User reviews

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.

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.

Maybe for most of you, people outside third-world countries like Mexico or Colombia, my home, movies like ths one are only representations of another world... something away from you. My city, medellin, is one of the most dangerous cities on the world. Mexico city can be as dangerous as medellin. I`m not talking about politics. maybe you haven`t lived violence as near as i have, but im gonna tell you something, that is the main reason i voted 9 this movie: Amores perros is not fiction. Its a perfect peep to what life is here. We have expensive models that go to stupid tv shows, we have dog fighting, we have mercedes, we have old trucks, we have killers, businessmen, we feel love, we have houses... our life, as you can see in the movie, isn`t as different as you think. Amores perros can show you that life is not easy here. but that`s it. What you saw is thousand`s of people life. that`s why it`s so magic to you. Yourè seeing what you will never live there, in london, new york, seattle, paris, berlin... reality is weirder than fiction... see it on amores perros, and you`ll believe me... live it here, and no movie will surprise you

Comprising but not limited to, three stories all connected, and all sharing canine glue, shows how some loves and aspirations, formed and built on weak foundations, can implode through separations, leaves folks lonely and eschewed.

All elegantly carved and crafted around the streets of Mexico City by the perpetually impressive Alejandro G. Iñárritu, who takes Guillermo Arriaga's tale to deliver as angry a film as you're likely to come across, and one that delivers just as savagely some years on from its initial release. Often shocking with its portrayal, leaves you under no illusion of the desperation and despair of the lives of those it presents.

'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.

This Mexican movie was surprisingly good. I confess the sin of prejudice concerning Mexican cinema, this being maybe the second Mexican film I have ever seen, but here my sins are punished. This is the work of a director of big talent. Hopefully, he will not be spoiled by the success.

Three different stories in today's Mexico mix with very few common elements. The characters belong to different social categories, and nothing connects them at first sight, excepting the feeling of un-happiness, and - yes - dogs. Dogs play an important role in all three stories. One more warning - there is a lot of cruelty including dog fights - this film is certainly not for sensitive animal lovers.

Directing is excellent, the stories are human and complex and despite their melodramatic or sometimes tragic outcome, they still leave you with a shade of hope - maybe because the humanity that the author uses to create his characters. There are so many memorable scenes, that I would commit another sin to pick any and describe it here - just rent, or go to watch this movie in the theater - it is worth all 150 or so minutes you will spend. 9/10 on my personal scale.

Alejandro González Iñárritu's debut feature film 'Amores Perros' to me is one of the most remarkable film debuts there is in terms of direction and as an overall film. While he hasn't made a bad film (his weakest 'Babel' is still very good), even if some of his films are very divisive, 'Amores Perros' to me is his best.

It is a long film but don't let that put you off, 'Amores Perros' makes the most of the running time and rarely does it feel drawn out or overlong. The middle act is quite as good as the rest of the film, the pacing drags a bit but not enough to bring the film down too much. The first story is absorbing but even better is the magnificent last one. Even if they are purposely not likable the characters are compellingly real.

Visually, 'Amores Perros' is a very well made film. Very atmospherically lit, edited and designed. Not a fan of the hand held camera technique but it's very cleverly used here, with an intriguing documentary-like style, and is not abused. It's beautifully scored too.

Scripting is complex and absorbing, and the way 'Amores Perros', exploring love, desire, desperation and traumas, is told and constructed allows for many disturbing, shocking, suspenseful and moving moments. It's very thought-provoking too and has real immediacy, as well as hard-hitting emotional power, vast emotional range and is uniquely twisted. Iñárritu's direction is exemplary, even early on his style is well established.

Acting is very good, especially Emilio Echevarría.

Overall, a masterful feature film debut and a masterpiece in its own right. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I think we're talking about one of the best Mexican films ever (i say so, knowing there's been excellent Luis Buñuel films as well as Arturo Ripstein ones, like 'Principio y Fin' -Begining and End- that is this director's highest peak (based on the book by Naguib Mafusz)and Emilio 'El Indio' Fernandez ones that i don't personally like that much (even though he received the Golden Bear in the 'Berlinale').

Being surrounded by terrible Mexican movies, 'Amores Perros' was so refreshing and remarkably above every expectation that everybody could have about a first-time director (even though he was well-known for his wonderful work at advertising (changing the way ads were made in Mexico) and as a radio DJ in a WFM radio station that contributed to change radio in Mexico, too, along with Rock 101. Gonzalez Iñarritu (in cooperation with his almost personal screenwriter, Guillermo Arriaga) creates such a complex yet flawless history based on three individual ones that converge not only in the dantesque (reference to Dante Alighieri's style, The Divine Comedy) car accident, but in their perception and description of how love can be harsh, as well as life itself, of how love can get to be a bitch, a struggle.

First Story ('Octavio y Susana') is about Octavio's (Garcia Bernal) obsession with his sister-in-law, Susana (Vanessa Bauche), but it's also about the violence, about an illusion, about betrayal, about loss. This is also reflected in the character of Octavio's dog, Cofi in a parallel relationship with his owner while he seeks his own destiny, having lost everything, he'll have to redefine his life. This parallelism also occurs in the second story('Daniel y Valeria'), an almost surreal one, where Ritchie being trapped underneath the condo's floor represents how it's owner Valeria (Goya Toledo) is trapped in a relation with Daniel that grows sicker as her injury (caused by the car accident) gets worse. The removal of the gigantic advertising of 'Enchant', the scent campaign that she used to be the image for, from the view of her balcony represents their decline: Daniel (Avaro Guerrero) left behind his marriage for this superficial mirage kind of dream, and she will have to make a whole redefinition of her life after losing everything. The dog-character parallelism with the main characters of this film can also be noticed in the third story ('El Chivo y Maru'), where 'El Chivo' (Emilio Echevaria), a former College teacher that left it all, family included, to become some guerrilla terrorist (is there a symbolism for Subcommander Marcos, from EZLN?), and now finds, by losing it all (all of his dogs being killed), but finding a new reason, new company just before a hit-man-type mission where he sets a confrontation between two brothers in such a biblical style the chance that none of the characters from the rest of the stories had: redemption. That's when he decides to retrieve some of the things he has lost, like Maru (Lourdes Echevarria -Emilio's actual daughter in real life), by at least apologizing to her, and redeeming himself finding a new life. It's clear that he'll stop being a homeless, because by the end of the movie he's got plenty of money. This story is one step ahead of the other two, cause after the loss they are all victims of, 'El Chivo' is the only one who gets that chance to start from scratch once again. Huge merit to Emilio Echevarria's performance for making believable the only character that was in risk of not being plausible of the film. Because of the relation within the characters, their dogs and their own love personal story, the title is, too a big success (both in Spanish and in English).

Of the episodic narrative structure of the movie (a few critics in the Cannes Film Festival compared it with Tarantino's Pulp Fiction), it can be said that besides making it more beautiful and complex, it's also necessary. One can't figure a way to resolve the situation other than this one. The thrill, the shock would never be the same. For example, if each one was a short film instead, it wouldn't work the same way as the whole movie.

In the film, Gonzalez Iñarritu allows himself to appear a few times: in the editorial where Daniel works, for example, verifying a magazine cover; having some of the TV spots he made in the 90's when he was a publicist shown in the movie; and in the last scene, 'El Chivo' names the dog he rescued (formerly known as Cofi) as 'El Negro', Iñarritu's nickname.

Nothing in this film happens for no other reasons than bad decisions taken from the depth of the most negative emotions of our species. It's a portrait of how brilliant we are at just doing harm to ourselves while also having an impact on the lives of the people around us. A very good film, with good storytelling, good acting, good photography and good musics, which is a tribute to human unease.

It's a life-changing experience. Movie is highly violent, disturbing, harsh and intense, which is necessary too since the characters' upbringing lead them to that. It's so exceptionally well created that one little action creates a havoc in the lives of 3 different people, people who have no relation with each other. It seems relatable now considering how single pandemic Corona virus is changing peoples lives mostly for bad. I would not recommend this movie to anyone since it's highly disturbing and insanely violent and depressing. However, would suggest them to watch at their own risk. It's a little too stretched too, however, is fast paced no doubt.

Thanks to contributors, plot synopsis has been very well written. Amores Perros is included in the most important movies for the beginning of the 21st century. It marked a new epoch with its thoroughly life-like vision on a twist of fate. Then in a 5 years' of time within more recognized movies, we started seeing similar plot schemes telling different stories over accidents that binds each person's fate. One of them was Crash, and it won the best picture Oscar in 2005.

The more you see this film over and over again you'll get to a deeper point where the lives and choices of the characters won't matter any more. It's still affecting in the first-time watch, but with an examining view the next time you see it; you're driven into a vision, a cast of mind.There were 3 main characters and 3 main stories from each one, which are nested altogether. If we look at these stories over the characters' relationships with their dogs, it's intriguing. As if the dogs exemplify their owners:

1' Young loafer Octavio commits crime in order to earn money to make a living. He fights his dog Cofi in dog-fighting tournaments. How Cofi needs to fight for his life, so does need Octavio to commit crime for his life.

2' In the second story, beautiful model Valeria receives a surprise gift from her fiancé to choose a puppy from a pet store. By time, the puppy gets used to live a super-luxury pet life; which is the same life style of her owner. Valeria and her fiancé's apartment unit is under a hardwood flooring construction. One day while alone at home the puppy falls into a gap between the hardwood and the concrete; thus stays stuck there and began to squawk, since she is not used to live without comfort. At the same day her owner Valeria gets involved in a car accident while driving alone, having no one to help her just as happened to her puppy. She loses her leg in this accident and her luxury life comes to an end, as same as the life of her puppy. She begins complaining like her puppy squawking.

3' In the last story, the grim hit-man El Chivo saves the life of Octavio's dog Cofi, after Octavio gets killed in the traffic accident in which Valeria lost her leg. Saving him changes Cofi's life, he no longer needs to fight for Octavio's bets on dog-fighting. His life becomes safe and peaceful. El Chivo starts looking after Cofi beside his other dogs. Among the other dogs Cofi looks very ugly and dirty. One day when El Chivo leaves the dogs together at home, Cofi kills every one of them. His reason of killing all the dogs explains why his owner is a hit-man. As Cofi killed innocent dogs; El Chivo kills innocent people for El Chivo seeing himself ugly,dirty and strange among the people; like his dog feeling himself ugly,dirty and strange among the dogs. El Chivo feels bad about his dogs, when he finds out Cofi has killed them. Yet, he feels worse about himself when he actually realizes that Cofi's attitude gave him a lesson of life. Then El Chivo shaves, cuts his beard and hair, gets cleaned up and turns out looking like a gentleman. Cofi's attitude changes his life; his life becomes safe and peaceful just as when El Chivo saved Cofi's life.

The vision we're getting when we compare these 3 stories is about the public loneliness of an individual. The only person, who can guide and who can help us, is ourselves. This loneliness brings our freedom of choices. With making our own choices, we build the essence of our character: Our quintessences. Life is sum of all our choices. In order to build our quintessences; we always face the risk, fear and pressure of the chance of making a wrong choice. Life makes it obligatory to make choices. This obligatory builds our inner crisis and develops our personality. To find the secrets of our own personality, we try to find someone or something else to lay a burden on the responsibility of self-search. Here in Amores Perros, the 3 main characters are used by their self-search reflection on their dogs.

Doesn't this vision form the idea of Jean Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness"? Since Amores Perros hides the character views through the situations created by dogs; it is a movie that has no characters, but only situations. This is the systematic of Existentialism. If there was no situation or happening, there wouldn't have been any characters. Existence precedes essence. A person is nothing without his actions. So, a person doesn't have a soul(or a character) if he is not alive. Then there wasn't and won't be anything before and after our lives.

If we don't believe in this vision, certainly the signs of fate that we come across in our lives must be delusion.

This film consists of three intertwining stories, all involving dogs, and all laced with violence. The first story we're shown, that of Octavio, is excellent. Definitely a "10". If the movie had stayed at this level it might have been the best film of the year, but the second segment is annoyingly bad. Totally ridiculous, bad acting, lame story. The third and final segment is very good. I would recommend seeing this film, but I'd also recommend fast forwarding through the second segment.

Well, I was really excited about seeing this one: stunning debut, the Mexican Pulp Fuction...

But, quite honestly, I was bored by about halfway through, and that didn't change before the end. Some nice touches throughout rescued it from being drudgery, but it just wasn't enough.

I normally like this sort of film, with separate stories suddenly coming together...but for that sort of film, the stories actually have to come together at some point. And they didn't, apart from a couple of random tenuous links that really aren't enough. If it's just meant to be three separate stories, they just needed more to them.

Sorry, I tried. Harsh but fair.

A young man gets into the world of illegal dog fighting in order to get enough money together to be able to run away with his brother's wife, but in the meantime he starts tension with another dog owner. A beautiful young model signs a lucrative contract with a perfume company and moves into her new flat with her lover – only for her tragedy to strike and her dog to go missing. Finally an ex-convict and guerrilla mourns the wife he left decades ago and longs to meet the daughter who thinks he is dead – but is also contracted to kill a businessman. These three lives come together in a car crash that acts as a catalyst in changing their lives.

After seeing 21 Grams I knew that I had to get round to seeing this film. With it's appearance on TV (BBC4 showing itself to really be a 'place to think' and a wonderful channel to have) I took the opportunity to watch it, expecting a film that would match the good things I had heard about it. >From the opening car chase that results in the crash that the film spirals outwards from like debris, through for most of the first hour, I was hooked – the pace was great and the story gripping. It was violent, exciting and yet had a human element to it as well. However the second story knocked the wind out of it for a moment, and seemed to lack the emotion of the first. It was based around an urban myth of sorts and wasn't as good – even if it did pick up towards the end.

The third story saw it return to a much more involving story of pain and the grinding out of life (as in 'getting by'). Maybe it was the rich lifestyles of the characters in story two that stopped me caring as much – I don't know but I know that the contrast between one & two made it more obvious how much the pace had dropped – especially when we are left wanted to know what happened to the characters we had spent an hour getting to care about. Anyway, the third story is a satisfying ending to the film and drew me back in emotionally where the second story had cut me off by it's abrupt start. Story two finishes before story three begins, and therefore it was easier to move on.

I think the problem with this film for me was not the fact that three stories were intermingled but that I didn't think they were actually mixed well – the way the film moves away from characters before concluding their section (eg Octavia), the way the stories are actually quite separate from one another, these things and other I felt weakened the films – although each story was strong on it's own I just felt that story 2 was such a change to the film that it hurt it.

However, as a film debut this is an amazing piece of work and is relentlessly impressive. From the opening car chase to the dog fights to the silent pain of the model looking out where her image once hung – in all these different moments I thought he did a great job and visually the film was never dull once no matter if it was set in a penthouse flat or a basement of an old building with the blood of dead dogs. And while we're on the subject, at the time of release I heard critics say they walked out of the film, refusing to watch cruelty to animals even being simulated. I can see their point but also think that they missed the fact that the animals in the film are mostly loved (even if they mostly die!) – however it is love and compassion for other humans that the film shows the characters having difficulty with, and this is where the emotional impact of the film is – not in simulated dogfights, albeit very well simulated dogfights that are hard to hear even if they are mostly unseen.

The cast were all natural but I always find it hard to judge performances when they are not in English. Having said that, there were no bad performances in the whole thing – even if some have better material to work with than others. Of course I still think this is a director's film and the cast often take second place to the style and the feel of the film.

Overall I really enjoyed this film but don't believe it deserves to be considered one of the 'best films ever made™'! The opening hour is superb and it's pace is relentless (even in more sensitive moments) but the sudden stop the film makes when it changes to story two is too much to stand and really caused the film to stutter for me. It gets better and is fully back on track for story three but there are problems running all through the narrative. Even though it has a lower rating on IMDb at time of writing, I'd still say that 21 Grams offer this same fragmented style but with a much more satisfying narrative. Regardless of my nit picking I still think this is a powerful film that makes 150 minutes fly by with a huge amount of style from the first-time director, even if it does not live up to the endlessly gushing praise lavished upon it by many viewers.

A masterpiece. Plain and simple. This picture transcends any language and culture, making us all be able to relate to each of its characters. I don't buy the comparison to Pulp Fiction or any other work. The disregard of chronological scene order and intertwining storylines have been occuring in films for years. Its done for effect here, is all.

Alejandro Inarritu simply lets his actors take over and finishes off a puzzle that is almost complete as a result of the writing and acting. Not to denigrate his work, of course. After all, the ability to trust your actors and let them work is key to being a great director. BTY, more films need to be made in Mexico City, the largest in the world.

This long movie can be exhausting to some people, running at plus 2 hours this movie is heavy on its story but it doesn't forget its characters. Telling three different interlinked story, each of which have different appeals and different lively characters. Those characters feel real and authentic, they have motivation, feelings and dreams and it is well acted. Lots of dogs violence but the dogs here are as important as the humans. I was impressed by the presentation, it is ruggy and gritty and it adds to the genuine feeling of the movie and you can feel Alejandro's passion for cinema. This movie can be too much for some people as there are lots of violence involving animals and the quite long runtime but I thoroughly enjoyed this.

'Amores Perros' is a shocking experience from visionary director Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu. It's a difficult film to watch, one which continuously challenges its audience, but a reward in of itself for those who can withstand its brutality. It puts a magnifying glass to the pain of love, and those who are destroyed by it. It gives new meaning to the film title's literal translation, 'love is a bitch'.

In a single moment in time, several lives in Mexico City will be changed forever by a devastating car crash. The film divides itself into three separate segments: representing the past, present, and future. Octavio is searching for recognition and love, but looks in the wrong places. It's a desire that drives him, leading him to make choices in life that will soon haunt him. Valerie, whose life is most impacted by the car accident, finds herself living in a relationship that's crumbling and self-destructing. El Chivo must deal with the absence of his daughter, and the void it's left in his life. He finds companionship in the dogs he picks up off the street, and they soon become the only living things he can connect with. Together, the lives of these individuals will collide in more ways than one. They will find themselves connected by a single thread: love. And the hell that can be unleashed with it.

When I finished watching 'Amores Perros', one of the first things that popped into my mind was why 'Babel' couldn't have been this good. Where 'Babel' lacked in emotional depths and highs, 'Amores Perros' at times finds itself drowning in it. It's a visceral and gritty film, so raw and intense. You may think you've seen it all, but 'Perros' will challenge even those who are rarely phased by cinema. You may find it difficult not to look away at times. Iñarritu's movie has been described as being a 'dog holocaust', and at times I can't disagree. The film's sheer violence is so penetrating and disturbing, it packs a mighty punch. And while this film is definitely not for the squeamish or faint of heart, there's no question that 'Amores Perros' has a tender heart and message ready to be heard. Iñarritu crafts a compelling story from start to finish, which strips down to the bare basics. His ability to capture a piece of the human spirit is wondrous, even if it doesn't always cast us in the best light. It's dark, fierce, and relentless, but nothing short of greatness.

'Amores Perros' features an array of actors and actresses, all of which work wonders in their respective roles. Gael Garcia Bernal is, as always, brilliant. It's a more restrained and less quirky role than many are used to seeing him in, but nonetheless has the rare ability to capture and audience's attention with ease. Emilio Echevarria stars as El Chivo, and delivers a haunting performance as a man who finds himself alone and saddened. It's the weakest part of the film, but is made up for by Emilio's wonderful presence. Goya Toledo plays Valerie, a celebrity crippled by the accident the film revolves around. I found her part in the story to be most interesting, if not for the fact of seeing the life of someone who goes from having it all to nothing at all. There are many numerous performances, too many to cover, but they all lend their talents to create something extraordinary.

'Amores Perros' is an adrenaline rush for its entire running, which tops two-and-a-half hours. It's all a very human and primal film, which can be attributed to Iñarritu's impeccable style and talent. Combining a mutli-faceted story with electric performances, 'Perros' works on many different layers to satisfying results. An original and bold step in film-making, this nearly perfect picture will have you experience a collage of emotions, and invest in flawed characters... all for the sake of love.

If like me, you were dazzled by this year's "Babel", you will likely be as curious as I was to check out the first film in director Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu's trilogy about death. Similar in narrative structure to "Babel", this viscerally shattering 2000 movie carries three overlapping stories tied together by a defining car accident. Written with dramatic precision by Guillermo Arriaga (who later wrote the other two films in the trilogy, "21 Grams" and "Babel"), all three take place within the different social strata of Mexico City, and as the title implies (English translation: "Love's a Bitch"), dogs are intriguingly pivotal to each story. Also like "Babel", the various interconnections among the stories do not come across as contrived but rather as emotional resonant in a gradually revelatory manner. Even though the movie runs an epic length of 153 minutes, it consistently holds your attention.

The first plot line, "Octavio and Susana", is about a love triangle that occurs between young Octavio, his abusive older brother Ramiro and Ramiro's wife Susana. Dog fighting is common sport in their downscale neighborhood, and the brothers own a rottweiler that's a natural aggressor in the fight pit. Octavio sees the dog as his meal ticket to steal Susana away from Ramiro and escape to Juarez. The second story, "Daniel and Valeria", focuses on Daniel, a married, guilt-ridden TV producer who buys a fancy new condo for him to live with his tempestuous supermodel girlfriend Valeria. Their relationship unravels in light of the car accident, and further complications occur when her little dog is trapped underneath the floorboards. The third story, "El Chivo and Maru", is about former political revolutionary El Chivo who has years ago left his family and became a hit man for hire. Living in squalor with a herd of homeless dogs, he is recruited by a businessman to kill his partner, both of whom turns out to be brothers. The integration of these stories is handled with supple dexterity in a non-linear fashion that allows the viewer to peel off the layers of the characters in order to understand their common dilemmas.

Unbelievably, this powderkeg of a film represents Iñárritu's feature film debut as a director, and his confidence and audacity are felt throughout although the third episode seems too deliberate a pastiche of "Pulp Fiction". He has assembled a superb cast with Emilio Echevarría the standout as the grizzled El Chivo, a scarifying vagrant who reveals himself to be a troubled soul who is the only one who successfully escapes his trying existence. In his first major role, Gael García Bernal portrays Octavio with escalating emotional fervor; and as Susana and Ramiro, Vanessa Bauche and Marco Pérez provide powerful support. Together, they generate a palpable sense of imminent violence throughout their episode. Goya Toledo makes a vivid impression as Valeria, fully capturing her spoiled character's misplaced sense of entitlement, while Alvaro Guerrero affectingly humanizes the put-upon Daniel's increasing regret. Just as he would prove later with "The Motorcycle Diaries", "Brokeback Mountain" and "Babel", Rodrigo Prieto showcases superbly evocative cinematography that is in keeping with the emotional shadings of the story.

The 2001 DVD provides a surprising number of extras beginning with an informative, often meticulous commentary track by Iñárritu and Arriaga (spoken in Spanish and subtitled in English). There are three quick featurettes. The first is a six-minute short that shows how the numerous dogs used in the film were trained and protected during the production. Considering how realistically violent the dog fighting scenes are, I find this short helpfully reassuring. The second is the standard, making-of featurette, about fifteen minutes long. Even though Iñárritu seems to be promoting the film as well as explaining the genesis of it, there is good behind-the-scenes footage, including some interesting table readings from the cast. This leads to one quick short about the staging of the car accident itself. Also included are about a dozen deleted scenes, totaling about fifteen minutes, which actually help provide context in understanding some of the characters' motivations. There are also three music videos from the movie's soundtrack, which is a dramatically effective mix of Mexican and Spanish rock-rap tracks.

Of course I watched Pulp Fiction and when I first saw this movie, it was on TV on local station. Later bought DVD, and watched movie a couple of times and realized, in some way, that this film is even better than Pulp Fiction. It's more human than any US multi-plot-anachrono-psycho-thriller film that I ever watched. Acting is very intense, young Bernal and old Emilio especially, and the cohesion of the different-class stories is excellent. Also I must say that the tempo of a movie and soundtracks of the song are doing just in a right way. Comparing "Crush" to this masterpiece is like comparing Coldplay to Radiohead in rock music. Although I never saw a Mexican film before (only their moronic love-story series), I felt like I was right there in Mexico city, while watching. Brutal scenes for the first time in my life, make film more realistic, instead of making distance from the real life. Everybody is so edgy in this movie, but in a natural way. Great atmosphere, great film indeed.

Becoming one of the most well-regarded and unique filmmakers of the modern era, Mexican born director Alejandro G. Iñárritu started his career off in exemplary fashion with his Oscar nominated and critically praised multi-narrative drama Amores Perros, a hard-hitting experience that was a sign of things to come for the future Oscar winner.

Spanning three separate stories, all interconnected through an horrific car crash and a shared bond with a four legged friend, Amores Perros is both an unflinching look at love and life in Mexico, as our various flawed individuals (all of whom aren't likable as such but remain humanistic in their behaviors and decision making) find their lives unraveling around them to various degrees.

Our first introduction to this world is through Gael García Bernal's Octavia and his pursuit of Vanessa Bauche's Susana, a pursuit that leads him into the dangerous and horrific world of dog fighting, as we are then welcomed into the world of Goya Toledo's supermodel Valeria and then Emilio Echevarría vagrant El Chivo, a man more at home with dogs than his own kind.

There's barely an ounce of respite from the unending relentlessness of Iñárritu's examinations of the harsh realities of love and life in the troubled country of his birth, championed by Guillermo Arriaga's rugged script (a partnership that would spawn 21 Grams and Babel also) and D.O.P Rodrigo Prieto's documentary like filming style, giving Amores Perros a rough and raw veneer but also one that has been clearly designed for the purpose at hand.

Not many films before or since Iñárritu's exercise in consistent bombardment of life's troubles have managed to capture the frenetic nature of every day life and every day struggles, particularly south of the border, with the films first 60 minutes in particular hugely impressive, even more so when you consider this was the directors first feature film effort.

Filled with abundant energy and intrigue around Octavia and Susana's potentially elopement, Amores Perros never truly reaches its early heights again as Valeria's story strand in particular suffers from a sense of over indulgence and El Chivo's more over the top story strand taking some time to get use to.

There's no doubt there's elements of each stories importance and emotional resonance but it's a shame Amores Perros couldn't maintain the early pace it sets, a facet Iñárritu was able to iron out with his future efforts, most notably in Birdman and The Revenant, films that managed to combine all the best elements of the director in one cohesive package.

Final Say -

A tough watch that set the tone for Alejandro G. Iñárritu's impressive and still growing in stature career, Amores Perros is rough around the edges and suffers from some middling moments in its middle and latter sections but when it punches, it punches hard.

4 chocolate treats out 5

The first ninety minutes of so of Amores Perros is magnificent. It would maybe even qualify as one of the greatest films of all time. Gael Garcia Bernal is incredible, perhaps his best role, and the cinematography complements the plot perfectly, full of dark and dirty shots. The dog fighting is intense and particularly well shot. The characters are real, the acting is believable and nuanced, the plot goes at a fast pace and I was gripped.

Then the film changes course completely, to a film about a model and her unfaithful boyfriend who get caught up in the car crash. And the film dies right there. It becomes boring, stilted, uninteresting, and I found myself drifting away several times. The characters didn't intrigue me, the storyline was weak, and even when they brought the old man with the dogs and the beard into play it wasn't enough to save it. Watching the model cry 'Richie' over and over again while her dog was stuck under the floorboards bored the tears out of me, and it's a subplot and dialogue line that went on for nearly half an hour.

They had something really special here and ruined it. This should have been edited down and the latter plot lines should have become minor distractions if they were included at all. It's such a waste of the groundwork laid early on; a masterpiece turned into an average film. I only watched on in the hope I'd see the conclusion to the initial plot. Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Motorcycle Diaries and La Mala Educacian are all better than this as far as the classic Gael Garcia Bernal films go.

At 2 hours and 33 minutes, you would think it would be hard to sit through the whole movie, but that's not the case with this film.

The first scene grabs a hold of you, and only barely loosens its grip during the movie. Each story is mesmerizing and you stay determined to see the outcome. The first story is one of the most stunning of the three. However no story is really over when the next begins. The three remain connected. The dog fights are a little uneasy to watch, but it isn't shown on the screen for more than 21 seconds.

I would recommend it to anybody, unless you can't stand to watch a dog getting shot.

Director Alejandro Iñárritu heralded the Mexican New Wave cinema with Amores Perros.

Between 2010 to 2020. Iñárritu, Alfonso Cuarón and Guillermo del Toro have won 5 Best Director Oscars between them.

Amores Perros in some ways has a beginning reminiscent of Reservoir Dogs. It has a dog bleeding profusely in the back of a car instead of Mr Orange who has just been shot.

The rest of the film has a jumbled narrative. A bit like Pulp Fiction. However that is where the similarities end.

A car crash in the streets of Mexico links three set of stories.

The first story is about Octavio (Gael García Bernal) who lusts after his sister in law Susana. She is married to his older brother Ramiro who brutalises her. Already pregnant with a second child. Octavio enters the world of dog fights to earn enough money to run away with her.

Luckily the dog he has is a beast who beats all comers. However a rival hoodlum does not like Octavio, his older brother and the dog. That is the catalyst which leads to the car chase and the eventual crash.

The second story concerns rising model Valeria. She has just moved into a luxury apartment with her older married lover. Disaster strikes as she is badly injured in a car crash. When she arrives home with a severely injured leg. Her dog disappears under the floorboards.

The third story concerns El Chivo. He is in the periphery of society and has a tangential role in the first two parts of the story.

He is a tramp who roams the streets with his cart and a pack of dogs. He rushes to aid Octavia in the aftermath of the car accident.

It also turns out that El Chivo was once a well respected academic. A family man who became a revolutionary and was then jailed. After leaving prison, he became a hitman but now sees things differently when he reads news that his ex wife has died.

This is a full throated movie. It is a visceral study of the working class and the underclass of Mexico.

The dog fighting scenes although short can be off putting for some. Octavio is one of the nicer people in the movie. Ramiro is not only rough with his wife. Despite working in a supermarket he is also a violent robber.

Although Valeria represents the aspirational celebrity strata. Her story is an allegory.

The dog being lost underneath the floorboards that is crawling with rats shows how easy it is to slide down. Valeria loses modelling work and her lover wants to get back with his wife. Being with an injured scarred model was not the life he was hoping for.

The more intriguing story was that of El Chivo and his transformation. His realisation that he should had been there for his family.

Despite the harshness of life there is a moral undertone to Amores Perros. It is a confident gritty full feature debut by Iñárritu. The film could had done with being tighter especially with the middle story.

The interlinked narrative was used again by Iñárritu in Babel.

Will someone please tell me what all the fuss is about? If the presence of gore is the gauge of cinematic skill, then yes, AMORES PERROS is a masterpiece. But surely one first-time director's fascination with maimed dogs and Mexicanismo does not a 21st-century film template make. Granted, it's a somewhat cleverly crafted story, but this blood-guts-passion trip through Mexico City fails to make any real point or leave the audience with much to ponder. (Though I did find myself contemplating how they managed to locate all those dead-dog body doubles for the live dogs...)

AMORES PERROS, which the film translates as "Love is a Bitch," might be better rendered "Love is Like a Dog," or "Some of These People Actually LOVE Dogs," or "If You Love Your Dog, Don't See This Movie." It opens with a truly gruesome car crash in which blood and guts swirl around liberally. If you happen to walk in late, never fear: the scene will replay twice more. With this event as the anchor, the film flashes back and forward on the lives directly and tangentially involved--what led up to this bloody wreck and how it affects all concerned.

Driving the offending vehicle is Octavio (Gael García Bernal), brother of the abusive Ramiro (Marco Pérez) and lover-in-waiting of his wife, Susana (Vanessa Bauche). Octavio's role is basically to hang around the house panting at his sister-in-law, until he decides to make money by entering Ramiro's vicious mastiff in dog fights. The car he's slammed into conveys supermodel Valeria (Goya Toledo), whose successful career ends on impact. She is mistress to Daniel (Álvaro Guerrero), who's gone middle-age crazy and separated from his wife to live with Valeria 24/7. The supermodel's true love, however, is her moplike Lhasa apso, Richie.

The triptych's third panel focuses on El Chivo (Emilio Echevarría), a former revolutionary. Imprisoned while his daughter was born, he has never met her, though he's remained obsessed with images of her for more than 20 years. He moons over her while alternately practicing his assassination skills and living with his own pack of canines.

AMORES PERROS is the debut film of director Alejandro González Inárritu, a Mexican DJ who's apparently seen PULP FICTION a few times. While it doesn't slavishly imitate Tarantino, it noticeably cops a few of his moves. Like a bad case of coffee nerves, the film functions best at high velocity and on razor's edge. There's plenty of speeded-up action, trick cuts, and always the threat of imminent gore. With many scenes rife with tension, AMORES often strays into telenovela territory, though it's tough to tell if the melodrama is intentional.

Yet, strangely enough, after all this adrenaline puts us on red alert, we are thrust into an extremely tedious middle portion, in which Valeria's dog gets trapped beneath floorboards and the hapless couple can't reckon how to retrieve him. Richie whines night after night, Valeria whines night after night, fights ensue, she stages a minirevolt from her wheelchair--and we're left with a yawning, "And your point is...."

Is love a bitch? Sure. Do people treat their loves like dogs? Sometimes. Is this a rich metaphor that bears 2 1/2 hours of graphically violent exploration? Not really. Does this represent, as raves the NEW YORK TIMES, "the first classic of the new decade"? I'd hate to think so.