Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Rick James Much as I would like to be able to endorse this earnest effort, it really is a messy hodge-podge of implausible, unconvincing plot, twisted logic, mediocre cinematography, poor editing, bad hair color and unsatisfying conclusion. The shower scenes of the swim team are enticing if you're into men's bodies (it's hard not to be, after all), but they make their point too obviously and for too long.The blond has a bad bleach job and the stock, naïve redhead has another bad dye job. The guys in bed together are so obviously not into it that it's laughable. You come away wondering if the point is one of those inscrutable, pseudo-intellectual French lessons that the world is a confusing enough place, and if you through sex into the mix it's even muddier. The flat-footed provocation of naming one of the leads "Arnault" (for the uninitiated, the richest man in France is Bernard Arnault, an unusual spelling that cannot be a coincidence) is silly, and the ending isn't mysterious, just dopey.The reference at the beginning to being from "Lot-et-Garonne" is like saying he's from Appalachia, terribly arch. The subtitles are poor, including even such mistakes as "Give us free reign /s.b. 'rein'/ and "it's" for 'its.'" This is a library item, not a keeper.PS: having viewed the "making of" and "deleted scenes" add-ins I feel more positive about the director's efforts. He at least acknowledged the miserable dye job on the redhead, and his heart is in the right place as to his motivation in making the movie.

terryhall2 Firstly, I am not quite sure what the issue of circumcision is. This is mainly an American abberation (under the pretension that it is more hygienic to be circumcised and is practised as a matter of course there) In Europe, it is usually performed only if it presents a problem to the individual man (eg. cases of phemosis for example) That aside, I enjoyed the naturalness of the film. I have no problem with human nudity and don't understand why anyone gets upset about it and besides Gregori is quite a cutie. The galling thing was the philosophical chat and the human rights dialogue which destroyed the whole essence of the film..basically the relationships between the members of the faculty. I would also like to have seen more raw emotion from Emeline and Paul when they witness their respective partners cheating on them. Agnes, one screwed up woman who lives in the fantasies of her head, annoyed the hell out of me (though she looked fabulous), but the story really belongs to Paul- and given what he had to do in the film, did admirably.

sinnerofcinema This is a wonderful film that I have now seen over ten times. It was very gripping and the situation very real. I found Pauls obsession with is roommate to be moving. I could feel his love. I only wish his love did not go unrequited. I was really rooting for him. But I really loved the production values, the scenery, acting and specially the nudity. The nudity alone in this picture is worth the price of purchase. The story is very well developed and like most french films, it keeps you guessing in the end. Kudos to the director and cast. Look forward to seeing more of the actors and the filmmakers work. I unfortunately bought this DVD in Mexico. It does not include the DVD extras. I will be purchasing the English version just to see the extras.

zundays There's a touch of Rohmer in "Grande Ecole". Characters, set in unglamorous, surburban spaces, are just a little too intent and penetrating to be real. Their emotions are simple, yet surprisingly delicate. They experience no jealousy or revenge, but desire, self-doubt and tenderness. Like Rohmer's, Salis' movies feel too nostalgic and sweet to be topical, and that aestheticism is put to the use of tolerance and humanism. Sex scenes for example are remarkable. Homo- and heterosexual love become comparable because Salis makes caressing and enticing the cornerstone of every sexual encounter. The movie however becomes overtly theatrical towards the end, and does not tune in with the closure that Rohmer would have gone for. Salis resolves conflicts, by now difficult to disentangle, only by confusing the viewer to a point of no return and settling for the beauty of seeing all characters reunited finally, if not in the movie, at least on the screen: him and her, and him and her, and him.