What makes it different from others?

one of my absolute favorites!

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Set in early renaissance Arriege, this movie is truly as masterpiece. Don't be put off by subtitles, just enjoy. Depardieu is superb, one of his best performances...Truly amazing! The story: Bertrande de Rolls's husband, Martin Guerre disappeared sometime ago. She remained faithful, until Arnaud du Tilh, appears and pretends to be the returning Martin Guerre.If, like me, you like both, movies and history, you must watch that masterpiece. The costumes, the settings, the decors, peasant life... all made to recreate a corner of french renaissance countryside.The story is based on facts, on real events. It's a true story, slightly changed and without the catholic-protestant antagonism. What a brilliant movie!!! Like to know more? Read Natalie Zemon Davis'"The return of Martin Guerre"

After about thirteen or fourteen years I finally was able to see this film again, this time in French with subtitles, not dubbed into German. There was nothing wrong with the German version, the film certainly didn't fail to impress me so much, that I declared this film to be the best Gérard Depardieu has ever done. I think I still have the same opinion, although meanwhile it ties with Les Misérables.Now today I watched it again. I couldn't remember anything really, just parts of scenes and what happened at the end, of course. But then everything came back. The music suddenly seemed familiar, the village, the faces. I still was surprised to see Tcheky Karyo's name in the credits at the end, because I missed him completely, while I recognized Dominique Pinon at once, much younger of course. Again I stood in awe of the costumes and the village scenery. Everything was so convincing and realistic. As if someone had done a time travel and brought back a video. After The Name of the Rose this is the best period film till now. In the art department. But also certainly in acting, writing and directing.Gérard Depardieu and Nathalie Baye deliver performances which are outstanding. Every acting student should watch them, they are masters of their profession. They show emotions which are almost palpable, you feel with them, certainly towards the end, but also during the rest of the time. The script offered them "only" great parts and they created lives out of the printed words. Every gesture, every movement, every look fits and connects the viewer with the story. As if you're in the story, not watching it. There is no doubt whatsoever that this story is real. Even if history should have been a bit different (which I don't know), the story in the film feels real.And I just want to add that everyone who calls M. Depardieu ugly or anything like it, is not only extremely rude but obviously not receptive to any kind of charisma and aura. With actors (as with people in general, right?) looks are not important. Whoever thinks that, should switch from watching films to watching models. There he can get empty beauty.My recommendation is: watch this film. You can hardly spend an evening in a better way. 10 out of 10.

SPOILER!! Of course, being french makes it easier for me to understand the film. But nevertheless I'm surprised by some comments here. No, there is nothing about amnesia in this movie. On the contrary; Gerard Depardieu's memories are quite accurate, and that's the problem... Nothing in common then with The Majestic or other movies about amnesia.And no, Depardieu is not charged with the murder of the "real" Martin Guerre. He is charged for identity usurpation. And the "real" Martin Guerre shows up before the execution...Oh... I forgot... really good movie...

Spoilers herein.I have had a lot of trouble with this film. When I watch films, I look for two intents: the intent I observe, and the one I deduce was intended. They are often not the same because filmmakers are like any other artists; often they work by intuition and don't explicitly see what they are doing.I know what I saw. But in this case, I don't know what was intended. That's because we have a muddle. This is an extraordinary visit to another world, and is transporting on that basis alone, like ` Heart of Glass.' But we also have the revealed conspiracy of the pair for sex (and companionship). We have the investigation and hanging. It is just not clear what the filmmaker had in mind other than following the script.Here's what I got:Many films are about films or acting, sometimes in the clothing of `the con.' Here we have a story people by actors who convince, and that story is about a character who is an actor who convinces. He convinces thoroughly until he demands too much of his audience, and then some of them rebel.That is a clever manner of folded storytelling: a story about storytelling and why it works: because life has abandoned us and left us without a narrative as it has gone off to war. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.