Sorry- I wanted to like it. Interesting concept and attractive actors, but it goes nowhere. We find out nothing about what makes these character tick, and there is only so far the sex can carry the story. The ending is infuriating. Big disappointment.
shareYou should be sorry. You were expecting porn.
shareIf I wanted porn I could rent that or find it on the internet pretty easily. I thought the sex was actually the least interesting part of the story. I would have liked more insights into the characters.
shareI agree. I don't understand being so desperate for "love" that he would want that guy. I wanted more insight.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It isn't a homo flick. It is much more than that. The characters just happen to be gay is all.
I agree with you thirdrow. This film was as pretentious, lacking, and annoying as those who gush about it. Too many pointless long shots and vapid, undeveloped characters (with the possible exception of Henri) and while they had their moments, the uncircumcised penises were generally distracting and a bit frightening. Even all those normally playful French balls looked bored. After a point all I wanted was for Michel to just kill them all, including the director.
After a point all I wanted was for Michel to just kill them all, including the director.
Sometimes viewers need to fill in the blanks instead of being spoon fed everything. I understood the characters quite well, because I didn't just sit back passively and let the director and actors do all the work for me. There is nothing worse when a writer injects explanation of things into a story just to appease lazy viewers.
share[deleted]
I loved it. I related to the setting - on a beach, surrounded by naked gay men, wasting hours relaxing by the water, taking an occasional swim. It was all quite true to life.
I loved the simplicity of it. The lack of a musical score. The sparse dialogue. Not every movie has to be a constant barrage of action, sound and plot devices.
I loved the cinematography. Again, simple and uncluttered.
As for the story, I really couldn't wait to see how it would resolve. I have to admit I was left a bit confused. It took some contemplation to understand the main character's abandonment of reason and safety.
It wasn't tied up with a bow, which is enough to frustrate anyone needs their stories tied up with a bow. But life isn't always neatly resolved. Sometimes questions are left to linger. A brave filmmaker doesn't shy away from such a challenge.
In the end the theme was quite simple: playing with fire. The question - would he get burned? I think there was plenty to glean from the actions depicted of all the characters involved.
To me it seemed like a 20 minute short spun out to 90 minutes. Very, very dull. The shots of the lake were lovely, but the story had too little going for it and was told way too slowly.
shareTo me it seemed like a 20 minute short spun out to 90 minutes. Very, very dull.
I think I liked it more than you, thirdrow. But, it is an odd one... Having everything happen at the cruising area is an interesting idea. But, it means we only see that aspect of the characters' lives and don't get to know them... If it had been made 20 years ago, you could have looked at it as a sort of (slightly homophobic) metaphor for a hedonistic lifestyle leading to infection with AIDS and death. But, with AIDS now manageable, if not curable in the developed world, that doesn't really work. So, I was left with the nagging feeling that it was trying to make a point, which I wasn't really getting... A traditionally French, unsatisfying non-ending... It held my attention and has left me feeling oddly unsettled, but definitely not something I'll be rushing to watch again.
shareSomething about the tone of it stays with you.