Excellent, Without a doubt!!

A different way of telling a story

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

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 found this movie by chance from a movie magazine. I must say that I was expecting an average movie on gay issues. It was also in Paris and it might be interesting. The movie started with very real scenes from a sex bar in Paris (probably L'Impact). After sex bar scene, movie too all my heart, all my thoughts. As a gay guy who lived in Paris and experienced the similar scenes, I can say that none of movies can depict a love, a romance and a gay life like "Theo and Hugo" depicted. Hesitations between men for a possibility to start an affair, the desire between men, the atmosphere of sex bar, the feelings, walking lonely Paris streets as two guys, stopping in a kebab restaurant (Tarkan's song was in the background), dialogues... unbelievable... It was not like a movie.. it was like a real scenes... If you skip all gay stuff, it is a very beautiful story of a romance... very naive, very innocent...Olivier Ducastel, Jacques Martineau must be congratulated also the players Geoffrey Couët, François Nambot. They all have done a great work. What I lived (incl. HIV+ stuff) when I was in Paris some time ago was exactly was in the movie. No exaggeration, no decoration... the movie streams like La Seine... peacefully, perfectly and glamorously. Thank you guys!

The title characters in "Théo et Hugo dans le même bateau" meet in a dark room and connect instantly. Then they stroll the streets of early morning Paris together. From its raunchy, explicit beginning, this charming film evolves into a sweet and somber romance, echoing of Richard Linklater's "Before Sunrise"-trilogy. Consequently, Théo's and Hugo's story comes across an unforgettable and ultimately very charming affair.

French queer filmmakers Olivier Ducastel and Jacques Martineau's seventh feature, Paris 05:59: THÉO & HUGO alludes as much to Agnès Varda's CLEO FROM 5 To 7 in its relation to the real-time plot device, as to Richard Linklater's BEFORE… trilogy, where two individuals are trying to build something intimate and meaningful through small talks in a spontaneously perambulating pace. But, as a testimonial to the filmmakers true grits, the film takes a bold and sensational initiative to instantaneously put off the prudish and conservative alike, by kicking off the movie with a lurid hardcore sex orgy inside an iridescent bar through the eye of a predator seeking his preys, and then setting its focal point to our two titular protagonists struck by coup de foudre and beginning to consummate their libidinous thrusting in the accompaniment of trippy beats and day-glo lights, but with a consequence, which Ducastel-Martineau duo tactfully explores as the brunt of what happens later that night when they exit together from the bar at 04:47 A.M.The film does a cracking job in establishing the "sex first, love later" scenario in a post-AIDS 21st century, when carnal impulse receding, the two strangers, both are satisfying with their physical encounter, make tentative steps to know each other from the scratch, and their bonhomie hits a halt when a felix culpa pans out, and the duo must re-connect their rhythm and re-consider their possible future within an approximate one-hour time-line as the film finishes precisely at 06:00.More often than not, a film hyped by unsimulated sex sequences would suffer from being made light of its less grandstanding elements, for example, Ducastel-Martineau duo's apt punctuation of commentaries concerning those socially marginalized: a hospital devolves the night shift to its distaff employees, homophobia vituperation pelted to the sexuality minority, a Syrian immigrant's perspective on freedom and a senior chambermaid's impromptu babbling (and a resultant blooper for the sharp-eyed), all add a touch of political angel but never overstay their welcome.The two leads are giving a wholesomely winning and empathetic performance (if it sounds like an understatement after their corporeal sacrifice of leaving nothing to imagination), Geoffrey Couët inhabits a somewhat rustic complexion into Théo's wide-eyed-ness, and François Nambot as Hugo, often takes the lead in their conversation with his youthful urbanity and amiability, a smitten, can-do spirit has no affectation and pretension, which makes the ineffable ending such a boon to be appreciated, not just for their hard-earned chance, but also for Ducastel-Martineau's ingenuity and seeming effortlessness (a keen eye of a nocturnal locus under the unadorned lighting arrangement) of conjuring up something extraordinarily honest, heartfelt and aesthetically arresting out of an ordinary story arc, it is never too soon to signpost this film as the new landmark in today's ever-progressive queer cinema-scape, because the battle hasn't been (completely) won yet.

The problem, for my taste, is that the director does not know the ellipsis among other things that explain. Which makes it boring. Also, the beginning is so explicit that if it had been a movie between a man and a woman like that, everyone would have said, if it took so much sex and so explicit. I have plenty left.The encounter of them, I find very badly taken, takes me completely out of the film, it is not real. Like when they look directly at camera.When you walk on the street without talking, when you go on a bike, or inside a building without talking, do you need to see it? Is it essential to see them walk alone? Why was ellipsis invented? They are very well, both of them. And it's a very nice story, although I do not understand those moments of tone, things are spoken and that's it. They look like two really in love, they just met and will spend the rest of their lives together.He has a beautiful photograph, I take it that shooting at night has helped a lot.The direction, aside from the actors, is not a marvel. One of his tasks is not to bore and he does not get it, let alone the staging and the camera.In short, if I had not wasted so much useless time, even if it had been shorter the film would have gained many points. And being less explicit, as I ask any movie, it would have also improved.