Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews5
Delikatu''s rating
It was a great idea that HBO Romania had to broadcast "Mihai Viteazul" on the Romania's National Day, that is the 1st of December. "Mihai Viteazul" successfully combines battle scenes and political intrigues and to show as realistic as possible the life and times of the great Romanian ruler. I'm not going to describe the film itself, it has to be seen by your own eyes to get the right image about a significant part of the Romanian film industry. Instead, I am going to speak a little about the director's visions about making this movie.
Right after HBO's playing the film on 1st December 2000, a Romanian broadcasting network invited director Sergiu Nicolaescu to make a comment on his masterpiece. Everybody must know this was the second motion picture made by Sergiu Nicolaescu for the silver screen. First, the film was meant to be a co-production with the USA, thus Nicolaescu managed to cast Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Orson Wells and other great actors at Hollywood. However, the Ministry of Culture under President Nicolae Ceausescu did not admit an American involvement in a production based on the glorious history of the Romanian people. So, director Nicolaescu and writer Titus Popovici had to renounce to the American partnership and made this film on their own, financed by the Romanian government. A small dispute started between Nicolaescu and Popovici regarding the actor to play the main character, Mihai Viteazul. A number of 128 Romanian actors were tested for this role and the probes were sent in America, so that some American producers to choose which one is the appropriate actor for the character. The result was Sergiu Nicolaescu and that was exactly what Titus Popovici had in mind. So they started shooting with Nicolaescu playing Mihai Viteazul. But, after a while, Sergiu Nicolaescu was not pleased with the role, he actually wanted to play Selim-Pasa and went to the Ministry saying he's not going to direct that movie anymore, unless he is allowed to do it in his manner. He got the approval, except, of course, any American involvement in it. He returned on the director's chair, but with Amza Pellea playing the main character. I have to admit he was right, because Amza Pellea was outstanding and Nicolaescu's "Selim-Pasa" was a better part, I think.
All the battle scenes were filmed by only three cameras, without zoom effects (the Romanian film industry wasn't working with such equipments in the seventies), so all camera movements were created by physicals efforts.
Battle scenes were filmed with the Army's support, for which the director thanks during the main titles.
Historical facts are precise, that is Nicolaescu's guarantee. More than anything else, Sergiu Nicolaescu loves history, the Romanian history, and all important moments and dialogues in his historical movies are covered by documents from those periods.
Nicolaescu says he was surprised to notice a TV sequence in Steven Spielberg's "E.T." showing images from his film "Mihai Viteazul". That's why he asked, when he had the opportunity, Steven Spielberg why he enclosed a sequence from his movie and not from another director's. And Spielberg replied he admired Nicolaescu's work, especially the battle scenes, which also inspired him for some of his future films.
Right after HBO's playing the film on 1st December 2000, a Romanian broadcasting network invited director Sergiu Nicolaescu to make a comment on his masterpiece. Everybody must know this was the second motion picture made by Sergiu Nicolaescu for the silver screen. First, the film was meant to be a co-production with the USA, thus Nicolaescu managed to cast Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Orson Wells and other great actors at Hollywood. However, the Ministry of Culture under President Nicolae Ceausescu did not admit an American involvement in a production based on the glorious history of the Romanian people. So, director Nicolaescu and writer Titus Popovici had to renounce to the American partnership and made this film on their own, financed by the Romanian government. A small dispute started between Nicolaescu and Popovici regarding the actor to play the main character, Mihai Viteazul. A number of 128 Romanian actors were tested for this role and the probes were sent in America, so that some American producers to choose which one is the appropriate actor for the character. The result was Sergiu Nicolaescu and that was exactly what Titus Popovici had in mind. So they started shooting with Nicolaescu playing Mihai Viteazul. But, after a while, Sergiu Nicolaescu was not pleased with the role, he actually wanted to play Selim-Pasa and went to the Ministry saying he's not going to direct that movie anymore, unless he is allowed to do it in his manner. He got the approval, except, of course, any American involvement in it. He returned on the director's chair, but with Amza Pellea playing the main character. I have to admit he was right, because Amza Pellea was outstanding and Nicolaescu's "Selim-Pasa" was a better part, I think.
All the battle scenes were filmed by only three cameras, without zoom effects (the Romanian film industry wasn't working with such equipments in the seventies), so all camera movements were created by physicals efforts.
Battle scenes were filmed with the Army's support, for which the director thanks during the main titles.
Historical facts are precise, that is Nicolaescu's guarantee. More than anything else, Sergiu Nicolaescu loves history, the Romanian history, and all important moments and dialogues in his historical movies are covered by documents from those periods.
Nicolaescu says he was surprised to notice a TV sequence in Steven Spielberg's "E.T." showing images from his film "Mihai Viteazul". That's why he asked, when he had the opportunity, Steven Spielberg why he enclosed a sequence from his movie and not from another director's. And Spielberg replied he admired Nicolaescu's work, especially the battle scenes, which also inspired him for some of his future films.
Now, first at all, I wish to inform you I've seen this film. More than that, I even read a few of your comments. Many of you, guys, are totally against this motion picture. Well, if you don't like, don't watch it anymore and that's it. But please understand that it isn't a serious perspective of an alien attack, just read other comments and you'll understand why. From this point of view, Mars Attacks! is much better than Independence Day, for example, which was meant to be a great movie. Mars Attacks is not a parody to a particular movie, but a parody to a genre of movies. I admit there are parodiated scenes from ID4 and from B-movies in the 50s and so on; but Burton mocks them so well, so that makes you think it's a bad movie too. Let's think for a while: why would a great (and original) director clone the special effects, the plots, even the music from the films made in 50s? The only valid answer would be: It's a parody and nothing more!!!
Well, that Americans often exaggerate in their so-called patriotism, there are a few who'd deny it. That they consider themselves the rulers of the world, it's a fact proven by many movies made at Hollywood. Now, all that really missed in this grotesque picture was the German Roland Emmerich to pretend the Americans could be the rulers of the Universe.
What really impressed me in this film, like other motion pictures signed by Emmerich, were the special effects. Period. The rest is nonsense. I don't want take your time, so I'm going to be quick. How do you imagine such an advanced civilization like the aliens presented in "Independence Day" can be totally destroyed by their own weapons, by their own technology? Let's be objective and admit that the program implemented on the mother-ship was written in C (as the images clearly show); let's think for a while how it was possible for any scientist to come so fast to a solution that supposes a strong hardware knowledge of the alien technology and, more than that, a compatibility matter between two completely different types of processors.
Thus, I find more interesting and even more plausible for getting rid of the alien invasion the solution from "Mars Attacks!", which is based on a possible incompatibility of the sound range perceptible by two species (humans & aliens).
What really impressed me in this film, like other motion pictures signed by Emmerich, were the special effects. Period. The rest is nonsense. I don't want take your time, so I'm going to be quick. How do you imagine such an advanced civilization like the aliens presented in "Independence Day" can be totally destroyed by their own weapons, by their own technology? Let's be objective and admit that the program implemented on the mother-ship was written in C (as the images clearly show); let's think for a while how it was possible for any scientist to come so fast to a solution that supposes a strong hardware knowledge of the alien technology and, more than that, a compatibility matter between two completely different types of processors.
Thus, I find more interesting and even more plausible for getting rid of the alien invasion the solution from "Mars Attacks!", which is based on a possible incompatibility of the sound range perceptible by two species (humans & aliens).