You & I

The movie is simple, but that is the magic of it, it doesn't seem to make any mistakes, you have to be in a mood to watch something that isn't an action movie, and isn't a drama with tons of drama up front. But that is why I liked it. The actors were all perfect in every scene, and even the dialogue, translated to English, seems perfect as well. Every scene that could have been cheesy, or predictable, or just plain trite, was instead very well done and seemed more real than what you would expect. There are long scenes where the actor has to stay in character for a long time before it is over, and that must have been difficult, each actor is very talented and they make the movie, of course. I didn't see any weak spots, but the movie is definitely lighthearted and tame and you feel like you're on vacation with them having fun, goofing off, until halfway through, it accelerates and becomes more serious and problems start to appear for the characters, but it all works really well. I wouldn't change anything about this movie and I would definitely watch it again, especially if I needed a movie that feels good but also feels very realistic and the performances seem real too.

This may be the stupidest movie I have ever seen. Its only reason for existing seems to be (1) to show men running around totally naked and acting like monkeys--for no plot-required reason--as often as possible, and (2) to show men urinating on camera as often as possible. There are at least five instances of the latter in a barely-over-one-hour movie. It's not even water-sports porn--it's about as erotic (and realistic) as a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

The plot is extraordinarily flimsy: best friends (straight German and gay Briton, both affluent enough not to have real jobs; the German is a "photographer", the Brit nothing discernible) go on a pointless road trip through obscure northeastern Germany and pick up a Polish hitchhiker. Nothing happens, except for the previously-mentioned naked romping and urinating.

All three characters are either (take your pick) completely unbelievable, even as movie characters, much less as actual human beings, OR (or AND, if you insist) the three most obnoxious characters the writer/director could think up.

The two "best friends" act like they can't stand each other, and if that's supposed to be some sort of erotic tension it misfires completely. The Pole adds nothing but a different body type (short/chunky vs the friends' buttless "swimmer's builds"); a third obnoxious, unbelievable character; and a third language for the subtitle writers to screw up (they completely ignore all English, regardless of how unintelligibly it's being mumbled by non-English speakers).

Three obnoxious characters running around like monkeys and urinating every few minutes--and annoying each other and the audience for 78 minutes. That's this movie.

Not great ...but quite good. This film is a bit slow at times and not much happens for good part of the movie. But it is very well produced/structured; the scenery is beautiful and acting is top-notch!!

This film rings "true" on many levels and things develop naturally. Sadly, with three people; one will ultimately be left out! Life is hash.

I started this months ago and could not finish it. Re-watched it again and was pleasantly surprised how it developed in the end. I enjoyed this quite a bit.

I've read the other reviews here and am amused but not surprised at some of the descriptions. Some reviewers see motivation and action and inaction where others have quite different explanations of what's happened.

I find that to be perfectly understandable. Nothing is spelled out precisely for us in this film. There's an ambiguity to the characters' relationships that could easily cause different people to form different opinions about what happened. It's purposeful, and an interesting concept.

Two old friends (one gay, one straight) go on a camping trip and are having a rollicking good time. Then they pick up hitchhiker. You kind of wonder when the hitchhiker is going to turn out to be an ax murderer. Especially after the gay guy asks if his being gay is a problem for the hitchhiker.

It isn't.

This is a slender film that at first glance doesn't seem to add up to much. However, there is dynamic tension throughout the latter part of the film for reasons we're not quite sure we understand. The relationships are purposely somewhat vague and ill-defined, something I found to be an insightful take on modern relationships, especially gay relationships.

My initial reaction to the end of this film was WTF? On reflection, I get it. I liked this movie. It's deceptively simple-looking but there isn't anything simple about it. You know, like life.

Whoever called this a "fetish" film missed the point. Two old friends get together for a road trip. And they do what men do, that is, engage in casual nudity, and one of them isn't shy about bodily functions. That much is obvious. What is less obvious at first, but becomes increasingly so, is the attraction they feel for each other. This attraction becomes more obvious when they are joined by a Polish hitchhiker, and the two men show, in various ways, their jealousy when the other man becomes too attentive to Boris. You have to watch this movie a couple or three times to catch all the subtexts. The film offers a lot more than the normal viewer might catch on a first viewing.