this film was bottomlessly horrible. The most effective scene of the entire film was the opening scene where the two leads are masturbating each other. There were later flickers of drama and a few good bits of acting by Aomi Muyock, but mostly this film is a waste of 2hrs and 15mins (what feels like five hours).

No script or story and no sense of purpose to the tedious assemblage of painfully redundant scenes. At the center of what makes "Love" such a terrible film is Karl Glusman's lack of acting ability. Worst casting in living memory. About as convincing as a wood block. Particularly when was tasked with sputtering sophomoric drivel like "Are you afraid of death?" or the apparent afterthought of his character (and his girlfriend Electra) being an artist/filmmaker. When Glusman exclaims that he is shocked that Electra has never seen 2001 he comes across like a drunk jock that was pulled off the sidewalk in front of a club and handed the line of dialogue cold.

Hollow, tedious dreck. No heart and no brain. Even the sex gets boring after 15 mins.

"the roman empire never died, it just turned into the catholic church"

reply

Given I understand Gaspar Noe is an acquired taste, I'm not surprised people don't like it and wouldn't criticize that point-of-view. I also gather that you weren't wrong to come away with this particular perspective.

However, I thought the film was an observation of two personalities: The borderline personality of Electra, and Murphy, a needy, controlling and utterly dependent person. The repeated up and down of it seemed to convey the inherent destructive and self-destructive qualities of the opposing personalities. If it was tedious, I imagine so was the relationship. Ultimately, it was a character study of disastrous personalities.

Keep it civil. It's not that important.

reply

[deleted]

I thought this movie was going to be about "love". It's nothing more than a glorified pornography. 30 minutes is about 23 minutes to long. Pointless erotism, drug use, voyerism. No point but just somebody getting off. Why would anyone pay to watch this filth? Sorry, maybe to puritanical viewpoint, but jc can't anyone make a movie without exploitation. Pure Crap.

reply

This film isn't really about love. It's about the addiction to the "feeling" of as weakly defined by it's lead character Murphy. He seems to desire the pursuit of it, as well as the pain, rejection, anger, passion, sexuality and interdependence in it. But he weakly defined it, and thus he sought it in the most destructive personality.

The nudity and drug use didn't seem pornographic as it wasn't particularly enticing, but rather a reflection of the revolving door of emotions associated in the relationship. So while I certainly understand why people came away disliking the film, it wasn't about nothing or just for the sake sexual exploitation. It may have weakly communicated what it was about, but it wasn't for the sake of itself.

Ultimately, it's a film to be analyzed, and those not interested in analyzing such films or topics will be left flat... meaning most people.


Keep it civil. It's not that important.

reply

like cheap porno film

reply

Enough with red strobe light effect already! He's been using it in every film of his for the last 20 years!

reply

Agreed.

тrυe coυrage ιѕ noт aвoυт ĸnowιng wнen тo тaĸe a lιғe, вυт wнen тo ѕpare one.

reply

Worse than Irrevrsible...Why he always starts films as an insult to the spectator-boring sex scene, the whining kids then slooow boring shots and bad acting and yes, enough with the red lighting already.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

this film is nearly on par with antichrist as being among the worst films i've ever seen. this is a pretentious film for a pretentious audience. period. like you, i was happy when it was over.

reply

Besides, the acting is really bad, which is understandable in a movie that shows explicit unsimulated sex (good actors probably refused the role, so they have to go with whoever was available). Anyway, its a very weak, long and boring movie.



I skimmed through this film last night because i was bored so i guess they were at least able to reach a target audience with this one . I find it fascinating how people with a brain no matter the size could be so blinded to the stench of crap like this that they would give it a 6.1 rating .You have got to be a special kind of stupid to rate this that high .i skimmed through it this movie was bad it was a downhill crash n burn type of ride that just never left the ground.The acting bad simply because there was no acting here it doesn't take talent to have unsimulated sex on camera just have to have no shame no names are the only people who would do this .Even with all the sex in this film the throwing the pasta at the wall to see what sticks is something you'd expect from amateurs not someone whos been making films with experience .There's really no reason to recommend a film like this for anyone to see unless your a hipster i wouldn't even recommend this to a pervert as it would just be a waste of time theres plenty of free online porn services where you could see the same kind of material in shorter clip segments .This is just a love letter from gaspar to gaspar if your bored out of your skull got nothing else going on for your self at the time you could check it out other than that complete snoozefest

" Gonads are very useful for their purpose, but they are no substitute for brains "

reply

The film was bad, but nowhere near as bad as your punctuation.

reply

Thank you, kriket7119. That is the only thing I could concentrate on while reading through that guy's rambling

"I've been practicing your arcane western healing arts on my blind neighbor, Simon"

reply

[deleted]

i agree, it reminded me of a different type of movie; Action Movies not all but the very particular one(s) are those that use Action for the sake of Action, it could be called Explosive and Car Chase Porn; those type of Action Movies that don't have any sort of Plot/Character Development/Dialog, just stuff that goes "Boom".

Now if Love was suppose to be a sarcastic/ironic attempt at pointing out the average Movie-Goers likes in Entertainment then I would say it was pretty brilliant.

Having said that; I get the feeling that somewhere in the brainstorming process that idea got lost (you can tell how the movie really changes tone after that first hour or so) and it tries to be some sort of "Deep" movie when if it would've just stayed with the original idea without trying to be pretentious, then it would've succeeded.

The movie is decent for the first hour give or take, yes, that's with the bad acting, horrible dialog, and all the other things. I mean i was actually interested in this movie until it just started jumping into random events that felt like they were there just to try and shock people, even if I were to say that those were the events he decided to reflect on, it's still like ehhhhh.

The movie drags on a lot, the actors are very limited in terms of "acting" abilities but they aren't shy about banging which is also another irony of this movie that may have been something that was too smart for his own good.

Overall I would give it the same score as I would a mindless action movie. Yes I get that Humans are more inclined to watch mass murder on the big screen which isn't a taboo in our culture but we don't want to see very real life things that this movie presents to the audience.
I get it, but the way I take this movie (as trying to be ironic) I cannot somehow say that it is better than the same types of movies it is suppose to be "exposing".
For me it's about the Story, Film is suppose to tell a Story first and foremost; it can use all the artistic visuals and yadda yadda it wants to, but at the end of the day it's about how well the Story was presented and if the Film succeeded in telling it. Very simple

This film didn't really succeed at anything other than showing off some of the points i brought up earlier about the taboo things that exist in our society and things that aren't taboo that we consider to be entertaining.

It just doesn't have a good flow, a good presentation, I mean of all the things the movie does, the sex is the best part of it; and that's troubling because if the film makers would've changed the pacing around, gave a lil more impactful dialog (yes just in irl we get it, ppl don't talk and yadda yadda) with some of the characters then things could've been very different

it's a 3 or 4 out of 10 to be frank. It tried and failed

reply

Agree, was also bored and the lack of script didn't help.

reply