141 A.D. Mission in Dacia

It looks like a terrible amateur movie, some acting consists solely or angrily staring away from the camera.. It's really a waste of 1,5 hours. The camera views were somewhat smartly chosen to prevent actually needing a bit more actors to make a decent battle scene.. I hated this.. and have seen better amateur shot movies!!

I was waiting for about 20 minutes into the movie expecting it to become a bit better and interesting but it only became worse!!

I usually love non-american movies because they take the freedom to more than regular shots and feel much more artistic than the regular American movies.. but this was really awful!

Something different than the usual bloody battle and unrealistic jumpy warriors. Some nice cinematography, with nice Romanian landscapes, very good costumes and the basic idea was offering. I like movies with more visual aproaches and not to be overspoken and explicited. Clearly a low-budget and amateur actors but for a low budget lI would say its fine. Sure a slow a pace for these days.

'141 AD Mission in Dacia' is a low-budget independent Romanian production about four Roman soldiers who are dispatched from a plague-ridden fort on the Dacian frontier to travel north into barbarian lands and recover a legendary magical healing herb.

It sure looks like this was a bunch of Roman re-enactors who thought "hey, we've got period clothing, weapons, armor, and props, so let's make a movie!" (which is the kind of production ethos that I totally support). The costumes and equipment on display are top-notch and historically-accurate -- it's always nice to see Romans wearing lorica hamata (that's 'chainmail' for you mundanes) -- and while the actors are clearly amateurs, the deficiencies in their performances are mostly obscured by the fact that they're speaking in Romanian, which, conveniently, operates as creditable stand-in for Latin.

Now, be warned, this is a micro-budget affair, and if that bothers you, then you have to go watch something else. Otherwise, I would only fault the film for being too long for the simple story that unfolds -- the movie has a *lot* of pure filler shots, and is about twice the length that it really should be. That said, this movie is still well-worth 88 minutes of your time.

As a Romanian and a history buff I was expecting a lot more from this movie. The trailer looked interesting, sadly the movie is not. Regarding the "fine acting", if you watch this movie (and waste one hour and a half of your life), you will see that actually there are only 2 older guys (look for grey hair) in the movie that are actually actors, the rest act like they are reading from a bloody prompter, I bet even children could act better. The plot is very slow paced, the characters are shallow built and you will watch their silent trek thru our beautiful Romanian scenery. Perhaps the only good thing they got right is the equipment and the costumes worn by the actors, these were provided by a private historical association.

If only the "acting" wasn't biological waste inside a dumpster fire.

Costumes and props: 12/10!!! Completely on point. Covers a multitude of the deficiencies elsewhere. This aspect of the film does a wonderful job drawing the viewer into the setting. Far better than the vast majority of huge budget blockbusters. Truly impressive!

Natural beauty of filming locations: 10/10. Honestly, this film is worth watching for the beauty alone.

Effective use of natural beauty: 8/10.

Script/dialogue: 6/10. It's a simple film following a simple story. They did a good job in keeping things clear and focused. My Romanian is VERY basic (watched partially as language practice), but I'm pretty confident the awkwardness I discerned in much of the dialogue would be felt by native speakers too. It had that film school project feel to it. Both pedantic yet stilted simultaneously. However I'm also sure this was not helped by the . . .

"Acting": -20/10. Possibly the worst I've ever seen in a film. And I've seen dozens of VERY low-budget movies. "Acting" might say it better than any other words can. But I'll try to capture its essence by damning with a bit of faint praise - the only nice thing I can say about the acting. Two of the actors were convincing as human beings. The rest might as well have been played by 1980's TV robots

It's a real shame they didn't/couldn't get a decent cast together. Good acting and a moderate rewrite to the script could have elevated this so much. I believe those two changes would have been enough to get this work traction in the indie/foreign categories at festivals. And that could have led to Romania getting some positive attention both generally and as a production location.

(I don't mean to offend anyone involved in this film. They put together a wonderful work clearly inspired by passion. But I can't ignore the abysmal acting. A better way to show their commitment to the project would have been to recognize their limits and work as hard as necessary to find actors who could adequately fill the roles.)

One last note: there are significant periods of silence. I loved this aspect of the film because I feel that it helps draw the audience into the setting and helps set the mood. But if you can't stand "slow" movies, then this probably isn't for you