Reviews

Like other reviews say, this movie is full of historical mistakes. I knew it was bad but some critics said it was entertaining enough to overrule this. So I thought some of it was going to be good.

It's like a 10 year old child repeating what he's been told somewhere in a British suburbs. Even the text at the beginning is wrong and is a british royalist political point of view "there's a revolution and french are starving" Well, that's just the reverse, it's because french were starving that they made a revolution. Make ups are british 18th century like. Furniture are not 19th century french. Napoleon is boring and old. But he never got a chance to grow old as they poisoned him.

While watching it, I wondered why some of the funny and epic stories in the life of Napoleon were missing, such as his mom that never conceded to speak french and kept talking Corsican "Hope that's going to last". The abduction of the Pope to force him to attend the coronation (and Napoleon famous word "Comediante", General Cambrone's "Merde" to the brits.... and so on.

But this would have been to kind in a movie aimed at depicting, in their point of view, an horrible dictator.

There are so many historical mistakes, that it is sure they did not submit the scenario to any historian. Like Napoleon ruling in Versailles, instead of Les Tuilleries, when Premier Consule. I also found extremely strange how they very nicely reproduced the scene of the coronation like it is in Jacques-Louis David's painting but they felt to make the place look like where it took place : Notre Dame of Paris.

Now I guess, that the producers and director just wanted to uneducate the audience and avoid anything entertaining. Where he's wrong is that it's not because a very few people are doing Napoleon's bashing that the general audience is not aware that he was a genius that put down two dozens of medieval little kings and spread democracy and the civil code, throughout the whole Europe.

I think now, that this movie was ordered to add some more Napoleon bashing. But in the end, they just went only half the way, as it was going to be released outside of the anglo-saxon world. The result is emptiness.

At, the end of the movie, the (exagerated) counting of deaths at Napoleon's victorious battles is just stupid. Especially as all these battles have been mostly defensive after foreign attacks. Yeah, British attacks.

For those who watched Rings of Fire, it's unbelievable how Phoenix is completely ignoring, how and who, was the character he's playing. This is going to be the worst memory of his fantastic carrier.

We like to put on the news or anything very common when cooking or eating when we let the TV set on.

This time we just picked this one on and it's been exactly what you should expect when reading this ridiculous title !

The plot is easy to keep on, it's just a copy of Armageddon"s. But it's missing Ben Affleck, no love story as it's amed at kids audience.

The CG is above the average of the other B-movies. The acting is better than expected. I mean, above 2/10 movies.

The dialogues are really, really funny. They're so much stupid that I guess they had a lot of fun writing it. "That each one be at peace with his God" (or something like that). And many other ones. And when they cried we laughed out very loud.

The fun was to guess in which order each city was going to be destroyed. (I lost, no World's Capitals, just US cities...).

We laughed a lot, much more than with most of today's comedies.

At least, this movie is very okay for kids.

Have fun.

I wondered, with only 1s and 10s ratings, what was going to be this movie like. This spoiled me the very first part as I was looking for some strong point of views one way or another. In fact, there is nothing controversial, it's just a nice indy movie.

Acting is quite good, characters are played well enough to get involved in the story and even choose a side.

The story was not really predictable, my friend guessed one end, and I guessed another one. So just don't trust too much those too angry or too excited reviews.

About the story, it was interesting, after all those legal battles on gay marriage and surrogacy, how a judge, how families, would behave. An inevitable subject 10 or 15 years later, now in 2023.

Acting is good. This is what I kept repeating during all the movie, as I was bored, and noticing big anachronisms in nearly any scenes. Music choice anachronisms, dialogues anachronisms, and in general, the whole atmosphere is not 1993. I was 25 that year and, I am gay, so believe me, no, not 1993. If you're not sure about this, just pick and watch again any movie made at that time (J'embrasse pas (1991)) or movies that do revive very well that era (120 battements par minute (2017)). "Pump the volume" in 93 ? No way, heard it too many times since 88. The vocabulary and expression of the young doctor, 30 years ago ? No, way.

If I had not seen Pierre Deladonchamps in L'inconnu du lac (2013) (somewhat boring too), I would even say that it's another fake gay movie made by straights. Not one character was interesting. I lost friends at each of these years, not one character was close to any one of them (unlike in 120 BPM).

The plot is so, so, common and repeated in too many movies to keep my attention. How many times did I see the strip tease scene for a friend having AIDS at the hospital room or elsewhere, 4 times ? 5 times ? : The Trip (2002) was the first and then so many others... Plus, it's funny in a movie but completely strange/distasteful in a real situation.

If I had watch it alone, I think I would have fast-forwarded several times. Forget it.

I can't remember when, or if, I've been so embarrassed with a movie. This comedy is a complete failure, assumed that it didn't want to be a homophobic movie.

But the fact is, Paul suffers an abnormal attraction to children, he is seeking for child company at all time. He is ignoring, if it is good or not for a child to play with an adult who plays like a child.

A children rings at his door. He lets him in, without looking to reach his parents. This movie tries to say it is okay because he didn't do bad things. Crazy. And the story uses a gay guy to say that. Wow. A movie can't do better to feed hate.

I wondered what was the original plot line and how it ended up in such a horrible homophobic source material.

I can't believe it passed all the steps of production, financing and approval and such renowned actors as Lisa Edelstein (House) and Jim Ortlieb (Roswell) said yes. I guess the scenario was telling a story in a certain point of view, then the screenplay went wrong.

Okay, let's read the poster: from beginning to end. But that's not what's in the pack. There's the early childhood, ok. But it then skips to age 20 and 25 (old brother looks 30). There, they discover something and do a kind of strip like they had never seen each other naked. That's not the only ridiculous stuff. As children, the take their bath with a bathing suit, in Russia the photography is not modified (bright southern light) and home furniture and architecture is nothing European, the father in the second part, is supposed to be 20 years older but he looks the same (no make up effort)... long list.

Sex scene quite fake, no conflict, no drama, no characters depth, nothing. The worst is, the whole coming of age story skipped. In this movie they have never been teenagers. This is along with the coming-out skipped too, which is the main thing you'd be looking for after reading the synopsis.

So what is in this movie ? Two male actors kiss, and you are told they are brother. That's it.

It's an amazing film. I mean, I keep thinking about it days later. It's just so, so, different. Arctic woods, Sami witchcraft, war, love, language, it's an unseen mix that amazed me. My eyes stayed stuck on the screen every single minute of it.

What I can tell and let you enjoy the surprise: 1944, near the end of the war. 3 guys, a Russian soldier, a Finish soldier and a Laplander (Sami) woman are stuck in a cabin in the woods very up somewhere north on the Finish-Russian border. No one understands the two other languages.

But they talk. They say what they want, but they hear, hey, what they want to hear. It's funny, it's dramatic. Each character is deep, I felt close to each one of them. Every minute of the movie is subtitle and delightful !

The cinematography is perfect. The photography is beautiful (easy, filming there !), the actors play perfect. I did believe, that they didn't understand the others.

The only down part of the story is at the beginning, you might don't understand at all, like us, what's going on.

So, important, what to know before watching : It's not explained, like we're all supposed to know about it: Finland was a Nazi ally and fighting against Russia in behalf of Germany. The Finnish army was punishing soldiers not willing to fight by chaining them to a rock with a riffle, dressed with a German Wafen SS coat, to wait for the Russian enemies to get by. A way to force them to become a kamikaze. As I understand, everyone knows about that Finnish kamikaze (kukushka) story, both in Finland and in Russia. But you get lost if you don't know this piece of History.

Other two's stories are clear.

Don't miss it.

While I love watching gay-themes dramas, even indie and amateurish small productions, this one is strange. The actors are good-looking and - maybe - try their best, but obviously, the direction ans screenplay was so bad that they just didn't understand what they had to do. When they cry, well, I just laughed. They probably didn't even have a script to explain to them the character's very broken lives. One tries to have a straight life (because he is an EU high rank officer ?), the other wants a man at all cost to make her mother's warnings turn false, and the third one, well, unclear except that he's unhappy and/or envious.

Then, whenever they encountered or they broke, the complete lack of depth, let me wondered why so. I (we) just didn't understand much. At one point, it was even unclear if they had sex or not. When he brings the coffee, you are supposed to understand the unseen, that they are now together, that they just had sex that night. Deleted scene ? Did the moviemakers just didn't care ? Actors refused to play a gay scene ? The latter seems the highest probability, as Teun Luijkx never kisses Mark Waschke. Maybe it's been a problem with this actor and thus the director couldn't do much.

What chocked me, is that EU Commission propaganda about money expanse moving back and forth from Brussels to Strasbourg. Going to Strasbourg, of course, while truth is the complete reverse. The EU unelected commission built a second parliament house in Brussels, and forces MPs to do part of the parliament work illegally in Brussels, while it should all be done in Strasbourg. They show the trucks doing this costly move, wanting to make you believe it's stupid to go to Strasbourg while, once again by international treaty, it's the reverse.

The threesome drama looks like just a wrapping of that message, and thus no one cared really to build a real drama in that movie.

It was interesting to see some insides and life of both buildings. I thus rate it a little higher because of this interesting scenery. (+1 for this). I did watch it to the end (so I base rate it 5: watchable- but lost my time). Multilanguage acting was interesting too.

Too bad about the drama, could have been nice.

As there are riots in France every year or so, since this movie was released, it was interesting to watch it 28 years later.

Not that much realistic, but still a witness in History.

Not realistic, as there is a big mix of different kind of people living in those suburbs ghettos, this was true in the 70s, but in 1995 and since then, the social and religious mix disappeared a long time ago.

Not realistic, in the dialogues. I noticed some words that were really not in the 1990s talking. Some words are too formal French... from writers living in another time and another social class. It really shows quite a distance in time and social class between the movie makers and real life there.

But still, the movie shows what is going wrong, and what is going to get worse. If nothing is done. Nothing was done at the time of release, I'll let you tell what has been done since then.

It shows the growing hate of these youngsters, isolated in their 'Cité', (public housing neighborhood), may be due to isolation from the rest of the population, lack of education and lack of values. It does not forecast that some other values are going to fill this, this was too incorrect to tell. Their journey down town Paris is like a touristic exploration in an unknown world.

Furthermore, it shows policemen lacking any form of deontology. To not spoil, I won't say more, but that's the least to say. Watching the movie, I was thinking, 'oh no, don't do that!' But they do. In fact, not only don't they do anything to avoid the hate, but they hate too.

So that's all this movie is about. There's hate on both sides, and nothing is going to prevent this from getting worse. It can be related quite often to what's on the news sometimes.

This movie is very famous, and this across time and generations. It is very interesting to notice that on news channel, chatting often about riots and other related news, never, ever, they tell about this movie.

After the opening scene of the movie, I thought this was going to be a niner (9/10) movie! Very interesting situation, unusual place, maybe the scenery was going to be great, and the love story was going to be very original. A black Norwegian, a fishery in the kings of oil of Europe, a gorgeous young polish gay worker, this was going to make a sparkling mix.

Well, then, first, I felt uncomfortable with the use of English as the main language. In some parts, they speak English between Polish workers. Then there was not much scenery, not much Norwegian cultural stuffs, nor polish. For the journey in the northern kingdom, one will have to watch something else.

Then there's the union story, and the conflict wasn't really developed. I do know that Norway isn't in the EU, it's possible that work regulation might be weird, but that contract story was not depicted well enough to get us involved. I even felt it very fake. Such as workers applauding each other at the union meeting, which is so American. Is Norway and Poland so far from European social behavior ? This is not at all my first Nordic movie, I traveled several times up there, and I'm sure there's something wrong.

A 5 minutes scene with a punk grandma did not unlighted much the very flat plot.

I started to check my watch after 45mn.

There's the love story. If there was something great left in the movie, it should be the love story, so I expected big drama, sensual first encounter, first kiss, forbidden love heat, and great ending and coming out at the face of the polish workers known to be superconservative roman Catholics.... There's a conflict, but they just forgot to play it angry. So, big things expected... that you'll never get. Even a good music or play list choice to support it, is missing.

I didn't see any depth in the characters. Worse, I felt Hubert Milkowski (Robert) uncomfortable acting gay. No chemistry between the two. No tenderness. Even the first kiss is extremely fake, they barely touch lips ! If we had to compare with Clark Gable kissing Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind (1939), or Ashton Sanders kissing Jharrel Jerome in Moonlight (2016), this movie should be rated 1.

It's well known that young boys wait a long time before doing serious things (!?). Well, when they finally (finally!) are going to have sex, they fake a French kiss, and it's very badly simulated. They even keep distance between their chests. And, not much more sensual to see, the love scene is cut by Robert laying down in the grass looking at the sky ! It could be to pass the Polish film censorship, if it's ever screened over there. Even in a Japanese gay themed movie, where censorship is way stricter, there's much more warmth.

There's also a very fake scene when he dives into the sea and plays like it's freezing. But this is summer : at the beginning of the movie, in the car, it's 5pm on his cell phone, and it's daylight, and, it's night at night, so they are not up north on the Arctic, it's the North Sea, and it is not that cold at all.

What's the point of the movie? Foreign workers in Norway? Homophobic Polish? Love separated by two cultures? It's only 88 minutes long. The moviemakers did not make a choice, and neither matter is well-developed.

The end credit says dedicated for those who fight for the right to love, but I didn't see such fight in this story. Parents are finaly somewhat okay, I mean compared to my own experience. The movie skipped truly homophobic stuffs. Not to hurt ? If you're not aware that the Polish government is superconservative about gay rights along with the Polish church, you just don't get what this movie is about.

And where's the end ? Right after watching this film, because of this end, I was ready to rate it 2. It's a french arthouse movie ending. You're aware.

For those who lived the 1980s in France, or visited the French Riviera, this movie reminds how happy and special France was. The topless sun bathing, how much girls were free, the right to laugh at nearly anything including corrupted mayors and a global carefreeness, insouciance, everything is there.

Young audience might not believe it. Especially the macho jokes and girls being okay with that. But that's history, its the way it was.

Tens of dialogues or scenes could not be done today. A time of a free world.

It's all focused on the ecologist terror we're living today but that was yet to come at the time this movie was released. I can't really tell if it's making fun of it, or the reverse. It's probably intended to, I mean, it can be understood in both ways. But for sure it forecasts what today's world is now, including karate girls putting down men twice their weight (in movies).

The jokes are really funny, and the Gendarme's famous nun (France Rumilly) is there, flying an ultra-light aircraft !

This movie is a piece of history. You should pay attention to the very elegant way french women are dressed, the cars, and a lot of other stuffs.

A joyful movie.

Australian films and TV series have always interested me. Such a far and isolated western society has brought us so many different point-of-view and awkward plots and directed novelties. From The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994) to Lonesome (2022), from Mad Max (1979) to Romper Stomper (1992), there's always an unexpected editing or plot.

This movie is not at all to be put in this hall of fame. First, it took me like 29 minutes to understand what were flashbacks, what were fantasies, and even to be sure when I was really into the regular story. So if you're going to watch it, be aware that you'll need special attention to keep track. The editing is not good enough to show you where you're at. In addition to that, I kind of understood that the same scene is shown again with a different point of view near the end (I mean, I think so, not sure). Not everyone is as good as Gus Van Sant with Elephant (2003) doing that. It's almost ridiculous. Like an extremist art house terrorist movie directors competition, the one that make the audience the most lost, wins.

Not to spoil it, but to help, I'd just say that it's the story of one night. Everything else is flashbacks, or dreams, or fantasies (it took me a while to define this). And that night is cut with flashbacks of that same night !!! (Wow...). So let's redefine it again, it's the story of one end of the night.

Then I had to watch it in two parts. My mate made me shut it down at about the half of the movie, telling me, "that's again one of those movies made by straights about things they believe to know"- This happened at a useless disgusting scene with vomit, even given the fact that the actors were handsome. "He's a straight". I guess my friend meant that this actor whatever he's straight or not, didn't play well enough the forbidden attraction he's supposed to feel and to restrict towards his friends - this is not true in all the scenes, but a general feel. Meanwhile, he plays well a homophobic hater.

Plus, the sound editing is not good. Even equipped with a 5.1 home theater system, some dialogues were hard to decipher.

But all in all, I was interested to know what that closeted, self-hating and psychotic gay guy was going to become (or do), it kept me watching it until the end. So at least, the plot was somewhat not that bad. It should have been directed in a much better way, most of the time there aren't bad actors, but bad directing of them. I wouldn't watch this twice.

Some people are not used to watch plays and this huis-clos, is close to it. So I get that some didn't like it, or stopped watching it early, that's not a reason to say it's bad. It's a type of story that lets you identify, think, dream. Who's not in one of the side of this line there is between them ?

They are absolutely opposite in nearly all matters you could think of. Even on cooking or how to go out buy as stuff under the rain, love versus sex, and so many other things I won't tell not to spoil it.

That is the whole point of the movie. I did, as surely anyone watching it, focused on when or will it even or should it ... happen. What can possibly happen between those two persons ?

But the exchange was full of understandings and, and what else ? Well life... Life...

I kind of liked the use of black and white, it kept me focused on the "action".

This nice little movie is like a novel to read away from home. I guess a 5.1 surround mix should have given more depth, too bad.

I'm now aware that risking to watch a european arthouse movie can lead me to anger and frustration. That's the least to say about this movie. Just take account that it's not even EU founded, that's to tell how low this is. Well, I know now that it is very possible to do worse than E. U. taxpayers funded garbage movies.

While this was slow, while the both most important scenes where absolutly implausible, while a lot of dialogues were nearly impossible to decifer to anyone not used to such strong accent and so bad actors' pronunciation and sound capture, while some cameras where not even set to stabilisation (in the car at the end, it's not handheld-style intentional, it's technicaly just an error)... I did watched it to the end (if you call it so, but yes there's an end).

May be the director wanted the audience to depress and get suicidal after watching that. Well, I laughed at myself to have watched it. I feel so ridiculous ! I even laugh again right now, writing this review and thinking again about this movie ! Actors must feel bad to have now that thing in their profile.

I won't spoil any of the plot, you might dare to try it out to challenge your intelligence, but it's just that the movie ends without telling us what happens to the most friendly and alive actor in this movie, the cow.

I was curious then to read some press review, it's the most funny part of it, how some reviewers tried so hard to find something good to say ; yes, Ireland landscape is beautiful and, and..., and that's it. It's funny to read the Guardian's one, she details well the beginning and... well, she obviously gave up and didn't go further :-)

This is not a gay-themed movie, characters can be replaced by anything else. Location can be replaced by any other one too.

Warning, should be rated 18 for depressing and dangerous behavior. Don't let your teenagers watch that.

This movie starts like a thriller, and may be a coming of age story.

From as soon as the opening scene, you get that the pace is going to be slow. I thaught "oh no it's a Derrick (1974) like !", the famous 1970s german TV show every one was making joke on the borring pace one feel asleep on every show. I did keep watching to, at least, get to the ending. So it kept my curiosity up, while minutes after minutes I was ready to give up, too bored.

Then I wondered about the acting. It felt obvious that the actors not only were told to keep a very mute expression all along the movie, but also they got bored them too at playing this way. I never got close to any of the characters, no depth. At one point I just realised, that there's never any smile (or cry), and it was fun to realise how true that was then after.

It is tagged as a gay interest movie, but it's not what I'd call it. It's kind of the reverse. There is a gay kiss, but there's no love (to say the least) and the only sexual relation the main character will have is with a girl.

It's the story of a psychopath. Up to you to make an opinion on him. Mine is that he's a homophobic "curious", but it could be something else.

The scenario is top. A remake could be great.

I'm a pretty happy rating guy and I don't give that often a low one. It's just messed up, too slow, really boring. And the photography doesn't help with faded colors. I'm surprised it's not in 4:3 and black and white.

The very "european" open ending is like a threat, oh my god, there could be a sequel !