IMDb RATING
7.0/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
Leo, 21, tells his rural family that he is HIV-positive. They choose to hide it from 11-year-old Marcel. But Marcel senses something is wrong with his brother and, during a trip to Paris, co... Read allLeo, 21, tells his rural family that he is HIV-positive. They choose to hide it from 11-year-old Marcel. But Marcel senses something is wrong with his brother and, during a trip to Paris, confronts him about it.Leo, 21, tells his rural family that he is HIV-positive. They choose to hide it from 11-year-old Marcel. But Marcel senses something is wrong with his brother and, during a trip to Paris, confronts him about it.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
7.01.1K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
How Would WE?
How DOES a person react to the news that they have HIV and how does their family act? In fact, how do we think WE would act? Well, regarding that second question, I honestly don't have the slightest idea and fortunately, haven't had to find out. But I am guessing that it would involve a vast variety of conflicting and changeable emotions and behaviors, both rational and irrational, as was expressed here in this, what I can only believe is a very realistic film...because each individual and family may have their own responses. I think all emotional responses and behaviors are realistic and justified under the circumstances, even some that might generate distaste among some viewers of this film. A family, with its shock, fear, grief, and shame, if they feel those emotions, may decide to protect whom they believe is a more vulnerable member of the family. Then they may decide that that was the wrong tack to follow. Or maybe not. Who knows WHAT to do, really? Sometimes paralysis is bound to take over to the extent of collapsing into semi-catatonia, or maybe the opposite, such as running wildly toward a futile sense of escape. Any and everything may happen, and all are valid.
Isn't it realistic that one so stricken might want to reach out to people who had held meaning in the past, but not really have any idea how to go about that in a prudent way? Or maybe there will be feelings of hatred or envy of those who are able to peacefully go through the normalcy of their lives, because they do not have this issue to suddenly contend with. Maybe one might for a moment become utterly irresponsible and uncaring, or self-destructive, for in the face of death, or certain pain and anguish, what of any shreds of a former morality may seem to truly matter?
I believe that this film accurately explores the potential universe of reactions in a powerfully communicative way. This maybe made the "narrative story" jerky or uncomfortable to watch or understand, but if so, welcome to THEIR world.
I don't believe that the makers of this film believe that this film, or any other, shows the definitive way things will happen under these circumstances. I think they know more than that...that they know that we all DON'T know and all bets are off, but in their work, here, they are going to explore and have the viewer live some of the possibilities. And I felt that as a viewer, they were very successful. I couldn't help but feel throughout this movie, things maybe I didn't want to feel, but I then I shouldn't watch a movie like this if I wanted to be protected. We all knew going into it what the subject matter was.
One thing that I thoroughly appreciated about the film was the physical affection and body contact among the various family members that seemed to disturb the sensibilities of some reviewers, when it is so clear to me that one valid reaction might be the family's desire (either being satisfied in actuality or else communicated metaphorically via the visual language of film) to utterly ABSORB every precious square inch of not only the body of the loved one that is soon to be falling apart, possibly into nothingness, but also those suddenly even-more- precious-than-ever-before who will remain after the one so stricken has gone, all of whom will have to live with this shared loss for the rest of their lives. And for the one stricken, to connect with the sweet human flesh of those whom he loves while he still can effect such a connection, I submit that the most fundamental and reliable communication of all may be through touch and the body, for the emotions and the intellect would be too much in a typhoon to be constant.
Isn't it realistic that one so stricken might want to reach out to people who had held meaning in the past, but not really have any idea how to go about that in a prudent way? Or maybe there will be feelings of hatred or envy of those who are able to peacefully go through the normalcy of their lives, because they do not have this issue to suddenly contend with. Maybe one might for a moment become utterly irresponsible and uncaring, or self-destructive, for in the face of death, or certain pain and anguish, what of any shreds of a former morality may seem to truly matter?
I believe that this film accurately explores the potential universe of reactions in a powerfully communicative way. This maybe made the "narrative story" jerky or uncomfortable to watch or understand, but if so, welcome to THEIR world.
I don't believe that the makers of this film believe that this film, or any other, shows the definitive way things will happen under these circumstances. I think they know more than that...that they know that we all DON'T know and all bets are off, but in their work, here, they are going to explore and have the viewer live some of the possibilities. And I felt that as a viewer, they were very successful. I couldn't help but feel throughout this movie, things maybe I didn't want to feel, but I then I shouldn't watch a movie like this if I wanted to be protected. We all knew going into it what the subject matter was.
One thing that I thoroughly appreciated about the film was the physical affection and body contact among the various family members that seemed to disturb the sensibilities of some reviewers, when it is so clear to me that one valid reaction might be the family's desire (either being satisfied in actuality or else communicated metaphorically via the visual language of film) to utterly ABSORB every precious square inch of not only the body of the loved one that is soon to be falling apart, possibly into nothingness, but also those suddenly even-more- precious-than-ever-before who will remain after the one so stricken has gone, all of whom will have to live with this shared loss for the rest of their lives. And for the one stricken, to connect with the sweet human flesh of those whom he loves while he still can effect such a connection, I submit that the most fundamental and reliable communication of all may be through touch and the body, for the emotions and the intellect would be too much in a typhoon to be constant.
worthy but flawed effort
There is a lot to like here. The actors are first rate and the script provides good dialog best capturing the ambiance of a tightly knit, likable family. However, for that reason the film does not ring true. We see Leo, who apparently just learned of his HIV positive diagnosis, essentially react in a way that is not in tune to the supportive atmosphere for which he finds himself. As well, the film ends somewhat abruptly avoiding what Leo, his brother and the rest of this close family must have dealt with in light of their love for him. The young actor who plays Leo's brother, Marcel, is impressive as generally is the rest of the cast. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters could not decide onwhether they wanted an insightful dissertation on the effects of HIV on a functional, appealing family or what the devastation HIV is on the victim - so it only hints at both. While this film provides food for thought it leaves the viewer wanting much more than it delivers.
More realistic than most.
This film is about Leo. The oldest of four brothers who returns home to inform his family that he has aids.
His family is keen to keep this information from his youngest brother (who is 12). Naturally, his young brother hears this conversation and the film mostly follows his brother as he processes and deals with this information.
I found the reactions of most of the characters quite realistic and believable. From Marcel being angry about his family trying to keep everything, to various family members having emotional outbursts.
All in all the film handles its subject matter with a lot more maturity than most films about this subject that are made in places like America or England... particularly given when this film was made.
My main criticism is that it does come to a rather sudden end. Don't get me wrong... the end is conclusive. But it just felt to me like there was more story to be told. In-between the events of most of the film and the rather abrupt conclusion.
His family is keen to keep this information from his youngest brother (who is 12). Naturally, his young brother hears this conversation and the film mostly follows his brother as he processes and deals with this information.
I found the reactions of most of the characters quite realistic and believable. From Marcel being angry about his family trying to keep everything, to various family members having emotional outbursts.
All in all the film handles its subject matter with a lot more maturity than most films about this subject that are made in places like America or England... particularly given when this film was made.
My main criticism is that it does come to a rather sudden end. Don't get me wrong... the end is conclusive. But it just felt to me like there was more story to be told. In-between the events of most of the film and the rather abrupt conclusion.
Touching look at a family dealing with a crisis
I found this film to be a fascinating study of a family in crisis. When Leo, the oldest announces that he is HIV+ the reactions of the family members alone and with each other was touching and yet strange.
I have never seen a family that was as physically demonstrative as this one; nor one as likely to shout at each other. I didn't understand why the family felt that youngest couldn't deal with the news but once past that difficult I found this a thoroughly moving film.
I have never seen a family that was as physically demonstrative as this one; nor one as likely to shout at each other. I didn't understand why the family felt that youngest couldn't deal with the news but once past that difficult I found this a thoroughly moving film.
Devastating news
This film made for French TV deals with the tragic effect it has for a close knit family. When Leo, the young man at the center of the story is diagnosed as having the AIDS virus, announces it to his parents, they just can't believe it. The film is a character study on how this family deals with its subject.
The director, Christophe Honore, has to be congratulated for bringing this frank account to the screen. Nowhere but in France could this story make it to the movies because of the subject matter.
The news has a devastating effect on Marcel, the young brother who hears about what Leo has contracted, in spite of the way the parents want to shelter him from reality.
Yaniss Lespart and Pierre Mignard do a convincing job in portraying the brothers.
The director, Christophe Honore, has to be congratulated for bringing this frank account to the screen. Nowhere but in France could this story make it to the movies because of the subject matter.
The news has a devastating effect on Marcel, the young brother who hears about what Leo has contracted, in spite of the way the parents want to shelter him from reality.
Yaniss Lespart and Pierre Mignard do a convincing job in portraying the brothers.
Did you know
- ConnectionsReferences Saturday Night Fever (1977)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 28m(88 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content



