Who payed the critics

A Brilliant Conflict

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Some of the acting was atrocious; in particular that of the "mad man", who, in my state, wouldn't meet the criteria to be institutionalized. Even if he were very insane nothing about the way he talked or moved seemed in any way realistic. I thought briefly that perhaps he was purposefully a caricature of some sort for artistic reasons, but quickly decided that didn't work. Then there was the killing of animals. So it was wartime in France and rabbets are food; no problem there. But I really wish I hadn't seen the dog killed for no apparent reason. Nothing in the plot justifies killing a dog. If you like dogs you shouldn't see this movie.

The human elements of this movie are quite touching, but it contains the most appalling incidents of animal abuse I have ever seen. At least one very sweet dog and one rabbit are killed on camera for the enjoyment of the director and his audience. Other viewers clearly don't care, but I do.However inspiring this movie might have been otherwise, I strongly advise anyone who really cares about animals not to watch it. If you're the sort who can excuse animal abuse in the name of art or changing times (as others have done here), or if, like the director, you actually enjoy it, then by all means indulge yourself. But if, like me, you believe that animal abuse for entertainment was no less abominable and inexcusable 30 years ago (or 1000 years ago) than it is now, you should avoid this movie.

Vallois made a film which is not easy to watch and one never forgets it, since this film speaks out things normally silenced. Love between persons of different sex is theme in many war time movies where border line separates the lovers and the rest is sentimental crap. But here we have two men who should hate each other, as men should, even if they are not enemies. They are, however, in a secluded hut, mid-forest, also metaphorically: they don't know anything about each other than what they see. No common language. But in their flesh they begin to know each other, little by little: they are men, they have the same urges and because of the war times they don't have to play social plays. They don't need the illusion a civilized life requires; they joyfully agree in being straightforward in their physical needs. Communication is all but easy but they show us art and practice we don't know anymore, not in everyday life. They attack each other directly in flesh, both in sensitive way and aggressively, ending up making love or running away from each other. Vallois' film is like a well structured reality document where one looks the world that should be there somewhere but one knows that any peace and civilized state of mind make a life like that impossible. Men simply can't love each other without Mothers giving them rules for that.

There is truly nothing like "We Were One Man," a twisted, brave film that looks at a man-man relationship through new eyes. The way the men treat each other is hard to watch, and the ending somehow does not ring true to their earlier actions. It is almost too heavy-handedly symbolic. Still...there is an earthy, grimy quality to their sexual relationship that is fascinating to watch. This one is for gay foreign film fans, gay sadists, or very open-minded foreign film buffs only.