WARNING! SPOILERS!!!
There are so many plot elements in this movie to discuss, meaningless bits that go no where. For instance, Tom claims he saw a bear and his father says he saw it in the fog when he was tired, in a dream. Later, some VERY clear, very DEEP, very obvious, fresh and regular tracks are shown (a bit more fresh than I have ever seen in the forest) on film, yet they are not followed up. They are not followed to a cave and no bear shapes in the distance are depicted. It is a dead end plot device with no purpose.
A common cinematic addition for no plot purpose is the usage gratuitous nudity. We were treated to full frontal and lingering rear nudity of the teenage Thomas character in nearly IDENTICAL scenes. Wait a minute, I think they WERE identical. Perhaps I should rewind and compare them closely? I suspect they shot the same scene then just edited out Damien for the first scene. At least that saved on production cost. Just one question -what causes a writer to use a dive into a remote frozen lake as the preferred choice for the insertion of gratuitous nudity?? Certainly the cold is unfriendly to the male member.
Another strange thing done in this film, Damien, upon is first visit to the farm slips into the barn, walks up to a cow and smells its ass! Of all things a person who has never been around cows might do, that is generally NOT the first thing a person does. Some might check out the udders. Others look at the great big eyes, while many pet the big soft furry warm flanks of the cow and others just stand back and gawk not sure what to do. Ass-sniffing is a little more of a canine sort of thing. Puzzling choice there, André.
Not only were there puzzling script choices, but there were some very strange technical bits from the perspective of a career military man. First of all, French heliborne aviation NEVER support US Special Forces. The 160th SOAR supports US Special Forces with very specially equipped helicopters, loaded with advanced electronics and advanced avionics. US aircraft even support French and British special forces personnel because USA invests so much in their aviation assets vis a vis NATO allies. Second, French troops over the past 75 years tend to flee from the possibility of loss as they cannot politically sustain combat deaths. They also are often sent in unarmed or loaded with blank munitions. The Foreign Legion troops are the ones that tend to risk losses. Lastly, US troops tend over the past 40 years tend to apply increasing force, not decreasing force, in conflict zones. US troops tend to be the last ones out of a combat zone.
The acting was a less than exciting. The script likely had something to do with the shortcomings in the characters, yet even so, the characters were mostly flat, duo-dimensional.
One strangely disturbing choice for this film was this. The characters NEVER change their clothes, despite nearly a year of time passage. I do not recall winter lasting that long in that region, but lets not quibble over tiny details.
The mother, lackadaisically played by the supremely unskilled Sandrine Kiberlain, was good at showing pain and depression, but not much else. She failed utterly at moving a happy, hardworking doctor character into a dark place of bereavement and utter loss. It seems she started with a certain foreknowledge of her husband's impending doom as there was this impending gloom-cloud that hung over her at the start that eventually began to rain a bit of alcoholism.
Corentin Fila, was probably the best actor of the film as he showed more character development throughout its length and more depth of character overall. His moodiness and strength were consistent, yet the flashes of emotion he was able to summon were impressive as were the way in which he rapidly hid/suppressed emotion.
Now for a quick list of a few plot problems: No character introduction for the father's friend and neighbor is provided. That must be learned over the course of the 2 hour film. The logic behind a mother inviting her son's bully into her home while her husband is not even home is beyond imagining. The mother defends not her own son, when sitting in front of the principal, but the OTHER boy. Damien readily admits to striking first (as if that usually happens). When the father comes home for Christmas, there are no gifts under the tree and he seems more eager to see the neighbor than his wife (yeah right!). Tom acts like a strong person most of the time, but a wimp when he drives Damien to the farm for the would-be sexual encounter. Damien does not follow Tom and the farmer out of concern his secret might spill. Tom just plops by the muffler in a huff when told to wait. A teenage boy, embarrassed by his sexuality, plays with himself with an open bedroom door (who does that??). There are soooo many more, but I am feeling nauseous just now.
The entire movie seems to be an imagined teenage homosexual sex scene with some pretty scenery selected, some additional cast members tossed in and a hastily-tossed-together-set-of-circumstances-forced-to-fit-from-start-to-finish, logical or not.
One interesting choice was a scene where Damien had his hand resting on the mother's bed and a fly was running all over his hand without the actor even seeming to notice the feces-eater spreading its filth upon him. Why on earth would the video editors not edit such a distracting thing out of the final screenplay? Could that have been a happy accident that occurred in filing they decided worked well as a subtle message? Could it be a deliberate allusion to the inexorable spread of death and corruption?
There are so many plot elements in this movie to discuss, meaningless bits that go no where. For instance, Tom claims he saw a bear and his father says he saw it in the fog when he was tired, in a dream. Later, some VERY clear, very DEEP, very obvious, fresh and regular tracks are shown (a bit more fresh than I have ever seen in the forest) on film, yet they are not followed up. They are not followed to a cave and no bear shapes in the distance are depicted. It is a dead end plot device with no purpose.
A common cinematic addition for no plot purpose is the usage gratuitous nudity. We were treated to full frontal and lingering rear nudity of the teenage Thomas character in nearly IDENTICAL scenes. Wait a minute, I think they WERE identical. Perhaps I should rewind and compare them closely? I suspect they shot the same scene then just edited out Damien for the first scene. At least that saved on production cost. Just one question -what causes a writer to use a dive into a remote frozen lake as the preferred choice for the insertion of gratuitous nudity?? Certainly the cold is unfriendly to the male member.
Another strange thing done in this film, Damien, upon is first visit to the farm slips into the barn, walks up to a cow and smells its ass! Of all things a person who has never been around cows might do, that is generally NOT the first thing a person does. Some might check out the udders. Others look at the great big eyes, while many pet the big soft furry warm flanks of the cow and others just stand back and gawk not sure what to do. Ass-sniffing is a little more of a canine sort of thing. Puzzling choice there, André.
Not only were there puzzling script choices, but there were some very strange technical bits from the perspective of a career military man. First of all, French heliborne aviation NEVER support US Special Forces. The 160th SOAR supports US Special Forces with very specially equipped helicopters, loaded with advanced electronics and advanced avionics. US aircraft even support French and British special forces personnel because USA invests so much in their aviation assets vis a vis NATO allies. Second, French troops over the past 75 years tend to flee from the possibility of loss as they cannot politically sustain combat deaths. They also are often sent in unarmed or loaded with blank munitions. The Foreign Legion troops are the ones that tend to risk losses. Lastly, US troops tend over the past 40 years tend to apply increasing force, not decreasing force, in conflict zones. US troops tend to be the last ones out of a combat zone.
The acting was a less than exciting. The script likely had something to do with the shortcomings in the characters, yet even so, the characters were mostly flat, duo-dimensional.
One strangely disturbing choice for this film was this. The characters NEVER change their clothes, despite nearly a year of time passage. I do not recall winter lasting that long in that region, but lets not quibble over tiny details.
The mother, lackadaisically played by the supremely unskilled Sandrine Kiberlain, was good at showing pain and depression, but not much else. She failed utterly at moving a happy, hardworking doctor character into a dark place of bereavement and utter loss. It seems she started with a certain foreknowledge of her husband's impending doom as there was this impending gloom-cloud that hung over her at the start that eventually began to rain a bit of alcoholism.
Corentin Fila, was probably the best actor of the film as he showed more character development throughout its length and more depth of character overall. His moodiness and strength were consistent, yet the flashes of emotion he was able to summon were impressive as were the way in which he rapidly hid/suppressed emotion.
Now for a quick list of a few plot problems: No character introduction for the father's friend and neighbor is provided. That must be learned over the course of the 2 hour film. The logic behind a mother inviting her son's bully into her home while her husband is not even home is beyond imagining. The mother defends not her own son, when sitting in front of the principal, but the OTHER boy. Damien readily admits to striking first (as if that usually happens). When the father comes home for Christmas, there are no gifts under the tree and he seems more eager to see the neighbor than his wife (yeah right!). Tom acts like a strong person most of the time, but a wimp when he drives Damien to the farm for the would-be sexual encounter. Damien does not follow Tom and the farmer out of concern his secret might spill. Tom just plops by the muffler in a huff when told to wait. A teenage boy, embarrassed by his sexuality, plays with himself with an open bedroom door (who does that??). There are soooo many more, but I am feeling nauseous just now.
The entire movie seems to be an imagined teenage homosexual sex scene with some pretty scenery selected, some additional cast members tossed in and a hastily-tossed-together-set-of-circumstances-forced-to-fit-from-start-to-finish, logical or not.
One interesting choice was a scene where Damien had his hand resting on the mother's bed and a fly was running all over his hand without the actor even seeming to notice the feces-eater spreading its filth upon him. Why on earth would the video editors not edit such a distracting thing out of the final screenplay? Could that have been a happy accident that occurred in filing they decided worked well as a subtle message? Could it be a deliberate allusion to the inexorable spread of death and corruption?