Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

starring-1 I couldn't make it through the whole thing. It just wasn't worth my time. Maybe one-fourth of the dialogue would have been worth listening to (or reading -- since I don't understand French) if the pseudo-profundity and pseudo-wittiness of the other three-fourths of the film were deleted. Then it could be made into a short maybe 13 or 15 min long and then it might be all right.I don't know why this movie even pretends to utilize actors. Actors are used as narrators of the script and little more. I could swear a whole 20-30 minutes of the film went by showing actors from behind while they talked and from across the street while they walked or sitting in low lighting close up but so that you could not see the expressions on their faces nor their eyes. There was little or no interaction between the actors on the screen except the most superficial for the most part.Some of the lines were as profound (or lame, depending on your viewpoint) as those in Forest "Life is like a box of chocolates" Gump. Other pseudo-profundities were simply sad or dumb or poetic (depending again on your viewpoint), but singularly uninspiring.Visually this film is INCREDIBLY boring, especially with the lack of actors. In fact some minutes of this film showed simply a black screen with the white subtitles and French audio. Altogether sophomoric. Don't waste your time.If you like GOOD movies that are stimulating and profound just from listening to conversation while enjoying good actors, check out RICHARD LINKLATER's "Before Sunset" -- or make a double feature of it and watch "Before Sunrise" first. At least these films are interesting and enjoyable, which is much more than I can say about IN PRAISE OF LOVE (Éloge de l'amour). I give this film 2 out of 10 stars. Not quite offensive enough to rate 1 for "awful" (such as "The Devils" with Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave). If you still want to watch it, go ahead. But don't say I didn't warn you!!!

oso_travis Éloge d l'amour. Directed by Jean-Luc Godard. *1/2Godard has become a pompous and pretentious prick. I just laughed my guts out, reading other people's reviews and calling this piece of crap "A Masterpiece" and "The Best Film of 2001" What!? %$%$&%! You gotta be kidding me! Grow the hell up! You know it's crap don't deny it. What are you trying to achieve? To be recognize as an intellectual? Ha!The film is SO boring. Boring, boring, boring. I like slow-paced film but this one goes beyond my boredom scale. The film doesn't say anything and doesn't make you feel anything. Please avoid it, like the plague and save yourself an embarrassment. I beg you: Do not waste you precious 96 minutes on this trash! Stay away from it! Gosh! I regret so much the moment I walked in that theater... One of the worst films of the decade for sure. Godard: Please, retire and relief us from grief. Go to the beautiful Blue Coast but stop making films. If you do so, you will get my praise.5/10

ALauff Whatever else it offers—a rebuke of American cultural imperialism; a fluid melding of Godard's ruminations on the place of art in representing history and memory; meandering thoughts that seem written in the air, aural echoes of the relaxed motion and pace of individual shots—In Praise of Love will be regarded, in any discernible future, as the time when Godard punked out Spielberg, taking him to task for his perceived sin of manipulating real tragedy (the Holocaust) for personal gain and using him as a microcosm of what's wrong with Hollywood. Godard's refrain of discontent is built on a few specific misgivings, and at least one—Hollywood's role in camouflaging America's own lack of history and identity—benefits from the mischievous tone with which said grievance is presented in voice-over, so that the viewer isn't entirely sure how seriously to take the cantankerous filmmaker.Textual breeziness is well complemented by an audacious visual strategy, as black-and-white film eventually yields to digital color video, which I would characterize as an orgiastic array of watercolor images that superimpose each other. This uncannily feels like a history (of film?) collapsing into self-reflexive morass, paralleling the narrative shift of genteel reflection to arch, free-associative interrogation. Having recently seen Week End, it's tempting to conclude that Godard at relative ease, as he is here, is preferable to Godard in apocalyptic control.

rmeans-3 "I see a new landscape, and it's new to me because I compare it to an olderlandscape." (from "In Praise of Love")It's aesthetically a beautiful film which shifts from the most vivid monochrome to a sublime wash of oranges and blues. The film is concerned with history, love, aging, and pop culture. Godard successfully remakes himself with each of his works, while maintaining his familiar tendencies. I feel sorry for those viewers who expect all of his movies to be "Breathless." These individuals have missed out on witnessing the evolution of cinema's most eclectic genius.