Customer Reviews

Man on Train (2002) (Widescreen)

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Slow and boring. The first hour and fifteen minutes are nothing but a dawdling and pointless dialogue between two very different strangers who become somewhat of friends. If you are still awake for the last 15 minutes, there is a very brief moment of action. The music is intentionally reminiscent of an American Western but since the film is set in a modern French town, it's a combination that didn't appeal to me in the least. The picture quality is great, however the English subtitles are fixed, and can't be removed. Furthermore the translations aren't completely accurate, and they are often poorly timed.

The irremovable English subtitles get in the way especially if you are trying to learn a language. Normally subtitles are optional, these are not.

Especially disappointing when it turns up under French Language search on Amazon.ca

The irremovable English subtitles get in the way especially if you are trying to learn a language. Normally subtitles are optional, these are not.

I loved the characters in this film. The old retired teacher in a small French town, invites a raggedy drifter who is in town (to rob a bank), to stay in his mansion since the local hotel is closed for the season. As the film progresses, each begin to admire the others' way of life. The old teacher, who is a very loveable person, is in love with American western movies, and tries to start fights, but just can't, since he is so well known and respected. The drifter is the silent type who gets a chance to try on slippers for the very first time while with the teacher.
This film really drew me into the protagonists' lives, and though I'm not really sure if there is a definite moral to it, it kept me thinking of my own life, and the choices that I've made, and why I chose what I did. This is a great film if you're looking for something to inspire you into gaining some hindsight.
The acting is terrific, the script is lovely, this is a must-see for all drama aficionados.

At first glance the two protagonists in MAN ON THE TRAIN appear to have nothing in common. Monsieur Manesquier (Jean Rochefort) is a solitary retired schoolteacher who desires some type of companionship when he first encounters a rough-looking younger Milan (Johnny Hallyday) buying aspirin in the chemist shop. After starting a conversation outside on the deserted street Manequier ascertains that Milan just arrived by train and is looking for a place to stay. The other details of his stay regarding robbing a bank Milan keeps hidden, but not for long. Manequier invites Milan to stay at his house that is filled with antiques and old books. As time progresses these two men grow a mutual fondness for each other and envy the life that the other has led. They don't hesitate to critique and romanticize each other to the point where they begin to adopt each other's characteristics. Manequier offers to help Milan in the bank robbery while Milan takes over tutoring students in poetry and literature. Their lives become intertwined and linked. MAN ON THE TRAIN is a wonderful film filled with sincere emotions and subtle humor. It is a film that delves deep into an unlikely male friendship without all the macho humor and homophobic tensions that are often the product of Hollywood. There is a reason why I admire and enjoy French cinema, and this film is just one more affirmation. Recommended.

A train stops at dusk in a small French town where a man steps off in order to carry out a mischievous plan. The man who stepped off the train has a terrible headache for which he seeks aspirin in the local pharmacy. In the pharmacy he meets a man, a retried literature teacher, who offers him room and board. The traveler accepts, and together they share a large house for a couple of days. During this time they separately discover that they wish for change in their lives, a change for the other's life. The Man on the Train is a film that grabs the moment in a subtle manner that indicates to the audience that change can only be made through action. This is strongly supported through the brilliant direction of Leconte and a sublime performance by the cast which is captured by outstanding cinematography. In addition, the score, which instills movement through the use of the sound of a moving train, was a wonderful complement to the overall cinematic experience that in the end was brilliant.

Many times French movies bug me. It's not the subtitles that aggravate, not at all. It's the inconclusive endings; French films just seem to...stop. Like, nowhere in particular.
But oh man, this one's a real winner. It's mostly two guys talking together. One is a professional bank robber who comes into town on a train to ply his trade. When he finds the local hotel closed, he takes advantage of the offer of an utterly weird and utterly charming and loveable old blabbermouth. Each of the two men is curious and envious of the lifestyle of the other, and their unlikely friendship blossoms in strange ways.
The conclusion of the film is a dance of two "operations:" as the bank robbery is in progress, the moves are paralleled by a triple bypass operation on the old dude.
It's a laugh out loud film, and then you want to cry... Beautiful.

MAN ON THE TRAIN is a minor miracle of a film. The quiet story of how two wholly opposite aging men meet, interact, exchange philosophies, and mutate because of a simple chance meeting is not only fine writing, it is also a virtuoso turn for the talents of Jean Rochefort and Johnny Hallyday. Rochefort is a loquacious, bored, congenial poetry teacher in semi-retirement, a man who not only loves to talk about Schumann but plays Schumann on his piano in his very old and boring house - and reads and readies himself for a weekend surgery. Hallyday (a dark, sinister long term burglar) stops off the train in Rochefort's village, meets the talkative Rochefort and ends up taking up residence with him. Their interactions, soliloquies, shared meals, and exchanges on walks all prove mutually enlightening. The ending is so dear that to place it in a review would be a crime (!). Once again Patrice Leconte proves that the French "own" cinema when it comes to intimate and delicate stories. A brilliant duet for two phenomenal actors.

I've seen every major release and a great deal of the minor and independent releases as well in 2003. Unfortunately I don't live on the coasts where every movie gets a release, so I can only go by what gets released here. I can say without any doubt, "L'Homme Du Train" was the best thing I saw in a movie theatre in 2003.

You would think that a movie about two older men contemplating life for an hour and a half would be a boring snore; but not this one. Patrice Leconte has created electricity between his two leads, Rochefort and Hallyday. By simply putting them on the screen together, there's comedy, there's depth, there's respect, there's an electricity that simply radiates from their screen-presence. When Rochefort finds an old picture of Hallyday and smiles, it's almost as if we are seeing a man finding a picture of his long-lost brother.

Surprisingly, the movie is funny. There are plenty of moments to laugh at, the best being when Hallyday speaks plainly for his companion when he tells his girlfriend, "He wants tenderness and sex - not news of your brat." Another hilarious moment is when Rochefort puts on Hallyday's leather jacket and pretends to be Wyatt Earp in the mirror. It reminds you of how far the two leads are from each other, and what an exceptional occurence it is for these two men to simply talk and understand each other.

The ending is bold. Very bold; I remember sitting in the theatre asking myself, "Does this movie have the guts to end like this?" and sure enough it did. Too many movies surrender to a formulaic resolution, or take the easy route, but this movie heads off down between the trees forging it's own path. Exactly what happens? Do they swap identities? Do they simply trade places? Is there a greater leap? The answer has got to be there.

Update on February 22: Interesting to see that the Oscars have basically ignored this movie altogether. It gets nothing in the Foreign Language film category, and nothing at all in the screenplay categorie. Now, I'm unsure as to the schedule on when movies are released/eligibility for Oscars are, but this movie has gone unrecognized by the Academy, and I think that is a glaring shame. This movie has nothing to do with revolutions, or third-world countries, or obscure historical figures, or higher socio-political implications that seem to get all the attention. Is it really a requisite that a film pander to any of these categories before it can be recognized? Must a film shape itself to a list of "worthy" and "unworthy" subject matter; and if not, why all the attention? It seems to me the Academy is forgetting itself in forgetting this movie. I still maintain this was the best movie of 2003, and have just about lost all my trust in the Academy to pick the true winners.

The premise of this movie is that two men (a bank robber and a retired poetry teacher) wind up hanging out together for a few days and discover that each wishes his life had been more like the other's. It's a decent set-up for a film, but the actual movie lacks a sense of authenticity. For one thing, the retired poetry teacher's life is simply too dull to believe that ANYONE would envy him. The guy seems to have no friends, nothing to do with his time... he is the most bored, lonely person on the planet. Women are indifferent to him and even buying a baguette is too challenging for him.

The robber, on the other hand, is the cool, silent type. So silent, in fact, that we never really get to know him. If he hates the lifestyle so much, why is he living it? What is it about the teacher's life that appeals to him, really?

Finally, the ending is rather trite and predictable.

I think the main problem I have with this movie, though, is that the characters serve the plot, rather than the plot stemming from the characters. There's no sense of authenticity to either man; they're both complete stereotypes. The film itself is so utterly contrived to establish the symmetry of the two men, each of whom wishes his life were more like the other's, that there's no room for more personal, authentic moments.

I generally enjoy foreign films because they tend to have more depth than the average Hollywood movie, but "Man on the Train" just didn't do it for me. Just because a movie is slow and sub-titled doesn't make it "art."