Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

elshikh4 AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!! Well .. now we can talk ..Despite my hatred for the shown type of human (Hedda Amerson/Robin Wright Penn) as a tenderhearted girl whom never turns to seek revenge on the man whom she loved even though he drove her to committing suicide (2 times !) as his first wife, and hit his second wife to the extent that he paralyzed her !!, and then hit his third wife till he killed her !!! And our very good-natured girl just can't even hate him a bit !??? Despite my hatred for that, I hated and hated and hated the way that this story had been told by! The movie tried to be as dissimilar as its main character, so the writer/director (Erin Dignam) didn't put this series of confessions (justifications for her absolute love) as a long sequences in the plot of a psychotherapy's movie but made such a drama with a sense of thrill by transporting it to the courtroom instead of the psychiatrist's room. Yet even by that way this very movie had no way to unite us with whatever it wanted to say, or consolidated its case by anything solid to be at the end a delicate yet fragile movie like its hero or should I say its anti-hero ?! Honestly nothing was cohesive ! The shots were too damn long, the rhythm was deadly slow, the important information came like a few parsimonious drops ! And I just doubt that no artiest in the world wants his audience to fall asleep in front of his work as this one successfully did ! Moreover the main character in herself as forgiveness in a human form was really cold provoker or not convincing. You'll find yourself screaming so many times while watching : this is masochism !.. And it's a crime.. you are the victim in it and the criminal.. so when you acquit such a mean killer and make him back to our society by this too soft, too weeping and too emotional witness then he'll do it again and again.. well lady.. this is a fatal man slayer or at least a disturbed sick person who looks like a loving kind of guy (which makes him more dangerous as a killer) but you're just too blinded by love to see that.. so this is not love.. this is an illness which means that this cute girl is needing help very fast just like her brutal sensitive love !Further than that, look at the character of the lawyer (K.D. Dietrickson/William Hurt) who seemed a good person from the start without even one thing which changes a bit in him at the very end, for better or for worse !? But that's nothing compared to the stupid final scene when he told the girl in great emotional condition : "I've learned from you .. a lot .. but I'll tell you about that .. Later" !!!! As for me this is a very weak scene ! and speaking of which let me tell you eagerly about those 2 dull scenes where she was swimming in the pool ! OH MY GOD.. That wasn't only boring but also a truly pedant piece of work like the movie wants to tell us visually that she is as pure & placid as this water !Over and above, you just find those idiots who applaud and glorify the movie as I dare them all to tell me whatever they learned from it or understood, and even if they could (which I doubt so much) let them be that objective once to tell me, or themselves, what are the defects of their beloved movie ?! The big result of the aforementioned was : a character that makes you ailing, a plot and a style which were both whether feeble to a crappy extent, or pedant to alleged extent, which would put you away from its true well-meaning or its noble message.P.S : the intro scene of (Sean Penn) as the pathetic image which we all turning into without the presence of loving affectionate and tolerant persons like (Hedda Amerson) among us.. that fine scene looked really independent away from the whole movie as the only true perfect thing here, making an ugly irony if you compared it to all what's after it.

Erick-12 _Loved_ was written and directed by Erin Dignam. Produced by Sean Penn, who makes a great cameo appearance early in the story as a schizoid character who desperately asks for emotional help from a lawyer-cum-psychologist played by William Hurt. The Penn character disappears after this brief speech about how we're all magnets attracting and repelling each other, filled with defensive fear, setting up barriers and protective distances which go against our purposes, and that there is no help from anywhere else, and that there is no faith beyond love.... This rambling nervous speech by a "madman" on the edge is the most overt statement of the theme of this film. The lawyer played by Hurt does hug him and Penn asks if he is an angel. "No." This same question is asked later by Robin Wright Penn's character, the main character that is. (Penn then walks back toward a remote house and in the background, and if you listen carefully you'll hear someone far away calling a "Michael" to come in for breakfast-- seems he lives in a group home where the staff take care of him.)Main story is about an ambiguous case of domestic violence, of spouse abuse. Young man is brought to court in the name of 3 past girlfriends who all have the same tragic profile of hospitalizations and self-abuse or suicide tendencies. Robin Wright Penn character is eccentric, direct, sensitive, and disciplined as a swimmer, honest, yet a bit confused about the abusive relationship. She defends it as the best thing that ever happened to her, but everyone around her is convinced that she's a victim. The film avoids taking obvious sides on this, by giving both sides a passionate voice. In the courtroom showdown, Robin's character is asked point blank how she would describe their relationship: "I wouldn't" describe it is her considered answer. The abuser seems to be a sensitive and overly intense man who was "tryng to break through her skin to the real self inside". His extreme magnetism is to attempt to get too attached, too united with a lover -- more than is humanly possible, and in frustration at this impossibility, he explodes in rages. The human condition compels attraction and repels it simultaneously. A sick kind of intimacy to be sure, but his quest for an absolute oneness inspires both devotion and confused self-destruction. After the trial scenes, he admits that he has wronged others and that he is now afraid to get attached to anyone: "I can't afford to" he cries. There is no hope.Yet this fear of attachment and the self-blaming is echoed in a much more subtle manner in the lawyer's life. He blames himself for his own divorce and now is also afraid to love anyone especially. Instead he "loves" everyone equally, but also sees the world as full of enemies who need to be prosecuted, which is his career. It is his own existential suffering that allows him to see so clearly into the confusions of Robin's character. She later realizes this and likewise asks him to confess. This sounds less interesting than the way it actually comes across as an emotional film about emotional intensity and our deadening withdrawal from the severe and unstable results of such relationships. There are a series of interesting contrasts set up throughout the relationships in this film and their transformations.Robin's character is insistent upon the precise language she needs for her experience --"hit" as opposed to "strike"; "stepped into" as opposed to "jumped off" etc., yet she is in denial about her year and a half of insomnia that drove her to attempt suicide. It started right after she heard that the abusive-sensitive man hurt his new girlfriend more than her: which she understood in her private nightmare as proof that he loved the new woman more. She has come to equate the degree of violence with the degree of genuine connection, and feels "envy". At this point she lost touch with reality and became afraid of the dark: "the table was not a table." She argues this point extensively, but the Hurt lawyer- psychotherapist seems to outwit her. It is "her state of mind that is the essence of this case" he says.Nevertheless, her view affects him a lot. He seems to be falling for her--he's a lonely divorcée. He seems unconsciously to want to prosecute himself through the abuser for some untold failure in himself. It is suggested that he was unfaithful to his wife before. While not an abuser, he does blame himself for the divorce-- he's now "stopped believing in himself". The phrase "a table is not a table" is used throughout, explained in the first courtroom scene, to mean the state of mind in which you lose faith in something you trusted--in somebody. He saves her from her confusion and denial, yet in the end it is suggested that she will save him in turn from his own loss. In the final scene, we cannot tell whether she will pull him into the pool or he will pull her out -- precisely because it is both at once on the emotional level.

rustle-rizz 'Loved' is not edge of the seat stuff. It is a grown-up film which examines the nature of love and infatuation. The script is beautifully crafted and provides insight into the machinations of it's individual characters. Robin Wright-Penn and William Hurt undergo a professional relationship which seems to promise something more. The question raised is about commitment and whether that commitment necessitates losing something in oneself. The language of the film is as much in the incidental actions and gestures as in the dialogue. William Hurt stands by the pool, fully clothed, he offers his hand to help R W-P out, she beckons him in. If that is too subtle for you, steer well clear. But, if nothing else, do catch the first five minutes for the brilliant Sean Penn cameo.

Lars-Toralf Storstrand This must be the singular most boring movie that I've ever seen. I can't remember a movie being so slow to reach a punchline that simply never excists. The whole movie should simply never have been made.