The movie keeps repeating scenes and scenes of rumination and sex, as if the director was trying to fill up two hours, or thought he had created some new pure cinema art form. It really gets tiring and sickening. Like the repeated shots of male ejaculation, one gets the feeling that the director was too cocksure of what he thought he was achieving, thus overindulging it to the extreme.

Yeah, the sex is uncomfortable to watch, but the fact that it is shown like it is in this movie is not what you end up walking away with if you became emotionally involved in the plot and the characters - the meaning.It illustrates pretty well how destructive uncontrollable sexual urges can be - something that someone magnifying the mere fact of the porno-ness might miss. It's not glamorizing sex. It may look glamorous to you on film, but then you watch the characters suffer horribly for their decisions, destroy their relationships, and their lives.If anything, this movie really illuminates the lesson of "you don't know what you got till its gone"- you might not realize how much you actually love someone until you've hurt them so much that they never want to see you again, or even drive them to their own destruction, and yours.Good lessons. It's not all about the sex. If you can get past watching people having sex which I'm sure most of the people watching do anyways on the regular, and watch it like there's a message in there somewhere, you might get something out of itOf course the premise at face value sounds like such a sad money grab - but if you've already watched another Noe movie like Enter the Void and are expecting to be moved, there is a similar payoff or take-away

First of all. I'm a huge fan of Gaspar Noé, so my review may be biased somewhat by that. Still, this movie delves into subject matter very unlike Enter the Void, and differs greatly also in its flawless execution. There are many silent moments, as is Gaspar's style, but they aren't empty and vacuous, like in Enter the Void, meant to render in the viewer a sense of aimlessness and confusion, and they're not meant to give you a respite from the vibrant sexuality of the film either. Instead they suffuse exactly the tender sentiment Gaspar was seeking to meld into his project. The film is a tremendous achievement, his somatic style vibrates from the screen and seduces you into the physicality of love. You feel aroused, no doubt, but it's an enveloping arousal, not the two dimensional kind of appeal one would expect from a movie with this caliber of sexuality. No, this is four dimensional; indulgent and honest and raw and desperate and human. The spectacular performances by the relatively unknown actors deliver aching, intimate and haunting sensations. You're there with them. That's the director's touch and it's not easy to achieve. The story is very deep, its foreground tragedies very sharply felt and you're left sad, vulnerable, full of regret and yet also gratitude that you were able to experience love of that magnitude, with all its divine glory and cruelty without actually being stuck in the characters lives. And yet it was a just a movie. And yet it wasn't.

This film tells the story of a man trapped with his wife and child, yet he keeps on thinking about his ex-girlfriend who is not contactable. The story then winds back in time to tell how his relationships with his ex-girlfriend and his wife come about.I have heard about the gratuitous explicit sex scenes in the film, and indeed there is a prolonged sex scene every five minutes. The story is quite interesting, as the man reflects and reminisces about Elektra, who is so adventurous that she becomes increasingly unstable. The problems encountered by the man are quite real life, and viewers can easily relate to his situation. What strikes me is that the lighting effects of the film is very remarkable, the use of focused lighting enhances the mood a lot. The slow strobe effect in the swingers' club is captivating. Overall, "Love" is worth a watch as it depicts real life relationship problems.