Drei Kilometer bis zum Ende der Welt

The film revolves around a simple plot but intricately weaves each element to create a compelling story set in rural Romania, specifically in the beautiful Danube Delta.

However, the soothing and picturesque landscapes conceal ugly human stories. One character humorously criticizes his fellow countrymen, saying it's a beautiful country but with not-so-nice people.

The film explores rural Romania's general attitude towards homosexuality, interweaving themes of corruption, superficiality, over-religiousness, and power abuse. These elements paint an authentic and shockingly real image of Romanian society in the 2020s (and in Europe!).

The filmmaking is masterful and never excessive. One of the most appreciable aspects of this film is the director's ability to create a powerful work without resorting to over-the-top methods, grandiloquent camera angles, or epic music.

The film is exactly what it needs to be, contrasting with many recent cinematic works that tend to overdo it to impress. It's a reminder that, in the end, the simplest meals, made with the best ingredients, are often the best. Just as the best chefs are identified by their ability to create exceptional basic dishes, Emanuel Parvu achieves wonders with a simple yet powerful film.

"3 Kilometers Until the End of the World" is a must-see for those who crave good cinema as much as they crave a good book on a Sunday afternoon.

I want to start by saying that I found the ending to be dissapointing, but that this movie isn't about the ending. This movie is about showing a reality some people are living, it's about the struggles of a gay teenager, living in rural romania, in a village with a very religious and traditionalistic population.

It shows the way most people in rural romania think about homosexuality, it shows how lgbtqia+ individuals are treated, and it shows how institutions discriminate against minorities, specifically the lgbtqia+.

Adi is a relatable character, he's an ordinary teenager, he isn't portrayed stereotypically, he's hiding who he is from his family knowing he won't receive acceptance, but after his parents find out, things go from bad to worse. And this isn't just a character, this is a glimpse into what some teenagers in romania experienced. The whole plot of this movie is centred on that, on what does the lgbtqia+ youth looks like in conservative, religious, homophobic families.

I was completely speechless when the movie ended. Throughout the entire film, I felt as if I were in that small Romanian village. The movie's realistic approach is truly extraordinary. The storytelling is impressive-you start watching and simply cannot stop until the very end. You don't even realize how quickly time passes.

The story follows the harsh struggles of a young boy in his village due to his sexual orientation. The film perfectly depicts how everything-even his own family-turns against him once his sexuality becomes known. A gay boy is forced to stand alone against the silent brutality of the heterosexual status quo.

The direction, screenplay, and acting are all marvelous. The director has no reason to be modest-he has created a masterpiece.

It's extremely difficult to put into words what I experienced when watching this film and I found it hard to breathe for a while when I left the theatre.

Unfortunately, we know about various versions of domestic violence, and it's hard to rank which type is worse than another, but when parents are violent with their children, physically, psychologically, verbally, it causes tremendous damage that can't be undone.

The film depicts beautiful rural Romania and horrible ignorance and cruelty of the people who live there and really believe they know things when they don't. The most powerful scenes, in my opinion, are those of performed exorcism and a conversation between the social worker and the priest.

Hopefully, by watching this one, somebody will learn to be more honest, open, sensitive and compassionate.

The story develops slowly but steadily, though it may be hard to follow without first reading the synopsis, especially since it's not immediately clear that the central event is a gay bashing. Remarkably, victim Adi stays mostly out of the dialogs. We merely see him bruised but hear nothing of his perspective on the assault, while everyone around him is busy arranging things he did not ask for. Even worse, all of the running time we see Adi a lot but don't hear much from him, despite the fact he is the main protagonist and the ultimate cause.

It takes nearly one hour before the focus moves to Adi, asking him what he wants. He is "suffocated" as per a text message on his phone, wants out of the village and move to the city. After that, the other protagonists take over the story, again, and Adi disappears again out of the dialog. We see him physically present, merely being a subject of the proceedings, rather than the main protagonist. Everyone around is busy downplaying the incident, most of them especially attempting to keep it out of official records.

Adi's father can be relieved of his debt as soon as they withdraw the complaint, as offered by the father of the two assailants, promising that his two sons will be "talked to". And to wrap it all up, the police will see to it that the paperwork disappears. Things get a bit complicated when it is revealed that Adi's parents tied him up to let the priest speak a prayer on him. In his defense, the priest explains later that it certainly was not intended as an exorcism (the bishop needs to approve that), but more like a loving mother holding her child for a measle shot by a doctor who insists that is for the good of the child.

Suddenly a woman from child protection appears and takes over the proceedings, out of the hands of the police. She ignores the two fathers who were on the verge of dropping the complaint and nullify the debt in return. She is persistent, not at all satisfied with what priest and parents state about Adi being tied up for his own good. She orders everyone around and wants to know all the details. It seems to end the covering-up that was as good as agreed before. However, someone has called her boss, and she is assigned to another case. She must drop this case and leave it to a colleague.

Without making much noise, Adi packs his stuff and leaves by boat. We watch his back while sitting in the boat when the final credits appear.

All in all, I was kept interested from start to finish in the proceedings, watching everyone's efforts that could divert the case, or could end in a cover-up "for the benefit of the village", or wind up completely different. Given the setting in a former east-bloc country, I expected the story to reinforce common stereotypes, primarily having incompetence or corruption in mind. But the opposite happened. No one here seemed corrupt or dishonest in their approach, rather being uneasy with the situation without clear precedence in this rural environment. One minus point: What Adi thinks or feels is kept under the surface. Notwithstanding that Adi is obviously the main protagonist, he has suspiciously little lines in the screenplay.