L'amour qu'il nous reste

For the first 20 minutes or so, this film seems set to a thorouhly likeable but rather ordinary film about a nice couple (with nice kids) trying stay friends after a divorce. But then the strange things starts. I really don't want to tell you what they are, you really need to experience it yourself. Suffice to say that this film becomes magical, funny, scary, wise, sad, strange, funny again, and still it's the whole time about this ordinary couple and their wonderful kids, not to mention their dog and an assortment of other animals. A wonderful film, just go see it.

Love That Remains tries so hard to be "high cinema" that it completely forgets about the audience. Almost the entire film is children talking about sexuality, mixed with endless imagery of eggs and cryptic metaphors. But why? Why does cinema have to make everything so difficult, so coded, as if we need a guidebook just to follow along?

For me, cinema should speak to everyone, not just a tiny circle of people who enjoy deciphering symbols. The obsession with turning simple ideas into abstract puzzles strips away any emotional connection. Instead of storytelling, what we get here is pretension - a film that mistakes confusion for depth.

Watching it after Godland made the contrast unbearable. Godland was layered yet clear, poetic yet human. Love That Remains, on the other hand, felt like the director was showing off, pushing "art" for its own sake. The result is alienating, not engaging.

Cinema should not be an exercise in frustration. It should move, challenge, and inspire - without forcing the audience to leave the theater shaking their heads.