Rodrigo Amaro Did we watch the same movie? I ask this to the 100 positive votes this thing has in here, and the three positive (and completely out of line) reviews given to this and also the two other negative reviews which focus on a poignant problem and that's it enough to criticize a movie. I usually take my time and expose a lot of things and since this was a terrible movie I'll spoil the fun in all possible ways, maybe I can add a missing perspective. To conclude this minor rant, I bet none of the reviewers were gay or bisexual or really committed to the cause. No sane person, gay or straight, but specially gays truly devoted and passionate about queer cinema, they wouldn't enjoy this film. Not a chance. "Nous étions un seul homme" (or "We Were One Man" and let me tell you something, no you weren't!) has a starting point worthy of an Oscar nominated picture. The story, I mean, not the presentation. During WWII, a French peasant (Serge Avedikian) rescues an injured German soldier (Piotr Stanilas) and nurses him back to health. But the lonely laborer doesn't want the man to go back to the front and insists in his staying, and even though the other isn't necessarily forcing him into anything, the soldier decides to stay. Soon they're friends, get used to each other and live a strange yet quite life in the country. So far so good. No, because the country boy is messed in the head, acting like a needy child who refuses to accept that one day his new friend is gonna leave. In the meantime, the soldier seems to fall in love for this guy and that's why he doesn't go, this time trying ways to reach him more deeply. Plot twist: the Nazi soldier is gay, the country boy isn't and has a girlfriend. If this were a serious film, it would be awesome. Maybe someday a director will use those outlines and make something good out of it. This thing is a mess, completely disjointed, laughable and ridiculous. From the humored music to the peasant's obnoxious behavior, it's all terrible. Most of the time I kept thinking that something awful should happen to him, just like in the final pages of "The City and the Pillar" (read that book, please), he would deserve such fate. I should be able to understand that he's mentally challenged but his actions didn't fit the movie's purpose - killing animals for pure fun, or in the most extreme of the situations, just to cause jealousy on his partner who has more affection for a dog than to him. And I shouldn't be using the word "partner" since they're just buddies who during the majority of the film just talk about random stuff and dry-hump each other and that's it. We have to wait almost to the ending just to see one kiss, one sex scene (despite some nudity on the way) and that's it. It's not about love, it's about camaraderie. a form of love indeed but not in the homosexual sense. It's incomprehensible why the soldier sticks in the hut with this nut case. He's not holding a gun to him, he's just following him. I'd run faster or do things to him you wouldn't like to know.The few good points this rubbish gets comes from Piotr Stanilas performance and killer looks (which later rendered a career as a porn star), it's easy to fall for him and in the end we have more sympathy for the Nazi than to the stupid Lacombe Lucien kind of character that just looks crazier by the minute; and kudos the amazingly well-filmed sexual sequence which puts to shame many Hollywood friendly films of the gay cause. Don't be fooled by the poster. It looks cute but it's just another exploitative film loaded with awful moments, animal abuse and sour destinies to queer characters. Stanilas is a hunky but you can watch him doing other stuff and for real, not fake. 2/10

jm10701 The human elements of this movie are quite touching, but it contains the most appalling incidents of animal abuse I have ever seen. At least one very sweet dog and one rabbit are killed on camera for the enjoyment of the director and his audience. Other viewers clearly don't care, but I do.However inspiring this movie might have been otherwise, I strongly advise anyone who really cares about animals not to watch it. If you're the sort who can excuse animal abuse in the name of art or changing times (as others have done here), or if, like the director, you actually enjoy it, then by all means indulge yourself. But if, like me, you believe that animal abuse for entertainment was no less abominable and inexcusable 30 years ago (or 1000 years ago) than it is now, you should avoid this movie.

didier-20 Serge Avedikian who plays the french simple country asylum runaway delivers a performance which is utterly exceptional. Indeed the film maintains an extraordinary quality and momentum until the last 5 minutes or so , where the film's unique and original tension is finally dispelled through Guy and Ralf's eventual conjoining. The film's exceptional view-point re-visits the old theme of a Nazi occupied France with fresh vigour. The whole diabolical sham which is war is profoundly hung around the subtly moving and developing intimacy of these two unlikely comrades. A world which has vanished, that of early 20th C rural France provides a surprising setting for a gay love that is as raw, salty and earthy as the peasant culture who populated the invaded country. The portrayal and depiction of male love is supreme and full of great depth - an embellishing contribution to gay cinema through the shere force of it's lack of unassuming familiarity.

SamLowry-2 There is truly nothing like "We Were One Man," a twisted, brave film that looks at a man-man relationship through new eyes. The way the men treat each other is hard to watch, and the ending somehow does not ring true to their earlier actions. It is almost too heavy-handedly symbolic. Still...there is an earthy, grimy quality to their sexual relationship that is fascinating to watch. This one is for gay foreign film fans, gay sadists, or very open-minded foreign film buffs only.