Opiniones de usuarios

The viewer needs to understand that this is a Romanian film for Romanians. You'll catch all the inside jokes of the film if you've been there. The point of the film is that indeed the revolution was different for everyone . Even in late 1990 when I was there, the people were still scared of the Securitate, or secret police. Even during the one year anniversary of the revolution, it took courage to go and march, much less right after Ceausescu fled. The emphasis on 12;08, the reaction of the students when the teacher asked why they were so interested in the French Revolution, the interviewers emphasis on the time of the protests, and the accusatory views of the callers on the TV program, let alone the long shots of the bare dilapidated concrete buildings, all lend to the whole idea of the plot. Not only does one ask did the revolution occur in this one town, but did it occur at all? After all, Ceausescu's right hand people took over after he was gone. The people themselves ask if anything has changed.

The film can seem long and tedious to some viewers, but if you've lived in Romania, you get it.

There is really a lot to this movie. Even thought there is almost no evident action, except for the long television broadcast of an obnoxious talk show - even some apparently loose ends or inconclusive stories - the fact is you can ponder on days on this beautiful work of art. Acting is superb in most cases, and images of dusk and dawn in the freezing Romanian winter - so gray, so hard - are pure poetry.

The reference to dogma, among other keen jokes, talks about a clever story writer, and a cultured film maker.

I'm really glad I got to see this movie as a part of the "Eurocine" European movie showcase that visits us these days (april 08) in Bogota and the rest of Colombia. We get a chance to see the best of Romania, a country apparently so far away, yet so close to our hearts.

I went to this film for the simple reason that I had never seen a film from Romania even though I remember that Revolution well.

Honestly, I didn't really like the film that much.

However, I saw it with a packed audience and they were obviously enjoying it and laughing a lot! So, I can't really pan the film since it's clear that others resonate with it.

POSITIVES: I did like the shots of Romania in the winter -- I really felt like I experienced the place and that's speaks very well for any movie. I also thought the actors did did a darn good and convincing job. The subtitles were well done, which isn't always the case. I did laugh a few times during the TV studio scene.

NEGATIVES: He takes WAY TOO MUCH TIME to build up to the studio scene and then he spends WAY TOO MUCH TIME on the studio scene! It needed either a few more plot elements or more character development of the supporting cast so I could care about them more. The only one I really connected with was the Chinese guy -- probably because there was some identifiable back story there.

But, obviously, that's just me. You might really like this film -- obviously others do.

----

PS: Sometimes I don't know how good a movie is until a week or two after I see it -- if I'm still thinking about the movie, then that's a good sign. Well, this movie passes that test. I'm still thinking about how funny the two guests were on the TV show. The fact is, if I laugh at all in a movie, it's better than most comedies!

December 22, 1989. What exactly happened that day in Bucharest? We know Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu left the country bringing about the end of Communism, but, was there ever really a revolt?

This might be a touchy subject for a movie to some Romanians. I mean, after all, the movie is asking questions and challenging the country's history. And there are people who are still alive who can tell us what happened. But, Corneliu Porumboiu's feature lenght directorial debut shouldn't cause any controversy.

"12:08 East of Bucharest" is many things. First of all it is one of the best Romanian movies I have ever seen. It is also one of the best films I've seen in 2006. It is one of the funniest movies I've seen this year and was the best movie I saw at the Chicago International Film Festival this year. But the one thing it is not is a controversial film.

What makes a film just as this so good is the way it weaves a serious subject with humor. Who would have thought a subject about the Romanian revolution could have been so funny? Romanians, and really most of us Eastern Europeans (I'm Hungarian) have a very sarcastic sense of humor. And that humor is shown in spades in this film. In fact the audience I saw this film with (and it was a packed house) were also in fits of laughter. I started laughing at myself for laughing. I was even trying to hold it in so I wouldn't disturb the people sitting next to me.

The film mostly follows three men, Virgil Jderescu (Teodor Corban) the host of a TV show that is going to discuss the 16th anniversary of that fateful day and his two guest, both of whom claim to have been there, Mr. Manescu (Ion Sapdaru) and Mr. Piscoci (Mircea Andeescu).

The first half of the movie introduces these characters to us as each gets ready for the show. The second half of the movie is the TV show itself.

I've complained lately that one of the reason Romanian films don't get distributed in America is because Romanians are going away from what they know. The country has tried so hard to maintain the image it is not behind with the times and wants to impress Western society. This is a big mistake. Don't care what Western audiences will think. Just make films about your country and deal with subjects that are meaningful to you (by "you" I mean Romanian directors). Earlier this year we saw "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu". There was a film that dealt with a "Romanian" problem and people all over the world not only enjoyed it, but, were able to relate to it. This, I believe, would happen more often if Romanian directors followed their hearts instead of some demographic.

"12:08 East of Bucharest" is dealing with a major part of Romanian history and the outcome is a brilliant film that all audience members should be able to relate to. The humor also helps the film by keeping the audience engaged.

I hope we see more films like this. And I also hope director Corneliu Porumboiu keeps making films and hopefully they will be shown in America.

p.s. I also wanted to quickly point out a similarity I found between this film and Bernardo Bertolucci's "The Spider's Stratagem". Both films question a time in history. Are there such things as heroes? Does fact ever get mixed with fiction? How can we separate the two? When is a lie more important than the truth, if ever? These are important things to think about.

The ouster of Ceausescu from Romania certainly isn't exactly the comedy event of the century, but those wacky Romanians, who just nailed black comedy last year with the black 'The Death of Mr. Lazerescu' set to it to make this film, all about a call in TV show about the revolution, as hilarious as possible. First of all, please just ignore the long, ridiculous, not needed preamble to the show itself, where the participants perform in mundane life. This was surprisingly dull, boring and totally not needed, No, what this film will be remembered for is the call-in show tour-de-farce that the three actors do. One of them is a host, the other 2 are the 'guests' that have rather dubious memories of the revolution. One of them sets himself out to be a ridiculous hero of the event, only to be shot down (or at least attempted to, he just challenges everyone at every turn) and the other is quite comfortable not saying anything, just sitting quietly making paper animals.. This is all perfectly ridiculous. I could have watched a full hour and a half of this nonsense rather then the ridiculously slow preamble before it.

A wonderfully quirky movie, rooted in the deep inner conflict experienced by many people who have to re-conciliate their Communist-era mentalities with(in) a post-Communist society.

Most Romanians (and East-Europeans alike) will understand it very well, since many clichés are present here: the vain, non-professional media, the desolate streets, the people without perspectives or hope, the arrogant new-rich former secret service people, the successful immigrants coming from even lesser parts of the world... all grafted on top of a nagging general feeling of guilt and shame, emanating from the sheep-like population.

Let's face it: the real (and only) Romanian heroes of 1989, "before 12:08 on December 22", were the several thousands of mostly young folks who defied the authorities in the streets of Timisoara and Bucharest... the rest of the country just watched and waited, much like the viewers of Jderescu's "talk show".

PS. - To the pretentious prig from Denmark: I think you were supposed to post your "art cinema" commentary under the latest creation of your much-ballyhooed co-national, Lars von Trier, "Direktøren for det hele" (2006). Your comments fit that film to a "T"!!!

If you have absolutely no idea what Porumboiu's minimalistic film is all about, and no respect or understanding for another culture, I think you should refrain from posting. Sadly, your inane text was at some point featured on the main page for this Romanian film, even though you - thankfully! - represent an insignificant minority of malcontents.

A very good piece of work that seems slow when you watch it and is very effective in the end. It makes you sad and hopeful at the same time. After having gone through revolution the actors are sucked up by their daily struggles about money, love and dignity. The pictures are dark and don't make you want to go to Romania in December. Nevertheless it is a must for everybody who is interested in understanding Romanian culture. But first of all it is a contribution to the national discourse in Romania itself. I would like to see more of the process of Romanian self-reflection. Unfortunately Romanian films are hardly available on DVD outside of the country.

I really don't get the critical response to this film.

It's awfully slow for its first half--which flails at character development--and only gains momentum in the long scene in the television studio which, as far as I can tell, is the film's sole reason for existence. And even then, the television study stuff is not especially funny nor profound. A guy gets drunk on air; everyone's confused about what happened (Hilarious? Maybe if you think Woody Allen later films are a laugh riot.) Though it has it's moments, the TV scene has the bloated, predictable feel of a Saturday Night Live sketch.

And please don't try to tell there's some meaningful at the heart of this movie. Maybe if you find Hallmark Cards meaningful. I don't. I got its rather obvious points about subjectivity in experience and the gray areas in revolution (who couldn't?) but it doesn't really go anywhere from that.

That being said, 12:08 Bucharest is not a terrible movie, but not the great one critics are proclaiming it to be. It fits into the Art Film mold without being able to fit the definition of what any good film should be: surprising, challenging, and alive.

It is a nice movie to watch that discuss the idea of the 1989 revolution in a small town east of Bucharest. In a local TV station, a debate is initiated. The movie has potential that was not realized in practice. For example, it has a bit of humor that is nice. There are good actors but the script lacks any depth. You get hints that you have to analyze to understand the meaning of the movie. I did it only after the movie ended. The movie could have develop more the ideas that it presents, but finally it is disappointing. It lacks a good script. It ends suddenly leaving you with a sense the movie missed its goal. I heard other opinions that were much more negative.

Strong film about social realities of deep Romania. Revolution as myth and self legitimation, lives like gray shadows, society as symbol of failure. Don quixotic gestures and illusions like warm refuges , strange games and paper heroic values, disillusions and questions without answers.

An old man, an alcoholic teacher, a local television boss and a Chinese. Memories about December 1989 as occasions to present the social mud,hate and fear beyond the hideous masks, the slices of unhappiness and sterile search of life's sense. A sad show about horrible reality, nooks of desperation and traumatic dreams.

In fact, reflection of gray tones. Bovaric isle in a far East.

This is the first movie by Porumboiu. It is sarcastic, witty, and humane. The revolution is the backdrop for the old theme that nothing changes much after all. The drab lives of the people remain drab, the Securitate bully is now the rich bully and the recollection of the revolution in the town turns out to be underwhelming. What redeems these sad truths are small acts of kindness and, of course, humor. I took three points off because the movie could have been put together better. The first half does not connect well with the TV interview. A better sequence would have been to start with the interview and put some scenes in the middle, back and forth. Also the script did not exploit fully the possibilities of what could have been a drama as well as a satire. I hope Mr. Porumboiu keeps at it.

12:08 EAST OF BUCHAREST deserves all the accolades awarded it at Cannes, and Corneliu Porumboiu's amusing, entertaining and important film is a great window into the questions of the "Romanian Revolution". The opening shots of a Romanian city with its lights blinking off and the photography of the concrete buildings that house Romanian families created a perfect background to launch the film and story and the question of "whether there was, or was not a Romanian Revolution".

The characters in the film were both colorful and rich, and the humor displayed was tremendous. When I look at the lives of Romanians in contrast to the vast riches of America, and I see men and women going about their lives in Bucharest and other Romanian towns, the question of the revolution almost takes a back seat to the citizens attempting to scratch out a living and survive. What Mr. Porumboiu gave to the world was a rich story, interesting characters and presenting the question of a revolution. That answer, must be seen in this wonderful film. I look forward to more Romanian films and other works from the very talented Corneliu Porumboiu.

That's how I can describe this movie. I liked so much and it was so funny. Good characters, great story, a very deep message, and of course good humor!

The story line, through simple, make you still wonder about the movie even after it is over. The movie makes a 360 degrees circle and returns in the same place it started, leaving all of the questions unanswered and yet leaving us with a sense of serenity.

It is a piece of history and an insight into the Romanian current reality. But most of all, it is beautiful satire. Very funny!

I really recommend this movie!

The summary translated the sub-title phrase as "I don't like your answering machine." Such was the problem with the translation and a fluent speaker in the room was a terrific help for me. What the actor had actually said was "I crap on your robot." Was It, Or Was It Not is the English title of this film, a mockumentary about the fall of communism in Romania. The story centers around a drunk who wastes his entire paycheck on booze, and every payday gets shaken down by his sponsors and returns home to his nagging wife. The film builds up slowly to a talk show which portrays the masses as being ineffective to stop anything the nomeklatura want. As a result of such unheroic conformity, nobody did anything to get rid of communism, even the execution of the brutal Ceaucescu was mere amusement shown on the boob tube.

Such is the hard lesson of government overthrow, and Americans need to take notice.

1st watched 1/23/2010 – 7 out of 10 (Dir-Corneliu Poromboiu): Funny and meaningful Romanian film about a few people in a small town east of Bucharest trying to recall the events of December 22nd, 1989 – the day Romania won a revolution against Communist control. This movie is wonderful more because of what it doesn't say then for what it does. A local talk show host invites some local folks to join him to talk about this day and whether there was a physical revolution in their town before the government was ousted at 12:08 PM. The movie starts as he's trying to gather his guests and we're introduced to the three principal characters in the story. One, a drunk school teacher – another an old man who occasionally dresses as Santa Claus for the local kids and of course, the host. They arrive together and the debate begins between the teacher, the callers and the host about his presence in the town square before the allotted time when the takeover occurred. He insists he was involved in a local revolution but all the callers debunk his recallings. The old man, doesn't have much to give, he's just there to express there was a gathering after 12:08 PM. The host, believes in the significance of this local revolution, but all in all there isn't much of one, really. It happened and that's really all that matters and there was change --- hence this is the point of the film. A quietly funny gem that let's you have time to think as well while viewing --which is definitely rare (especially in American films).

Have we been so stifled by Hollywood formulas and actors studio mannerisms that we need throw gold stars and superlatives at anything that does not retread plot devices or boast a familiar narrative contrivance? Is that the measure of good cinema? Anything that isn't a bloated American production? 12:08 East of Bucharest won the Camera D'Or in Cannes for what must the most self-indulgent, esoteric, longwinded one-note joke ever put on art film. We have needlessly long- shots, completely disjointed from the movie's rhyme-scheme, which does nothing but draw attention to the fact that you're watching a film that desperately craves acknowledgement for its bureaucratic pace and 'artistic' subtleties. But nothing congeals and the film's 2-3 minute inert shots and circular banter is reduced to mere gimmicks instead of underscoring (almost non-existent) themes of a stagnated post-communist economy and wishful democratic nostalgia.

This has all the hallmarks of a disastrous inside joke; though the characters are supposed to be quirky, lovable oafs they're never actually written to be anything other than 2-dimensional pastiches each equipped with one tragic flaw and completely irrelevant emotional baggage.

In spite of a few truly charming scenes during a live broadcast gone awry, this is trite, uneventful (in every way) and surprisingly pretentious art-house filler.