Plaire, aimer et courir vite

Maybe, the fundamental virtue of film is to demonstrate nothing. It is only a story about relationship, about choices, love, life, happiness and fall. Not for impress, not for be manifesto, it seems more a sort of confession to the viewer, exploration of pieces of life, delicate confesions and easy portraits of the imposibility to be the expected one by the other and invitation to discover, from other perspective, the life. No doubts, a beautiful film but, unfortunatelly, not the most convincing. But nice.

To Please, to Love, and to Run Quickly is nowhere near the sentimental use of the word sorry, and who is the angel? I also dislike the three in a bed image used on the poster as it bears little resemblance to the content of the film. I will give no spoilers, but I did not see one sexual threesome. and to be honest the sexuality in the film was coy and of the 'hide the penis at all costs' school. For those who have read my reviews please see the one on 'Theo and Hugo'.

I have awarded this film 7/10 because I thought it was a good film but not as good as it could have been. The dialogue in French is brutally difficult to follow as there is a lot of slurping over words and saying things in a way that you can only truly follow if you are in the same room with the people speaking, and then .... I found the characters drab, and the bisexual Breton tiresome.

And now for a major criticism about films set in the past about Aids. Where were the films during that period of the crisis? This retro look back makes me angry. Film makers should have had the courage back then to deal with this period in our history. Films like 'Theo and Hugo' are masterful as they deal with the situation now and are up to date. One reviewer here summed this up for me. He or she says, love-and romanticism-in the days of AIDS. In the days of? This is not a past thing. The days are now. Homosexuality and HIV are now. And yes as a friend of mine said, they need to know how it was, but frankly with a still on-going crisis we need to know how it IS.

One good element of this film is that it shows a child in a homosexual household in a positive way, and despite my slight boredom with the relationships, it is at least about an important issue. French film is waking up to homosexuality thanks to a list of good directors, and the dark negativity of the Nouvelle Vague, where love was strictly heterosexual, has slipped back into the waters from where it came. The Nouvelle Vague liberated image, but was feeble on diversity and dodgy on politics. Honore is a great director, but I am still waiting for his great film.

The person who saw Sorry Angel with me initially mislabeled it as another gay-AIDS-relationship movie, missing the point: It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. Christophe Honore never lacks ideas, and--to his good fortune--he does what he pleases. He takes risks and successfully avoids cliches; Honore is one of the world's brightest, funniest, savvy auteurs...His movies are earmarked by nostalgic romanticism, but they never wallow in the past because he is able to pay tribute without imitation, a technique that evades so many of his contemporaries.

Sorry Angel is about relationships. You do not need to be gay to watch it, but you need to understand humanity and compassion. Honore gets to the meat without chewing on the fat while his poignant dialogue is relatable to everyone eventually. The context of the movie (the 90's AIDS epidemic) is a setting for the text (based on the director's university years and his gay idols, writers and directors who died from the disease) but it is the subtext, Honore's observations about relationships--discerning, unsentimental, realistic portrayals of humans both gay and straight--which elevates the movie to the forefront of cinematic reflections. Where Robin Campillo's recent BPM (another stunner) focuses on activism, Honore shows us sympathy and love during an era of uncertainty and chaos.

Jonathan Romney notes that Sorry Angel is a "novelistic film" because it presents itself like great literature. The plot might be purposefully transparent, but the devil is in the details.

Two men fall in love with the idea of the other during the AIDS crisis and all hell breaks loose. Of course this is a storyline we've seen so many times in cinemas, but the truth is the approach in this one is very romantic and unique. The end result is sadly something I was expecting and of course not as powerful as it should have been. The main theme is not the AIDS pandemic but rather the way two people can fall in love so unexpectedly even if their lives are set in different directions. The movie drags a lot, is really slow-paced at times and the main protagonists are not always in focus thus never showcasing their chemistry. This could have been a different movie but sadly it almost feels unfinished or not fully realised.

Christophe Honore is a director who has never interested me much; Dans Paris was a bore, and most of his features haven't played in North America. He has talent, but not a narrative sense. His actors carry the movie along, but even they can't do anything about the last 30 minutes, which are a total waste of time.

Setting the story in 1993, with ACT-UP just starting in France, we are fed disjointed scenes with characters who drift in and out of the action. Pierre Deladonchamps is convincing as Jacques, and Denys Podalydes has some cynical and funny scenes. I'd really like to try Chouchen, the Breton liqueur.