---
title: "Love"
year: 2015
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/love"
fi1m_id: "love"
imdb_id: "tt3774694"
tmdb_id: 292431
wikidata_id: "Q19829024"
fi1m_score: 54
critics_score: 58
critics_reviews: 22
published: "2026-09-23T11:31:34.431885+00:00"
updated: "2026-09-23T11:31:34.921962+00:00"
region: "AZ"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Love (2015)

Directed by Gaspar Noé · 2h 14m · Drama, Romance

## Identity

Love

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/love
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** love
- **IMDb ID:** tt3774694
- **TMDB ID:** 292431
- **Wikidata ID:** Q19829024
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774694/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/292431, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19829024

**Fi1m score: 54** · Critics 58 from 22 reviews

*In a sentence:* The sex is tender; the conversations make a persuasive case for going home alone

> Gaspar Noé’s *Love* is a disappointing romance with moments of real tenderness. Its explicit sex scenes earn their place, but thin characters and laboured conversations make 134 minutes feel like a considerable commitment.

## Synopsis

Murphy (Karl Glusman) is an aspiring filmmaker preoccupied with memories of his former relationship with Electra (Aomi Muyock), an aspiring artist. Omi (Klara Kristin) is the other woman in his life, but he keeps looking back from an unhappy present. He wants to make a film that brings sexual intimacy and emotion together. His own recollections move between sex, arguments and moments of closeness, arriving in fragments rather than chronological order. The people around him have to compete with his attachment to the relationship he remembers and his dissatisfaction with the life he now has.

## Review

Gaspar Noé wants to give a couple’s sexual life the sustained attention that screen romances usually grant their conversations. That is a worthwhile ambition, and *Love* has enough tenderness to justify the attempt. It is also a disappointing film, because the lovers become less interesting the longer they talk, and 134 minutes allows them plenty of opportunity. The difficulty is sustaining concern for people whose unhappiness soon becomes predictable.

Murphy, played by Karl Glusman, is an aspiring filmmaker looking back on a relationship from an unhappy present. The fragmented recollections make sense as the habits of someone who keeps returning to what he has lost, hoping repetition will somehow help. His self-absorption need not be a problem; unhappy, selfish people can be absorbing company. Here, however, the screenplay gives his longing so little variety that we begin waiting for another thought to occur to him.

Benoît Debie lights the lovers so that their physical closeness can seem tender even when the images are explicit. The sex is allowed to look pleasurable, which makes its place among these unhappy recollections more affecting. We were unexpectedly saddened by the remembered intimacy between Murphy and Electra, because the film keeps setting it against his dissatisfaction in the present. For a while, it makes the pain of remembering physical happiness recognisable, without requiring us to admire the man doing the remembering.

Aomi Muyock gives Electra a vulnerability that occasionally interrupts Murphy’s account of himself. There are glimpses of a woman with feelings that cannot be reduced to his regret, and they make us wish the film would spend longer with her. Klara Kristin, as Omi, has less room to become someone we can consider separately from the central man’s predicament. Gaspar Noé’s screenplay keeps bringing the conversations back to sex and unhappiness, with too little curiosity about how these people might behave when neither is being discussed.

Gaspar Noé and Denis Bedlow give the memories a drifting rhythm in the editing, so the relationship can be recalled in fragments rather than explained in sequence. The approach works while each return changes our sense of the couple, then becomes wearing as the same feelings recur. Samantha Benne’s production design contributes to the enclosed feeling, but the surroundings offer little relief from Murphy’s preoccupations. As the encounters accumulate, the lack of much life beyond the relationship becomes harder to ignore.

The explicit sex is not the obstacle to emotional involvement, and removing it would leave the film poorer. A romance can be graphic, awkward and deeply affecting without making its lovers pleasant people. What is missing here is enough difference between one argument and the next, or enough discovery within them, to justify staying so close for so long. The scenes continue after their emotional point is clear, and the dialogue too often states what the bodies have already made apparent. For an evening in with someone we like, we would choose lovers with more to say to each other.

*Fi1m score 54, published 23 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

The consensus on Love is mixed, though praise repeatedly centres on the filming of its explicit sex scenes. The reviews find tenderness, melancholy and careful lighting and choreography in material that might otherwise seem merely provocative; several see Noé’s treatment of sexual intimacy as unusually frank about how relationships work. Even some sceptical critics admire the dreamy imagery and 3D effects, while supporters find the recollection of a lost relationship poignant rather than simply self-absorbed.

Reservations cluster around thin characters, awkward dialogue, uneven performances and a length that tests even sympathetic reviewers. The spread is wide: critics disagree over whether the film gives its sexual encounters enough emotional weight, and whether its fragmented storytelling deepens the sense of memory or makes the drama harder to follow. RogerEbert.com finds a mournful exploration of sensuality in the flashbacks, whereas Total Film considers the fractured chronology confused and the performances hollow.

## Straight answers

**Is Love worth watching?**

*Love* offers moments of tenderness, but we find it a disappointing romance and score it 54 out of 100. Its explicit intimacy may interest viewers drawn to frank relationship dramas, but thin characters, repetitive arguments and laboured conversations make its 134 minutes difficult to recommend.

**How long is Love, and what is it rated?**

*Love* runs 2h 14m. It is a drama and romance film.

**Where can I watch Love in Azerbaijan?**

*Love* is not on any streaming or rental service in Azerbaijan at the moment. It is available in 8 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.

**How violent or frightening is Love, and is it suitable for children?**

*Love* has a UK 18 certificate and contains explicit sex, making it unsuitable for children and younger teenagers. The sexual content is the main concern highlighted in our review, rather than violence or fear; we find tenderness in those scenes, but they suit adults comfortable with graphic sexual imagery.

**How does Love compare to Weekend?**

*Love* is the less persuasive romance beside [*Weekend*](https://film.one/film/weekend), which we recommend for giving physical intimacy a fuller emotional context through two men talking and listening. Both find room for tenderness, but *Love* repeats its lovers’ unhappiness until it becomes wearing, while *Weekend* makes conversation revealing, despite occasional dialogue that sounds too written.

**What should I watch after Love?**

After *Love*, try [*Weekend*](https://film.one/film/weekend) (2011, Fi1m 86): Two men talking and listening give physical intimacy a persuasive emotional context. Then [*Happy Together*](https://film.one/film/happy-together) (1997, Fi1m 86): Repeated separations and reconciliations reveal the exhausting pull of an unhappy relationship.

### Reviews we read (22)

- **Variety**, Peter Debruge (80/100, inferred): Noé delivers a courageously personal, semi-autobiographical account of an aspiring filmmaker torn between two women that explores the emotional foundation of sex more honestly than most films. The explicit 3-D result proves surprisingly tame and soft-core for the director, fulfilling the lead character’s ambition of depicting sentimental sexuality. [Read](https://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/love-review-gaspar-noe-cannes-1201502134/)
- **Vulture** (80/100, inferred): Praises how the film makes sex look awesome and sad in all the right ways, calling the entrapment vivid and poignant despite its solipsistic world. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/2015/10/3d-love-makes-sex-look-awesome-and-sad.html)
- **RogerEbert.com**, Simon Abrams (75/100, inferred): The film unsentimentally depicts a past sexual relationship through fragmented flashbacks from the perspective of an unlikeable protagonist trapped in an unsatisfying present. It succeeds as a mannered, mournful exploration of sensuality and memory when viewed as an over-determined work about characters seeking escape in the past. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/love-2015)
- **Financial Times**, Danny Leigh (74/100, inferred): The critic describes the film as sad and smudgy, praising Noé’s conjuring of drug-induced memories of a former relationship through its explicit scenes and visual style. He notes the potent 3D effects amid the story of a ruinous relationship. [Read](https://www.ft.com/content/7a54fcea-8eab-11e5-a549-b89a1dfede9b)
- **Evening Standard**, Charlotte O'Sullivan (70/100, inferred): After a slow start, Noé’s self-referential soap proves more-ish. It highlights Electra as a convincingly vulnerable aspiring artist and lover-of-threesomes, and praises the novelty of allowing a heroine to have rotten-looking teeth. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/love-3d-film-review-nothing-new-about-sex-but-the-teeth-are-a-novelty-a3119726.html)
- **The AV Club**, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky (C+): It's woodenly earnest with on-the-nose dialogue and amateur actors, but fitfully compelling as an exercise in limited style and psychological interiority. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/from-cannes-new-films-by-gaspar-noe-paolo-sorrentino-1798279879)
- **Little White Lies**, Jordan Cronk (4/3/3): Noé returns with his most controversial and compassionate movie yet, surprisingly tender and tasteful. The film finds the director having a little fun at his own expense while indulging expected delights with newfound humour and humanity. [Read](https://lwlies.com/reviews/love)
- **Time Out**, Dave Calhoun (3/5): More silly than sordid and even a little soppy in its late love-filled moments; many teens will love it while most adults will roll their eyes. The film creates a base nocturnal atmosphere effectively and has some strong non-sex moments, but is undermined by self-regarding elements. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/love-4)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Leslie Felperin (55/100, inferred): The critic finds the emotional story shallow and ineffective due to an unlikeable protagonist, but praises the technical panache and beautiful sex scenes. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/love-cannes-review-797320/)
- **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (50/100, inferred): The critic finds Noé’s 3D sex drama a doomy, porny melodrama of erotic despair that is more to be laughed or groaned with than at, despite over-the-top acting. He singles out the director’s signature visual techniques and the effective dreamlike editing for praise. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/19/love-review-3d-sex-gaspar-noe)
- **The New York Times**, Jeannette Catsoulis (50/100, inferred): Noé aims to tell a romance entirely through unsimulated sex, achieving a dreamy eroticism and touching innocence that strips the material of salaciousness. The result is ultimately exasperatingly one-dimensional, with nothing left to build characters or plot beyond the fornication. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/movies/review-love-gaspar-noes-romance-told-through-sex.html)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Robert Abele (40/100, inferred): The raw tale of lost passion is a noble misfire whose explicit 3-D sex scenes become tedious voyeurism because the characters remain thinly conceived flesh avatars. When it works, it achieves a lulling, melancholic frenzy about sex and memory, but the foundation is too weak to sustain the length. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-love-movie-review-20151106-story.html)
- **Screen Daily** (40/100, inferred): The critic finds the film invents a new, singularly unsatisfying genre of 'chill-out porn'. It is more claustrophobic than enlightening or arousing, tame compared to Nymphomaniac but lacking its ambition and wit. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/love-review/5087454.article)
- **Total Film**, Jamie Graham (40/100, inferred): Too long at 135 minutes with a fractured time scheme that is a hard-to-follow mess, further hampered by English-language performances that feel hollow. It has some indelible sequences but overall feels rather limp compared to Noé’s earlier work. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/love-reaction-cannes-2015/)
- **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (30/100, inferred): Calls the film the cine-equivalent of clickbait and criticizes its one-note antagonistic style and narcissistic self-absorption. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/love-2015/)
- **Paste**, Tim Grierson (7.9/10): The critic calls the film too long and self-indulgent but transporting and fun if one accepts its wavelength, praising its rare focus on how a couple's sexual life reflects their relationship dynamics. [Read](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/love-2015-cannes-review)
- **Collider**, Phil Brown (B-): The critic finds the film intriguing as a middle ground between art and smut despite its length and 3D gimmicks, praising its surprisingly realistic and tender depiction of a messy adult relationship. [Read](https://collider.com/love-movie-review-tiff-2015/)
- **The Playlist**, The Playlist Staff (B-): The overlong, self-indulgent film has many flaws including weak acting, risible dialogue, and problematic politics around gender and sexuality, yet it features beautifully lit and choreographed sex scenes with lyrical visuals enhanced by 3D. It represents a softer, more sentimental side of Noé focused on 'sentimental sexuality' rather than pure transgression, leaving some fans potentially underwhelmed but still diverting and occasionally dazzling. [Read](https://theplaylist.net/cannes-review-gaspar-noes-hardcore-and-softhearted-love-20150521/)
- **HeyUGuys**, Jo-Ann Titmarsh (60/100, inferred): The film is not as shocking as its marketing suggested and falls short of being Noé's best or most transgressive work, with some characters lacking realistic grounding and the runtime feeling long. It earns praise for eye-popping 3D effects, tender intimate moments between leads, and successfully integrating explicit sex into a mainstream context. [Read](https://www.heyuguys.com/cannes-2015-love-review/)
- **The Wrap** (58/100, inferred): The critic finds the film gorgeously shot and conceived but repetitive and exhausting over its long runtime. They single out the explicit sex scenes for understanding want and need while noting a lack of emotional complexity or investment in the characters. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/love-review-gaspar-noe/)
- **Eye for Film**, Richard Mowe (40/100, inferred): Stripped of its extensive sex scenes the film reduces to a stilted, unrealistic love story with trite dialogue and unmotivated characters that lacks the emotional power of Noé's earlier work like Irreversible. The graphic but mostly tasteful sex is well-shot and central, making it a joyous celebration of sexuality in a melodrama format. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/love-2015-film-review-by-richard-mowe)
- **The Skinny**, Philip Concannon (★★): The critic praises the intimate, frank, and skillfully shot sex scenes as a highlight worth celebrating. Everything else falls short due to blank characters, platitudinous dialogue, interminable fights, and a script that fails to deliver emotional or intellectual depth. [Read](https://www.theskinny.co.uk/film/dvd-reviews/love)

## Details

- **Director:** Gaspar Noé
- **Director:** Gaspar Noé
- **Screenplay:** Gaspar Noé
- **Cinematography:** Benoît Debie
- **Editor:** Denis Bedlow, Gaspar Noé
- **Production design:** Samantha Benne
- **Producer:** Gaspar Noé, Édouard Weil, Rodrigo Teixeira
- **Cast:** Karl Glusman as Murphy; Aomi Muyock as Electra; Klara Kristin as Omi; Ugo Fox as Gaspar; Juan Saavedra as Julio; Gaspar Noé as Noé - Art Gallery Owner; Isabelle Nicou as Nora; Benoît Debie as Yuyo
- **Runtime:** 2h 14m
- **First release (France):** 20 May 2015
- **Genres:** Drama, Romance
- **Budget:** $3 million
- **Box office:** $249,083
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR4JLD84RBo

## Where to watch in Azerbaijan

Not streaming, renting or buying in Azerbaijan at the last check.

Also available in: AT, BE, BR, CA, FR, GB, MX, NL. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *Weekend* (2011), Fi1m 86: Two men talking and listening give physical intimacy a persuasive emotional context. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/weekend.md)
- *The Piano Teacher* (2001): A more disturbing study of desire, with sharply drawn lives beyond sex.
- *Happy Together* (1997), Fi1m 86: Repeated separations and reconciliations reveal the exhausting pull of an unhappy relationship. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/happy-together.md)
- *Scenes from a Marriage* (1973): For arguments that keep revealing something new about the people having them.
- *Hiroshima mon amour* (1959): Physical closeness and troubled memory meet in a richer account of longing.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/love