It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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.

The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view

This film is about an British anthropologist developing an astoundingly human connection with two pygmies from Africa.I find this film captivating. The plot is not a common mainstream plot, which is refreshing. I am particularly impressed by Joseph Fiennes' character's genuine attachment to the African people. It is touching to see him sacrifice himself.It highlights many aspects of humanity. Is it right to sacrifice human life for the advancement of science? What rights should living beings get? How do we balance the satisfaction of curiosity and the exploitation of "exotic" individuals? Is it OK to blame a murder someone else to achieve the big picture? Other comments say that the film leaves little for imagination. I do not disagree with it, as I think the story was told rather plainly. However, I think it leaves a great deal about life, morality and ethical issues to reflect upon. It is a touching and thought provoking film.

In 1969,Truffault made a movie about a wild child: a brat who,since he was a baby ,used to live in the woods.People took him to a hospital,where people would pay to see him like a queer animal.A doctor ,Itard knew that this child was a human being.He took him to his home and began to "tame" him.He realized that his protégé could tell right from wrong:he had proved he was a human like you or me.Regis Wargnier tells a similar story with his couple of pygmies .He pits a loyal scientist (Fiennes) against the old guard who is still thinking that those natives are the missing link between the big apes and Lucy .Nowadays scientists tend to think that there is actually ONE race but it was the nineteenth century then.The story is never boring and features some good scenes: the natives in front of the sea saying "this is our river" ;the male pygmy climbing on the mast of the ship;the scene in the zoo where Fiennes "tames" his protégés and thus reveals they can think.The main problem is that the movie is too "Hollywoodian" .Truffaut's work was produced by an American firm ,but he remained himself and his film was austere,realistic and accessible though.Wargnier's work is too flashy ,putting the emphasis on the good guy /"villains" fight and not giving enough time to Fiennes /the pygmies relationship.A firm friendship/ communication cannot be established overnight.It took time to Itard to gain Victor's trust (the wild child) ,and Annie Sullivan ("the miracle worker")had to fight (physically) to be able to communicate with Helen Keller.When Scott- Thomas tries to teach arithmetic (or tries to communicate through arithmetic:I've read that pygmies know only two numbers :one and many)to the pygmy woman ,the sequence is much too short.This is those scenes the film desperately needs.Entertaining,but Regis Wargnier got caught up into the Hollywood machine.

Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time.