Amour

If, for example, Haneke's The White Ribbon felt disturbing and extraordinarily impressive to me, Amour represents the opposite pole of his work. It seems strongly predictable, aloof, and unnecessarily literal for my taste. True, contemporary society tends to repress unpleasant phenomena - and first and foremost among them are dying, powerlessness, and the act of death itself. If you belong to this large group, the film can reveal something to you. But a simple demonstration is not enough for me. I have already dealt with all of this in the past and I do not find film magic in Haneke's film. The director serves me something that is already finished and I do not see any room for myself in there. Not to mention the fact that it's as cold as ice. I'm giving it three stars for Haneke's undoubtedly high-quality craftsmanship. Overall impression: 55%. (23/09/2017)

Michael Haneke is a very specific creator. Somewhat controversial ("The Piano Teacher" or "Funny Games"), but at the same time a person who can make unique films that are an experience. These include the first two mentioned, but also his other films, including "Amour". For this film and for the previous film - "The White Ribbon" - he was even nominated for an Oscar. For "The White Ribbon" not directly by him, but for "Amour" he did not miss the nomination for directing. In 8 days, we will know whether he won it. However, based on other awards, it seems that unfortunately he will not win in this case, although "Amour" could win at least as a foreign language film. Maybe the Academy will surprise us once again. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2013/02/laska-2012-80.html (22/03/2013)

A big disappointment: an explicit, leathery conversational, snobbish in terms of tone, and for me a completely lifeless film, from which nothing comes but the classic "life is beautiful and death is painful". Regarding filmmaker Haneke, some of the literal scenes surprise me with their cheap urgency (most of the scenes about ideas and dreams), the character Isabelle Huppert is very forcibly sewn into the film and the more there was talk of death in the film, the less it seemed to be about life to me (haha, paradoxes). At times, Haneke, the once uncompromising analyst, has simply turned into a conventional mid-cultist who escapes from a painful subject in the easiest possible way (a slap followed by "staring" romantic painting, etc.). The only really engaging scene for me was one in which the director lets the audience look for heroes in a multi-headed crowd and drown in ambivalent emotions. Then he gives everything for free. I don't like that. Although I must admit that it is sophisticated, elegantly shot and precisely acted. (07/07/2012)

The materialized fear of all aging couples. Haneke goes straight to the heart of the matter, limiting his determined but meaningless shots to a minimum and cutting to the bone after just a few minutes. However, he cuts relentlessly until the end. Although love fascinated me by its ability to reach the depths of the soul, because it does not become the climax of the film - but eventually a stagnant routine - the experience is only half complete. (01/02/2013)

Taking such care of the woman I’ve spent my life with is a matter of course. And such an attitude towards her departure from the world is not shocking. So why make an academically cold movie about it, deliberately avoiding emotions or deepening the story with flashbacks or supporting characters? If it weren’t for the visual minimalism, I wouldn't know this was from Michael Haneke. This time, however, his minimalism is an end in itself, not part of a clever creative intent. Amour is dull, empty pseudo-art. (25/11/2012)