Love

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.