Boss

It's a good movie that is based on a real heist, as the makers of the movie say. The film follows the story of Bogdan, an ambulance driver, and indirectly the problems in the Romanian health system .The protagonist, Bogdan, manages to convey some emotions to you. The film along the way will try to have 2-3 moments with a little humor and some in the cinema hall smiled or remained indifferent . The characters (secondary or episodic) and the protagonist played well and each changed the "direction" of the action/film . In the end, the movie is a good one, with good parts but also with bad parts, but it was worth a chance .

Everybody talks like they had a stroke and their brain reverted to being 14 and listening to My Chemical Romance. From the soundtrack to the pace and the neon cinematography you can tell that the director tries to rip off NWR, so I guess he got done with the Coen brothers now.

Not a lot happens, but they really try to stretch the running time by having characters spew cringe purple prose and two words a minute. You can also smell the disgusting air of superiority with which the director paints a "social tapestry" of all the small people, people that speak with broken grammar, except when they burst into spontaneous Bukowski monologues.

Sucked balls.

How to review a movie so bad that you start wondering if the director has any friends? Didn't they watch it? Didn't they tell him it is not a neo-noir, it is just a very bad and boring artsy movie. I gave it a 6 stars for the sake of "first try" - Romania's pitiful first neo-noir movie. However, we may still compare it with a psychological thriller that gives the anxiety and anguish that a neo-noir movie should make you feel, Sergiu Nicolaescu's Ciuleandra. That was a well played, well directed and well written movie.

Boss gives a painful and incredibly unrealistical story, without a narrative, without a competent plot twist and with a nonsense ending.

This could have been an interesting 20 minutes short film.

Judging by the story , the writer of this movie knew exactly what he wanted as an opening act.

Wrote the middle of the movie in 2 sentences and had no idea what to do for the ending.

The intro of the movie (the heist) wich is mentioned in the description , gets completely skipped . The movie starts some days after and you don't realize that until you get about 30-40 minutes in.

It seems like they tried their hardest to reach the 2 hour mark. When the scenery changes you must watch the character slowly get out of his has, slowly close the door. Slowly walks up to the house door, slowly opens its. Slowly enters , slowly closes the door, slowly locks the door, and another 5 seconds of him walking until he meets someone and they start a dialogue.

But it doesn't stop here.

The main character frowns at everybody . Whenever there is a dialogue he must first frown at somebody , the camera shows a close up for like 5 to 10 seconds . Then the character speaks .

After the line, the character that must respond , usually takes 5 seconds of looking , just looking, and then it delivers its like. Back to the main character who must ansewer , he frowns again for 10 seconds and then spouts some nonsense. And this is how dialogue works through the movie.

The movie has 2 hours and 10 minutes.

Only 20 minutes something actually happens. The rest is nonsense .

By far one of the worst movies I ever saw.

Judging by the title and the fact that I was unfamiliar with the actor on the movie cover, I initially thought this was either a Hollywood or a British movie. However, the first scene instantly made me realize it's a Romanian film. Despite being quite disappointed about what I had missed in the past years, this movie truly stood out. The acting was very good, with flawless performances from every actor. I'm glad I watched it; I was immersed until the end without taking a break. The movie also reminded me somewhat of Guy Ritchie's style... there's always that 'lock, stock and two smoking barrels' element behind the curtain.