Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

tigerfish50 'Summer Holiday' follows the format audiences have come to expect from new-wave Romanian cinema - long scenes with fine actors using improvised dialog, filmed in wide shots by hand-held camera. The story unfolds over fifteen or so hours in a chilly coastal resort where 30-something Boogie is spending a few days Spring vacation with his pregnant wife, Smaranda and their young son. He runs into some old friends who persuade him to join them for a drink, and the evening leads to an opportunity for Boogie to misbehave. The film's shortcomings are apparent in the first scene on the beach where Boogie hectors his son for poor sand-castle construction skills and bickers with Smaranda - it's repetitive, lasts too long, and the characters are not particularly engaging. These flaws reappear in too many of the subsequent scenes where the actors portray the petty selfishness, irresponsibility and banality of contemporary life.Even though the talented cast deliver authentic performances, the story and characters lack sufficient substance to make their efforts truly compelling. Despite the presence of Anamaria Marinca, who was so outstanding in 'Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days', 'Summer Holiday' falls a long way short of the originality and intensity of the earlier film.

Ersbel Oraph I do not know where to start.Plot wise it is a failure. There should be a clash. But because of the scripting errors and bad acting the viewer ends up with a snapshot of some pathetic life. The characters are only cardboard silhouettes and everything feels like a shot. The main guy can be guessed because of his interactions. The wife is only nagging. There is a ray of light - she might be under some stress. But the stress is never there. The two pot-bellies turn out to be far from what they insinuated and they are failures, yet the two characters are also ironed out well so there is no trace of life in them. Even the two prostitutes (Roxana and Ramona) act like schoolgirls in love. The second one is so nice to take the money after. Bottom line this script shouts the wet dreams of two overgrown brats who know nothing about life in general. And everything turns even worse: the director is one of them so the whole interaction is something of a twisted fantasy lacking realism.The acting is bad even for a first try. And these are called actors! Boogie acts flat and his voice is unsure, almost like forgetting the lines. His wife is nagging, but at the same time she is cold, disconnected, like wearing a suit that doesn't fit. If that was acting than the actress would have been ideal being Ramona. The two "buddies" act so lame I'm left with the impression that is their life story and not some acting. And even if that is acting it is totally wrong as they should have been adventurous. Instead of being two guys who have seen the hardships of life they are two mama's boys who have to pay in order to receive sexual gratification. Only the prostitutes act like scripted - like two school girls collated from another movie probably. They even pause in mid-sentence as a shy girl would do.The execution is appalling. This is something common for all post '89 Romanian movies. Although the equipment gets better and better the people who use it seem less qualified each year. And all this bad lighting is called "natural camera". No, it's just the lack of qualified personnel.Even as a whole this movie is terrible. It has the name of the main character, but he does not suffer any change. This is a mere snapshot of his life. A far more sincere title would have been "A Night with a Prostitute".In the end the audience might be left puzzled. Given the anachronism pointed out here on IMDb - although the director wrote the script he can't change the location to his actual filming location. He can't move the camera enough to lose the recognizable bits of landscape. And certainly he is unable to do that in post-processing. One girl is named Roxana, yet Ramona is called Roxana in real life. It would have been impossible to change that as well as the other issue with the boys wanting to go bowling, not noticing they are already next to the bowling alley.This film would have made a wonderful 4 minute feature. 30 seconds to show the estranged son. 40 seconds to prove the marriage is on the rocks. Another minute or so to present the lame boys night out and the rest to push for the middle aged drama - torn between a nagging wife and a lover by the hour. Only that the boys aren't middle aged.They say corruption is rampant in Romania. This would be a good example. Who in his or her right mind would pay for this waste of film? The state owned CNC. Weird. It would be far juicier to read who slept with whom to push this "product" forward. And it is pretty obvious the waste as an attempt to justify the given money. Starting with the pointless stops in acting (thoughtful some might say) and ending up with the pointless portable baby bed that can be seen through the door in the ending scene.This production should have received a minus four, only that 1 is the lowest available.Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch

stelianne This movie you either like all the way to the end - or you dislike entirely. This will explain some of the most-favorable comments, but also some of the opinions against it. There's no middle way - either you're into this type of movies, or not. The amateurs for action, rough scenes, twisted plots and stuff like that will be left unsatisfied. The action is slow - however, the dialogue and the acting are extremely intelligent and well-performed. I know the Western viewer is not familiar with this type of cinema, and may not like it. In a way, you have to be a Romanian to like it. However, I'd like to think for myself that is because of movies like these that I believe again in the fate of Romanian cinema. Movies like "Hartia va fi albastra", "Patru luni, trei saptamini..." and now "Boogie" give me great hope. Great actors, great movie, awesome experience. Highly recommended.

Jules et Jim I guess Radu Muntean was wrong by expecting his movie to have more appeal to the general audience than "Hartia va fi albastra". It's obviously too subtle and stylish. As one can easily notice, the uneducated spectators, brain-washed by the blockbusters, are simply unable to grok it.Bogdan Ciocazan's struggle with the final good-bye to youth and ultimate step into maturity is convincing and full of feeling, and it really touches one's heart. What annoyed me for real were the reactions of the few baboons who left the theater, muttering about "hey, it ain't nuthin' but words 'ere, nuthin' does't 'appenin'!" Again, Tudor Lucaciu's cinematography is a perfect example of the new values reached by Romanian movie-making - but you need to have watched more than Nicolaescu and Dragan, shot by old-timers as Girardi, to fully appreciate a stylish photography. As such, it's strongly recommended to see it - but, of course, only if you know what cinema is about. If not, no loss - "Poveste de cartier" is waiting for you, with its light-drowning images and hifi Dolby manele!