User reviews

Divers return with their catch to a mega-yacht at anchor in the Saronikos Sea. These guys have riches, leisure, health and care-free lives. With this much testosterone in a confined space there is bound to be trouble. It comes in the form of a contest to determine who the best is at everything. The winner is awarded a trophy ring from the others. It doesn't take long for each paragon of machismo to morph into a man-child.

The men grade each other on skills, assets and accomplishments including such things as posture, teeth, cooking, politeness, virility, underwear and how quickly they can put together a shelf. Points are taken away for rudeness, bad singing, snoring or drooling in your sleep. The film began with so much promise. The location was fantastic, the theme was intriguing and the characters were interesting. It all was fabulous in the beginning. It just didn't come together very well or maintain its sway. The acting, scenery, depth, story and editing collapsed toward the end. Seen at the Toronto International Film Festival 2015.

The plot is that six friends all go on a luxury trip aboard a yacht in the Aegean Sea. They do all the things you are supposed to do like scuba diving, eating rich sea food and water sports, but they soon start to get on each other's nerves. Then one of them has an idea of a new game. This is to find out who is 'best' and this they will do by coming up with competitions with which they can collectively judge each other. By the time they hit port they can tot up the scores and the winner gets to wear the Chevalier ring.

Then the fun begins and these middle aged men soon let their inner demons out as competitiveness rears its ugly head and all too quickly it is every man for himself – in a very restrained way of course.

Now this is a comedy but for me it was long on good ideas but short on laughs. There are a few but not scattered liberally. The acting is all great and the crew are as relevant as the main players and indeed injected a dimension that keeps this from becoming 'becalmed' – to use a nautical reference. It did keep me interested until the end, but I still feel I am being generous with my score. In Greek with good subtitles – this is an original film that hopefully will float your boat.

This is a slow burner. A very weird slow burner. I'm not sure, maybe it's a Greek thing, but it's a little hard to get into. It's pretty good though. Unnerving and darkly comic. Six men on a luxury yacht devise a game one evening, a game to decide who is 'the best in general'*. It's an odd idea that sees them testing each other in increasingly bizarre and personal ways. For a game it feels very serious, the men becoming more and more calculated, even cruel and manipulative. I don't know any of the actors but they all do a great job in portraying the tension they're under and pushing that on to the viewer, which makes it very stressful! A fairly damning appraisal of the male ego and their eagerness to take part in character assassination. 6/10 *this may have got a little lost in translation.

The film is about a bunch of men overtly engaging in comparing their status and worth. This sounds as comedic a premise as any, but the director is quite restrained and doles out the funnies in a languid tempo (although there is certainly a climax to the proceedings). The writing is very good, and takes care to provide details that deftly flesh out the characters: these are not rah-rah bros, the relationships among them are subtle and fuel much of the action. The actors are quite brilliant, always shy of hamming it up, perhaps tellingly so.

This is what I found most impressive about the film, the sense of director's control of the material. You could milk this premise for a lot of cheap laughs, but the film feels free to go broad or subtle, just hint at hilarious episodes, take the time to enjoy the view from the boat, linger a while at the harbour before going back home. At all times however the perspective is assured, the characters are never made fun of, and the viewer is invited to witness as much silliness as they like.

I am docking a bunch of points because all this restraint on balance does gets a bit draining, but I think that everyone will enjoy the time spent at the company of these gentlemen.

While I appreciated "Attenberg" - which was the somewhat complementary study of women behaviour as "Chevalier" does for men - this film left me wondering.

Entertaining it wasn't and even at 1,5x speed it felt like a slow chore to get to the end. A reviewer suggested this might be how women see men, and that might explain why I didn't enjoy watching it, nor understood its purpose.

It's therefore simply my male fault. Furthermore I may find women more interesting than men and honestly IRL I would have immediately avoided these men as soon as I got their attitudes figured out (making me the true best one? ^^). Attitudes which are an inconsistent mess of illusionary beliefs, kindergarten competitiveness and theatrical exibitionism while searching for examples, allies and subjects, bestowing piety for the weak and no mercy for the adversaries.

Are women really that different? I'm not sure; still the writer-director here thinks so and focuses on this side of maledom.

An opinable, well produced ethological "study" but not really my idea of a good movie.

Whoever thought this was good comedy material may need to think about other ways of making a living. The combination of writer, Efthymis Filipou and director Athina Rachel Tsangari (also co-writer) proves to be far from satisfying - other than for the easily pleased. How many times have we seen this stale scenario played out on stage and screen – a group of middle aged 'buddies' away on a luxury fishing trip who, begin to become bored with each other's company and decide to find ways of 'entertaining' themselves at each other's expense. The hapless viewer knows the superficial direction this is taking within minutes of playtime IE; Who of them is the best, the biggest, the most successful, the most, etc, etc,....absolutely nothing new here, in fact, it's all presented in a lack-lustre derogatory formula that drags on far too long.

Only self-congratulatory festival critics could rave on so about works of this caliber. If you're inclined to follow the trending rants of Sundance and other world film festivals you might have a chance staying awake through this lame offering. Either the director or cinematographer or both, waste the settings and situations with boring in-focus-out-of-focus on deck exercise machine discussions, not once but twice, as if they have just discovered the use of photographic depth of field. The cast of handpicked performers try to inject life into old situations but are doomed to morose failure by a suss script and heavy-handed direction. If this is supposed to be an intellectual character study then it sure needs a lot of explaining.

While some of the soundtrack music selections are good within themselves, they just don't suit the story. I have no trouble believing the comments made by the reviewer from the Netherlands who wrote; "The cinema they attended was packed for the beginning and half empty by the mid-way point" - the viewers voted with their feet. Only on SBS and the trash-fest of World Movies would you find this 'entertainment' non-event. Sorry Greece, if this is regarded as one of your years best you may have a problem.

The idea for the Greek film, "Chevalier", is a good one. After all, seeing a bunch of middle-aged men compulse about their masculinity can be rather funny. I should know, as I am also middle-aged and I know my wife and her friends laugh about me all the time! However, while this film is apparently a comedy, I never found myself laughing and I kept expecting more than it delivered. It's a shame, as the acting is quite nice.

A group of six successful Greek men are taking a deluxe cruise together. They scuba dive, ride about on Waverunners, eat incredible meals and indulge themselves. However, after a few days, a weird competitiveness comes out...possibly the result of boredom and their own inner insecurities. This is odd, as it should be the trip of their lives. Soon, one of them proposes a strange game where they would compete in a variety of odd and rather mundane ways...during which time they'll grade each other to determine who is the best. And, the best will receive a ring called 'the Chavalier' so that he can lord their superiority over the rest of them. Naturally, this brings out the hyper-competitiveness in them and soon they're doing some pretty stupid things to prove who's best.

It all sounds like a recipe for hilarity and insight into the male psyche. Yet, surprisingly, I found the movie was so low-key and slow paced that I found myself struggling to stay awake and interested. But as I mentioned, despite a disappointing script, I was thrilled with the acting as it seemed so natural...like real guys on a trip instead of just a bunch of actors pretending. The bottom line is that the film is well made...just not all that satisfying.

This film has the six men on a diving and fishing trip in the Greek islands (accompanied by three, later two, staff on the boat) getting into a competition game about finding out who is the "best in general" among them. While they do some specific competitions, in principle all their behavior down to the tiniest detail is up for rating by the others. We see them taking notes about each other all the time, and most conversations somehow circle around their game; but because the game involves everything, whatever they talk about is by definition part of the game. Besides the interactions and communication, we get some very well done cinematography both of the wonderful setting and the men and their boat that at times can be read as comment on what goes on between them.

The idea of the film is original and fascinating, and the comedy and more serious aspects here work very well together. This is one of the films where humour comes from precise observation of the characteristics and psychology of the protagonists, their conflicts, and from realizing how ridiculous human interaction can be, while at the same time trying to be credible and even deep (different viewers may have different ideas about how realistic and credible all this is but my life experience doesn't make it seem all too outlandish; certainly the temptation of rating and competition on just about anything is very familiar to me).

The film can make you think about competition, masculinity, the obsession of the postmodern society with quantification and rating and its impact, what "criteria" one can think of to rate a person, the role of sexuality, how different protagonists take different aspects of the game seriously, how hard it is to stay outside when things become really tense, and the meaning of the impact the game has on the boat staff.

My quibble with the realism of all this is probably that irony and sarcasm are largely left to the director and the audience but are in critically short supply among the protagonists (which is a problem in many films; from the distance of a director's chair it seems to be very difficult to imagine how people are at times able to observe an ironical distance from themselves). I can in fact easily imagine things to become as tense as they do in the film, but I'd expect the men to at least attempt/pretend to take things in a more light and bantery manner while they get there; although there's obviously a comic effect for the audience in their seriousness.

Apart from this I was fine with the acting, and I had certainly enough to laugh, given that the film has plenty of qualities apart from humour. This is a pretty good and (as far as I know) unique film and I recommend it to everyone who likes the combination of wit, psychology and food for thought that we get here.

This is my first review and already I find myself dithering about whether I should rate this 8 or 9, I say 8.5 rounded up.

EUROVISION star Sakis Rouvas competing for the "Chevalier"

One of the six men who engage in an absurd competition for a Chevalier ring in the must-see Greek feature film by successful director Athina Rachel Tsangari is the Greek singer and actor Sakis Rouvas, born in 1972. He is best known for his three legendary performances at the EUROVISION Song Contest: in 2004 he took an excellent third place with "Shake it" in Istanbul, and in 2006 he impressed as "Eurovision Host" in Athens after Helena Paparizou had won the ESC the year before for Greece, only to try again in Moscow in 2009 with "This is our Night", which ended with a very disappointing seventh place for him and his fans.

Parallel to his music career, he took acting lessons with his friend Tom Hanks, who acquired Greek citizenship with his wife Rita Wilson some time ago, and made a convincing debut as a dangerous psychopath in "Duress" (2009) by Jordan Barker.

In Tsangari's film, Sakis Rouvas also fits in well with the good ensemble of actors. You can see that the ESC can be a career springboard for a wide variety of talents.

Chevalier is the tale of six men on a fishing trip who decide to begin a competition to determine who among them is "the best in general". What begins as a harmless game begins to get to each character in different ways as they start worrying about their own faults as well as others'.

What struck me most about this movie is how they managed to balance the surreal humour (similar to The Lobster and Dogtooth also co-written by Efthymis Filippou) with a more realistic vibe. What really works is how you actually sort of understand how things could escalate in such a ridiculous way as soon as the ego is brought into it, and you believe in the characters as real people with real motivations.

It also appears to have a warm heart beating under the surface, with several touching moments between the companions and a great sense of camaraderie, despite the fact that they're all desperate to win.

I watched this film in a small cinema with around 50 other people packed in, and throughout the film was none stop laughter.

Part surreal buddy comedy, part satire of the human condition, well worth checking out.

Ridiculous plot, without rhythm, bad acting except Sakis Rouvas who is not even an actor, some unfinished directing attempts. This film has nothing to do with the new modern Greek cinema who has hidden geminis

The so called "Greek Weird Wave" returns with another entry, this time a comedy directed by Athina Rachel Tsangari (best known for ''Attenberg"). The co-writer of "Dogtooth" and "The Lobster" Filippou assists her efforts to make an unconventionally funny and somewhat disturbing comedy. As the jury in London Film Festival (Best Film award for the movie there) stated "Chevalier is a study of male antagonism seen through the eyes of a brave and original filmmaker. With great formal rigour and irresistible wit, Athina Rachel Tsangari has managed to make a film that is both a hilarious comedy and a deeply disturbing statement on the condition of western humanity". Well, that's accurate but the formal rigour in all (post)modern Greek movies is getting a bit tiring and the movie is a funny comedy but not really a hilarious one. Yet the film is probably a bit better that George Lanthimos' uneven last entry "The Lobster". So if you are a Greek Weird Wave fan you should check it out and a few good laughs are guaranteed.

Grade: B-

Truly hilarious deadpan comedy that is written incredibly well. The writing by tsangari and Filippou, the latter who has co-written many of Yorgos Lanthimos' films, is ever so sharp. The script coupled with some fantastic situational camera work propels the story forward and creates a very entertaining situation which is Chevalier.

Really fun movie

One word: Boring.

It'd be a total waste of words to write anything more about this BS.

«Chevalier» is a Greek work that I receive with gratitude, which surpasses the enthusiasm I felt for «Attenberg», the other film that I know of its director, Athina Rachel Tsangari. Right from its inspired opening, in which, through the sea mist, we see several divers emerge from the water to a deserted beach, Tsangari built in an enigmatic way this tale of dueling men, full of humor and knowledge of male vanity. Little by little, the portrait of six mature men takes form. They have spent a few days, plying the Aegean Sea in a luxurious yacht, diving and practicing sea sports, and they are shortly returning to Athens. During a dinner, the friends have the idea of playing Chevalier, a game to decide who the best of all is. The winner will receive a (Chevalier) ring as his prize. As Tsangari did in «Attenberg», dealing with recognizable characteristics of female psyche and sensuality, in «Chevalier» she successfully displays the competitive spirit of the challenged male, through the different tests and evaluations that they put themselves through, reaching moments in which it is revealed how aggressive, absurd, stodgy, stupid, ridiculous and funny we can become to win a game. «Chevalier» is a beautiful film: it captures the strength and simplicity of its plot with clarity and brightness, in interiors, open spaces and the faces of the small cast, made up of accomplished actors. When I saw the film I thought of Yorgos Lanthimos and I said, "This is what you should be doing, Yorgos". To my surprise, I found out in the credits that the script was co-written by the director and Efthymis Filippou, the same author who wrote my favorite films by Lanthimos, from «Dogtooth» to «The Killing of the Sacred Deer». (In fact, he worked on the script of «Chevalier», after «The Lobster» and before the "Sacred Deer"). It is a pleasure to see a cinema that is so different, to feel airs of peace, other ways of seeing the world, without violence or slaughters to control the world, and I applaud it with joy. Bravo, Athina Rachel Tsangari, for understanding us and being compassionate to us, men.

Meaningless movie. Meaningless movie. The story is about a game they play. No conclusion comes in the end. Not an interesting story. Some of the actors were good.

Chevalier (2015) -.

The whole thing felt like it was a blokes weekend away to get homosexual with each other and away from their wives. There was no specific evidence of that, although Dimitris was definitely up for it, but it just had a huge homoerotic undertone all the way through it.

That in itself was strange, as it was supposed to be a macho, testosterone filled battle between friends to see who the best man was, but the game in and of itself was a bit weird too and I would say very difficult to actually quantify in a real way. The challenges were all quite unusual and didn't utilise much of the tried and tested manly competitions like those featured in films like 'Grown Ups' (2010), which is the only film that I can really compare this one to.

As such, it didn't have quite the hilarity that I was expecting, not even the usual quirky European style of humour and it was generally just a bit odd instead.

The nudity, although usually something that I enjoy wasn't really that necessary and actually in this case I think that less would definitely have been more. It would have been funnier not to see it.

Dimitris was like an overgrown child, I think that one of them was either Bulimic or didn't like to admit that he got sea sick and then there's the one with the erection issue. All of these things could have been hilariously turned in to something, but the gags were all just a bit half arsed or weird and I'm not sure that I understood the ending at all or even who won the challenges.

Perhaps it lost something in translation, but I'm not sure that the way that it came across can be entirely blamed on that if at all. Let's just say that I didn't get it and leave it at that.

253.66/1000.

OK, if you feel the need to search for toxic masculinity, even where there is none, and wish to do it with the most tedious film imaginable, watch Chevalier.

Geneticists have found with th study of our genome, that in the last 1000,000 years or so (and probably also the last few million years as great apes and hominids), 80% of females have reproduced and about 35% of males have.

So here we have a female directed and co-written critique of male competition, when all the evidence is that females, for millions of years, have been favoring and selecting the competitive males.

And is that bad? One has to wonder if the maker of this film did or did not select the most competitive and accomplished cinematographers they could find within the budget, sound people, actors, etc. It is very likely the director and writers were at last in the top half of comparative people in their schooling and careers.

Nwsflash: Th scene were they compete for the biggest fish is hardly a cultural or modern "problem" or a problem at all. In fact they guy who brought home the biggest fish was competed for himself by women in a group going back to the invention of fishing