User reviews

I know I only rated it a seven out of ten but that's because I admit this film's faults. It certainly isn't near perfect but I felt very moved by the characters and their story. Lots of people may not be able to relate to this film however those of us that do can say that everything about this depiction of love has been experienced and is real. As a grown single adult living in today's dating world I can attest that the relationship between Murphy and Electra exists. Their obsession with each other and with sex that led them into a deep and possibly unreal infatuation was honest and thought provoking. Love sometimes doesn't make sense and can't be described or made logical. Their connection was what drove them into darkness, madness and despair. Love is completely all consuming on any level it's represented on. So many times have I given myself up for something that a year later I looked back on and couldn't reconcile my behavior, and so many times have I given myself up to something to only sabotage it before it completely devoured me. I don't know if I have been in love, but I have felt what these characters are going through and I wouldn't know what else to call it. In the vein of Harmony Korine and Lars von Trier I think Gasper Noe is a genius. Yes this movie is uncomfortable, yes the acting isn't great and yes the story is dry, but it's a genuine take on what relationships look like for some people in their mid twenties to early thirties and I loved every second of it.

Love is kind of an exhausting film to watch, but based on how the film is shot and edited, I understand that that's probably its intention.

I came out of this film feeling that Love is not the idealistic thing it is made out to be. It's visceral, primal, disgusting, and somewhat like an illness. So much of this film is shot and edited so starkly that the sex scenes, especially, are exceptionally uncomfortable and bordering on repulsive to watch.

Coming away from this film, it was very clear to me that this is offering criticism of the quality of millennial relationships. As youth are bound to be, this film shows how sex-obssessed young people can be but juxtaposes it with the failure of experimentation with polyamory which I found really added color and an interesting dynamic to its commentary. There's this obsession with sex and being open to the same kind of free love that existed in the hippie counter culture of the American 1960s, but millennials aren't hippies and still idealize monogamous relationships - making the celebration of free expression of sexuality to be incredibly difficult, if not, impossible.

Love had me thinking but it's not a film I would recommend to the casual moviegoer or for those who aren't into the more artistic, independent side of film making.

I respect this film for what it has to say as there is more to this film than what I mentioned, which gives it great thematic depth, but I can't say I want to see it again any time soon.

I always have problems with beginnings – the beginning of an article, the beginning of a film, the beginning of a relationship, simply because beginnings are crucial in setting the tone and pattern that will lead you all the way through till the end. Naturally being affected by all the negative social media propaganda that Gaspar Noé's Love (2015) has stirred, I was reluctant to even begin watching it because I am inclined to believe that films with explicit sexual content (except for Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac, and I will tackle why in another review) are made either to sell like cheap porn for lucrative reasons or to assume a false air of originality and experimentation. I have finally decided to watch Love after it was recommended by a trusted friend of mine, and at the end of the day, one has to constantly push their limits in terms of artistic tolerance.

Back to the beginnings, Love begins with a three-minute scene taken in one shot by a steady camera of two people having what seems to be – and what actually turns out to be – unsimulated sex. After overcoming my feelings of discomfort, I started to understand what the Argentinian director is trying to do here. Is it a pornographic scene? It definitely is. But is it meant to be sexually arousing? I would have to argue for a no. Sexual excitement requires a certain amount of build-up, but jumping directly and unexpectedly into the act generates nothing but feelings of shock and unease that would need some time to fade away.

The story then unfolds in a backward linear plot. We are introduced to Murphy (the man in the opening sex scene), a frustrated young man who lives in a small apartment in Paris with his detached girlfriend and their son. The memory-evoked reversed narrative is instigated by a voice message he receives from the mother of his ex-girlfriend Electra (the woman from the opening sex scene), asking for his help to find her daughter. The man and the woman from the first sex scene are no longer strangers; we get to see how they broke up, how they managed their relationship, and finally how they met, with a heap of very long unsimulated sex scenes in between.

As a voyeur (a person who discreetly watches other people in intimate, usually sexual, positions) I was extremely confused since the enjoyment element was missing. Is it because the sex scenes were too many, too long, too real, or too unnecessary? In one of the scenes Murphy says, as a cunning gesture to voice Gaspar Noé's desire, his biggest dream is to make a movie like no other that truly portrays sentimental sexuality. He also tells Electra: "I want to make movies out of blood, sperm and tears. This is like the essence of life. I think movies should contain that, perhaps should be made of that." Well, we see a lot of sperm and tears in that film, there is no doubt about it. It is true Love depicts relationships from an exceptionally crude, raw angle I have never seen before. Sex in cinema – and in life in general – is an uncanny subject; it lies at the essence of everything, everybody knows it is there, yet nobody talks about it overtly.. not in realistic terms at least. The film feels emotionally real. Too real. And not just when it comes to sex, but also to dialogue and performance. In one scene, Murphy tries to get Electra back and he keeps knocking on her door, after a few seconds she opens the door, apparently under the influence of drugs, and screams at him in the most deranged manner you could ever imagine. The camera does not move; it feels like a terrified neighbor watching the scene from the stairs. Most of the camera movement and angles follow the same pattern throughout the movie: the neutral uninvolved medium shot. Mid-film I realized it was not the sex scenes that made me uncomfortable but the fact that the film is devoid of any cinematic, stylistic euphemisms. In conventional romantic films, there is an invisible line separating the romantic from the sexual – love from desire. The subtle message is always: love is sublime and desire is vulgar. The reality of the things, and as presented in the film, is that both are inseparable in their sublimity and vulgarity.

I cannot tell for sure whether I like it or not. Cinema, as Slavoj Žižek puts it, is "the ultimate pervert art" because it does not directly satisfy our desires but manipulates them. It does not show us our capabilities, but give us the illusion that we are capable. Cinema draws the line between imagination and reality and keeps crisscrossing the boundary: it takes imaginary elements and roots them in reality, and sugarcoats real elements in imaginary wraps. The trick is not to call a spade a spade, i.e. not to place two firm feet on one side of the spectrum; otherwise you would shake the balance between reality and imagination that the viewer cannot find in real life.

Whatever your sentiments are towards the film, Noé – purposefully or inadvertently – raises some important issues: what if cinema does away with the aesthetics of presentational euphemism? Would it undermine its role as an artistic medium? Would it put the viewer on the defensive, being constantly faced with the unrefined reality of what (s)he dreads/desires?

The way I see it is that Noé created an extremely stimulating film, not sexually as he probably desired but intellectually and sentimentally.

I'm grateful I watched Love alone and had the chance to struggle with and make sense of all those feelings and thoughts by myself. I can imagine how uncomfortable it would be watching it in a movie theater with other people, let alone how the actors felt while shooting!

This film tells the story of a man trapped with his wife and child, yet he keeps on thinking about his ex-girlfriend who is not contactable. The story then winds back in time to tell how his relationships with his ex-girlfriend and his wife come about.

I have heard about the gratuitous explicit sex scenes in the film, and indeed there is a prolonged sex scene every five minutes. The story is quite interesting, as the man reflects and reminisces about Elektra, who is so adventurous that she becomes increasingly unstable. The problems encountered by the man are quite real life, and viewers can easily relate to his situation. What strikes me is that the lighting effects of the film is very remarkable, the use of focused lighting enhances the mood a lot. The slow strobe effect in the swingers' club is captivating. Overall, "Love" is worth a watch as it depicts real life relationship problems.

Let's just get this out of the way, there is a lot of unsimulated sex in this movie. This is definitely on par with porn, but since it was shot with "real" actors it was allowed in theaters. I did see somewhere online that there is a super cut of all the sex scenes from this and it comes in at just under 30 minutes, so let that inform your decision to watch or not.

This is a story of a couple that are in a very sexual relationship and decide to invite their beautiful neighbor to join them. This causes problems.

If you like 9 Songs then you will most decidedly like this. Love probably features more sex but does offer a lot more plot as well.

Plot

Murphy is an American living in Paris who enters a highly sexually and emotionally charged relationship with Electra. Unaware of the effect it will have on their relationship, they invite their pretty neighbor into their bed.

Cast

Not familiar with the cast but brought to you by Gaspar Noé, the man who gave us Climax (2018) and the highly controversial Irreversible (2002), he clearly has a "Style". Notable mention regarding Aomi Muyock who was just, dreadful.

Verdict

I've just done my top 10 French movies and have to say it's not a great selection, me and French cinema have never been on the same page especially when it's come to horror movies.

Love is an award winning "Art" film and wow do I use that term loosely. Evidence that if the right people call it art then enough people will consider it as such. Love is an adult film, let's not kid ourselves and I don't mean as in it's aimed at adults I mean this is adult entertainment, the stuff that would be in the backroom of a video store behind a curtain. Get me?

The opening scene was a drawn out emotionally dead sequence which was graphic and set the tone but immediately made me question what I was watching.

The movie is advertised as a a drama/romance. Let me be clear this has a lot of drama, but none of it is engaging. You'll hate the characters and be frustrated that there are more "Adult" scenes that dramatic content. And romance? Don't make me laugh, there's nothing romantic about this film. It focuses on a highly toxic relationship that should never have been.

This is not a movie, it's pornography.

Rants

Let me be clear, I'm no prude and have no problem with sex and nudity in films in the slightest. However that's all this is, I don't understand why they dressed this up as a legitimate film or why it got the praise it did. There is a very fine line between this and the average Jenna Jameson movie so why is that smut and this is art?

Breakdown

Barely a movie Aomi Muyock was awful This is not art.

I have nothing against sex. I love it, I love watching it but this was painful. The sex was hot but the story and the acting was terrible. I think it was not worth it and very very long. I can see what the director was trying to do but he missed the mark. For the same kind of story with the sex dial down and the story dial up I would suggest The Dreamers. This story could be told in about 30 min, add maybe 30 min to get invested in the characters and that would be good. 2h is way to long for this and 5 min sex scene every 10 min is too much. Like the title says. Watch porn it will be more fulfilling.

Now for the actual review. The plot is simple. It is a guy reflecting on a past relationship. The guy is a little to dysfunctional to be in a healthy one but it is not extreme. The only real question you have during the movie does not get answered and that is about it. I would not recommend this to anyone.

The script is laughable and the acting (often voice-over), too. The 3D sex is well marketed. And yes, during certain scenes people got up and left. Yet. The film doesn't argue to be anything beyond a meandering stroll into the gallows melancholy. And it does this very very well. The film features no highbrow intellectual conversations but instead, favors the same lines you've probably slung at your lovers. Again and again and again. Just like the sex you've had with your lovers again and again and again. You know their bodies and you know how to please them and above all, you know how to hurt them. Sorrow. There's a resplendent simplicity here that hypnotizes the viewer.

You hear music banging inside the club, yet the lovers are outside in halflight. Having sex, obviously. This is a good image of what this film surprisingly achieves best: intimacy. And it fights for that with it's magnificent camera-work and editing.

But what would this review be if it didn't talk about the 3D sex? Love and cinema are inseparable. Love stories are why you stick glued to a chair for a couple of hours. Raw sex is part of love, yet, films used to cut to birds necking after a kiss. Then it became steamy windows. Signs, metaphors, analogies, semiotic nausea. And here, Noé takes that away which makes the film even coarser, and ultimately more brutal.

I wanted to write this review because the whole marketing ("finally a love story restricted for -16) and shock value (an eye-rolling warning in the opening credits) have cheapened what this film has achieved and I encourage viewers to look beyond.

As thought provoking and stylish as you'd expect. Kind of like a hybrid of Enter the Void, Nymphomaniac, The Lobster and Weekend. You can feel the love that has gone into this film.

The sex is both beautiful and ugly. It's not porn, more like an aestheticized version of somebody's personal sex tape, but one designed to provoke contemplation more than any other response. To feel any more real it would need to be in the style of a documentary, which would have the effect of distancing you from the characters. I didn't feel like I was experiencing the story directly (as I do with good suspense movies), but I did want things to work out well for the characters. If you judge a movie by how much the pacing and suspense immerses you, you won't enjoy Love. If you can be immersed into a movie's atmosphere and want something to feed your imagination, then you will get a lot from it.

A lot of reviews and comments on IMDb seem to say it is not a thought provoking movie, or that it is pretentious, yet the poster was moved to write about their thoughts on it, so it certainly isn't empty. I found talking about it can result in the conversation going to some very interesting places.

It has earned a place in the history of cinema, and is hopefully a step away from the feelings of shame people feel about sex, a step towards greater freedom in art, culture and cinema.

'Love' will most likely be discredited by many due to it's sheer honesty, like many films of it's kind are. Yet this honesty, as brutal and daring as it might seem, feels necessary to connect with and understand what the characters are going through, on an entirely new emotional level. In the words of Murphy, Gaspar Noe might have made the only movie that truly depicts 'sentimental sexuality'.

'Love' has many subtle and not-so-subtle references to the underlying story and to the director himself. Gaspar's mother is named Nora Murphy, while Murphy's son is named Gaspar and Electra's ex boyfriend - Noe. His favorite movie is Kubrick's '2001', while hers is Lang's 'M', both of which seem to fuel Murphy and Electra's behavior throughout the movie, where Murphy is often aimlessly overwhelmed with hope and desire, while Electra seems unable to forgive.

Gaspar Noe constantly cuts through the past and the future, using the techniques he is so familiar with since Irreversible. The movie abruptly switches between various stages of Murphy's and Electra's relationship, always cutting back to the present, where Murphy's is in absolute emotional agony and despair, raising a child with Clara.

At times Murphy and Electra are so deeply engrained in one another that their fights and dialogues seem outright comical and immature, as if we are observing a 16 year- old couple. But this is truly where 'Love' stands out. Being in love feels and looks exactly like this, it's raw, emotional and brutal yet foggy and sweet; when no one else exists or matters.

In one of Electra's and Murphy's conversations they talk about the sad reality that they are going nowhere and dragging each other down, they discuss taking a break. It is an extremely sad and emotional scene, where the thought itself brings so much fear into them, that they simply end up holding each other even tighter.

The script for 'Love' is only 7 pages long. It is full of beautiful and weird dialogues and extremely emotional, 'free-played' graphic scenes. These scenes however are not there to impress the viewer or open the doors to the unknown. This is also not a nymphomaniac-like sexual exploration. Gaspar Noe does a masterful job in showing us the true emotional aspect of love, in it's raw and relatable form, sex.

The sound-score is stunning, with the music gradually changing depending on the mood and the context of the scenes. Even though a lot of times it seems like we are watching the same people 'fuck' in the same positions, different context, feelings and music make each of these scenes truly unique and mesmerizing on it's own.

Noe also does a wonderful job in his minimalistic depiction of the story and the scenery. Murphy and Electra always wear contrasting colors, while the background is usually very simple yet fitting to them both. As if to say that when in love, everything should be seen through the eyes of the lovers.

'Love' might sometimes seem silly, overly graphic and way too sentimental, yet it hits all the right notes.

... and no I am not talking about the characters in the film, I am talking about what happens when an A-list director "falls in love" with the idea of doing a sexually explicit film.

I want to be clear about this and I think the data will bear me out. Make a list of all the films in the last 100 years by A-list directors who felt confident they could infringe on territory formerly occupied only by the porn industry and still prevail with a hit film...? Are you done? I will save you time. I did the list myself. And the answer is none, zero, zip, nada.

Just like there are in the porn industry a handful of directors who constantly try to push the boundaries of their craft into the mainstream (which almost always means soft light and lots of white sheets, films that most resemble a commercial for TIDE) Noe, a brilliant artiste (Irreversible and Enter the Void were both brilliant) tried to push the envelope .. and ended up with junk mail.

Sure, if you are determined to see a silk purse where others are seeing a sow's ear, you could pretend that this film has a great deal to say about men's expectations about love and marriage.

But this is a review just between the writer and the reader, and we respect each other too much to lie. So I will be clear -- Noe went where angels fear to tread. And ended up with a film that, for posterity, is simply not going to make his A-reel.

Love is Gaspar Noe's latest film. It's essentially porn. Long, drawn out sequences of sex throughout. But there's a story, and that's what could be interesting about this film. Not since the early 70's has pornographic films experimented telling actual stories instead of just getting straight to business. Nymphomaniac is the last film of the modern era that attempted this, and it absolutely blew me away. This would've been fascinating, but instead, it's PAINFULLY boring. The story line and dialogue sucks. I didn't feel for anyone in this film. The acting was extremely stilted, but in porn films that's pretty much the norm. The cinematography is the only standout. It's beautiful to look at, as most Gaspar Noe films are. However, I despised the black screen that would appear every time there was a cut. As well as the many shots of the main character standing inside a doorway with his back turned to the camera, listening to an annoying voicemail. Why did he do that? Why would he think that would work? If there's a profound reason for those two editing decisions, I'd like to know.. not that it would make me feel any differently, I still hate it. Love is not only a missed opportunity, it's a film I'll never remember, or want to remember.

Overly ambitious project about a millennial love arc that ends in heartbreak, but what are the lessons learned? Murphy (Karl Glusman) is an open-minded film student in Paris who meets Elektra (Aomi Muyock), and the two embrace their high sex drives with giddyness. However, after the relationship embraces polyamory and swingers culture, only one of the two is emotionally stable enough to handle it.

The film is directed really well by Noé, who by now should know well enough how to make it all super claustrophobic and uncomfortable for the viewer. The cinematography is good but relies too heavily on saturation but it's never really an issue. Nonlinear storytelling is clear, concise, and there's some really neat editing at parts. The story does drag often, and the film overall could've cut out 10-15 minutes of filler.

The real issue with "Love" is the lack of chemistry between Murphy and Elektra -- we just don't see it, pretty much ever. The writing is there, but the actors just cannot grasp it. This is largely because -- are you ready? -- they aren't actors; Noé met both Glusman and Muyock in a club one night and asked them to star. It's clear that he wanted to achieve the most organic and natural relationship dynamic on-screen by not using "real actors" -- but in what is supposed to be an emotionally charged film, that just doesn't work.

In fact, in a sort of disturbingly surreal manner, the very same issues that the film is trying to highlight in millennial relationships (emotional maturity and boundaries over sex) seem to show up in the unsimulated sex scenes between Glusman and Muyock. Glusman constantly falls out of character, allowing his own sexual desire to ruin the scene and any emotional impact Noé was looking for. Muyock seems bored and uninterested -- and who could blame her? -- likely due to Glusman's obvious zeal about getting paid to fuck her. I'm not sure he entirely understood the fact he was in an art film, and in remaining ignorant, he ends up verifying Noé's entire thesis: young adults, especially men, get lost in the idea of sexual nirvana over the thing that truly matters: love.

The second half of the film lifts the veil on Murphy's narcissistic and emotionally abusive behavior in the relationship, and tragically, Glusman is a good actor when portraying an unstable douchebag (and Muyock is phenomenal when screaming at him).

The film finishes the same place it starts, seeming to depict Murphy at rock-bottom in a horrible and accidental family dynamic: a fitting bookend to a relationship that was destroyed not by too much sex, but his own fear of it. The ending is eerie and powerful, and hints at the generational ripples that will be felt for decades because of his own actions. It's a great story, and sort of well-acted, but it ends up merely tripping up on its own interpretation of reality instead of offering us anything particularly new.

No one was able to walk out of the theater this evening as the director Gaspar Noe was in the audience. I'm certain he took note of folks laughing at scenes meant to have profound emotional impact, like the entire ending.

Little character development with the main character's 17 yr old wife, or 18, they had sex when she was 16, nothing more than a prop. Their child, the unintended creation of a broken condom, is named "Gaspar". The wife is an orphan of sorts, unwanted by her mother but somehow has the cash and wherewithall to rent an apt in Paris and do nothing more than go clubbing, listen to her iPod and bang strangers.

Profoundly self-indulgent about lost love, but hard to take seriously when the lost love happens between supposed college students (we never see the college, college books or a single classmate) living and partying in Paris, none of whom even are even remotely worth caring about. Except perhaps the teenage wife, after she gives birth, but again her only role is to get banged, have a kid and though otherwise absolutely gorgeous, kind and loving as only a supermodel with minimal lines can be, this one only serves to annoy the hell out of the main character.

Reminded me of Brown Bunny, but that was a film with guts. This is just an excuse to film cumshots in 3D, wrapped around a plot that never went anywhere with no sense of finality or a hint of revelation or completion. In fact, the movie had to flash a massive THE END for the audience to know the film was over.

While I didn't try to think of the song, the line "Baby don't hurt me ... don't hurt me no more" came to mind. And it's not like it doesn't suit or fit with the movie (if you excuse the pun). And let's get this out of the way straight ahead: If you didn't or don't already know, this movie has scenes of explicit sex in it. And it begins with a masturbation scene, to shock you right out of the gate (or those who will be offended by it of course).

It goes without saying that this is full of nudity. You may not have seen this actors before, but you'll see everything of them in this. It's not only being naked physically, but also mentally. Laying emotions out there and going through motions (literally and metaphorically) is draining. Both for the actors and the viewers. The story is simple. It's about love or the idea of it.

Which brings us back to our initial question. Are we able to appreciate what we have? Or do we long for things we can't have? Can we be happy with the person we spend our time or is the temptation for something new too big? Obviously that depends on the individual and their "world" view. Also their emotional state. The movie is as you can tell not an easy watch ... for multiple reasons. The message is clear though ...

You never quite know what you're going to get from Gaspar Noe and he doesn't disappoint here. As he did with Enter the Void and Irreversible he has created a film that will not soon leave your heart, mind and soul in Love. Love is a story of mass proportions and a film to be watched carefully.

The plot was really really good it's emotional Complex and sad. Where this film fails is shockingly the sex. There's too much weird I know. But really it doesn't add a ton to the relationship especially with omni. There's definitely some uneeded scenes. I get that sex was important in there relationship and it would be fine to show that but Jesus christ does this movie spend a load of time with it. I found the interactions between characters much more interesting. Just too long and the payoff was.. OK I guess it's a tragedy piece in a lot of sense but the landing was meh. I would of preferred more time with omni and the aftermath of.what happend.. Still it's a solidd movie that depicts very real things and issues.

Porn disguised as an artsy love story. 95% of the movie was sex and the rest was going to clubs, drinking, and drugs. Did these people even have jobs? Do yourself a favor and watch a porno. At least they have plots.

Even though the acting could be better, it is a very nice movie to watch. Sex through deep love is just beautiful. Worth to watch.

Love, a film by the provocative French director Gaspar Noe, offers a unique perspective on sex and relationships. While it can be considered an arthouse porn movie, Love's well-crafted cinematography and authentic portrayal of relationships make it intriguing.

Notably, the film sparked discussions due to its unsimulated sex scenes. Noe treats these sequences like meticulously choreographed action pieces, broken up by scenes of dialogue and drama. While one could debate the necessity of these scenes, they undeniably contribute to the film's pursuit of authenticity, as the actors genuinely engage in sexual acts. This rawness adds a level of intimacy seldom witnessed on screen. This added realism is necessary, as the acting, while serviceable, is never great.

However, the inner monologue of our protagonist, Murphy, often comes across as painfully pretentious and grating, detracting from the overall experience. Similarly, the confrontations between Murphy and Electra are cringe-inducing, intentionally highlighting the discomfort and awkwardness that often accompanies real-life relationship conflicts when viewed from the outside.

At 134 minutes, the film is too long, especially when the main character is as unlikeable and toxic as Murphy. It's surprising that a movie titled Love presents such a pessimistic view of love and monogamy, yet this unexpected perspective enhances the film's intrigue and allure.