Alicia I love this movie so much

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Kirpianuscus it is, maybe, the best Romanian historical movie. and one of few who legitimate the career of Sergiu Nicolaescu as director. a convincing, powerful fresco of the reign of Mihai Viteazu, heroic, exploring nuances and details, perfect contact between high acting, costumes and battle scenes. the realism of events, the drama of the solitude of a great ruler of a small country, the triumph of a great political project, the beautiful scenes of doubt, love, sacrifice, and , sure, the music are pillars of a remarkable film. the image of Mihai Viteazu - tragic, noble, memorable is the result of a spectacular manner to define his role of Amza Pellea. Mihai remains his key role, maybe not the best but the role who reflects a fascinating gift and the hard work. a film like a huge puzzle in which each character, with his motivation and personal fight, defines an impressive fresco of glory, survive and sacrifice.

Onur Aksaray I have heard about this movie by chance while my search took me to the direction of local movies made on Ottoman conflicts in the Balkans and Central Europe.It was interesting to see the take on historical plots of this era from other views on screenplay.This movie,ticking over 3 hours,tells the adventurous campaigns of the Wallachian prince who aspires all his life to unite all the historical Romanian principalities under one flag struggling against his powerful enemies full of grit,greed and cruelty who would do anything to destroy each other to stay on top of another.The movie starts with Mihai traveling to Istanbul to pay his tribute to the Sultan by borrowing money from a rich Venetian Merchant through the reputation of a noble Countess who just from the beginning admires and loves him.Mihai's only goal is to get to the Wallachian throne through the approval from the Ottoman palace at once eliminating his sneaky rival Alexandru The Evil and set out his plans to free the lands from the desperate yoke of the authority which approves his vassal status as the prince. The Sultan and the Grand Vizier Sinan Pasha are taken by full surprise and grow suspicious from his bold courage at the Ottoman palace displayed against them,nevertheless approve him.From then on Mihai wages his own war,defying Sultan's Messenger Selim (who later on becomes Pasha).Now I want to open a bracket here,because the character who is depicted as Mihai's childhood friend and a Muslim convert actually is a fiction character casted by director Sergiu Nicolaescu and did not exist in reality.Mihai later goes on even further this time,waging a campaign against the Ottomans and advancing as far as Adrianople where he awaited the promised help from the Papal State in Rome,which in reality never came.Mihai later encounters one of the most allegedly treacherous characters according to the movie,and his so called ''Christian ally'' Szekely noble Transylvanian prince Sigismund Bathory.Bathory,a jealous,mean and selfish personality, pledges him help against Turks at the Battle of Calugareni but never really sends it,constantly trying to undermine and eliminate him instead, having him sign a humiliating treaty by taking advantage of his dedication to the Christian cause.The rivalries even flame more as Mihai's fame of bravery spreads across Christian Europe.Neither Austrian emperor Rudolph nor his general G.Basta really has him any sympathy and they never really support him.The story line of the movie mostly runs smooth although there are certain scenes doubtful of historical accuracy.The part where Sigismund abdicates from the throne after his defeat at Keresztes is historically true,however the scene where he disguises as monk to meet Mihai at the battlefield and Mihai having him watch the battle winning over his own cousin Andrew in Şelimbar as a captive is dubious.It is also true that Andrew was beheaded after the battle by his own subordinates,however Sigismund watching his cousin being executed probably never happened in real either.The scene where Selim tells Mihai: ''I used your tactics from Calugareni to defeat Sigismund at Keresztes.'' is apparently out of context however the movie is aimed at local spectators and certain praises in favor of the protagonist are noticeable.Sigismund also seems to be demonized far from what he actually is,totally a treacherous villain full of greed and intrigues.The story line of the movie never talks about the fact that Mihai joined forces with Sigismund to beat Turks following the Battle of Calugareni.There is apparently one-sided history telling on some parts of the script.Mihai's love story with the Countess and his disputes with his wife princess Stanca,his tragic loss of his son Nicolai at the battle field are also emotional moments.His son in reality though,did not die at that battle but much later.The movie has great colorful scenes such as the lance duel between Mihai and Sigismund on their first encounter,as well as the waltz in Sigismund's palace during his wedding ceremony with Maria Cristina de Graz.From the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul to the Neajlov swamps at the Calugareni battlefield,from the epic entrance of Mihai to the palace in Alba Iulia to the Prague Cathedral and the beautiful Charles bridge, the movie delivers fantastic scene depictions of the events that took place,taking us with Mihai throughout his journey full of struggles.Whether fully historically accurate or not,the movie has some fantastic depictions of battle scenes with rich costumes,giving a breathtaking realistic experience of the battles in chronological order.Finally great casting delivered by local actors notably Amza Pellea as Mihai,and the music in the movie is pretty decent as well.Some deviations and exaggerations on the plot,but let's not forget this movie was produced in 70's Romania and for the purpose of praising national pride as well to some point.Overall this movie was by far the best among the local productions in Balkans and C.Europe I have seen with similar historical plots and background.

Ioan The question in title is maybe a critical question when commenting on a historical movie. The director especially, sometimes wants to "tell" too much of his peoples history and the movie began too quickly. But I think this movie succeeded to mantain this frail equilibrium between historical information and artistic part.Of course, comparing with Braveheart this movie isn't so realistic in images, has no such violence, but very real, battles, but it was filmed 27 years before and of course with some censorship involved. But it still is one of the great Romanian movies ever realised. The major critique, in my humble opinion, is a great king is a man too, and this aspect wasn't explored enough in this movie.Maybe the myth was more important than the reality? But the performances were simply excellent and this critique can be minimised.

nelutu It's one of the best movies I've ever seen.I think that Sergiu Nicolaescu is the most important romanian directors because he presented the real Romanian history.I'm proud that I'm Romanian when I have the privilege to see a movie directed by Sergiu Nicolaescu