Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Rick James Much as I would like to be able to endorse this earnest effort, it really is a messy hodge-podge of implausible, unconvincing plot, twisted logic, mediocre cinematography, poor editing, bad hair color and unsatisfying conclusion. The shower scenes of the swim team are enticing if you're into men's bodies (it's hard not to be, after all), but they make their point too obviously and for too long.The blond has a bad bleach job and the stock, naïve redhead has another bad dye job. The guys in bed together are so obviously not into it that it's laughable. You come away wondering if the point is one of those inscrutable, pseudo-intellectual French lessons that the world is a confusing enough place, and if you through sex into the mix it's even muddier. The flat-footed provocation of naming one of the leads "Arnault" (for the uninitiated, the richest man in France is Bernard Arnault, an unusual spelling that cannot be a coincidence) is silly, and the ending isn't mysterious, just dopey.The reference at the beginning to being from "Lot-et-Garonne" is like saying he's from Appalachia, terribly arch. The subtitles are poor, including even such mistakes as "Give us free reign /s.b. 'rein'/ and "it's" for 'its.'" This is a library item, not a keeper.PS: having viewed the "making of" and "deleted scenes" add-ins I feel more positive about the director's efforts. He at least acknowledged the miserable dye job on the redhead, and his heart is in the right place as to his motivation in making the movie.

Big Wheel This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an "art" movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead.

terryhall2 Firstly, I am not quite sure what the issue of circumcision is. This is mainly an American abberation (under the pretension that it is more hygienic to be circumcised and is practised as a matter of course there) In Europe, it is usually performed only if it presents a problem to the individual man (eg. cases of phemosis for example) That aside, I enjoyed the naturalness of the film. I have no problem with human nudity and don't understand why anyone gets upset about it and besides Gregori is quite a cutie. The galling thing was the philosophical chat and the human rights dialogue which destroyed the whole essence of the film..basically the relationships between the members of the faculty. I would also like to have seen more raw emotion from Emeline and Paul when they witness their respective partners cheating on them. Agnes, one screwed up woman who lives in the fantasies of her head, annoyed the hell out of me (though she looked fabulous), but the story really belongs to Paul- and given what he had to do in the film, did admirably.

preppy-3 Paul (Gregori Baquet) is attending a prestigious university in France. He has a girlfriend named Agnes (Alice Taglioni) who is puzzled why he won't live with her. Paul becomes sexually attracted to handsome roommate Louis-Arnault (Jocelyn Quivrin) but won't admit it, while handsome Arab Mecir (Salim Kerchrouche) makes it clear that he loves Paul. What is Paul to do? Has its moments. When it sticks to Paul, Mecir and Louis-Arnault and the sexual aspect it's absolutely fascinating. But they continuously keep throwing in long boring speeches about business and politics that bring things to a screeching halt. Also (with the sole exception of Mecir) most of the characters are very unlikable and cruel. Paul's girlfriend especially comes across badly and Paul himself is whiny. It ends in a very muddled way with an unsatisfying ending.The acting is all pretty good. Baquet is a bit too whiny but Quivrin and especially Kerchrouch are very good. The one sex scene is done very tastefully and there is quite a bit of casual female and male nudity (this would get an NC-17 if it had been rated). All in all not too good but some bright moments and acting make it worth a look. I give it a 7.