>look at the title, fam. they named the film "love." there's
>your first clue.

It's about two old people who love each other. "Love" seems direct and appropriate.

Now it if was an American film called Amour--that's pretentious. Or if it was called "The Unbearable Beauty of Love in the Twilight Moments," that would also be pretentious.

I suppose Haneke could have called it "Old Folks Dying" but you have to get people in the theater.



>i'm not gonna argue with you about your reaction to the film.
>you say you were moved by it, i'm not gonna tell you you
>weren't. there were some genuinely moving sequences, the
>leads gave moving performances. there are elements of a good
>film here. in fact, i think you could edit this down (moving
>some stuff around) into a really good short film. 30, 40
>minutes tops. dragging it out over two hours is indefensible.
> it's boring your audience in the name of art and wasting
>everyone's time.

I think that's a totally valid reaction to the film. I just think you could have called it boring and bloated without accusing people who liked it of being pretentious/hipster/fake showoffs.