User reviews

Set in the stunningly beautiful Provencal region of France, "The Man of My life" looks at how both passion and responsibility play an equally crucial role in defining who we are and how we love.

Frederic (Bernard Campan) and Frederique (Lea Drucker) are a happily married couple who enjoy entertaining large groups of people at the country home where they vacation. One day, Frederic invites their next door neighbor, a single gay man by the name of Hugo (Charles Berling), over for a get-together with family and friends. Soon, Frederic and Hugo have struck up a friendship largely centered on their mutual addiction to running and their propensity to talk the night away over such weighty matters as love, passion, responsibility, freedom, commitment and marriage. Hugo tries to convince Frederic that his role as dutiful husband and father has robbed him of his individuality and earlier lust for life, while Hugo, spurned by his father at a young age, comes to his own understanding of the importance of family by the end. There's an obvious sexual attraction between the two men, but the movie goes far beyond the typical coming-out drama to explore romantic passion in all its myriad complexities and forms.

Frederic is torn between the desire to continue loving the wife who so obviously loves him and who has provided a stable home for him and their children - and this new found feeling for Hugo that he can, in no way, shape or form, even begin to understand. The movie never feels the need to judge any of the characters; it presents them simply as well-meaning but flawed human beings who struggle on a daily basis, as all of us do, with an array of emotions, needs and desires that continually come into conflict with one another.

The screenplay by Zabou Breitman and Agnes de Sacy employs long, winding conversations to reveal the truths about the characters and the relationships that help to define them. Moreover, the sensuous, bucolic setting, far from being a mere backdrop to the foreground action, actually serves to pull us into the lives of these people as they while away a languid summer swimming, hiking and exploring the inner workings of their own roiled psyches.

In his direction, Breitman has come up with interesting, slightly abstract ways of filming the commonplace details of everyday life, utilizing extreme close-ups, distorted angles, catawampus framing and mosaic-style storytelling to impart a lyrical tone to the film.

Superb performances by the three leading players also add greatly to the emotional richness of the piece.

With a great deal of insight and tenderness, "The Man of My Life" presents us with a subtly provocative, beautifully realized and psychologically complex view of the human heart.

I keep forgetting name of this movie and I describe it as the French movie with the two guys talking all night and the sheer drapes flowing in the wind. I found it to be one of the best gay movies ever. It's honest and deeper than most. It's also very French. Which is fine by me. But it won't be for everyone. A couple of years after watching it I choose it again thinking it was something I hadn't seen. A few minutes in I realized I had and watched it all over again.

A lovely film about a somewhat-romantic friendship between a straight married man and a gay single guy. An interesting note is that this story was written and directed by a woman, Zabou Breitman. The dynamics between the men, more subtle and conversational than physical, allow us to learn more than if the issue of sex was raised quickly. The romance is not about sexual attraction, but the role people play in he life of the other that bring forth emotions. This is a rich film, combining philosophy with sensuality, whimsy with beauty. While the pace is slow, there are twists along the way, beautiful cinematography, humorous bursts and many believable characters to keep us interested. Well worth viewing.

This film is about a married man developing romantic feelings with a charming gay neighbour.

The plot is simple but special. It is striking that the plot blurs the distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. The main character, Frédéric, is heterosexual but develops feelings for a man. Hugo, on the other hand, is homosexual but is revealed to have a child. It's a good way to say that love has no boundaries.

The way Frédéric develops feelings for Hugo is beautiful. The gradual disintegration of Frédéric's marriage is portrayed well, and Frédérique's desperation in the end of the film is palpable. This film is beautiful and engaging. It deserves to be viewed by more people.

Summer somewhere in France. A couple and their young son invite family and friends to enjoy a warm rural holiday at their old but comfortable summer house. A neighbor, a middle-aged single man, is invited to join the first night's outdoor party. It is quickly revealed that the man is gay. He and the husband start a tentative friendship. How far will it go?

Beyond the apparently simple plot line, what struck me about this film were the visual aspects. A playful camera delights us with unconventional angles, framing, superpositions and transitions. Combining beautiful cinematography and great editing, the end result is a superb film. The tango music is icing on the cake.

The movie is visually stunning and all the actors did a good job, but it tries too hard to be artistic and it mostly fails.

The two main male characters have deep talks about life, love, family and their meaning, discussion which is constantly shown in flashbacks, repeating the last minute of the previous one, but they lack substance. It tries to be witty, and that it's pretty obvious, but it fails.

The relationship of them is never truly explained, also leaving the viewer with a confusing open ending - again, it tried not to be "in your face", to make you think, to discover things by yourself but it couldn't raise to the stakes raised by itself.

The director, Zabou Breitman wasn't at her first try in the movie industry; now, I don't know how her other films hold up, they don't have a page on Wikipedia, nor on RottenTomatoes and her directed films on IMDb don't have a rating yet (maybe all that means something too), even if released years ago, but if the others are the same, they aren't worthy.

On the bright side, it's cinematography is really great, it has some beautiful shot moments, she knows her way around the camera - too bad they don't integrate very well into the film.

4/10

This film is so well photographed, produced, acted, scripted, etc., I feel a bit caddish for complaining about any aspect of it.

The photography is beautiful, lush at times, and often original. Much of the story takes place in dreams, or in a dream-like state, and the cinematographer does a good job conveying as much.

The film returns repeatedly to segments of an all night conversation between the two male leads, revealing nothing particularly extraordinary. Their dialog is the kind college kids have when they're talking about The Meaning of It All. But aspects of that discussion are played off against events occurring around them in the days that follow. It's a nice structure, one that lends itself to the dreamy photography.

I think the film could have been truly great if just a bit of the thematic and visual metaphors had been scaled back. This slight excess is noticeable, and that, I think, is a shame. Don't get me wrong--this is so far and away above the quality of most gay cinema it's definitely worth seeing, and thoroughly enjoyable.

I think Netflix has categorized this film as Foreign, rather than as Gay & Lesbian. It's French, so it clearly belongs to the former, but it is also a top tier example of the latter.

This was just so bad. It should be shown in film course as an example of what not to do. Watching it reminded me of a line from the 1932 movie "Grand Hotel," where Greta Garbo says " People come, people go; nothing ever happens." Ostensibly about the evolving relationship between gay Hugo and straight Frederick, the movie is littered with numerous characters and plot threads that do nothing but confuse. While beautiful to look at, the cinematographer is as confusing as whatever passes for a plot. Repetition does nothing to give meaning to shot after shot. A sad waste of the efforts of a decent cast trying to give meaning to utter BS.