You & I

The first virtue of it is simplicity. Familiar pieces - friendship becoming love, a road trip , relations and their structure, slow rhytm and the character changing, step by step, the equilibrium, an open end and a film without the desire to demonstrate anything. I love it for the courage and art to be different, to propose, in natural manner, a simple and precise in details story, good acting and the fair development of facts. My favorit - the image of the window at the end of hall.

This may be the stupidest movie I have ever seen. Its only reason for existing seems to be (1) to show men running around totally naked and acting like monkeys--for no plot-required reason--as often as possible, and (2) to show men urinating on camera as often as possible. There are at least five instances of the latter in a barely-over-one-hour movie. It's not even water-sports porn--it's about as erotic (and realistic) as a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

The plot is extraordinarily flimsy: best friends (straight German and gay Briton, both affluent enough not to have real jobs; the German is a "photographer", the Brit nothing discernible) go on a pointless road trip through obscure northeastern Germany and pick up a Polish hitchhiker. Nothing happens, except for the previously-mentioned naked romping and urinating.

All three characters are either (take your pick) completely unbelievable, even as movie characters, much less as actual human beings, OR (or AND, if you insist) the three most obnoxious characters the writer/director could think up.

The two "best friends" act like they can't stand each other, and if that's supposed to be some sort of erotic tension it misfires completely. The Pole adds nothing but a different body type (short/chunky vs the friends' buttless "swimmer's builds"); a third obnoxious, unbelievable character; and a third language for the subtitle writers to screw up (they completely ignore all English, regardless of how unintelligibly it's being mumbled by non-English speakers).

Three obnoxious characters running around like monkeys and urinating every few minutes--and annoying each other and the audience for 78 minutes. That's this movie.

The synopsis of this short indie film is that Jonas, who is German and straight, has invited his British and gay mate Philip for a camping trip. This is ostensibly so Jonas can carry out a photography project. They head off in an old VW camper and Phil sort of finds any excuse to get his kit off.

Then they run into Boris who is a friend of Jonas' and he tags along. At first the chemistry of all three is thrown out by the new arrival but then Phil and Boris start to get along a bit too well and all bets are off.

Now as I said this is a fairly short film at 79 minutes and a lot of that time not very much happens, but that may be the point. It could be seen as a slow build up I suppose but it does not translate very well. There is some chemistry but it takes a while to rear its head. And despite a lot of nude bits being shown there is no real bedroom action either. In German and English too with good sub titles; this is a film for those who like their stories to be fairly simple and take their time getting there. I am still in two minds as to whether I really liked it so am giving the benefit of the doubt. However, this is one of those films I would not want to watch twice – so maybe try a rental option.

I've read the other reviews here and am amused but not surprised at some of the descriptions. Some reviewers see motivation and action and inaction where others have quite different explanations of what's happened.

I find that to be perfectly understandable. Nothing is spelled out precisely for us in this film. There's an ambiguity to the characters' relationships that could easily cause different people to form different opinions about what happened. It's purposeful, and an interesting concept.

Two old friends (one gay, one straight) go on a camping trip and are having a rollicking good time. Then they pick up hitchhiker. You kind of wonder when the hitchhiker is going to turn out to be an ax murderer. Especially after the gay guy asks if his being gay is a problem for the hitchhiker.

It isn't.

This is a slender film that at first glance doesn't seem to add up to much. However, there is dynamic tension throughout the latter part of the film for reasons we're not quite sure we understand. The relationships are purposely somewhat vague and ill-defined, something I found to be an insightful take on modern relationships, especially gay relationships.

My initial reaction to the end of this film was WTF? On reflection, I get it. I liked this movie. It's deceptively simple-looking but there isn't anything simple about it. You know, like life.

If you watch this movie with certain expectations, you are going to be disappointed. Which, I think, is why so many of the reviews here are so polarized. You won't find the meaning of life in this movie. You won't find gay themed cliches or tropes. You won't find pretty boys strutting around. You won't find Hollywood-style "spell everything out for the dumb audience" directing. You won't find "the big steamy sex scene". But nor will you find the movie being coy about (European) attitudes to nudity and sex (something which clearly confuses several of the other reviewers here).

Instead, you will find, essentially, a movie about the way people muddle through the conflicting chemistry of friendships and relationships. These are not titanic conflicts, causing huge explosions or overly-dramatic scenes. They are the inner puzzles we have to solve as we grope through life. What DO I feel about someone? What DO they really feel about me?

The reactions of the three principal (well, only) characters are played out against a road trip background -- not a particularly new idea, but the director lets things unfold in a paced manner, just as they do in real life. Things are NOT spelled out here; the clues are all there, but the director (wisely) leaves the viewer to fill in the holes. This leaves us to puzzle out things from these imprecise clues in the same way the characters are puzzling out their lives.

The actors mostly do a good job, the Jonas character for me being the most filled out and well acted. Jonas (a photographer) is clearly using his camera as both a shield and a way to probe the feelings of his companions, but the director wisely refrains from over-doing this (to the point, I suspect, where some reviewers didn't even notice this). Philip is more direct, and apparently more shallow. Boris is in many ways the most ambiguous.

The movie is of course not perfect, and a few scenes didn't quite click for me, but overall the development was perfectly believable, and gently touching, though ultimately sad for at least one of the trio.

I said that this movie is about chemistry, and ultimately I think the movie is best understood in terms of a catalyst .. an apt term (check on Google if you're not sure of the precise definition), though what that catalyst is I shall leave you to find as you watch it.