Amor em Chamas

I found this movie rather uncomfortable viewing and I wondered why the two protagonists were a couple in the first place. There was a lot of confrontation and restless, irritable behaviour and this rubbed off on me. The theatrical origin is clear, as it is in such films as Two Girls and a Guy, and the atmosphere is claustrophobic - this may be intentional. I bought this movie because I wanted to see Russell Crowe's work outwith Gladiator and LA Confidential, and this character is definitely different. Russell plays an American and I think he gave a good performance, as did Salma Hayek. See this film for the sake of the stars or if you need to deal with your anger about breaking up, but it is not a relaxing experience.

It's Salma Hayak's birthday and i wanted something to watch. I found this unknown romantic comedy that looked interesting.

Hayak and Russell Crowe have been together for two and a half years. The only time their relationship works is when they are having sex. The rest of the the time they argue until one leaves. They can't understand why it doesn't work, no matter what they try. That's it. 90 minutes of them breaking up and getting back together to have sex and breaking up and getting back together. It was funny and interesting, and, since Salma was not out of my sight for more than 30 seconds the entire movie, it was satisfying. Not prurient, just satisfying.

What was most interesting is the fact that it was directed by Robert Greenwald. I have everything he has directed in the last four years: Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (2006); Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005); Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004); Uncovered: The War on Iraq (2004); and Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (2003). I have even seen films he has produced, but not directed like "The ACLU Freedom Files". I always thought he did documentaries about things that were wrong with America. I had no idea that he directed movies like "The Burning Bed" or Xanadu. Now I do.

I have always thought that we should fall in love with people for their dreams, and for their efforts to fulfill those dreams--not for their accomplishments. Love a man because he's a brilliant actor and aspires to greatness--not because he can take you to the Oscars when he's nominated for Best Actor.

That philosophy informs my opinion of this movie. It sets out many lofty goals for itself. It wants to demonstrate and lay out for examination the entire plight of heterosexual love/lust. It wants two actors to carry an entire movie virtually by themselves, playing against each other, giving the film a stifled, claustrophobic feeling--where the viewer feels just like Steve and Monica. You love the movie, but you feel breathless and spent, like you've given too much. It wants to tell a story using live on-the-street interviews, black-and-white still photography, slow-mo vignettes, traditional Hollywood-styled cinematography, and a split-screen interview of Steve and Monica post-relationship. It wants to use music and sound to resonate with the storyline. My favorite ten minutes of the film center around the "carrot scene," where Steve criticizes Monica for putting carrots in the pasta. The action stops and moves to b&w stills, with the sounds of their argument carrying over. This technique highlights the alienation that Steve and Monica feel from themselves and their own relationship. Even in the most heated, passionate argument, it's as if they're just going through the motions.

Like I said, this film wants to do a lot of things, and it doesn't succeed at all of them. For instance, it doesn't really pull off its attempt at using Freud, Einstein, and Marx to lend some credence to its own conclusions (or inconclusions) about love. Some people say they never do become very attached to Steve and Monica--indeed, as people, the characters kind of suck. I would not want either one of them for a friend. That does not mean that they do not deserve to be loved, however--they very much deserve each other, that much is clear. So, I bawl like a baby every time I watch this. (I've seen it about 6 or so times). And I love this movie for the greatness it strives toward. I would rather watch a film that fails at its grand project than a little movie that has low expectations and meets them. Big whoop, right? More than this, Breaking Up features two brilliant performances by Russell Crowe and Salma Hayek, who are both quite easy on the eye, and look great together. Salma's fiery spirit is quite a cinematic match for Russell's own undercurrent of simmering violence (even if Steve is a bit whimpy for my tastes). I love this film. Technically, there is so much going on--the director had so many great ideas, so many dreams, and you see them right there, in the movie. I can't think of another Hollywood movie with such a major confluence of established styles and innovative techniques. Brilliant.

Buy this film. It is absolutely worth it, and fans of Russell and/or Salma should know that there are some beautifully-shot, utterly sensuous and compelling love scenes in this film. Those two have *chemistry*.

Steve is a photographer, Monica is a teacher. They don't get along. So it's time for them to break up. Watching two people try to break up for nearly two hours (fortunately, that included lots of commercials) is not my idea of entertainment. Unless they are funny, which these two generally were not.

The film showed promise. At the start, both characters are talking to an unseen interviewer or counselor, or maybe just to the camera (they also talk just to the camera in a later scene). They are giving good performances at that point. Then things go downhill quickly.

The film was not a total waste of time.

The best part of the movie had Steve and Monica doing what appeared to be a documentary, shot in black and white, where they interviewed ordinary people on the street about male-female relationships. These people seemed real and may in fact have been real (they certainly weren't shown in the credits). One little girl said the best thing to do with a man was 'dump him in the garbage'.

Also good: a sequence of fantasies about what the wedding might be like, inside a church, involving a demented minister, an Einstein lookalike, and Steve and Monica both lying on couches with a psychiatrist between them.

Salma Hayek looked good in a swimsuit. Too bad that was only in a fantasy (Steve's, actually) where a Fabio type with Schwarzenegger muscles was bench pressing her.

Several scenes had really good music, most of the good music being real jazz. There was also 40s-style easy listening. And then there was contemporary music that didn't appeal to me at all. (Well, what can you expect when the man in charge of music led Devo?) One scene was spoiled for me when the trumpet and the stand-up bass were cut off prematurely when the couple started bickering again.

I'm not sure what this meant, but several sequences other than the 'documentary' were filmed in black and white with no dialogue from the characters on screen. Two had quick editing and gave the impression of quality. One had Steve and Monica in a restaurant with a series of different dates, in what appeared to be just a few minutes as the camera went back and forth between them.

The only way this could have been a good movie is if it was in fact one of those art films that appeals to the people who go to coffee houses and listen to poetry. I'm not one of those.

What was the point of making this movie. I can't think of one. The movie stars two big name actors but all that happens is they break up get together break up get together.... We get some silly scenes such as Steve in the tub picturing Monica with a guy at the gym. It was obvious the two didn't belong together, so why should the audience care if they break up. That was part of the problem with it besides it just being a stupid idea for a movie.

FINAL VERDICT: Not to good. Don't expect the Russell Crowe from Gladiator in this. I don't recommend it.