Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

SnoopyStyle It's 1999. American soldier Captain Doug Jones (Armand Assante) and his men are on a train carrying NATO equipment for the Kosovo conflict. They're crossing Romania with the government's full support. Locals in Capalnita have blocked over a strike. Station master Doiaru refuses to allow the train passage without proper paperwork. He has no love for NATO or the Americans. In flashbacks, he's a boy during WWII.I have two big problems with this quirky little indie. The first is the standard indie-camera-shake. I don't usually complain but it's a bit too jerky. The other is the long running time. There is an important reason for the long edit but it doesn't make it good. This should be about an hour shorter. It's suppose to be quirky and fun. It can't maintain that with this extended pacing. It needs sharper editing desperately.

Partin Pruthi When I saw that this movie had a 7+ rating, I couldn't wait to watch it. It's a 2:20 hour long move. It is the WORST MOVIE IN THE WHOLE WORLD !!! It is set in a village Romania, and for 2 Hours nothing happens! 2 hours of NOTHING!!! After that nothing... comes more nothing. And more nothing and more nothing and even more.Probably the reason why this movie has a high rating is because those 10 star ratings were given by the Romanian's involved in the production or whatever. I don't know, it may have Romanian artistic values, which begs the question, are all Romanian movies this bad? Or are they worse?Do not watch this movie, unless you intend to waste 2 hours of your life! Seriously. Anything is better than this!

Havgar I have had the chance to watch this movie three times over the past two weeks due to certain circumstances, and even though I imagined what most of the comments here on IMDb would read, I was still surprised to read them as well as to see the rating that this movie has received from the voters.The story of the movie is interesting, and drives the movie forward for some time, which is a definite improvement compared to most other Romanian movies. Sadly, however, the movie does not, in my view at any rate, make as much use of the story as it could have. I realize the movie is unfinished but I somehow doubt that rewriting the entire script was part of the filmmakers' plans.Other positive aspects of the movie are the reasonably good use of flashbacks, the remarkably good sound quality compared to every other Romanian movie ever made, and the acting from one or two of the actors.Where negative aspects are concerned, however, I fear the list is far longer: The screenplay was one of the worst parts of this movie. Some of the dilogue is horribly unrealistic and literally cringeworthy. Someone on the IMDb boards was saying that all the characters are meant to be stereotypes (save Doiaru), which is all fine, but creating a stereotypical character is not incompatible with dialgoue that is not boring, artificial drivel.The acting from everyone involved except Alexandru Margineanu and Ion Sapdaru was atrocious. Armand Assante delivers each sentence to his men as though he was sending them into battle against impossible odds, with the fate of humanity at stake.Overlooking some "plot holes" because it is my understanding this movie is based on true events (though I'm not sure to which extent), I find that the movie becomes very boring, very quickly.The soundtrack was practically inexistent. 8 songs for a 155 minute runtime is pathetic. There was virtually no ambiance music at any time during the movie, it was mostly just street sounds and the sounds made by various objects. Scenes in movies like "No Country For Old Men" are able to utilize this properly and to great effect. This movie, and "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days" are not.The hand-held camera "effect" employed but seemingly every Romanian moviemaker is becoming old. I get that you can be artsy, great, but can you be refined? The list could go on but I feel it is unnecessary. I just have to say I was disappointed by this movie, as I had pretty high expectations (no, I was not expecting an Oscar-winning movie, and my expectations were definitely in tune with what Romanian movie-making is capable of).It was very sad to see the movie exploiting a known formula for good reviews and perhaps an award or two - politically involved plot + movie revealing all the negative aspects of Romania + exploiting the political circumstances = movie with great reviews that "tells it like it is".I was very sorry to hear about the death of the director, however I found it very distasteful to inform the audience of his death at the beginning of the movie, in what was clearly an attempt to gain the sympathy of the viewers. If they really wanted to account for the fact that the movie was unfinished, they could have said it at the end, so as not to have people watching the whole movie thinking of how sad it was that he died.Overall, I rate this movie a 5/10, for all the reasons stated above, and find it to be a step up from a lot of other Romanian movies out there (of which I consider Filantropica to be one of the best if not the single best).

andrei1981-1 In artistic terms the movie is great. The story is superb, the acting is excellent too. Nevertheless there is an issue that should be taken into account when a director decides to make a movie with an eastern European setting. Films like the ones directed by Emir Kusturica or Nae Caranfil and now by Nemescu reveal and insist on revealing only one side of the Balkans. This facet is often exaggerated for artistic purposes and while it identifies the Balkans in certain aspects, it can also be very hazardous on the longer term. The Romanian, Serbian or Bulgarian societies are certainly more complex than the instances and the characters depicted in "White cat, black cat", "Philantropica" or "California Dreamin'". This picturesque facet constantly addressed by film makers represents a reality of the region but should not be generalized. This is the hazard of making such movies. Westerners and Americans, not very accustomed to the history and the society of the Eastern Europe might reduce them to this narrow view: gypsies, easy and shallow girls, the general poverty and corruption and a scene populated by low-lifes and scums. Everyone seeing this film should enjoy it for what it is, but should also keep in mind that, although true at a certain level, Romania means more than that.