drminnerly
Some of the acting was atrocious; in particular that of the "mad man", who, in my state, wouldn't meet the criteria to be institutionalized. Even if he were very insane nothing about the way he talked or moved seemed in any way realistic. I thought briefly that perhaps he was purposefully a caricature of some sort for artistic reasons, but quickly decided that didn't work. Then there was the killing of animals. So it was wartime in France and rabbets are food; no problem there. But I really wish I hadn't seen the dog killed for no apparent reason. Nothing in the plot justifies killing a dog. If you like dogs you shouldn't see this movie.
didier-20
Serge Avedikian who plays the french simple country asylum runaway delivers a performance which is utterly exceptional. Indeed the film maintains an extraordinary quality and momentum until the last 5 minutes or so , where the film's unique and original tension is finally dispelled through Guy and Ralf's eventual conjoining. The film's exceptional view-point re-visits the old theme of a Nazi occupied France with fresh vigour. The whole diabolical sham which is war is profoundly hung around the subtly moving and developing intimacy of these two unlikely comrades. A world which has vanished, that of early 20th C rural France provides a surprising setting for a gay love that is as raw, salty and earthy as the peasant culture who populated the invaded country. The portrayal and depiction of male love is supreme and full of great depth - an embellishing contribution to gay cinema through the shere force of it's lack of unassuming familiarity.
Juha Varto
Vallois made a film which is not easy to watch and one never forgets it, since this film speaks out things normally silenced. Love between persons of different sex is theme in many war time movies where border line separates the lovers and the rest is sentimental crap. But here we have two men who should hate each other, as men should, even if they are not enemies. They are, however, in a secluded hut, mid-forest, also metaphorically: they don't know anything about each other than what they see. No common language. But in their flesh they begin to know each other, little by little: they are men, they have the same urges and because of the war times they don't have to play social plays. They don't need the illusion a civilized life requires; they joyfully agree in being straightforward in their physical needs. Communication is all but easy but they show us art and practice we don't know anymore, not in everyday life. They attack each other directly in flesh, both in sensitive way and aggressively, ending up making love or running away from each other. Vallois' film is like a well structured reality document where one looks the world that should be there somewhere but one knows that any peace and civilized state of mind make a life like that impossible. Men simply can't love each other without Mothers giving them rules for that.
SamLowry-2
There is truly nothing like "We Were One Man," a twisted, brave film that looks at a man-man relationship through new eyes. The way the men treat each other is hard to watch, and the ending somehow does not ring true to their earlier actions. It is almost too heavy-handedly symbolic. Still...there is an earthy, grimy quality to their sexual relationship that is fascinating to watch. This one is for gay foreign film fans, gay sadists, or very open-minded foreign film buffs only.
AD
