sfarlea_andrei Reviews

Pe aici nu se trece (1975)

Awesome battle scenes from a forgotten battlefield

[8/10 · 4 January 2023]

Just saw it the other day and I was so impressed that I actually had to write a review. Even if it was produced in Romania, make no mistake, this is no low-cost flick and I have to say this movie contains some of the best battle scenes I have ever seen. What is truly remarkable is the realism of these scenes, due to an era (1970s) when computer generated images and special effects were not even a distant fantasy. Nowadays it is difficult to imagine shooting a battle with hundreds (if not thousands) of background actors charging over the hill through actual explosions, accompanied by some 10 tanks or to hear the pounding sound of the field artillery and the actual smoke they produce when releasing the shells. A huge like in terms of realistic battle feeling.

While the movie does not shine in terms of depth of the characters, this is not necessarily a problem, since this is a historic war movie and the focus is completely different. Nevertheless, there is some very good acting and some likeable characters. From this point of view, it is way ahead of other war movies like All Quiet on the Western Front (2022) and 1917 (2019), for whose protagonists I felt little to no connection or sympathy.

When rating movies done during the time of communism, you have to take into account that all of them had to respect certain guidelines issued by the Communist Party of Romania in order to be considered acceptable for release. For example, in pretty much all movies of the time (including ones set in the pre-WW2 or during WW2) you have to have the witty and righteous communist hero who saves the day and/or convinces the others to see the "holy light" of communist ideals. However, my suggestion is to look past aspect this to be able to adequately judge the movie.

On the negative side, the writer obviously conforms to the cliches of the time (not only valid for Romania, but for much of the rest of the world until relatively recently) depicting the German officer (the main antagonist) as an arrogant, ruthless, soulless killing machine. However, there is a memorable scene adding a bit of depth here, when the German officer and the Romanian cadet analyze the different ways in which they perceive music - one as a sort of science of the soundwaves, while the other as an outburst of feeling.

Some drawbacks in terms of accuracy are related to the tanks used - they are obviously not German WW2 ones, since it would have been impossible to obtain any and are most likely some Romanian produced version of the T-55. However, the crew did go to some lengths to make the tanks more similar to what they were supposed to look like, so they added/welded some metal sheets to give them a look somewhere between a Panzer IV and a Tiger I. In addition, even if the battle recreation is impressive, some details like individual soldier deaths are almost funny. Given this is a war movie there is surprisingly little to no gore and another unrealistic aspect is that there are almost no wounded in battle - soldiers either live o die, which is contrary to the reality of warfare. Nevertheless, the 2 phrases above depict a situation in line with the movie making standards of the time and should not be compared to current ones.

As a conclusion, I am most likely subjective in my overall evaluation, but it is no doubt that the movie delivers some solid old-school battle scenes, while the rest of the story is also enjoyable thanks to a good cast and good acting.

Apocalypse la 1ère Guerre mondiale (2014)

Very good documentary overall, but incomplete

[8/10 · 7 February 2018]

First of all, I have to say this is definitely the best WW1 documentary I have seen, not just because it's in color, but also because it brings a fresh view on such an old topic. The whole documentary is built upon a cause-and-effect logic, which I really appreciated and this is valid especially when analyzing how a seemingly tranquil and prosperous Europe was suddenly plunged into the chaos and nightmare of a world war. Furthermore, I was happy to see the documentary also talks about the less glorious aspects of the war (such as the mutiny of soldiers, especially in the French army) and that it includes information about less known theaters like Turkey and the Pacific.

On the downside, however, the main weakness of the documentary is that it is dis-proportionally focused on the Western front, possibly creating the impression that the other fronts were just side-shows and that the whole war was just a crawl through the muddy trenches. This is absolutely not the case especially for the Eastern Front, where an even higher number of casualties than on the Western Front occurred and where the large spaces offered opportunity for wars of maneuver, unlike the trench warfare predominant in the West. In this respect, I was disappointed that the Russian Brusilov offensive of 1916, the greatest advance any army achieved during the war is not even mentioned. Furthermore, information is severely lacking for the following countries:

• Serbia: the only information about Serbia is that the Serbs initially stopped the Austrian offensive in 1914; absolutely nothing afterwards about its defeat and occupation by the Central Powers in 1915.
• Bulgaria: it is only mentioned that it joined the Central Powers, but there's not the slightest information about what happened afterwards and who they fought.
• Romania: I found it absolutely inexcusable that Romania is not mentioned even once during the 4 and a half hours of the documentary. Without saying a word about the fact that Romania had even entered the war, at the very end they say that among others some 200,000 Romanian soldiers died in the conflict. At this point even the most basic information is missing, for example on whose side Romania fought. It would have probably been useful to mention that the Germans had to relocate much needed divisions from the battle of Verdun the moment Romania entered the war in order to stabilize the front. In addition, the German conquest of half of Romania in 1916, an extraordinary feat of arms, which historian Michael Barrett named a "prelude to blitzkrieg", could have also been interesting to include.

I totally understand the need to focus on the main aspects of the war, but I think applying a principle of proportionality is preferable to overlooking some potentially relevant information. A few phrases would have been enough to give a general overview also on these aspects above.

To sum up, great documentary and analysis for the Western Front, but unfortunately it fails to cover some relevant aspects from the Eastern Front.

Colpi di fulmine (2012)

Nothing special

[5/10 · 31 August 2015]

The best way to characterize this comedy is through the fact that it does not really stand out through anything. You have the classical quid-pro-quo from which all the funny situations derive and there are of course all stereotypical characters, everything culminating in a stereotypical ending.

The idea of love at first sight is hardly believable in reality and the film doesn't make it any more credible unfortunately, but we are talking about a comedy, so credibility is not necessarily a prerequisite for making the movie funny. The problem is that at times it tries too hard to be funny, making things seem totally unnatural, thus achieving the opposite effect.

On the positive side however, splitting the movie in 2 different stories adds variety and dynamic, avoiding a story which would drag on for too long and become boring. Despite its limitations, I must confess I did not feel all that frustrated and the movie managed to deliver some laughs.

Bottom line, if you watch it without having high hopes you can find it fairly enjoyable, but there are definitely much better Italian comedies out there.

Bitter Moon (1992)

Better read the book

[6/10 · 27 July 2015]

I have just finished reading the book and because of that it is impossible to objectively judge the movie. While it does make some very good points as a standalone movie, I must say that the book is far more powerful and more cruel. Of course I can understand that in order to attract an audience the story had to be softened, otherwise some people risk being totally horrified and walking sick out of the theater (and no, I am not referring to the detailed sexual perversions, but to the ordeal the man puts his woman through when he wants to create living hell for her).

Furthermore, that semi-happy ending with the 2 characters hugging each other ruined everything and has nothing to do with the original plot.

Just so we're clear, I don't think this is a bad movie, on the contrary, it brings a whole new perspective on how thin the line between love, obsession and hatred really is. However, the book does a much better job.

Miss Christina (2013)

Good, but poor acting keeps it from reaching its full potential

[7/10 · 2 December 2013]

First off, let's start by saying that this is not a horror movie, but I would consider it more like a slower-paced psychological thriller with a creepy atmosphere, sort of a Gothic work of art reminding me of Edgar Allan Poe. Don't expect any jump-up scares, because you won't get any (or maybe just a light one).

The strong point of the movie is that it is successful in recreating a veridic creepy, morbid atmosphere with a very slight horror touch. The setting and the effects are cleverly used to induce such a state. It is all the more worth our appreciation since I believe it is the first Romanian movie in history not only to try, but also to achieve this. Another positive aspect is the interesting and I daresay gripping story.

However, its one true downside is the acting of the actor interpreting the main character, Tudor Istodor. In almost every scene he appears stiff and behaves totally unnaturally. Ioana Anton playing Sanda doesn't cause as much damage as Istodor (although her acting is far from good), while Maia Morgenstern's performance, though decent, can't compensate for the shortcomings of the previous two. This results in a very unconvincing overall act, frustrating the movie of its real potential. Nonetheless, there is one actor who shines, and that is little Ioana Sandu playing Simina. Her natural creepy performance is just great at doubling the gloomy atmosphere.

All in all, despite the previously mentioned defects, the movie is well worth a try, most of all because it is the first Romanian title of this genre. If you're willing to overlook the acting flaws you can find it fairly entertaining, as I did. Not to mention that it stirred my desire to read Eliade's works.

2012 (I) (2009)

Are special effects enough to make lousy movie into a blockbuster? Apparently yes!

[4/10 · 2 January 2010]

I have to admit I was quite curious to see this film after having met a lot of people who had been impressed by it. Now, I feel as if I had wasted 2 and a half hours of my life trying to stay awake. I'm not going to say that this is the worst movie in history, not at all, it's just that the only thing through which this movie stands out are the special effects used and there sure is a lot of them throughout the movie. However, its predictability and clichés, as well as all the "far out" effects of driving through a collapsing building and dodging falling skyscrapers in an airplane make it really boring. At least "Independence Day" had some really funny parts. I really had the feeling that the producers want to compensate all the weaknesses by using more and more special effects. And from their point of view it worked, considering that it was such a big hit. Their recipe for success: take one obscure prophecy about the end of the world, wrap it up in special effects and don't worry about the rest. Anyway, this movie could probably be an entertaining and intense experience provided that you leave your brain at home before going to see it. Personally, I forgot to do that.