Amores perros (2000) Reviews

• A smartly modern elegy.

  the red duchess2001-05-22

  There is a character in 'Amores perros' who looks like Karl Marx. He is a tramp and an assassin, a good bourgeois who one day, Reggie Perrin-like, abandoned his family, and, un-Reggie Perrin-like, joined the Sandanistas in an effort to create a better world, earning 20 years in prison for his troubles. Walking the streets with a creaky cart and a gaggle of mangy dogs, he was found by the policeman who jailed him, who gave him a dingy place to live, food, and the odd, non-official contract. El Chivo is the soul of the film, the missing link, both in appearance (a man called 'The Goat', who has rejected the civilities of society and lives a beast-like existence with his dogs, amongst the ruins of civilisation), and narrative function. With intricate structure, 'Amores perros' tells three stories, one of underclass Mexican life, where survival depends on what New Labour calls 'illegal economies' (dog-fighting, bank-robbing etc.), where bright young women are stifled and degraded by thoughtless pregnancies and brutal marriages, where single mothers depend (and usually can't depend) on shiftless sons for subsistence; and this world's mirror opposite, the world of the media, of celebrity, of models and magazine editors, of daytime TV, perfume advertising campaigns and bright apartments. Family life is central here too, although in this case it is torn apart by more pleasanntly bourgeois ailments like ennui and dissatisfaction. These two stories are mediated by the narrative of El Chivo, the man who left one of these worlds for the other, but who still negotiates the two, through his search for the daughter he left as a toddler, and in his 'job', wiping out businessman. If Mexico is emerging as part of the super-confident globalism of high-capitalism, than El Chivo is the grizzly sore thumb, the ex-Sandinista, the Marx lookalike, the man who said no, the drop-out, the forgotten, the depleted spirit of the Left, happily killing and torturing the servants of the new economic regime. There is something Biblical about his hirsute ascetism too, presuming to judge the 'Cain and Abel' half-brothers, one an adulterer, the other with a contract out on his sibling, another example of family gone badly wrong. This, the bleak funeral and grave scenes, and Octavia's functional crossing himself every time he passes an icon on the landing, are the sole residual elements of religion in a society once ostentatiously religious. Except for the director. Like Paul Thomas Anderson in 'Magnolia', although to a less self-conscious degree, Gonzales Inarritu is the God of his film, intricately creating the structure that links his characters and their different environments. These are negative connections, however, which work against the idea of coherent meaning in life - contact usually results in destruction (physical, material, spiritual), or diminishing. He is also an Old Testament god, punishing those who would get too confident with their future plans or their seemingly inviolable present success - the gains of capitalism are prey to the violent whims of chance: Gonzalez Inarritu doesn't need frogs to shake a rigid society or mindset. Moral change is linked to physical change - being beaten up, losing a leg, cutting hair. The punning title, with its reference to the dog-eat/fight-dog nature of modern life, and its general unsatisfactoriness, also gives the film its Biblical feel, the idea of Mexico as an asphalt desert, or a rubbish heap, with all these scrawny mutts scavenging the remains. 'Amores perros' shares the sickly, bleached near-monochrome look of many recent crime films, like 'Chopper' or 'Bleeder'. But where the heightened mise-en-scene in those works were expressionistic projections of their protagonists' psychosis, here it's part of a controlling world-view, the universal consciousness that creates, connects and destroys. The three stories, though connected narratively and symbolically, are mutually distinct - the first is an exhilirating mix of violent gangster film and frustrated romance; the second is like a short story (the screenwriter is a novelist), a figurative plot where movement is through image, symbol and idea, rather than film narrative; the third is a kind of spiritual journey, with an appropriately Biblical (or Wim Wenders-like) openness. 'Amores perros' is not quite as amazing as its admirers claim - it says more about contemporary cinema that a film only has to hold your interest for it to be a masterpiece - but it is consistently enthralling, and, despite all the stylistic tics and brutal violence, bracingly humanist.

• Lest the Dramatic Structure be Stillborn

  aknowles-12004-03-06

  True to the structure, Iñárritu attacks the subject of love with a multi-pronged approach, addressing three different stages, or complications, common in `love.' All three storylines represent the `struggling' aspect of love. It would be fair to say that Amores Perros, roughly translated to be `Love's a Bitch,' makes the ultimate statement, `Love is a struggle.' More specifically, however, Octavio's narrative can be most suitably seen as the `hunt for love' and acquisition or fight for it. To be with his love, Susana, he must overcome both the fact that his brother is married to her and the fact that his dreams of leaving the city are hamstrung by his less than admirable socio-economic state. Daniel and Valeria, who are about fifteen to twenty years Octavio and Susana's elders, represent love's most frustrating peak - when one is already in it and wants or needs to get out, for better of for worse. Daniel is trying to get out of a marriage in which he has kids to be with the supermodel, Valeria, a woman whose meaning to him is ultimately superficial. El Chivo, whose story is a perfect compliment to Daniel's, represents distance and alienation from love, inwardly looking at it from the outside. He has abandoned his family twenty years prior to become a guerilla terrorist and now operates as a vagabond hit man. It would be difficult to look at these three different `stages' of love in a classically structured film. The episodic structure eases us between each stage, at no point forcing us to tolerate the unrealistic concept of one couple going through all of these stages. Breaking it up into three different narratives, each revolving around different characters, presents the audience with the ability to view each story as independent the others, a more pervasive perspective. However, this film is not a simple three-part love story. In Amores Perros, violence is akin to love. Each character displays this brutally: El Chivo leaves his love to be a terrorist; Octavio engages his dog in violence and even attempts murder to provide money for his love; Daniel and Valeria's relationship is verbally and nearly physically volatile to the point where they hate each other. Each character's love for another character is manifested in their violent acts. This is an interesting theme considering the paradoxical relationship between love and violence, one of which is the induction of harm, the other which is the polar opposite. This juxtaposition of love and violence, if for no other reason, is meant to show the impulsive nature of love. We take it for granted as a compassionate, helping characteristic of life but Iñárritu reveals his characters through this juxtaposition, allowing the audience to consider the consequences of love that are otherwise unforeseen. Iñárritu does a lot of things right in this film. Mainly, he keeps us in constant suspense through the causality of the plot, forcing us to anticipate the results of the characters' actions. This causality can be as brazen as Octavio's decision to stab Jarocho, inevitably leading one into apprehension over what will happen to Octavio. Less obviously, however, is the way he creates suspense around Daniel and Valeria. Their whole relationship is characterized by conflict. While this makes for good dialogue, it insists upon a boiling point - one that is anticipated throughout the entire length of their chapter. Likewise, there is delicate suspense over what Valeria's disfigurement will mean for their relationship. Not only is Daniel forced to confront whether or not Valeria's beauty is the only thing keeping them together, but Valeria must adjust to living without her beauty. Suspense revolves around El Chivo from the moment he first comes onto screen. We see him. He murders someone. We're back to the story of Octavio. The entire first two hours of the movie beg of an answer as to who this man is and what he has to do with the subject of the film. We later find out, not only does he have everything to do with it; he makes the film, seeking redemption on behalf of every other love-torn character. The type of monologue Emilio Echevarria's character, El Chivo, delivers at the end of the film would have a completely different meaning in a film without an episodic structure, in which case he would only be seeking redemption for himself. However, the way Iñárritu cross cuts between El Chivo and the other characters, in all their woe - the consequences of their actions, applies greater meaning to El Chivo's words and actions in the final scene. Perhaps where we get some of the most important information about the characters, and Amores Perros as a whole, is through what is representative. Iñárritu makes steady use of symbols and motifs throughout the film, some of which work well, lending themselves nicely to the dramatic structure of the film, others failing to enhance the story. For example, the massive Enchant billboard looming above Valeria's apartment like the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg is one of the more lackluster motifs in the film. First, we are unavoidably asking, `Why they would want to live under that thing in the first place? Second, the removal of the billboard coinciding with the fall of Valeria's career, Daniel's self-assurance, their relationship, whatever you want to intuit, is much to explicit for this film. The more understated motifs such as the recurring telephone ring, `Bueno?.Bueno?' someone always answers, come off better. This repetition is telling of the deception and unfaithfulness rampant in this world. It works. Another representative device that supplements the story is how the dogs act as metaphors for their respective owners. El Chivo's dogs are the very embodiment of him. They are all strays much the same way he is a vagrant. Cofi, Octavio's rottweiler is equivalent to Octavio in his impulsive and aggressive behavior. This is displayed in Cofi most notably during the fight scenes, but we see it particularly in Octavio when he head-butts his brother, Ramiro, and when he stabs Jarocho in the stomach and thereby provoking the car chase. Valeria's dog, Richie, is lost under the floorboards, confined for most of this narrative. Valeria is physically much the same way, confined to her wheelchair. More implicitly, she is confined to a life that has been propped up around her by people who idolize, envy, or lust after her. Valeria's death is also parallel to her dog's death in that they both die from their respective internment, Valeria being trapped in a room and too immobile to save herself, Richie trapped in the floor and too exhausted to fend off armies hungry rats. The motifs and metaphors within each narrative help structure them as self-contained bodies. The episodic structure of Amores Perros could have been damaging to the film had it not been for the inspired way the stories overlap only so much as to not exasperate the audience. In the three stories, rarely does a character from one interact with a character from another, outside the unifying car crash scene. There are truly only two occurrences: when El Chivo, sword in hand, scares off a frustrated Jarocho who plans to sic his dog on one of El Chivo's, and when Valeria appears on a Mexican morning show broadcast into Octavio's home the morning of the accident. This interaction was all that was needed for Amores Perros to be successful as an episodic film. Its structure lends itself well to subject matter and storyline. Iñárritu tells it to us this way; the literary devices at use bring it to life and its structure gives it legs to move. Throughout it, so well crafted, one can mentally fuse all three stories together and see one single character going through the process of fighting for love, realizing what a trivial pursuit it is, abandoning it, and then spending the rest of his life trying to touch it from behind the bars self-guilt.

• Doggie Holocaust makes for Best Mexican Film Ever

  WriterDave2003-06-11

  Some people just won't want to sit through this film because of the overtly graphic and disturbing dog fighting scenes, which is ironic, because most people don't seem to mind the graphic violence involving the people in this film. Others simply won't watch it because of the subtitles. This is a shame, since this is by far the best film I have ever seen come out of Mexico (far better and more complex than the comparably immature "Y Tu Mama Tambien"). Here we get an intertwining tale involving dog fights, petty gangsters, a tragically injured model, a cheating husband, an abused teenage wife, and a homeless hit man. As you might expect the homeless hit man becomes the soul of the film, and the dogs serve as a link, reminding us of the violence we inflict upon each other and nature, and the fractured relationships we think beyond repair, but are actually more resilient than we could ever imagine. Brilliantly directed with a great soundtrack and a bigger heart than you might initially perceive, "Amores Perros" is a deep, thought-provoking and utterly enthralling film that you will not soon forget.

• Brilliant movie! One of the best this decade...

  Infofreak2002-05-24

  'Amores Perros' impressed the hell out of me. Three interrelated tales of the darker side of life in contemporary Mexico City, each one as fresh and as fascinating as the last. Each of the three stories are dark, disturbing and filled with humanity. Superbly acted all round, but especially noteworthy is the standout performance by Emilio Echevarria as El Chivo, a political dissident turned hitman, and if the charismatic Gael Garcia Bernal (Octavia, the lovesick dog fighter) isn't an international star in the making I'll eat my words. This brilliant movie shows up the mediocrity of most current Hollywood "product", and to my mind ranks with a small handful of movies made this decade ('Chopper', 'The Pledge', 'The Way Of The Gun') that are truly memorable and with genuine substance. This one is a winner and essential viewing for all movie lovers. A future classic.

• Excellent Storytelling But Flawed

  oneflewovertheapocalypse2004-03-29

  I was really looking forward to this as I had heard all the hype about it off IMDb and managed to get it in a DVD sale for £8. The only thing that put me off was that there was dog fights in it and I don't take kindly to watching animal cruelty in films. I know it's not real but it reminds me that it does happen in some countries and it's just a bit upsetting but I thought to myself 'it's only a movie and I am sure it won't take anything away from it' and thankfully it didn't. I liked the way they put in the beginning of the film reminding us that no animal was hurt during the course of the movie because people don't usually watch the credits at the end unless they really want to because that quote about the animals doesn't really come up till the very last bit of the credits but without it at the beginning then I am sure there would be a lot of very upset people. But back to the film Amores Perros is all about three different stories that come together through a car accident and we see how there lives are before and after the accident. We start off with Octavio who lives at home with his abusing brother, mother and his brother's girlfriend who he has taken a shine to. His brother is always on at him and smacks about his partner which doesn't like but knows he can do nothing about it unless he wants his legs broken. His story begins when his dog kills a champion fighting dog owned by a ruthless gangster of the town. When Octavio realises that he can make some money with his dog fighting so he can escape the slums of Mexico City. But it's not so easy as he wants to take his brother girlfriend and her baby with him but she takes some convincing. The other story is to do with Valeria who is happy with her new lover who has just left his wife and kids for her but the terrible accident leaves her wheelchair bound and she loses her grip on wanting to enjoy her life and things start to become hard for her and her lover. But the only thing that is keeping her occupied is the love for her dog who accidentally gets trapped underneath the floor boards. Valeria worries as there are Rats down there and doesn't seem to find a way of getting the dog out and as this happens her conditions worsens with gangrene setting in. The last story is with El Chiro A homeless man with nothing in his life apart from his love for his own pet dogs. He also has a past that is hurting him deep inside as he is not allowed to see his daughter after he walked out on the family but now is ex wife is dead he tries to make up for what he has done with the his daughter but the family do it's best to keep him away and obsolete from her life. The movie is very long and has a lot of unneeded scenes in it. I really wasn't taken in by the story of Valeria as it didn't seem very convincing and doesn't really go anywhere. You think it's just about to get interesting but at the last minute it has gone and it makes you feel whether they could have just cut out the entire screen as she doesn't make a difference. If I had it my own way then I would have kept the whole film focusing on Octavio and his dog Cofi trying their best to gather enough money to get out of there depressing lives and with El Chiro coming in in one or two scenes to make it a lot more interesting. This doesn't make Amores Perros a bad film just not a great one. You will go away thinking it could have been better or you will just plain love it but not watch it again. Its not the sort of film you go back and watch it again and again unless it intrigued you. Another good solid foreign film that didn't hit all the marks but still very good.