Very well executed

Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

WARNING! SPOILERS!!!There are so many plot elements in this movie to discuss, meaningless bits that go no where. For instance, Tom claims he saw a bear and his father says he saw it in the fog when he was tired, in a dream. Later, some VERY clear, very DEEP, very obvious, fresh and regular tracks are shown (a bit more fresh than I have ever seen in the forest) on film, yet they are not followed up. They are not followed to a cave and no bear shapes in the distance are depicted. It is a dead end plot device with no purpose.A common cinematic addition for no plot purpose is the usage gratuitous nudity. We were treated to full frontal and lingering rear nudity of the teenage Thomas character in nearly IDENTICAL scenes. Wait a minute, I think they WERE identical. Perhaps I should rewind and compare them closely? I suspect they shot the same scene then just edited out Damien for the first scene. At least that saved on production cost. Just one question -what causes a writer to use a dive into a remote frozen lake as the preferred choice for the insertion of gratuitous nudity?? Certainly the cold is unfriendly to the male member.Another strange thing done in this film, Damien, upon is first visit to the farm slips into the barn, walks up to a cow and smells its ass! Of all things a person who has never been around cows might do, that is generally NOT the first thing a person does. Some might check out the udders. Others look at the great big eyes, while many pet the big soft furry warm flanks of the cow and others just stand back and gawk not sure what to do. Ass-sniffing is a little more of a canine sort of thing. Puzzling choice there, André.Not only were there puzzling script choices, but there were some very strange technical bits from the perspective of a career military man. First of all, French heliborne aviation NEVER support US Special Forces. The 160th SOAR supports US Special Forces with very specially equipped helicopters, loaded with advanced electronics and advanced avionics. US aircraft even support French and British special forces personnel because USA invests so much in their aviation assets vis a vis NATO allies. Second, French troops over the past 75 years tend to flee from the possibility of loss as they cannot politically sustain combat deaths. They also are often sent in unarmed or loaded with blank munitions. The Foreign Legion troops are the ones that tend to risk losses. Lastly, US troops tend over the past 40 years tend to apply increasing force, not decreasing force, in conflict zones. US troops tend to be the last ones out of a combat zone.The acting was a less than exciting. The script likely had something to do with the shortcomings in the characters, yet even so, the characters were mostly flat, duo-dimensional.One strangely disturbing choice for this film was this. The characters NEVER change their clothes, despite nearly a year of time passage. I do not recall winter lasting that long in that region, but lets not quibble over tiny details.The mother, lackadaisically played by the supremely unskilled Sandrine Kiberlain, was good at showing pain and depression, but not much else. She failed utterly at moving a happy, hardworking doctor character into a dark place of bereavement and utter loss. It seems she started with a certain foreknowledge of her husband's impending doom as there was this impending gloom-cloud that hung over her at the start that eventually began to rain a bit of alcoholism. Corentin Fila, was probably the best actor of the film as he showed more character development throughout its length and more depth of character overall. His moodiness and strength were consistent, yet the flashes of emotion he was able to summon were impressive as were the way in which he rapidly hid/suppressed emotion.Now for a quick list of a few plot problems: No character introduction for the father's friend and neighbor is provided. That must be learned over the course of the 2 hour film. The logic behind a mother inviting her son's bully into her home while her husband is not even home is beyond imagining. The mother defends not her own son, when sitting in front of the principal, but the OTHER boy. Damien readily admits to striking first (as if that usually happens). When the father comes home for Christmas, there are no gifts under the tree and he seems more eager to see the neighbor than his wife (yeah right!). Tom acts like a strong person most of the time, but a wimp when he drives Damien to the farm for the would-be sexual encounter. Damien does not follow Tom and the farmer out of concern his secret might spill. Tom just plops by the muffler in a huff when told to wait. A teenage boy, embarrassed by his sexuality, plays with himself with an open bedroom door (who does that??). There are soooo many more, but I am feeling nauseous just now.The entire movie seems to be an imagined teenage homosexual sex scene with some pretty scenery selected, some additional cast members tossed in and a hastily-tossed-together-set-of-circumstances-forced-to-fit-from-start-to-finish, logical or not.One interesting choice was a scene where Damien had his hand resting on the mother's bed and a fly was running all over his hand without the actor even seeming to notice the feces-eater spreading its filth upon him. Why on earth would the video editors not edit such a distracting thing out of the final screenplay? Could that have been a happy accident that occurred in filing they decided worked well as a subtle message? Could it be a deliberate allusion to the inexorable spread of death and corruption?

I'd like to start this review with a plea. If you have not seen the film yet, stop reading whatever reviews you're reading and go watch it. Then come back and read and/or comment.Now, this film is pure magic. It has a sensibility that if it does not manage to move you, few things in life will. As a heterosexual, for me, the biggest possible cliché in a film that portrays being gay, is the idea that being gay is wrong. Same goes for real life. The cliché that heterosexuals are against being gay, that they are condemning the behaviour, that being gay is not acceptable in society. Prejudice. Cowardice. Hate. All of these are MISSING from this film, and I think this is one of the most relevant reasons for why this film is so special. Except maybe one single moment, when training, Damien is being instructed to start sounding like a man fighting, not a girl fighting (why sounding like a girl fighting would be such a bad way is a bit beyond me) everything else is love. It is acceptance, from parents, from community, from people at school. The only ones that are finding it a bit hard to accept are Damien and Thomas who are struggling to find out what their feelings mean, in a world where being 'different' is seen as being 'wrong'. What a sensible way of allowing love to blossom, of telling us that love is real, and that love can and WILL happen no matter what.Yes it's cliché that the seasons are changing as the feelings and thoughts of the boys are changing, yes it's cliché that love starts from fighting with each other, with being jealous, yes it's cliché that the adopted child will tend to be more vulnerable and tough in what concerns his feelings and behaviour. So what? All these clichés only build an absolute ideal romance. How can people really consider Thomas a bully? Which bully could care for his adored mother the way he does, which bully could care for the animals the way he does, which bully immerses himself into nature the way Thomas does, which bully shows disappointment and hurt when telling his lover that he knows what he was looking for in the other man? How can the love he shows be so invisible to all of you, just because a punch or a push. Choose to see emotions, and reactions rather just than only certain actions.I think it is also wonderful that their love was shown as full love, as in both of them become one, instead of choosing another film and real life cliché that a gay male relationship will have one top and one bottom. BS! Love is more than that.I could be writing more and more about the film, however I think the main idea is that the film is made with love, for people who choose to believe in love.Incredible scenery, soundtrack to it, the acting is stellar from all involved, I am changing my review from 9 stars to 10. 10+ if I could.

For some reason I wasn't aware this was a Techine film until the credits. Then it was an a-ha moment--I should have known. Quality like this doesn't come from many other directors.The theme and characters are echos of some in other Techine films. But this one, like his others, is fresh and original, enough so that I never made the connection.The story is not just about a gay relationship, but that relationship is the thread that holds the story together. This film has a scarce commodity: gay characters who are multidimensional. Nothing is cut and dried between them, nothing is easy. The progression of the relationship is a struggle--literally--and it feels natural and real. To me.If it doesn't seem real to you, chances are you're under 30 and have grown up in a progressive, first-world culture. For me, well... my college boyfriend (50+ years ago) was a hyper-masculine bisexual boxer who was angry that he was attracted to guys, and angrier still that he was in love with one. So, yeah, I could relate. I remember our bruises.The locale, actors, cinematography, etc., all first rate. However, if you're like me you may feel you've had your fill of LGBT coming of age stories. Just know that this variation on that theme is one you're unlikely to have seen before and it's really well done.

This film, which in English speaking territories is released under the title Being 17, at first has all the hallmarks of your typical teenage drama. There's two seventeen year old boys and a fair bit of animosity between them. However, where usually there's girls or social status involved in explaining said strife, that is not the case here. In fact, there's no particular cause for their mutual dislike at all, it's just there. So we can imagine the horror on the one boy's face when his mother invites the other to come live with them. It's a generous but odd decision, considering their rivalry is there for everybody to see. It's not the oddest choice Quand on a 17 ans makes, since the intention of this film is showing the start of a homosexual relationship. You'll have a tough time believing this film, which takes place over a period of about 18 months, will see the relation between the boys change from mutual hatred and the occasional bit of violence to underscore that feeling, to genuine, physical affection between the pair.Director André Téchiné - himself a gay man - is no stranger to both gay drama and teen angst. However, he felt the subject material needed the aid of writer Céline Sciamma to flesh the characters out to their best extent. Sciamma recently came off the teen drama Girlhood, which also showed rough relationships between youngsters (though all of them girls in that particular case), but despite the 37 year difference in age between herself and her director, she proves a right addition to make the teen dialogue that much more snappy and convincing. Aided by strong, not to mention daring, performances from both the young actors and their more experienced counterparts, the script goes a long way to make the unlikely transformation from one state of affairs to the other feel that much more real. Cinematography and editing do their bit as the movie moves from a snowy, cold opening to a warm and colourful close in summer, as a perfect (but rather obvious) metaphor for the change in teen moods.Nevertheless, for the audience it's still a far cry from hate to love (especially a type of love this deeply felt) in just under two hours time. All the ingredients are there to make us convince this is transpiring, but it just moves too fast to make us feel it with the two main characters. It has the pretension, conscious or unconscious, of an emotional epic the likes of La Vie D'Adele (better known as Blue is the Warmest Colour in many regions), but unlike that wonderful film, it just cuts the time necessary to make it equally emotionally compelling for us by a third. We cannot help but feel things are rushed, even though the movie cannot be accused of being fast paced. A change in teen nature of this magnitude simply begs more illustration for full emotional immersion, it seems.