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.

billpride The title translates to "The Best of Schools," the school of life. This film really makes me wish I was fluent in French, including idioms and nuances that must be flowing every moment. Subtitles just can't cut it. But there's a great line in the film, which translates pretty well, I think: "You don't get it at all. Hetero, homo, all that's finished. It's outdated and it doesn't matter." In the "Making of..." feature, the director (Robert Salis) says, "...the theme is based on the notion of choice, or, actually, the disobeying of imposed choices...." and "crisscross desire" (which he insists is not the same as sex). He also said, "...it's like a dresser with drawers on top of one another. To find out the complete contents you have to open the drawers separately one after another." He does just that very skillfully.Needless to say, it's a complex film, with happy parts, sad parts, sex galore (men with women, and a man with a man), sexy men showing full frontal nudity, and all that. About halfway through, it felt exactly like "Maurice," (and Salis even mentioned that film in the "Making of..."), but then it changed to something totally different after that. This isn't a Gay film. It's a "men who have sex with men" film. "MSM" is a term sex researchers use because most men would never self-identify as Gay, but usually will privately admit if they've had sex with men.There's a lot more depth, but I'm not going to analyze it to death. Great movie! Watch it. Don't watch the trailer or the "Making of..." or anything else first though.Back to "desire": Salis'closing line in the "Making of..." is, "There's only love and the lack of love. And desire naturally goes hand in hand with the lack and nourishes itself." I think I'll have to watch the movie all over again now to understand that.

martyb-3 The production values aren't the best in this film, but one rarely expects better of a film festival entry. Seeing beyond that is what festival fare is all about, in my opinion.Tha said, I was easily taken in by Paul and his emotional struggle. At first, I was put off by the ambivalent and quirky behavior of Paul and the others, but I began to recognize that this was a representation of the nuances of real life, as opposed to the packaged fare that Hollywood usually dishes out. What another reviewer found confusing to me was an invitation to get inside the heads of characters who, like real people, weren't exactly sure what they wanted or who they were trying to be.The relationships were complex and yes, frustrating to figure out at times. But the acting was good--complexity is mush harder to convey than the broad-brush emotion that Hollywood paints larger than life. I loved Mecir--superbly acted--his earnestness nearly brought me to tears. I thought the ultimate outcome of Paul's relationship with him (and with Agnes) mirrored real life as well. And just when I thought Arnault was a shallow caricature, the character surprised me with intelligence (if cynical) and depth.I agree that the third roommate (name?) disappeared mysteriously in the middle of the film; it had seemed he would play a greater role at the outset. The peripheral characters were neither well developed nor exceptionally acted, but are no reason to dis the film.The film was marred for me by the extremely self-conscious and forced 3-minute conversation near the end about class struggle, corporate greed, etc. I liked these themes in the film, but this Cliff-Notes style summation was so artificial that I--and the audience I was with--laughed out loud at every pontification, each more hysterical than the last. My immediate comment was "it's like a French parody of the French!" Profound thoughts and deep convictions, spewed with piercing emotion--ultimately lasting as long as a cigarette and washed away with a glass of Bordeaux.Except for that camp exchange, I very much enjoyed the movie and would see it again.