Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

dromasca I saw this film for two reasons - one is Bertrand Tavernier, the other is the fact that much of the action of the film takes place in my country of birth Romania. I was disappointed.The historical background of the story takes place in the last couple of months of the first world war and in the year that followed. The heroes are two French officers, one of them is the commander of a special unit which turns the fate of battles on the war fields with brutality and efficiency, but cannot find its place when the war ends. The soldiers are part of an unfortunate minority of the French army which remained conscripted in the area, which was undergoing political changes - empires fell down, new nations where raising and forming their national states, borders where moving and still fought, and revolutions were threatening the order sought by the victorious powers.Unfortunately nothing of the changes around are reflected in any way by the film, which focuses on the fate of the French soldiers and officers and not only misses completely the events around but also presents the local people in an folklorist and non flattering manner. Neither does the film say anything new that was not already said in the great films about the absurdity of war in general or the cruelty of WWI in particular. The story is composed of several sequences not too well related, acting is good but cannot save the day, and seeing this film is overall an experience to forget for these who saw it and to avoid for these who did not see it.

Aw-komon Tavernier is probably the greatest film artist working in the world today. With Capitaine Conan, he accomplished what all the New-Wave directors dreamed about but never quite got the chance to do (except maybe for Bertolucci on The Last Emperor, if you want to consider him part of the original new-wave): to make a high-budget film with thousands of extras and elaborate, detailed sets which completely conforms to their vision and stays uncompromised, an auteurist epic. Well, how's this for uncompromised: Most of the shots in this film are made using only available light or the light that would be available given the circumstances of the scene! As a result, the film looks uniquely dark and authentic, as if it was shot in 1918 when the events took place. This takes some getting used to, and of course, people conditioned to being spoon fed every scene lit up like a christmas tree will be disoriented, but the shadowy effects achieved far outweigh the negatives. Some of the shots are kept in total darkness (as they would be in real life) with barely a face showing to indicate who's talking to who! Then the people gradually come out of the darkness into different shades of light, each more nuanced than the other. The cinematography and art direction are breathtaking; there isn't a single shot in the entire film that couldn't be called a masterpiece of its own, perfectly framed, perfectly composed and perfectly moved. Tavernier rarely uses a shot-reverse-shot preferring complex camera movement or long uninterrupted takes capturing the scenes from different angles without a cut. The scenes themselves, however, don't drag on forever, they are compact and to the point, making a Tavernier film usually one where a lot of things happen very fast and in order to pick up all the details and nuances, many viewings are essential. The acting from the awesome leads of Thoreton (a richly deserved Cesar award for best actor), Le Bihan, and Le Coque, down to the smallest bit player is uniformly brilliant. No American film I've ever seen has acting on this high a naturalistic level.The film is mainly about the thin and precariously balanced area called 'amorality' that some people have a knack for staying within, racking up only enough whites (good deeds) and blacks (bad deeds)to stay mostly in the perfectly shaded middle gray. In a war-time situation the people who have this knack tend to do very well for themselves. Conan, a tough special forces officer whose group makes sneak attacks on the enemy and kills at knife-point, is that perfect 'amoral' character or for lack of a better term people have come to call an 'anti-hero', i.e., that guy who sometimes does 'bad' or 'evil' things, but integrates this within a higher integrity that's essentialy 'good' and admirable. His friend, Lt. Norbert is the more traditionally 'moral' man who comes to admire the guts it takes for Conan to operate rather openly in that precarious zone against all the hypocrisies of his superiors (which keep them protected). When Conan comes to defend a few of his men who have clearly gone over the line and committed atrocities which must be punished, Norbert, given the job of prosecuting the men, makes his position clear and breaks with him. All through the film he tries to become more like Conan and yet stays wary of the line that Conan could easily cross into madness and fanaticism. What draws Conan and Norbert together is their common integrity against the hypocrisies of society, as opposed to Lt. DeSceve, the other main character, who's an honorable soldier and strong man, but who kisses-up to the top brass and has a fascist attitude.This film never got the distribution it should have in the U.S. simply because it was a subtitled foreign film and Americans have practically stopped watching foreign films! What a damn shame! They missed the greatest film of the '90s! I would conjecture that not 1 out of a 100 people who've seen Spielberg's melodramatic "Saving Private Ryan" have even heard of "Capitaine Conan." Catch it on the Sundance channel on cable or rent it on video and experience a true masterpiece. Then watch it again and again and experience deja-vu.

minnow-6 "Captain Conan (Capitaine Conan)' ***1/2. (1996, France, Not Rated, 129 min Directed Bertrand Tavernier with Philippe Torreton, Samuel Lebihan, Bernard Le Coq). History on the cusp of any war is most often overlooked. How many of us have or take the opportunity to study or learn about the United States during the 1760s or 1870s? When did you last read about Europe in 1900, 1920, 1932 or 1946? `Capitaine Conan' is a movie about men on the cusp, at the end of World War I. For this alone, `Capitaine Conan' is a movie worth seeing. For more than a year after the Armistice, over 100,000 French troops fought in Eastern Europe.`Capitaine Conan' opens on the battlefront in Bulgaria. Conan (Torreton) is the leader of a guerrilla troop that fights behind enemy lines. They live off the land, fighting where the rules of engagement are brutally one on one. Conan tells his friend Norbett (Lebihan) `…3000 men like me won the war. Anyone can kill at a distance, but only a few learn to kill with the knife, eye to eye. It took all the millions of soldiers like you to fight the war, but it took the few like myself to win it.' But when the Armistice is announced Conan's men are thrust back into the civilized world, a world of army regulations, boredom, and restrictions. Conan's guerrillas aren't easily tamed. There's a robbery and murder at the nightclub. Conan's men are the primary suspects. But before there is any resolution in the military court, the French troops are called to fight the Bolsheviks on the border of the newly formed Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks attack the French and Conan leads his men into the battle. As the scene fades they are running into the reeds and rushes of a huge river delta.The movie ends with Conan and Norbett meeting some years later. Conan is dying. Their discussion is unsettling and doesn't resolve any of the unanswered questions about how the war ended. I've watched the movie twice and the ending still seems out of place. But then maybe wars and history don't end. Maybe history is a continuum and life on the cusp between events is more difficult to define and understand than the events themselves. Maybe this is why most history is about events and less so about the life and lives around the events.If you're put of by the thought that `Capitaine Conan' is nothing more than a history lesson, be not afraid. The acting, direction, and photography are very well done. One of the most interesting features of this production is the hand held camera work during the battle scenes. The camera moves through the battle like another pair of eyes often distracted by an explosion, an obstruction or a scream. The camera flinches as it makes its way though the mud and the muck of the battle. The staging of a battle in the hills of Bulgaria is up to the standards of the battle scenes in `Patton.'`Capitaine Conan' is a very good movie, one of the best of 1996. It's out on video, I recommend you see it.

mifunesamurai Conan and his men call their own shots on the battlefield and create fear within the enemy with their surprise attacks. By 1918, the mother of all wars comes to an end on the Bulgarian border. By this stage the men have had the taste of blood and cannot seem to settle down. When they are transferred to Romania for a bit of rest and recreation, a new battle commences with each other. The rules of combat have altered for the sake of peace and hypocrisy runs rampart to the disgust of Conan. At times, the style falls into dark humour territory, producing bizarre moments on the battlefield and words of wisdom on the human condition at war.