Hate, hate, HATED this. First of all, it's a movie called Love that just happens to be utterly cold, dry and emotionally detached, with 0 warmth coming from its characters or their relationship. That's a successful combination. I toyed with the idea of Haneke going the ironic route with his title, making a film about characters with no emotional connection and a bad relationship (it would fit with the daughter's relationship to her parents), but eh, either way it left me totally uninvolved in the story and for the film to work you have to be involved in their relationship. These were just not interesting human beings to me... like at all. People who live "boring" stay at home lives can still be fascinating... but these people were just boring and not fleshed out or layered properly

The film just feels calculated and clinical to me. The wheels are always turning Haneke filming and trying to push his messages, is always present. While Riva and Trintignant are great, they can't save the film from feeling forced and weirdly hollow

Biggest problem though: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. I guess the criticisms above and its clinical coldness in part would be a major reasons for that. But man this is boring. Boring, cold, ugly dreck of a movie.

Incredible. Haneke does it again, only this time he creates a very touching depiction of an old couple dealing with the consequences of aging and illness. The film rings remarkably true, and one of the reasons for this is the screenplay that is full of honesty and compassion. Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva give amazing performances, making these characters and their relationship feel authentic and lived-in. Haneke keeps it intimate and avoids melodrama, and that in turn enables Amour to truly be a heart-wrenching and thought provoking portrayal that will haunt you for days. A

Oh my god this is a great film. I cried like a baby.

The title doesn't fool you- Amour is a movie about love. It's about all of love's happiness, heartbreak and reality, and- in its darkest moments- what love demands. Riva gives a wonderful physical performance, but IMO Trintignant is equally deserving of praise. He's the story of the movie. He quietly suffers in this film- so quiet that a friend compliments him on how well he's taking his wife's emmient demise- and it's both sad and cathartic to see him go over the edge and end it all. The pigeon that he captures and then lets go away encompasses his experience in a profound, quiet (the key word for this movie is 'quiet') way.

Haneke's brilliance in directing and writing this film is holding back. Long takes, overlit realistic shots, no score, seemingly mundane situations, and a disregard for a real sense of narrative continuity in an attempt to make each moment feel as important as it can be. He lets Riva and Trintignant do their thing, and I can't stress enough, they are miraculous.

Enamoured as I am with Amour, I don't know if I'll see it again. Each scene in this film still resonates so vividly, and it's such a roller coaster of an experience. Tarkovsky has that great quote- ''The aim of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and harrow his soul, ren­dering it capable of turning to good.'' I truly believe that if people are brave enough, they should see this movie before they die. I'm thankful I have. It speaks wonders about death and love. (thems fighting words, Gopher!)

And for a movie about old people dying that runs over two hours and takes place almost entirely in one apartment, this just goes by. So you have really no reason not to see it.

A surprise late entry on my top 10 of 2012.

My only complaint is that Jean-Louis Trintignant wasn't nominated for Best Actor at the Academy Awards. His part as Georges is just as crucial to Amour as Emmanuelle Riva. I said elsewhere that if she's the flesh and bone of the story, he's the heart and soul.

The whole thing is perfect though. Yes, it's cold, bleek, stark, bare. But it's also sweet, touching, tragic and, yes, hard to watch.

****

The pigeon was better than both.

Pigeons are typically the best.

Naaaah,... in John Woo's films, they are rather stupid.

Typical Haneke, one shocking scene, surrounded by mediocrity, though here the scene was more predictable than his other films. Acting is solid though.

C+

I don't think it was necessarily meant to be unpredictable. He wasn't going for a Shyamalan-style twist.

I don't mean twists, I mean that usually he has one scene that just comes out of left field (Cache, Benny's Video, Piano Teacher) that is shocking usually for its violence or it's ugliness. The whole film is usually surrounded by that scene. Just saying in comparison to his others, it lacks the one thing his films are usually known for, and you can see coming a mile away.

This. Such an aggravatingly boring movie about old people dealing with being old. Whoop-di-do!

D+ (+ for the acting which was fantastic at times)

Was I the only one impressed by the portrayal of two eighty-something people, struggling through their final years? Typically, old people in movies are wise, wise-cracking, senile-in-a-funny-way and grumpy-in-a-funny-way. Or Betty White.

^ Exactly. Watching both of my grandparents growing senile and dealing with illness before their death, I just found that this film nailed these experiences with great sensitivity and realism.

Honestly I was expecting to be bored senseless. I wasn't in the slightest.

Haneke is hit and miss for me but there's a warmth in this film whereas he's usually a cruel director.

It seems as though some of you have no idea what a Michael Haneke film is like.

This is masterful filmmaking, and easily Haneke's warmest work to date.

Then again, that's hardly an achievement, given his body of work, hehe.

Agreed, Darjeerling Limited is Wes Anderson's most serious film, and it's fucking awful.

Classic Thegun response.

What does that have to do with anything?

I was agreeing with Lecter that your post had no weight to it. Just because it's his warmest film to date doesn't make it masterful filmmaking. I think it's the film's biggest fault.

Never said it did.

Actually, that is not what I meant. I haven't seen Amour yet. What I meant was that it's hardly difficult being Haneke's warmest work considering what he has done before. Because Funny Games, The Piano Teacher, Benny's Video, The White Ribbon and Caché are about Antarctica-level.

This movie had more warm-hearted humor than all of Haneke's previous films taken together,.

But it is also a hard movie to love, IMO. It is long, maaybe a tad overlong. Boring in parts, but always painfully realistic. Painfully should be emphasized here. The acting's very good, but Trintignant was better than Riva who spends the second half of the film paralyzed and moaning. Some haunting imagery. Georges' dream made me think that Haneke should try his hand at horror movies.

I'd argue his entire oeuvre, or at least most of it, is horror. Just because there are no ghosts or vampires in his films doesn't mean they're not terrifying.