Mihai Viteazul

The historical facts:

Mihai Viteazul was a Romanian ruler that reigned in the small principality of Wallachia between 1593 and 1601. In 1600 he bedazzled Europe by uniting Wallachia with Romanian-speaking Moldavia and Transylvania, for which he is hailed as Romania's national hero. It all sounds ferry tale-ish, but it isn't. Mihai was too ahead of his time. He had the guts to go to war with three empires (Turkish, Austrian and Polish) and found his death when he trusted one of them. But his accomplishment forged a landmark in Romanian history.

The movie:

First, it's the battle scenes. They don't come bigger than these and nobody can't take that away from Nicolaescu. He is THE master! Back then, when a movie of such girth was made in Romania, everybody got into it, from the head of state to the Army, so sky was the limit.

I think the grandest scene of the movie is the one depicting the Turkish army in the marshes of Calugareni on August 13 1595. On that day, the all-mighty Ottoman Empire, in its heyday at that time, poured 120,000 soldiers into Wallachia to conquer it. Imagine filming that! Nicoleascu shot from a helicopter. It started from the back, with the scattered extras forming the rear guard and gradually progressing towards the front. The scale is huge and mind you, he actually used that amount of people, not the CGI tricks of "Gladiator". Just think of the props and coordinating those guys on a hot day of summer in the middle of a swamp.

On the other side, as in every portrayal of a legendary figure, the hero hasn't the least of flaws: he is always brave (actually Mihai Viteazul means Michael the Brave), honest, nothing gets by him, always gives a moralizing speech before the battle yada yada. Man, didn't guys like Mihai or William Wallace ever had the slightest trace of egocentrism ? In that respect, there is another movie about Mihai Viteazul, called Buzduganul Cu Trei Peceti (The Mace With Three Seals), in which the hero actually has feelings, flaws and fears. Of course, it's directed by someone else.

At times, the acting is childish, especially in face-offs, like badly rehearsed lines of a play. When it involves a third party, e.g. a soldier telling Mihai that one of his subordinates has just arrived, I can't help myself laughing at the poor timing of the actors. Oh, and it's always the same thing with Romanian scripts: no matter whether the character is a farmer or the Austrian Emperor, he always uses the same old precious and dusty lingo, something like saying "It gives me great pleasure to gaze upon your look" instead of plain "Oh I'm so happy to see you".

All in all, I think 'Mihai Viteazul' is a good movie by most standards. It's the Romanian movie most seen outside its borders and a must-see within.

Amza Pellea is Mihai Viteazul! Very seldom that you see an actor transforming itself so completely to bring a strong historical character to life. I can only feel bad for the rest of the world for not being able to see this movie. Sergiu Nicolaescu, the movie director proves that he belongs with the best of the historical genre. Time will prove me right, somebody, someday, will bring this diamond in the rough to a full shine. It is disturbing to see the people in charge of promoting Romania's cultural image can't seem to know how to promote some of it's best assets.

Yeah, that's it! The best Romanian film ever. Sounds stately, I know, but nobody has topped this film yet. Sergiu himself said that this is "the most IMPORTANT Romanian film", because it serves in a beautiful way the main cause of our people over the centuries - the unification of the 3 ancient Romanian-speaking countries: Transylvania, Moldavia and Tara Romaneasca. This epic that could easily enter the league of such blockbusters as "Braveheart" or "Kingdom of Heaven", depicts the final years of the XVI century, when Mihai Viteazul achieved the longed unification that, unfortunately, lasted less than a year. In fact, I'm talking about the second part of "Mihai Viteazu", here. Everything said is applied to the first part, as well. It's useless to glorify this film in a short comment - you have to watch it and make your own impressions. If you are not Romanian, you won't feel the same as we, all the Romanian movie goers did, but anyway, you can enjoy a truly good piece of historical cinema.

NOTIFICATIONS : the central figure is incarnated by Amza Pellea, a monumental actor at his best. Stay focused on Mihai's mother, approaching the final scene of the film, portrayed by Olga Tudorache in a brief, but wonderful screen appearance.

I like this movie because I´m a history buff and secondly my ancestors come from Transylvania. The characters in this movie are brilliant- Amza Pellea even matches the original Michael Petrascu. The only bad thing in the movie: the guns (Russian Mosin Nagant-Rifles) are not accurate. But!!! The are turned with new stocks and barrel bands into fine, ancient muskets. The marching scenes with thousands of Turcs and Romanians are excellent! Shame is, the movie is not very often seen on TV or at a blockbuster.

The question in title is maybe a critical question when commenting on a historical movie. The director especially, sometimes wants to "tell" too much of his peoples history and the movie began too quickly. But I think this movie succeeded to mantain this frail equilibrium between historical information and artistic part.

Of course, comparing with Braveheart this movie isn't so realistic in images, has no such violence, but very real, battles, but it was filmed 27 years before and of course with some censorship involved. But it still is one of the great Romanian movies ever realised. The major critique, in my humble opinion, is a great king is a man too, and this aspect wasn't explored enough in this movie.

Maybe the myth was more important than the reality? But the performances were simply excellent and this critique can be minimised.