Man to Man

Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time.

In 1969,Truffault made a movie about a wild child: a brat who,since he was a baby ,used to live in the woods.People took him to a hospital,where people would pay to see him like a queer animal.A doctor ,Itard knew that this child was a human being.He took him to his home and began to "tame" him.He realized that his protégé could tell right from wrong:he had proved he was a human like you or me.

Regis Wargnier tells a similar story with his couple of pygmies .He pits a loyal scientist (Fiennes) against the old guard who is still thinking that those natives are the missing link between the big apes and Lucy .Nowadays scientists tend to think that there is actually ONE race but it was the nineteenth century then.The story is never boring and features some good scenes: the natives in front of the sea saying "this is our river" ;the male pygmy climbing on the mast of the ship;the scene in the zoo where Fiennes "tames" his protégés and thus reveals they can think.

The main problem is that the movie is too "Hollywoodian" .Truffaut's work was produced by an American firm ,but he remained himself and his film was austere,realistic and accessible though.Wargnier's work is too flashy ,putting the emphasis on the good guy /"villains" fight and not giving enough time to Fiennes /the pygmies relationship.A firm friendship/ communication cannot be established overnight.It took time to Itard to gain Victor's trust (the wild child) ,and Annie Sullivan ("the miracle worker")had to fight (physically) to be able to communicate with Helen Keller.When Scott- Thomas tries to teach arithmetic (or tries to communicate through arithmetic:I've read that pygmies know only two numbers :one and many)to the pygmy woman ,the sequence is much too short.This is those scenes the film desperately needs.

Entertaining,but Regis Wargnier got caught up into the Hollywood machine.

I wanted to love this movie, but it just didn't move me that much. The story in itself is very strong. It's about a group of anthropologists capturing a pygmies couple to England for scientific purposes. They treat the two as if they are not human, but some kind of link between man and ape. It's a painful story of an era in time in which western society thought itself to be superior over other races. The real savages are not the pygmy couple, but those that don't want to accept that they are just as human as themselves. It's also about how science can become dangerous when scientists lose their empathy for the persons they are testing and how that can lead to inhumane situations.

Like I said, it's definitely a strong subject for a movie. And apart from that, the settings are okay, the acting is strong and the dialogues really depict the scientific society of Britain in those days. I still had the feeling that something was missing. Its main character Docter Dudd ( Joseph Fiennes ) is too quickly transforming from heartless scientist to someone with heart for the pygmies couple. His partner in crime - clandestine animal smuggler Elena van den Ende ( Kristin Scott Thomas )- never really gets into the story and she's choosing sides way too quickly. And I think that there are some strange plot twists that just aren't that believable.

At the end, it's a good movie. Maybe not as good as it could've been. But for those with a heart for period pieces with an important message on colonialism in past days, it's good enough.

Yes, this film is perhaps a tad "worthy" and it certainly does aspire to be bigger and more important than it is, however, it is, for all that, vastly more interesting than most Hollywood high street fodder. The film presents some interesting observations on societal issues as well as the central humanistic drama. It excoriates the notion of man's inhumanity,or humanity, towards his fellow man. It is clear from the voting thus far that this film's appeal is largely to the female audience. No bad thing either as it didn't do "The English Patient" and several others any harm did it? I do find the other comments on Joseph Fiennes rather unfair. He plays the character with aplomb. Perhaps that viewer has forgotten the manners and behavioral traits of the period? Whatever it failings, this film is well worth watching. It is well made, looks fine, the acting and script are fine. Just because a few male attendees at the Berlin Film Festival miss the point, don't be swayed. Take a look at this film. Oh yes,I almost forgot... some of the supporting cast are excellent.

This film is about an British anthropologist developing an astoundingly human connection with two pygmies from Africa.

I find this film captivating. The plot is not a common mainstream plot, which is refreshing. I am particularly impressed by Joseph Fiennes' character's genuine attachment to the African people. It is touching to see him sacrifice himself.

It highlights many aspects of humanity. Is it right to sacrifice human life for the advancement of science? What rights should living beings get? How do we balance the satisfaction of curiosity and the exploitation of "exotic" individuals? Is it OK to blame a murder someone else to achieve the big picture? Other comments say that the film leaves little for imagination. I do not disagree with it, as I think the story was told rather plainly. However, I think it leaves a great deal about life, morality and ethical issues to reflect upon. It is a touching and thought provoking film.