Sorry, this movie sucks

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

There is, of course, as someone once said, nothing new under the sun and the cynic in me wonders if Janet Lewis, who wrote (in 1982) the novel on which this film is based, was familiar with a British film directed in 1946 by Basil Dearden entitled 'The Captive Heart'. In that film a Czech soldier, Karel Hasek (Micheael Redgrave) assumes the identity of a dead British soldier, Geoffrey Mitchell, in order to survive and when he is sent to a P.O.W. camp he is obliged to correspond with the dead man's wife, Celia (Rachel Kempson) in order to maintain the pretence and gradually via this correspondence they fall in love but when, at the end of the war, Hasek meets Mitchell there is no question of his pretending to be her dead husband. Daniel Vigne has taken the novel by Lewis and adapted it for the screen. By setting it a few centuries in the past both writer and director distance it from The Captive Heart and do so further by depicting the real Martin Guerre in situ with wife Bertande (Nathalie Baye) then, after establishing his indifference to Bertrande he is allowed to abandon her. Years pass and Martin returns in the shape of Gerard Depardieu who is able to assuage doubts about his identity via his wide knowledge of both Bertande and the neighbors. There's not a great deal of suspense, it's fairly obvious that Depardieu is NOT the Martin Guerre who left the village but Vigne is more concerned with illustrating that Good can come out of Bad; living with Depardieu Baye is much more happy than when living with the real Martin and the faux Martin also proves a much better neighbor so it's just a question of waiting for the bubble to burst and wonder if hope will triumph over knowledge (no such luck) and the lovers will be allowed to live happily ever after. Both Depardieu and Baye turn in first class jobs and the period setting is well photographed. If not exactly a 'must-see' it is well worth seeing.

A classic Gérard Depardieu film. Any Depardieu fan will love it.In French, It follows a newly married couple's life through their difficulties. I feel that that acting is solid and their marital problems are somewhat humorous if not relatable to today. It explores marital problems in a realistic and open way.Though there is some brief nudity, it follows the story.It is truly a story about love, and what you will do for it.It's a story that will touch your heart.

After about thirteen or fourteen years I finally was able to see this film again, this time in French with subtitles, not dubbed into German. There was nothing wrong with the German version, the film certainly didn't fail to impress me so much, that I declared this film to be the best Gérard Depardieu has ever done. I think I still have the same opinion, although meanwhile it ties with Les Misérables.Now today I watched it again. I couldn't remember anything really, just parts of scenes and what happened at the end, of course. But then everything came back. The music suddenly seemed familiar, the village, the faces. I still was surprised to see Tcheky Karyo's name in the credits at the end, because I missed him completely, while I recognized Dominique Pinon at once, much younger of course. Again I stood in awe of the costumes and the village scenery. Everything was so convincing and realistic. As if someone had done a time travel and brought back a video. After The Name of the Rose this is the best period film till now. In the art department. But also certainly in acting, writing and directing.Gérard Depardieu and Nathalie Baye deliver performances which are outstanding. Every acting student should watch them, they are masters of their profession. They show emotions which are almost palpable, you feel with them, certainly towards the end, but also during the rest of the time. The script offered them "only" great parts and they created lives out of the printed words. Every gesture, every movement, every look fits and connects the viewer with the story. As if you're in the story, not watching it. There is no doubt whatsoever that this story is real. Even if history should have been a bit different (which I don't know), the story in the film feels real.And I just want to add that everyone who calls M. Depardieu ugly or anything like it, is not only extremely rude but obviously not receptive to any kind of charisma and aura. With actors (as with people in general, right?) looks are not important. Whoever thinks that, should switch from watching films to watching models. There he can get empty beauty.My recommendation is: watch this film. You can hardly spend an evening in a better way. 10 out of 10.

A man suffering from amnesia coming back from war to be confronted with a wife and child...Well we've seen this before and long ago...To be precise in 1938 ,when Curtis Bernardt -who continued his career in America afterward- directed his "carrefour" starring the excellent Charles Vanel and Jules Berry.Here the director -very academic- substituted the Middle Ages for WW1 and presto!an original screenplay! Actually ,and even the scenarists will never confess it it's "carrefour" remade as "Martin Guerre" remade as "Sommersby" .Best part comes from Nathalie Baye,who portrays a woman who could belong to the Middle Ages as well as to our own era .Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu would have outstripped Depardieu, had the script given him the chance to shine.Since I posted my comments,an user wrote that both "carrefour" and "Martin Guerre" came from an incident from the sixteenth century.Perhaps so ,but in my native France,nobody said a single word about that."Carrefour" was based on a John Kafka novel (not to be mistaken for THE Kafka),and as for "Martin", famous scenarist Carrière -who wrote for Luis Bunuel - and director Vigne took all the credits.Jean Tulard,the most erudite historian of the French cinema does not hint at the American novel of Janet Lewis in his "dictionnaire des films".I must add that in France "MG" is not looked upon as the great film it is in America.It's actually a return to the swashbuckler genre that was thriving in the 1955-1965 years in France,a bit more realist perhaps ,to gain the highbrows audience ,but not necessarily better.The real writer was actually Jean de Coras ,conseiller au parlement de Toulouse,whom you can see in the film (Roger Planchon) and who reported the story.