I found this movie by chance from a movie magazine. I must say that I was expecting an average movie on gay issues. It was also in Paris and it might be interesting. The movie started with very real scenes from a sex bar in Paris (probably L'Impact). After sex bar scene, movie too all my heart, all my thoughts. As a gay guy who lived in Paris and experienced the similar scenes, I can say that none of movies can depict a love, a romance and a gay life like "Theo and Hugo" depicted. Hesitations between men for a possibility to start an affair, the desire between men, the atmosphere of sex bar, the feelings, walking lonely Paris streets as two guys, stopping in a kebab restaurant (Tarkan's song was in the background), dialogues... unbelievable... It was not like a movie.. it was like a real scenes... If you skip all gay stuff, it is a very beautiful story of a romance... very naive, very innocent...Olivier Ducastel, Jacques Martineau must be congratulated also the players Geoffrey Couët, François Nambot. They all have done a great work. What I lived (incl. HIV+ stuff) when I was in Paris some time ago was exactly was in the movie. No exaggeration, no decoration... the movie streams like La Seine... peacefully, perfectly and glamorously. Thank you guys!

Being of a certain age this may well be the last true ground-breaking masterpiece that I may see in my lifetime. It is a bookend as it were to another masterpiece, Louis Malle's 'Les Amants'. I saw this when it first came out in 1958. And there are similarities. Both films for their respective times have pushed the boundaries of eroticism in cinema and both have lovers who have met the same day and ended that day with the dawn of their future together. There has been comparison with Agnes Varda's 'Cléo de 5 à 7' but this is only partially relevant, because sexuality does not seal the whole basis of that film. Jeanne Moreau and Jean-Marc Bory fall in love in an 'instant' and that same 'instant' happens to the men in 'Theo et Hugo dans le meme bateau'. Brahms does not overlay this passion, but pounding modern pop music does. It is the music of our time. In both films there are challenges ahead, and both passions may be destroyed by them. What makes this film great along with the Malle is the element of risk that is taken in choosing to follow the path of desire, and truths are said in 'Theo et Hugo' which censorship would not have permitted the lovers in 'Les Amants'. I was amazed at the words and actions in the last extraordinary scene that reveal how love can be born out of the realisation that the sexual organ of the beloved can be loved for itself and is an important component of that love. That in this film it is the male penis that is kissed and adored by the lover will be a sight of revulsion for some, a wonder and a revelation for others. This film like the Malle is deeply Romantic in the highest sense of the word. Instead of the beauty of the night world of the surrounding country side, compared to 'Caspar David Friedrich' and his paintings, in the beautifully filmed 'Les Amants' we have in 'Theo et Hugo' the magically lit streets of Paris, deserted in the early hours of the morning. This is not the Paris of Hollywood, but the ordinary streets around such areas as Stalingrad and Anvers. Places of urban peace where the two characters can explore the dilemma they are in, fight off love and then accept it quite simply because it has happened. I do not want to elaborate on the HIV aspect, because to me it seemed the rock of fate that has to be somehow overcome, just as the adultery and the leaving of a child has to be overcome in 'Les Amants'.As I have said this is a great film and it saddens me that perhaps so many will not see it, as I believe its audacity, its beauty, its infinite gentleness between two men, will put it there in the Pantheon of films to stand the test of time. Maybe in future years it will be seen as the mountain peak in French cinema that it is.Unlike some reviewers I think the actors are equal to each other, and in the final scene with its extraordinary intimacy there is a look of bewildered but enchanted delight of Geoffrey Couët's face that surpassed acting. He embodied the giving of love, and that is rare in any film. What he accepted with a look of beauty few actors in the world would accept to do, and I hope he has a great future ahead of him. Theo in all his moods captured my heart, and François Nambot captured my mind that he could dare so much, and push for so much to happen between them. This film is a poem of love.

The problem, for my taste, is that the director does not know the ellipsis among other things that explain. Which makes it boring. Also, the beginning is so explicit that if it had been a movie between a man and a woman like that, everyone would have said, if it took so much sex and so explicit. I have plenty left.The encounter of them, I find very badly taken, takes me completely out of the film, it is not real. Like when they look directly at camera.When you walk on the street without talking, when you go on a bike, or inside a building without talking, do you need to see it? Is it essential to see them walk alone? Why was ellipsis invented? They are very well, both of them. And it's a very nice story, although I do not understand those moments of tone, things are spoken and that's it. They look like two really in love, they just met and will spend the rest of their lives together.He has a beautiful photograph, I take it that shooting at night has helped a lot.The direction, aside from the actors, is not a marvel. One of his tasks is not to bore and he does not get it, let alone the staging and the camera.In short, if I had not wasted so much useless time, even if it had been shorter the film would have gained many points. And being less explicit, as I ask any movie, it would have also improved.

Hugo (the handsome François Nambot) and Théo (Geoffrey Couët, who has a little of Dirk Bogarde around the eyes) meet, in a highly-explicit fashion, in a French sex club. After they put their clothes back on and head into the Paris night, their conversation about how their sexual encounter had a deeper meaning than would normally, given where it took place, be expected, indicates the start of romance. But that nascent love affair comes under strain when the confession of a mistake by one of the young men prompts a revelation from the other.Leaving aside a few supporting characters (and plenty of non-speaking though extremely active extras in the club scene), this is pretty much a two-hander film and as such needs good central performances. Both men are competent; although there are times when his delivery is a little wooden, Couët believably handles Théo's sudden mood swings, although I can't help wondering how Nambot, who seems the more accomplished actor, would have played them. Paris by night - even the grottier parts of it in which much of this is set - looks full of character and provides a good backdrop to the young lovers' meandering conversations.And that opening scene? Well, call me shallow, call me a hypocrite, but I prefer my nudity non-saggy, so it is a relief when the camera focuses on Nambot and Couët - although not hunks, they're definitely better-toned than many of the sex club's patrons! (But personally, if I was going to be filmed completely nude except for my shoes and socks, I'd wear nicer socks.)