Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

PadmeAmadildo I loved all the symbolism. Mind you - you didn't need it - nothing came out of left field at all in this movie. In fact, you were shown the denouement right at the outset - no happy endings for this movie then...Even Mommy-dearest's 'earth-shattering' disclosure to Simon, came as no great shakes, because it had been presaged by the scene with Marie snooping through Louise's Filofax and exhibiting over-the-top shock at her surname.It was obvious at the outset that Simon was gay. (!!! - he's FRENCH - how many more clues do you need??? - little joke, there). Then when you meet the 'Adam's Family' back home, it's clear he's not one of them (the Adam's Family, that is!) Then we find out that Simon has the hots for Mathieu who turns out to be a young version of Marc - his mother's toy-boy*.So - S&M are going to get it together, oui? Non - parce que LOUISE and Mathieu effectively get married at the Family's Christmas do. Louise is in her wedding dress. The 'Young married couple to be' (NOT specifically S&L) are toasted, and M&L have their post-wedding dance together, with a salutary 'guard of honour' supplied by the local 'matelots'.So that's both S&M AND S&L killed with one stone.... and talking of birds, the seagulls telegraphed the state of S&M's relationship at the outset.At the Lighthouse (a monster boner, BTW - signifying what a stud-muffin M is!) Mathieu's seagull was dead, never to be seen and 'yuk' (rotten) and outside on the balcony.Simon's seagull was also dead, but preserved in S's bedroom, wings outstretched, head turned as if in grief, in the exact same pose as the b&w photo of a Michaelangelo bust, in S's photo portfolio.So S was preserving his feelings for M, whereas M's feelings for S were dead, defenestrated and left to rot.... and it took LOUISE to literally tell us this fact. Appreciative applause - a master stroke!) The wheeling seagulls permeated the seaside environs, symbolising the very whirlwind, which is life and love, of course...* So apart from being French, why else is Simon gay? Very possibly because he didn't have a father. He had a cold relationship with his mother's husband, and so spent his life 'looking for Dad' which is how SOME interpret homosexuality.No surprise then, that Mathieu is the spit of Marc - his real Dad. No surprise either that the erotic bed scene of S on M's bed, is echoed at the end, with S on his Dad's bed - the other M.Incidentally, we know well in advance that Marc is Simon's Dad, because Marie spells it out in discussion with Louise about her real relationship with S. 'Like sister and brother?' All good stuff. You know what the outcome's going to be way in advance, but unlike Star Wars, it's a very entertaining and enjoyable ride getting there all the same.

leftbanker The previous reviews make interesting points about this film; most of them plausible and some very perceptive. The following is more an analysis than a review and contains SPOILERS. If you have not viewed the movie and intend to do so, you might want to watch it before reading further. The film is a study in ambiguity – taking that French-film hallmark to a new level – and I do not pretend to have the definitive interpretation of the characters' emotions and actions. But here are my somewhat disjointed, and not entirely original, thoughts.Louise and Simon are both stalkers, of the active and passive types respectively. Sort of yin and yang (initially secret) siblings. Simon is an observer, introverted but not entirely introspective, always looking out at others through a glass (a window or a camera lens). Does the glass distort or clarify his vision? In either case, it separates him from the others - he is emotionally isolated from everyone. In the end, he stops watching and acts, shattering the glass to end the isolation in the only way he can. Simon does not meet Louise by chance on the train - she pursues him, playing on his loneliness, so as to insinuate herself into the family circle (at Christmas, yet). Her motivations remain unclear to me. Apparently she initially wanted to learn more about her half-brother, but her actions seem quite malevolent when she pursues Mathieu even though it is clear that this increases Simon's distress. So I take a darker view of the affection she shows Simon; she seems to be setting him up for his ultimate devastation.While the film gives no incontrovertible proof that Simon has a romantic/sexual interest in Mathieu, many scenes indicate strongly to me that that is the case. Soon after Simon arrives in La Rochelle, he leaves Louise in the car to climb to the top of the lighthouse to seek Mathieu out, and he is obviously disturbed when Louise follows. When the three are together, Simon is continually looking past or around Louise to gaze at Mathieu, and when Louise leaves the bed to make hot chocolate, Simon lies staring at the sleeping Mathieu. Several times Simon alludes to, and tries to rekindle, their past relationship, but Mathieu has moved beyond it (if Simon did not misinterpret it from the beginning). When Simon gratifies himself on Mathieu's bed (where Mathieu and Louise have apparently just made love), intoxicated by the scent of the bedding, he could be assuming the place of either of the two, but the other indications make me think he is supplanting Louise. (Finally, the obvious phallic image of the lighthouse bears some consideration, and I think it bolsters the sexual element of Simon's interest in Mathieu.) When/if I watch the film for a second time, I would pay more attention to Simon's art. It seems that Mathieu has not figured it out – and is probably incapable of doing so. When he mentions the article he saw about Simon's photographs, Mathieu says it was poorly edited and the pictures sloppily presented (unfocused and cropping off parts of the subject). He does not understand what Simon is doing in the photos or in life. When Marie steals a look at Simon's portfolio, she begins to understand the full sense of desolation within Simon. Most of the pictures feature the dunes and coast in the vicinity of the lighthouse. At other points in the film, Simon appears at most of these same places. The pictures are portraits of Mathieu – without Mathieu. (I have not figured out the significance of the first three pictures of the statuette, but assume they relate to Marie herself. I would welcome ideas about those.) Then there are Simon's film clips – mostly blurred, confusing fragments depicting the actions and emotions of those around him – things he is capable of recording but not, it seems, comprehending or accepting.In addition to the homosexual implications of the film, there are strong elements of incest in the relationships between Louise and Simon and Simon and his mother. Simon's final, posthumous commentary speaks to that. Freud would have had fun with those relationships and the images of the father – one false, one absent. Was Simon pushed over the edge by the realization that he has been kicked out of Mathieu's bed by his sister and out of his mother's bed by his (true) father? Now for my review: I give Gaston Ulliel a 10 and the rest of the film a 4, for an average of 7. The film did make me think. I tend to over-analyze things – looking for (and finding) images, symbols, motives and meanings that may be utter figments of my imagination, entirely unintended by the filmmakers. Often that analysis is a somewhat fruitless endeavor, but in this case I think it is exactly what the filmmakers did intend. They provided hints, clues, seemingly random moments (often blurred and fragmentary like Simon's movies) for us to try to comprehend and piece together into a meaningful narrative. Was it worthwhile for me? Under most circumstances, I would not have watched the film to the end. Parts of it really dragged – Simon's endless splashing at night in the swimming pool; the long drives at night on country roads; the stuffed seabird always lurking like the Raven. And, despite Gaspard Ulliel's extraordinary magnetism and acting skill, the almost unremitting and (in my estimation, unexplained) gloom that pervades his character became tedious to the point where the inevitable ending came as a relief, not a shock. I did watch till the end and might watch it again – if only for the glimpses of Ulliel, some of them transcendently beautiful. But if you are not fascinated by Ulliel, many other films are just as thought-provoking and ultimately more rewarding for anyone who is not into angst for angst's sake.

danandchad The movie starts a little maudlin. Homeward bound for his family holiday, he meets a young woman on a train. He brings her home with him, and the family assume they are a couple and have been. He introduces her to a past friend, with undertones that it was a previous unrequited love interest. As she moves away from him towards a relationship with that friend, loneliness sets in. It brought back feelings of loneliness and emptiness, combined with anger and jealousy I felt at those ages (having been in the same scenario coming of age). To say it's better to have loved and lost has no bearing in this story. To see someone come of age with a story as this one rarely has a good outcome; I survived, many do not. The story takes a real almost unrealized twist toward the end, all I will say is pay attention to names and time-lines. I know my past was not the norm and hopefully most people seeing this movie, would be viewing it as the abstract life of another. No one should live through that pain and emptiness. I cried for an hour after the film was over.

JetBoy This is an interesting, but ultimately disappointing film. The plot twists (of which there are several) are telegraphed way ahead, so if one is paying attention they become obvious and hence unsurprising. The characters are well-drawn and the soundtrack is quite nice. This is a very French film. It has all the obligatory scenes, including many of characters brooding where no one speaks. It even features several scenes on a train, as is required of all true French films. Also classically French is that one must guess at motivation, and the film does leave many questions unanswered.This film does best as a character study of a small ensemble of interesting people. The boy, his parents, and his childhood best friend. His sister has a very small role, serving mostly to provide excuse for exposition and show other sides of the boy's personality.