Opiniones de usuarios

The motto of the movie: "History is the first book of a nation in which we see the past, the present and the future". Nicolaescu said about its critics that they were "afraid to look in the face of history." He referred to Oglinda as "real history, without any form of restriction".

first time, I viewed this film in high school, like a break after few good hours of history lesson prepare. it will be a support for a right image about a confuse moment of Romanian past. in fact, it was only a demonstration of good performance of few actors. the work of Sergiu Nicolaescu is not bad. but, subjective constructions, theirs are only full patriotic products. in this case, desire is to create something different. but the Manichean nuances, the deep admiration for Ion Antonescu, the need to define portrait of a national hero is obvious. sure, an artistic film is not a documentary. but if is it its ambition ? to9 tell truth, entire truth, to analyze - in small pieces - roots, skin and fruits of an event ? so, the basic value of this interesting movie is to open discussion about a dark problem. beginning of debate, part of director vision about history, it is one of first steps on a long way.

I would rather call the movie The Royal Mutiny. The subject is vast, hot, burning topic. Of course, the events are very condensed and sketchy. It was mostly an anti royal propaganda as at the time the movie was launched in theaters King Michael I of Romania made attempts to gain popularity, and attempted to recover his throne - be reinstated as king. So, the movie is mostly centered on creating a negative image of King Michael. Communists also have a very sketchy presence, few minutes, and at least that prison guard is presented in all his violent, animalistic veracity. Stefan Radoff, himself a political prisoner, played well his part, but too mono-emotional (like someone suffering from chronic ulcer pain) thus his part is shallow - Radoff was capable of much deeper composition. King Michael is not well-played. As a young king he was much more arrogant, although after going into exile he was very polite, no trace of arrogance in his demeanor - I personally saw him in New York, back in 1999 I guess. The movie deserves to be watched, at least for the tantamount efforts made by Sergiu Nicolaescu too shoot it.

Nicolaescu made abysmally bad movies. Oglinda however is somehow better. Coposu was consulted for this movie. In general, the judgement of the characters is slightly neutral, with a dose of nationalism and admiration for Antonescu. It is peculiar how Hitler is shown as a calm,monotone partner of conversation rather than the flamboyant one that is usually depicted.

the good intentions are the basis of each Sergiu Nicolaescu films. in the case of Oglinda , the work about a delicate subject, the ambition to recreate a large historical fresco , the desire to use the film for support own ideas is not really easy or convincing. something missing. and this absence does entire film a kind of wax museum , with many statues, mechanical speeches, words as ash and confuse message. result - a demonstration who not defines reality but impose thesis. the savior of the film - Ștefan Radof as Iuliu Maniu. he has the desire and courage and science to do a realistic character, to give a coherent message and to define the atmosphere of period in its key elements. Adrian Vîlcu as the king Mihai is not in the most favorable position. because his character is to far by the original model in attitude and decisions. and because Nicolaescu desire is too Utopian - to create a gallery of heroes.