Amour (2012) User Reviews

Certainly Accomplished, But It Left Me Cold

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 23 February 2013]

I thought I was going to be deeply affected by "Amour," based on my experience with Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon" and the film's premise. My wife and I just recently watched her father degenerate physically and mentally over the last few years until his recent death, so the closeness to me of the subject matter combined with Haneke's uncompromising approach to filmmaking made me feel sure that I would be deeply disturbed by his film.

And while I was watching it, I felt like I should be feeling that way, but never really did. It's by any definition a formidable piece of filmmaking, but it left me cold. The events depicted in the film count among my worst nightmares and are even more terrifying for the significant likelihood that I will have to experience them in some fashion. But I never forgot that I was watching actors performing in a movie. There's something about Haneke's style that's cold and clinical, and the same quality that can make his movies deeply disturbing can also make them inaccessible.

To be honest, I'm kind of glad Haneke's style kept me at an emotional distance from the film, because I think it might otherwise have been unendurable.

Grade: A-

A sensitive and honest depiction of a profound and devastating love story

[polar24 · 9/10 · 23 July 2012]

In 'Amour', we delve into the deepest, and most profound type of love seldom explored on screen, examined to it's uncompromising end. It is one of the most moving displays of love, in recent memory. That the couple at the heart of this film are 80-plus year old, bourgeois, retired French-speaking music teachers is surprising. That their story speaks to so many audiences worldwide regardless of their age and culture should not be, it simply reflects the universal emotions at the core of this film told with great honesty and sensitivity.

Ironically, as the title suggests, this is (not) another love story. In his most classical and refined film yet, Austrian master Haneke has once again asks questions of the audience in his own subversive, clinical, uncomfortable methods, yet (in what many see as a departure) with profoundly moving results. Some of the signature Haneke 'shocks' still remain, but this time they also carry devastating emotional weight.

Paradoxically the emotional force of the film comes from Haneke's characteristic clinical style of filmmaking: static shots, framed in mid to long distance, no score, economical and direct screenplay, however assisted by an always crisp sound design, sharp lighting and cinematography courtesy of Darius Khondji (Midnight in Paris), and naturalistic and honest performances. This time however, the approach feels gentler and respectful without the standard disdain and nihilism one expects from Haneke.

Yet there remains a palpable sense of the unknown and danger as film progresses (ironically almost exclusively in their spacious and comfortable apartment) ratcheting up a claustrophobic sense of fear. The film also spends it's time almost solely on the two leads, the emotional weight they carry and the connection to the audience evidenced by genuine laughter, gasps and tears (laughter or sorrow I won't disclose) was incredibly moving for two (real-life) octogenarians that few would admit, they have more in common than they would believe.

I've not said much about the film's story - an elderly French couple live in a Parisian apartment until an unexpected event causes them to reevaluate their life - it is simple in it's construction and execution, and the emotional peaks are best experienced by yourself with a friend or family member and a receptive audience. I watched this at the Sydney Film Festival in June, about a month after it's premiere in Cannes in May for which it deservedly won with enthusiastic reception. The theatre was comparatively (and undeservedly) under attended, yet the reception was attentively silent, collectively moved.

Following the visceral and subversive Caché and the more refined and sprawling White Ribbon, it appeared that Haneke had reached a creative zenith. Almost inevitably however, and especially given with the subject matter, he has restrained his somewhat acerbic style and delivered a film that is superlatively honest and sincere in all it's creative aspects. He has given an honest appraisal of a tender human relationship that should move even the most dispassionate viewer by the often unflinching humanity displayed on screen. One of the greatest and profound achievements seen on screen in many years, this is film at it's purest and most powerful form.

French-language masterpiece of the year

[patryk-czekaj · 9/10 · 14 November 2012]

The fact that Amour is an instant classic in the art-house world is as indisputable as the emotions presented by the protagonists of the film are bewildering. This picture is Haneke's minimalistic yet mightily expressive homage to love as we know it, showing the feeling's overpowering force and heartfelt, altruistic nature. While remaining a thoroughly unsentimental and provocative picture, Amour delivers a most-demanding portrayal of an elderly couple's last days together. Those cultivated, sophisticated characters need to evaluate their long-lasting marriage and come to terms with their own emotions, and, simultaneously, discover the true meaning of love in itself. Decisions need to be made, and some of them might be shocking to say the least.

It's a beautiful but considerable piece of filmmaking, where a sombre atmosphere and touching yet disturbing imagery permeate every scene. Haneke's steady and visionary directorial hand promises many moving and heartbreaking sequences, while still providing a poetic exemplification of a well- lived life's concluding moments. It's impossible to find neither a plausible sense of redemption nor an authentic touch of consolation, no. The film displays a marvelous character-driven narrative, where loving individuals diverge from the seemingly familiar path and start arguing with their own opinions and ideals, leading to some truly perplexing choices. In the most unexpected manner Amour touches the controversial topic of euthanasia, emphatically depicting how difficult it might seem to even consider such a harsh decision.

Amour is a tender, scrupulous, demanding, two-hour visualization of a romance well beyond boundaries, and through its difficult notions it shows human existence in its most intimate and most elegiac state. That death seems inevitable from the very first minutes is certain, but the way Haneke chooses in order to finally arrive at this intensely upsetting conclusion is an uneasy one. Amour is definitely a cinematic powerhouse, which will leave the audiences in a most pensive, quiet - even downcast - mood, still astounding with its ubiquitous beauty.

Cinema at its most honest and emotionally intuitive.

[jamesmartin1995 · 10/10 · 17 November 2012]

What introduction could this film possibly require? Any film enthusiast recognises the name of Haneke instantly, whatever their opinion of him. His latest film, Amour, finally arrives in the UK this week, having won the Palme D'Or at Cannes (Haneke's second in a row) and the appraisal of most of the cinematic world. Horrible feelings accompanied me into the Friday screening of Amour – would the film live up to the hype, could Haneke really better his recent works, Hidden and The White Ribbon?

I realized about a quarter of the way into Amour that this was the wrong way to think about it. Haneke is renowned for his chilly, detached style and merciless lack of sentimentality in exploring the darker sides of human nature. Although his ruthless devotion to all things challenging and unsentimental is still evident in Amour, we must at least recognise that this represents some kind of turning point in Haneke's oeuvre.

Georges and Anne have been married many years, and have grown old together. They are both piano teachers, now retired. When we first meet them, they are attending a concert of one of Anne's old students, now grown and making a name for himself. They applaud, congratulate him and then take the bus home, smiling and talking to one another in snippets as they come closer to their apartment. If it hadn't been for a masterful, disquieting opening sequence (which I will not describe here), we would not suspect anything was wrong.

Yet after this wonderful outing, which they have obviously been looking forward to for a long time, their spacious Parisian apartment will become their entire world; we shall never leave it. There is a brief moment, masterfully shot, where the couple's adult daughter (in a beautiful performance from Isabelle Huppert, who played the self-harming protagonist in Haneke's formidable film, 'The Piano Teacher') stands by the window, and through the translucent material of the curtain we see the street outside and the vehicles moving slowly along it; the outside world remains completely impervious to the painful ordeal which is taking place on the other side of that curtain.

The ordeal begins one morning over the couple's breakfast. The two are having a conversation. Georges tells Anne something, and she suddenly becomes unresponsive. She snaps out of it, and she insists she has no memory of it; yet we sense in Anne, as Georges tells her about this strange event, a fear of something starting within her, of doctors and hospitals; there is even, glimpsed on her face for the briefest of moments, suspicion directed at her husband. It is the first event in a downward spiral, and from the moment Anne returns from the hospital afterwards, and a farce of a funeral that George is forced to attend alone, both will be condemned to this apartment. Anne begs Georges never to take her back to the hospital; thus, it becomes a prison and mausoleum; the sense of oncoming death pervades the coldly lit rooms.

Georges and Anne are played magnificently by those acting gods of yesteryear, Jean-Louis Trintignant (star of Bertolucci's masterpiece, The Conformist) and Emmanuelle Riva (the female protagonist of Resnais' Hiroshima Mon Amour). Hand-picked by Haneke himself, these two bring a lifetime of experience to their roles; their performances are breathtaking. Riva in particular, whose character loses her independence and her own sense of dignity increasingly throughout the film, is magnificent, not afraid of baring all to the camera. Anne's condition is not the ersatz tragedy, infused with humour and considerable taste, that Hollywood would have us believe; it is ugly, painful, degrading.

The claustrophobia of their lives, increasingly shut off from the rest of the world, is intense. Characters (including the couple's own daughter, selfish on the surface but nursing deep hurts) will come in and penetrate temporarily the organic, defensive webbing that Georges and Anne are now forming for themselves, but both the guest and the host feel that the couple's lives are being intruded upon. Theirs is a holistic, private world that outsiders try to break into; there is a great piece of symbolism, early on in the film, after Georges and Anne return from the concert, where they discover that someone has tried to break into their apartment. This couple, in the face of oncoming tragedy, hide within themselves and within this space, their own, where they have spent so many years and built their lives together.

I believe this to be the best film Haneke has ever made. Yes, it is gruellingly unsentimental, but unlike all of his other films, there is warmth, tenderness and genuine humanity to be found here. We are greeted by two highly intelligent people, who have been and remain deeply in love, and we are challenged now – not to watch the beginning of this relationship, but its end. Georges and Anne are not perfect human beings; they become frustrated, even angry. The wounds that each can inflict on the other, knowing each other inside out, hit the audience like a punch to the gut. It is part of the searing authenticity of the film, and that makes the more tender moments even more special.

Amour is a film about the disappearance of a human being; of what one man does in the face of losing the woman he has loved his whole life, every day, little by little. It is a psychological drama, tinged with philosophy and moments of exquisite, heartbreaking poetry. But it is also a luminous love story – one that is genuine and recognisable, between two characters that we fully believe in and sympathise with. Georges and Anne have spent many long, happy years together, and now, slowly and sadly, their happiness is coming to an end

A Nutshell Review: Amour

[DICK STEEL · 10/10 · 28 December 2012]

If I had watched this film no less than 5 years ago, I'd probably wouldn't think too much about Michael Haneke's Palme d'Or winning Amour, which made him one of an elite group of filmmakers who had won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival at least twice (and within a span of three years too). But I suppose having to live through some of life's experiences, both pleasant and those that are not, would have opened up one's horizons, connect and identify with the many elements about terminal illness and suffering, love and the quality of life, being affected in more ways that I would have normally allowed.

As in most of the Austrian filmmaker's movies, this film centers around the characters of Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva), an elderly couple whom we see are enjoying the twilight of their lives, and their companionship with each other, since daughter Eva (Isabelle Huppert) is away overseas most of the time. Unfortunately Anne suffers a stroke and more, rendering her paralyzed on one side, gradually relying on the primary care provided by Georges to get through day by day. And given Georges' age, being primary caregiver is also something of a challenge, and a stress both mentally and physically, having made a vow to Anne that he is adamant in keeping, of having no further hospital visits, or to put her in a home.

The many things that Haneke had put into his film are the hard truths revolving around the dedicated attention given to the patient, from things like feeding and the changing of diapers, doing the household chores which include enlisting the help of others in grocery shopping, to hardware requirements like the commode or the adjustable bed. There may be a certain level of shyness involved during cleaning up, and in every step of the way you want to maintain the dignity of the patient, because the last thing you want to do is to have a drop of morale. The deterioration is painful to witness, as Eva goes from having strength to being completely bedridden, with the ability of communication, a very key thing, taken away when speech impairment rears its ugly head, when therapy can only do so much. Haneke doesn't gloss over the necessary aspects of suffering, even if under the hands of uncaring home nurses, and probably introduced a little tinge of fear as one grows old, gets sick, and get put under the mercy of others.

Georges gets the periodic visits from his daughter, but you can almost feel a distant rift between the two each time they try to sit down and communicate. What Haneke's story and screenplay brilliantly achieved is to be able to say so much without saying much at all, directing the actors to bring out ideas and back-channel communication through their acting craft, making it a very fulfilling experience watching, and dissecting the human relations and condition in each of the characters, even when Eva had to spend most of her time in bed, and portraying the limited range of emotions a stroke patient can muscle together. Perhaps I too felt some guilt each time Eva returns home to check on the latest status of her mom and dad, as it mirrors how I would have loved to be able to do more, if not for modern day commitments, or what we would like to think of as commitments.

Being a Haneke film, we'd come to know some darker moments to sort of jump through when we least expected, especially so when the title is one as benign as Love in its many forms. While what was shocking wasn't something narratively new in films done by others, it still made one heck of an impact, lingering for some time which I thought was quite wicked, leaving things rich and open to post-screening debate. Haneke makes you work to come up with your interpretation of events, never telling you verbose details unnecessary to spoonfeed, preferring that you experience and take away something from it, though this was perhaps one of his less obtuse works.

What made this film was also the performances of Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva, who hardly put in a wrong foot. Trintignant returns to the big screen after an absence of 7 years, with a role specifically written for him, which he duly delivered. His Georges came across as heartbroken and exasperated rolled into one. Emmanuelle Riva may seem to have gotten the easier role having to be in bed, and sometimes absent for the most parts as Georges keeps her Anne locked away, but credit to her fine acting without having the need to over-act or over-compensate for the condition she has to flesh out. The make up department also deserves mention for being able to realistically age her on screen as well.

Amour continues in its winning of the minds of various critics and chalking up awards in the festival circuit, as well as year end accolades. It should be interesting if it does culminate in walking away with the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar statuette next year. Recommended!

Haneke's best film to date

[Sir_Alfred · 10/10 · 29 November 2012]

Amour (2012) Dir. Michael Haneke

Just when I thought Michael Haneke could surprise me no more, he comes along with a film like this. A film for which the jury at Cannes gave him his 2nd Palme d'Or in four years. And nothing less than this film deserves.

The story of an elderly French couple, their deteriorating health and devotion to each other is the basis, and allows the Austrian auteur to inject something rarely if ever seen in any of his films to date, heart.

Some of the typical Haneke touches are still there; the suffocating sense that something terrible is going to happen being his signature. His previous film, the 2008 Palme d'Or winning The White Ribbon keeps up this omnipresent dread for almost its entire runtime (also see the deus ex machina in Funny Games and continuous sense of dread in Cache). With these films Haneke has proved himself to be the biggest audience manipulator since the greatest of them all, Alfred Hitchcock.

But there's nothing artificially manipulative in Amour. And there's none of the sentimentality that less able directors would fall back on given the film's subject matter. The acting and characterisation is so strong that added sentiment is never needed, and is in fact the very last thing you'd expect to encounter in a Haneke picture.

The emotion felt towards the two protagonists as they struggle with coming to the end of their lives actually gave me a crushing sensation in my chest by the end of the runtime. This is an extremely tough film to watch at times, and on more than one occasion I had to look away from the screen.

The biggest compliment I can give this film, is that it made me want to call my parents.

5/5 stars. #1 film of the year so far.

A powerful film showcasing two of France's greatest actors

[Red-125 · 10/10 · 24 February 2013]

Amour (2012) is a French film written and directed by Michael Haneke.

This powerful drama is basically a two-person film. Emmanuelle Riva plays Anne, a retired piano teacher, and Jean-Louis Trintignant is Georges, her husband. This elderly couple are still healthy, independent, and financially secure. When one of them becomes sick, it sets off a chain of events that is grim, realistic, and disturbing for us to watch.

The film is basically a two-character tour de force. Riva and Trintignant are on the screen in almost every scene. Other characters enter and leave the apartment from time to time, but the movie revolves around the two leads. Both of them act so well that after a while you forget they're acting.

Incidentally, Isabelle Huppert, in a supporting role, plays Eva, their grown daughter. She's also a fine actor, but the film belongs to Riva and Trintignant.

We left the theater with the realization that we had witnessed a truly great film. However, I have to admit that we were shaken by the harsh and sad reality that was portrayed.

So, if you admire great cinema, this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a lighthearted romp about aging, choose a different film.

P.S. Amour actually starts in media res. It's important to see the pre-credit beginning of the movie. Be sure to arrive early so you don't miss that scene.

A powerful portrayal of the ultimate love

[Gordon-11 · 22 February 2013]

This film is about an elderly female music teacher and her husband, whose life gets torn apart by her stroke.

"Amour" is a powerful portrayal of two individuals coping with vascular dementia. We see Mrs Laurent transforming from the graceful lady to a person completely unrecognisable at the end. The husband loves her and cares for her patiently and demanding nothing in return. It is the ultimate love that people long for. The performances of them are superb, especially Mrs Laurent. I was so surprised and impressed that she could even play lower facial nerve palsy (speaking only with one side of the mouth).

It is a superb film, with amazing performances and an unnerving story. However, I could not get into the film. Maybe it is because of the barren nature of the film. The minimalistic nature of the sets and soundtracks echoes the fading of Mrs Laurent. Or maybe it is just too raw and too threatening to think that this could be our future, that my unconscious mind rejects the content of the film.

What it really means to grow old together!

[estebangonzalez10 · 6/10 · 30 January 2013]

¨What would you say if no one came to your funeral? ¨

Amour is French for love, and in this film Austrian director Michael Haneke delivers a unique love story where he defines what love really means in a very unique way. This is not an easy film to watch; it is slow and deals with some unpleasant subject matters to think about such as mortality, old age, confronting death, and sickness. We all dream of finding the perfect soul mate with whom we can grow old together, and many times Hollywood has painted this beautiful romantic portrayal of it, but Haneke shows us what it really means to grow old with the person you love and how difficult it can be to see a loved one go through a slow and painful death. Haneke decides to paint us a different picture of love as he takes us through the indignities of becoming old and seeing the person you love slowly facing death. Amour is a remarkable film and it shows us how love can be severely tested at times, but I also found it to be very pessimistic and difficult to watch. You can enjoy the film for its craft and artistic value, but it is not one you can sit through and say you enjoyed it. The problem I had is that the film is a little too pessimistic as we see this old couple who obviously love each other very much being tested by a severe illness. I have personally experienced a similar disease in my family as my father suffered a severe stroke and was paralyzed on his right side in the same way the main character of this film was. He still can't speak, but has confronted his illness with a positive attitude. In the end, life can throw harsh things our way and love can be tested, but how we choose to confront those difficulties is what makes love stand out above all. I preferred the much positive French film, Intouchables, where the main character faces his disabilities with a totally different approach. Old age is tough and comes with several indignities, but love conquers all.

The plot is very minimalistic and simple as we are introduced to the everyday life of an old couple in the early 80's who seem to be enjoying each other's company. Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) are retired music teachers living in Paris. They live a pretty simple life as they spend most their time in their home talking about life. They have recently been to a theater to listen to a former student of Anne's, and seem to have enjoyed it very much. Georges mentions that the next day he wants to buy his CD now that he has become so famous. While he is talking, Anne seems to black out for a couple of minutes. Once she comes back to her normal self she has no idea of what happened and Georges decides to take her to the hospital. The doctors decide to operate her, but things don't turn out well. When they return from the hospital several days later, Anne is on a wheelchair and has her right arm and leg paralyzed. Georges watches out for her with a great amount of love and patience, but she feels like a burden on him. She makes Georges promise that if she ever suffer another attack, he mustn't take her to the hospital again. As Anne's illness begins to take a toll on her, the couple's love for each other begins to be tested.

The film is mostly shot in long and static takes and is very silent at times. There isn't much going really as we see how slowly old age and illness begins to disturb their daily routines. The film can be upsetting for some viewers and emotionally draining. Michael Haneke is known for making some strong films (Funny Games, The White Ribbon, and Cache) and has received several awards including Academy nominations. In Amour he has received a nod for best director, original screenplay, and best film. He will probably win for best foreign film, but is competing against Hollywood's top films as well. This is probably his most critically acclaimed film to date as many critics are calling it his masterpiece. It might be simple, but at the same time he uses plenty of poetic imagery (like the scene with the pigeon which many people have made different conclusions about). I really don't like his dark and pessimistic vision of life, but he does have a talent for stirring up debate and tackling difficult subject matters. I have to mention that the two lead actors were absolutely phenomenal in this film. Both Riva and Trintignant were mesmerizing in their realistic portrayal of this old age couple. They carry the film and make it tolerable despite the material. Riva has also been nominated for her powerful performance here and could upset Lawrence in the Oscar race. I'd like to quote a critic who best describes this film as ¨a graphic portrayal of the unfunny endgame we're all fated to play.¨ I can't really recommend this film, it 's not easy to watch, but I can see why many critics liked it.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

It will disappoint many people, but not me

[RainDogJr · 9/10 · 9 December 2012]

There's a scene in Michael Haneke's latest film (the winner of this year's Palme d'Or, AMOUR) in which one of the main characters talks about a film he saw long time ago. The main characters are an elderly married couple: (the music teachers) Georges and Eve (Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva, respectively). So Georges is telling Eve about a film that left him a big impression – now he can't really recall the film itself (name, its story and stuff) but only the huge emotion he felt with it not only while watching it but also while later telling someone about it.

AMOUR is a film about that emotion. If Jean-Louis Trintignant's character can only remember now, as an elderly man, what that film made him feel, then Haneke only wants that you (and his characters) feel something. AMOUR ain't a film with a big, intriguing story. In fact, it opens with the conclusion of the whole thing, which is certainly about that mentioned married couple – there's nothing much going on, besides some music concerts, until Even begins to show serious health problems (she suffers a stroke actually and soon of paralysis). Obviously we know that there won't be much hope for her.

I don't think none of these are spoilers, hell, you already guessed the conclusion to the story of Eve. Like I said, Haneke decided to go a bit non-linear with the very first shot of the film – he's telling the audience something like "yes, she dies, I'm not going to give you any hope and I just want you to feel something". And it's really impossible not to; certainly the main performers are the principals responsible for that.

If anything, Emmanuelle Riva gives one of the very best performances of the year (perhaps the best). It's a daring work that shows her huge dedication and commitment. Think in the following words that, at least according to IMDb, the Mexican director Carlos Reygadas (POST TENEBRAS LUX) said when asked about the nudity in his film BATALLA EN EL CIELO (2005):

"We are all naked when we go to the shower. At least twice or three times a day we are naked. And most of us have sex, once a week or more. It's a thing that occurs often. But it's not represented ever on film. So the normal thing to do would be to ask every other director why they don't have sex in their film and not ask me about it. I am the only normal one".

In AMOUR we deal with the whole process of a terminal illness: the preoccupation, the desires of the patient, the care giving, the desperation and well, just day-to-day issues. And Haneke is just as normal as Reygadas; therefore if you think he is not going to show a day-to-day activity like taking a shower in its pure form, well, you better think again. This is part of the reason to say Emmanuelle Riva did such a great, daring work.

Not many people are interested in watching the latest film about a terminal illness. That theme alone makes for a very difficult experience, certainly, and well, this one is even more than the average; it's almost a horror film, with truly terrifying, thought-provoking material. It left me shocked even when, like I said, you know everything right from the very beginning. You better find out why!

*Watched it on 14 November, 2012

the climax of "Amour" resembles the resolution of last year's "Volcano."

[birdszikzak · 6/10 · 22 May 2012]

I saw Amour at Cannes, a fine film. What shocked my was that I saw a much better film last year in Cannes that was not only dealing with a similar theme but some of the scenes are to alike. The name of that film is Volcano and it was one of the last years best films. Quite some people are talking about this in Cannes and I saw that Indiewire has picked this up as well. " a major detail from the climax of "Amour" resembles the resolution of last year's under-seen Icelandic drama "Volcano." The danish papers have been writing about this today as well. Volcano was a festival darling last year , picking up awards all over. Its impossible that nobody with responsibility for Amour/Love have not seen Volcano.

Two human beings gradually abate into claustrophobic indignity

[aequus314 · 10/10 · 12 January 2013]

According to Robert Sternberg's triangular theory, the paragon of love is "consummate"—complete, ideal, perfect. In this fashion of love, a couple delights in each other while defeating hardships with grace. Some might argue that aseptic concepts don't translate in the ebb and flow of reality; they would be right. Except Sternberg never said consummate was truly sustainable or permanent.

Amour surpasses consummate and escalates the inquiry; venturing into end-stage by showing us the bits that come before "death do us part".

When the movie begins, firemen break into a foul smelling apartment. A bedroom door, shut and sealed with layers of tape open to reveal the lifeless body of an old woman laid at rest. She was dressed in the finest, adorned with flowers. We are then introduced to main protagonists; ex-piano teachers Georges and Anne. Retired octogenarians with a long history of marriage who have settled comfortably into middle-class existence. The couple is shown attending a concert performed by one of their ex-students, and having a pleasant evening together—that was the last scene filmed outside their apartment.

On returning home, Georges discovers a tampered door lock. What appears to be a burglary attempt by strangers in the present, alludes to the change about to intrude at dawn.

At first consideration, Michael Haneke is an unlikely choice for stock sentimental genres. His blank, minimalistic, expressionless style of film-making; famous for detachment and cold neutrality would only aggravate the treatment of dry complex material. When one walks into a Haneken feature, expect neither theatrics nor emotions. Still shots, basic camera movements overlayed with monotonous ambient sounds only. But realistic mise en scène accentuates the intense deliberation demanded by his films (Caché, The White Ribbon). This is the principle behind those introspective pieces.

We are living in times of antipodal controversies. Pro-life campaigns against palliative medicine in the Liverpool Care Pathway saga is just one among the many that surround euthanasia debates. Rather than hanker over mission statements, Amour grazes the back door stance without overtly fixating on any specific message. And it would be perceptive to withhold from believing the central theme concerns itself with human rights because it doesn't.

This is a story about a common man and woman, what their romance is capable of enduring, and their burning departure from blessed peace. Amour makes observations behind mysterious doors; allowing you to watch as two human beings gradually abate into claustrophobic indignity. Tender, humane, poetic and heart rending.

cinemainterruptus.wordpress.com

Frank Without Sentimentality

[3xHCCH · 6/10 · 30 December 2012]

What a film to watch on the last day of the year! I did not know beforehand that it was a Michael Haneke film, whose reputation for horrific emotionless movies like White Ribbon (which I did not like) would have stopped me from watching this today. However, its winning of the Cannes Palme D'Or and its multiple nominations in year-end lists including the Golden Globes and possibly the Oscar made me want to watch this.

Georges and Anne, an elderly couple whose serene life was turned upside down when Anne suffered consecutive strokes leaving her bedridden. You already know that you should get yourself ready for one depressing emotional ride for the next two hours.

Senior French stars Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva play their age here very naturally. Too good in fact, we feel they are actually our own parents going through this ordeal. We get carried away by the jumble of emotions that Georges must be feeling seeing his beloved Anne caught in such a helpless situation. In my line of work, I see couples in this same predicament, and they really try their best to carry one with dignity, without much sentimentality. I felt this was captured very well.

The film was shot with unmistakable skill. The photography and camera angles were so good, contributing much to the drama unfolding on the screen. Of course, there are those nebulous "symbolic" scenes with pigeons and paintings we see in art films.

As a film, technically this is clearly a winner. Ultimately though, the climax is what will make or break this film. Will it make you feel love or feel the total opposite? I did not see it coming, and I wish something else happened than what was shown on screen. Personally I think only European cinema can come up with something as frank as this. I would rather remember the whole film without that climactic (anti-climactic?) moment.

once again a calculated art-house bore with offending undertones

[Radu_A · 4/10 · 30 December 2012]

I guess I'll never understand the infatuation of the art-house crowd (and the Cannes festival in particular) with Michael Haneke, a director who did bold and ground-breaking work in the 90s but has since slipped into eclectic mannerisms that this reviewer has found increasingly unbearable. It's not just that nothing happens in Haneke's films, it's that he has been passing off artificial renditions of admittedly stylistic mastership as presentations of actual social dilemmas. If you realize, however, that there's always one particular scene in a Haneke film that the whole story has been carefully engineered to carry, then you will find yourself rather unimpressed by the stories they tell; you'll just wait two hours for it to finally happen, and feel tremendously bored in the process.

In 'Love', the subject dealt with is caring for a loved one impaired by a stroke, and it's one that I'm personally familiar with, having taken care of my paralyzed father during his last years. That's what prompted me to view it in spite of considering 'The White Ribbon', notwithstanding its laurels, one of the dullest films I've ever seen. While this doesn't make me an expert on health care, I found the ultimate 'solution' in the film offensive, even though I more than less expected such a conclusion; it's offensive because this is what intellectual people with enough money to take psychoanalytical tours of their oh-so-interesting subconscious consider the logical outcome of immense stress. And yet millions of people worldwide feed their ailing relatives with spoons or change their diapers without thinking of - I might as well relieve you of the suspense - suffocating them. Situations like these tend to take you along with them, rather than giving you Othelloesque airs.

To be sure, until that point in the film there were a lot of situations I found myself familiar with: explaining what you do to relatives who think you should do a better job while staying away from the work, trying to make sense out of doctor's comments, telling off private nurses rushing through their routine, and most of all, watching a person you were close to all your life fade away. Yes, there are moments when you crack. But not only is the breakdown - in an otherwise wonderful performance by the great Jean-Louis Trintignant - a rather obvious 'hommage' to the climax of Jean-Jacques Beineix's 'Betty Blue' (in which it's much more appropriate and hard-hitting), it's also a completely unnecessary sensationalist twist to an otherwise straight-laced, no-nonsense account of what happens to an elderly couple.

Had it not been for this, I would have left the film thinking: 'Good, Haneke is back to his original strong story-telling, even though it's 30 minutes too long'. But as it is, 'Love' is one of his calculated, constructed bore-offs catering to an elitist audience who probably put their parents in homes, and transform their guilt over such neglect into admiration for a film dealing with the subject. 'Stopped on Track', which won the Un Certain Regard section at Cannes in 2011, is a much more honest, less calculated look at a family dealing with the prospect of death. It also has what 'Love' most distinctly lacks - heart. For that is what makes me bash Haneke's films so often: they may have brains, but no heart to go along with.

Depressing End of a Journey

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 29 April 2013]

The retired piano players and teachers Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) live in a comfortable apartment in Paris. Their daughter Eva (Isabelle Huppert) is a musician in tour through Europe. One day, Anne has a stroke that paralyzes her right side, and Georges nurses his wife and promises that he will send her neither to a hospital nor to a nursing home. Soon Anne's life deteriorates and her mental and physical capabilities decline very fast leading Georges to take a tragic decision.

"Amour" is a depressing movie about the end of a journey of a retired couple of about eighty and something years old. "Amour" has impressive performances of Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant and is developed in very slow pace, almost theatrically, and is sad to see the elder wife losing her dignity due to her physical and mental problems. I recall Emmanuelle Riva very young in movies like "Hiroshima, mon amour" or "Léon Morin, prêtre" and Jean-Louis Trintignant in the unforgettable "Un homme et une femme" or "Et Dieu... créa la femme" and seeing them now seniors make me think how short life is and made me sad. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Amor" ("Love")

Falling in love with death

[ceilingcorner · 10/10 · 26 June 2013]

This is the most optimistic film about death that I have ever seen.My feeling when it ended was "I don't feel afraid to grow old and die". The lack of sentimentality was such a relief, not that I was expecting a drama. No highs and lows, just a straight line, like death. But I never felt death surrounding the film. Rather, I felt that I was watching the early years of the couple, though they never appear in the film. Like I knew their whole life. There are not words for the two actors. I saw my parents in them,although they are completely different. And I saw myself in them. I was so touched by this film, in a unique, inexplicable way. I fell in love with the inevitability. I fell in love with growing old. And die. It made me feel safe somehow. The only drama I experienced through this film was "will I find true love?".

How this movie changed my life

[jm10701 · 24 August 2013]

Although I am only 65 years old, most of the people I was close to as a child have died in the past four years, including my closest first cousin (only a month older than me), both of my parents, and my mother's two sisters, who were like auxiliary mothers. We were a very close extended family, all living within two miles of each other until I left home at 18. With the exception of my father, all of those people died in much the same way as Anne did in this movie, but in a much more nightmarish setting, in hospitals and hospices rather than at home, and with an extra kick of morphine at the end instead of a pillow.

But dying for all of them was ugly, protracted and humiliating, no less awful than it was for Anne... and FAR more expensive. The worst was my mother, who had Alzheimer's for 21 years before she died and went through for all those years what Anne went through in the few weeks or months this movie covers (note that the season doesn't change). If my father and others had not spoon-fed her (exactly as Georges did with Anne) every meal every day for the last fifteen years of her life, she would have died much sooner and much more humanely.

The effect of all that horror on me was to make me determined that I was NOT going to end my life that way. I'll spare you some of the tiresome details and just say that I did everything I could to prevent it, including a health care proxy, a living will, a very restrictive MOLST form (a wonderful, sort of expanded "Do Not Resuscitate" form available to New York State residents - a legal document which specifies what kinds of treatment medical professionals are legally allowed to give me) and making clear to my remaining relatives and friends that I did not want to be resuscitated or ever receive any kind of life-extending treatment, but be allowed to die as quickly and as naturally as possible.

I got DNR bracelets, lanyard things so I can wear my MOLST around my neck 24 hours, in case I collapse in a supermarket or somewhere, and a bunch of other crap. I got pretty paranoid about being kept alive after my body wears out, which is the norm in today's world. I've had a wonderful life, but I have no desire at all to extend it. Sixty-five years is plenty.

Despite all my efforts to ward off the kind of death I saw around me and later in this movie, I never could relax and quit fretting about it. I was just sure something would get screwed up and I'd end up just like all the rest, lying mindless and helpless in diapers in some motorized bed with tubes stuck in me everywhere and people all around trying to keep me alive until they got tired of it and upped the morphine. What this marvelous movie did is take away that anxiety. I don't know how, exactly, but it did it.

After seeing what happened to Anne in this movie, and through that remembering in a different way what it was like for my relatives, I realized that I'm okay with it now. It's okay now if I DO end up like that - because, even if it lasts for decades as it did with Mama, eventually it'll be over, and that's all that really matters.

If it takes me ten seconds to die or twenty years to die, I'll still die, and nothing can prevent it. That is profoundly comforting to me, and it allows me to scrap the MOLST and all the other voodoo fetishes I had gathered around me and relax. I have no idea how watching this movie gave me this totally unexpected freedom, but I have no doubt that it did.

--------

This review originated as a post on the IMDb message board for this movie, in a thread titled "Do elderly people like this movie?" Since it expresses very well how I responded to the movie, I have decided to reproduce it here practically verbatim as a review.

Dedicated to the one I love

[ferguson-6 · 8/10 · 20 January 2013]

Greetings again from the darkness. I have often defined an entertainer as one who delivers what the audience wants, while an artist creates what he must. Writer/director Michael Haneke strikes me as a true artist in cinema. And an exceptional one at that. Known for such unusual films as The White Ribbon, Cache', and the original Funny Games (1997), Haneke often has a way of showing us things about ourselves that we prefer not to see.

Amour means love, and this film could easily have been titled Love and Misery, as strong and indescribable feelings mount when a life partner begins the inevitable slide downhill ... a trip which often starts with something as bland as a few moments of blankness at the breakfast table.

Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant, A Man and A Woman) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva, Hiroshima Mon Amour) somehow draw our eye as they sit in the audience as seen from the stage of a soon-to-begin piano concerto. It's a thought provoking shot when paired with the familiar quip "All the world's a stage ...". Next we see this octogenarian couple chatting over breakfast, clearly comfortable with each other in the manner that only two people who have shared decades together can become.

A trip to the hospital confirms Anne has had a stroke. And then another. The rest of the film revolves around Georges keeping his promise to Anne that she won't be put back into the hospital. It's a real life situation that so many face, yet the answers remain cloudy. So Georges proceeds to become caregiver to the increasingly incapacitated Anne. First wheelchair bound with paralysis on one side. Next she's learning to operate a motorized chair. Then it's speech therapy. Finally, she' bedridden and devolving into someone who can't express simple emotions. No, this is not typical Hollywood entertainment. This is life's realities through the expressive acting of two of France's best.

It would be easy to say not much happens in the two hour running, but in fact, it is filled with the daily moments that make up life. The moments become an obstacle course when we must assist a loved one in the performance, or if we are the one being assisted. Nurses who may or may not be caring, friends who are struck helpless, and even family (played here by Isabelle Huppert, The Piano Teacher) who feel the responsibility to help, but are caught in the responsibilities of everyday life.

Death is a common occurrence in movies. Dying is actually quite rare. Haneke doesn't shy away from any aspect of this sorrowful and difficult journey. He forces us to consider the multiple sides of so many questions, and he certainly feels no obligation to provide us with simple solutions or happy endings. Georges walls off society from doing "what is best" for his wife. He prefers to honor her wishes.

These are two extraordinary performances from two of France's all-time best actors. Ms. Riva was rewarded with an Oscar nomination and Mr. Trintignant was just as deserving. Mr. Haneke has been nominated as Best Director and the film is up for both Best Foreign Film and Best Picture. Don't mistake any of that recognition as a sign that this is a mainstream movie. It's exquisite filmmaking, but many will find it difficult or impossible to watch. You best be ready to analyze death versus dying.

'Things will go on, and then one day it will all be over.'

[gradyharp · 10/10 · 22 August 2013]

Michael Haneke wrote and directed this extraordinary film that so sensitively explores the soul and meaning of love, and his formidable talent executes the physical and emotional demand it requires to be told effectively and correctly. This is a film of quiet sophistication and respect and will likely stand as one of the greatest love stories ever placed before the public in a film.

Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) are a couple of retired music teachers enjoying life in their eighties, attending concerts where Anne's pupil Alexandre (Alexandre Tharaud) is performing the Schubert Impromptus. In their comfortable home they enjoy each other's sensitivity and pleasures, but one morning at breakfast Anne suffers a TIA from which she seems to recover rather quickly. The moments of Anne's silence and lack of response trigger a sense of panic in Georges, and despite the fact that she recovers, he takes her to the hospital. Anne undergoes a carotid endarterectomy but the surgical result is a failure (she is one of the 5% of failure rates). Returning home with a right hemiparalysis begins Anne's harrowingly steep physical and mental decline as Georges attempts to care for her at home as she wishes. Even as the fruits of their lives and career remain bright, the couple's hopes for some dignity prove a dispiriting struggle even as their daughter Eva (Isabelle Huppert), also a musician, enters the conflict. In the end, George, with his love fighting against his own weariness and diminished future on top of Anne's, is driven to make some critical decisions for them both. The couple's bond of love is severely tested but then breathtaking conclusion radiates the power and durability of true love.

Both Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva offer impeccable performances, and Isabelle Huppert adds a superlative supporting role as the daughter who does not seem to fathom her parents' love. The musical score is devoted to Schubert's Impromptus Nos. 1 and 3 and Moment musical No. 3, Beethoven's opus 126 Bagatelle No. 2 and opus 33 Bagatelles Nos. 2 and 4 and the Bach-Busoni Prelude Chorale 'Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ' - performed by pianist Alexandre Tharaud who also plays himself in the film as Anne's pupil. Every aspect of this film is treasureable. It is one of the most beautiful films of the time. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp, August 13

One foot in the grave

[MovieloverIreland · 7/10 · 26 December 2012]

This will be my first review here and I don't think I could have picked a more depressing film to start with. I'm just going to run through the film with a SPOILER filled review so anyone who has yet to see this should stop reading.

did this movie entertain me? No it did not, it was a tough uncomfortable watch. Was it a good movie? Yes it was.

The movie began with silent credits, I cranked up sound , then images kick in and I get fright of my life when sound booms out my speakers, horror movies should do that, I was not expecting a fright watching an intimate drama.

We are shown an apartment that will become our home for the next two hours, pretty nice place, spacious and very tidy, fire fighters force their way in to be greeted by an obvious stench of deathly decay, duct taped doors and an old woman laid out with loving care deceased on a bed.

Next scene finds us at a music concert and we are in the recent past with the old woman from the bed and her husband, Anne and Georges, a few scenes establish them as retired music teachers in their eighties with a daughter married to an English guy . Georges is instantly likable and easy to follow and empathise with, and the dedication he shows as Anne has a stroke and becomes paralysed on her right side is admirable.

One issue I have with this movie is we didn't get enough time with Anne before stroke to like her more and I found myself not really caring about her, I felt empathy for Georges all through but Anne's predicament left me cold, this is due only to the fact that Anne understandably falls into depression and its hard to care about a person who wants to give up. If we had only more scenes with her and Georges being happy and active together we would have more reason to care and remember why he loved her in first place.

The first half of the movie has Anne struggling to come to terms with her disability and making Georges promise not to send her back to hospital, a fate she dreads but its when she suffers her second stroke that this movie becomes incredibly uncomfortable to watch as her body and mind deteoriates. Georges struggles to cope alone, an incompetent nurse comes and goes after a shower scene that is very uncomfortable to watch, Georges and Anna's daughter visit a few times, the second visit demonstrating the degree in which Anna has failed.

Georges reaches breaking point and can't bare to see the love of his life suffering anymore and takes a pillow to her face smothering the life from her after telling her a story that I kind of zoned out from, The camera shots are all so free of movement that I was looking at the object on the bedside locker not paying attention when he takes a pillow and smothers her, I was like "WTF"…that's the second fright I got in this movie, more than last supernatural chiller I watched.

Afterwards its clear Georges starts to lose his mind, he duct tapes doors off, cuts heads off flowers, and writes letters to i'm presuming Anne. We then get our first action scene of the movie, a high speed chase around a room as Georges attempts to catch a pigeon with a blanket, by high speed I mean a slow stumble. I'm making fun of this scene as the movie started to lose me at this point. It wraps up with Georges imagining Anne alive and leaving the apartment with her, the daughter shows up and credits roll silently.

I've mentioned I got two unintentional frights in this movie and it is a kind of horror film in a way, through the thoughts that one day the plot of this movie could be the reality of our lives during elderly years or our parents or grandparents sooner.

If anyone was really moved by this movie I highly recommend a film called Iris starring Judi Dench and Kate Winslet, its similar to this but I found it far more emotional

Brilliant. Disturbing. Will Never watch again

[jamaalrgreen · 8/10 · 3 February 2013]

Amour was the final chapter in my quest to see every film nominated for best picture this year. I had the pleasure of watching this piece of art in and nice Art House theatre in NYC as an assignment for school. With the ambiance set I was ready to view the gem of European cinema. Having only seen one other film by Director Michael Haneke was not prepared however for the film itself. Amour is a fantastic work deserving of its nomination of best picture and best foreign film. It is the story of and elderly couple at the tail end of their golden years and the challenges that old age can present. Is there anything you won't do for love? I give kudos to the director for this film two main characters are in the golden years, it is completely dialogue driven, it takes place in one location and there is no soundtrack or real score. It survives totally on the dialogue and interactions of it leads. It is an extreme challenge to keep it interesting and Michael Heneke does with its stark and sometime depressing subject matter. It is a beautifully written and shot film. However it is real in its depiction in the challenges of getting old and how we deal.

I would say this film is an excellent film with a pace,direction and storytelling style more accustomed to European audiences. A great film that I would probably never watch again. 8/10

Very sad.

[andre-bed · 7/10 · 21 February 2013]

This is a very sad movie. It deals with a situation that could affect anyone. The burden a sick person brings upon himself/herself and other can be way too heavy. Love versus life. One affects the other and we can understand the decision one of the characters take.

Actors are very good in the movie, mainly Emmanuelle Riva. Her performance deserves a prize.

This movie makes us think about life, but mainly about death. What is the definition of "life", death, and how we die. There are other movies that kind of deal with this same subject ( Mar Adentro – 2004, Le scaphandre et le papillon – 2007, Okuribito – 2008, Million Dollar Baby – 2004, Les invasions barbares – 2003 ) with different "views" or approaches. But all of them deal with death, handicapped people, limits, suffering, burdens, life itself. "Amour" belongs to this list of memorable movies.

Best Love Story since "Eternal Sunshine"

[ClaytonDavis · 9/10 · 8 October 2012]

It was bound to happen. A film encompasses the soul and meaning of love and executes the physical and emotional demand it requires to be told effectively and correctly. That film is Michael Haneke's Amour. Haneke steers the film effortlessly, as if he were telling a shot-for-shot story of his own experiences. He constructs and creates two real and authentic people, Georges (Jean-Louis Tringnant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva). It's wonderful to see Haneke allow the powerful leads to feel and interpret these people of their own accord. It's one of his finest writing efforts of his career. Tringnant's heart is visible and available for all the viewers to see. He's fearless as he walks through the film frail and broken yet confident and composed. He challenges the audience to empathize and question our own reactions and reality. Same goes Riva, who does everything right that was wrong with similar performances like Hilary Swank in Million Dollar Baby (2004). Riva goes above and beyond the call of duty, wearing Anne on her skin with vulnerability. It's one of the great performances of the year by any woman in any category. The two leads together is even more brilliant than when they're apart. Adding in the talents of Isabelle Hupert as Eva, the daughter of our married couple who finds her own love tested, is wonderfully operational. While many will chalk this film up to depression and elderly inevitability, I don't share the same sentiments. The film is front to back about love, pure and simple. The events circle a morose and saddened sequence but Georges and Anne is the great love story of the year. The film dares you to find someone you love that much, in both perspectives. Haneke focuses on the couple with no outside stories of their neighbors, life before these events, or extra characters. He puts them in the spotlight, front and center. Amour could be the best film of the year and is the best film of the New York Film Festival so far.

at quite snail speed but the content is too touchy and thought-provoking

[shahriyar-ovi · 7/10 · 24 December 2012]

The plot surrounds with an over 80 aging couple and their firm bond of amour. But when the lady suddenly gets paralyzed, their bond faces a tremor. The husband solely endeavors his best to carry the immense responsibilities upon him and bear the unbearable sufferings to see his amour in that miserable-dying condition. The movie is at depressingly snail speed but last 20 minutes just change the whole atmosphere. The content is too touchy and thought-provoking. The script also rises the burning issue like how aged ones suffer from intolerable woes while their children leave them for just their own selfish sake. Definitely deserves to get an Oscar nomination.

It is difficult to imagine why so many people call this a "masterpiece"

[gershom-maes · 1/10 · 22 January 2013]

The fact that Amour is an instant classic in the art-house world is perhaps one of the most bewildering phenomena to present itself to me lately. It's difficult for me to even begin to criticize it.

Firstly, some will say that this film is a "mightily expressive homage to love", which shows "the feeling's overpowering force and heartfelt nature". This boggles me. It's simply baffling that this is an opinion people come away with after having viewed Amour. The focus of the movie is to present a couple's relationship in its twilight years, however it does nothing to round out this relationship. The viewers of this movie witness a mechanical, formal, and unnaturally polite relationship between two old people. We are never presented with images of their past nor any obvious sense of devotion they feel towards each other. In fact, we never understand very much about them beyond the fact that the wife is dying and the husband is burdened with taking care of her. The plot starts off shallow and deepens only marginally.

The fact that the couple's relationship is not well presented undermines every other aspect of the movie. I found it impossible to feel any deep connection or pity for these people who were strangers to each other as well as myself. The only emotion present for the duration of the movie is concern. This becomes unbearable to watch after the first half-hour.

Some will say that the director has a "visionary directorial hand". This was not apparent to me. This movie has no vision and presents nothing that cannot be found outside of a rest-home. Is it "visionary" to show an old woman urinating in her bed? Or slowly becoming senile? Or receiving assistance to go to the washroom? It takes no insight or "vision" to show these things and I cannot imagine why such displays enthral viewers. A truly good film-maker would have insinuated the trials of old age, and the oncoming of death, without needing to display them explicitly. A good film-maker would create emotions that hit home without the tactics that Haneke employed.

The old man eventually makes a point that these characteristics of old age are the things no one wishes to see. Why would the director ignore advice given in his own movie's script? Did he think he could create something "profound" and "artistic" by simply going against the norms? Did he think he could create a masterpiece by presenting unconventional, uncomfortable scenes which do nothing but cause the audience to feel queasy, or inclined to look away? Such empty shock-value will never be a benefit to a movie. It is not a tool which a good director implements. Do the people who endorse this movie also stand behind movies containing graphic violence? Or extreme sexual scenes? Do other critically-acclaimed movies rely so heavily on shock to produce emotion?

The plot of Amour is simple and could be fully explained within a paragraph of writing. The director inflates this plot to the point that it runs for over 2 hours. This is accomplished by inserting countless long- lasting shots of dull scenes. I watched a man cut the head off of every flower in a bouquet for 3 minutes when I had gotten the gist of it after 2 seconds. I gazed at an open window for 2. I watched a woman turning her head to resist being given drinking-water for 3. Again I ask, is such a reliance on filler-content the sign of a good film-maker?

Overall it strikes me as profoundly odd that a director can create a movie lacking any and all instances of character-development, drama or intrigue; a well-developed thesis; and only containing bountiful amounts of shocking imagery (scenes that any person avoids witnessing in their day-to-day life) and drawn-out, still camera shots, and become critically acclaimed. It is simply baffling. Haneke is really on to something.

This movie is meant for the type who likes to go to a theatre, watch a piece that is intensely "artsy", and then give a standing-ovation afterwards without thinking beyond the "artsiness" of the movie, and without considering the fact that it may be deeply flawed in any (or perhaps even every) aspect of film-making.