Cel mai iubit dintre pamânteni

great expectations . and a modest result. not surprising. because the film is only large collection of words, images, brutality and clichés. Ștefan Iordache is the perfect Petrini but the viewer discovers it only as reader of the novel. Ștefan Bănică does the role of his career but that is one of rare good points of film. it is a travel without direction. Șerban Marinescu explores the skin of Marin Preda text but nothing more and that transforms the film in a package without content. only exercises to save the appearances. cold, dark, menacing, the film has a bitter message. but not purpose. and, unfortunately, it becomes one of many films after 1990 who presents only large slices of fury, frustrations, tries to kill the memories about recent past in a teenage style. nothing wrong. only sad when the film declares to be inspired by one of the most significant novel of XX century Romanian literature.

A great novel by one of Romania's greatest writers was adapted (read: inevitably simplified) after the fall of Communism to make a film about how tyranny destroys people and ideas. The critique of early Communism published in that novel during late Communism was a sensation back then in Romania, and who knows if Preda wasn't actually aiming at the regime as a whole.

The all-star cast carries the film, headed by the formidable Stefan Iordache (one of the greatest actors ever), although the script has some plot holes or poorly explained transitions, and some characters are less complex than in the book. But the issue with adaptations is that a novel could never be transferred on screen and still keep its level and amount of insightful exploration, so we don't have to compare adapted movies to their literary origins.

The film is heavy and dark due to its tragic and awful subject, and also to its cinematic tone. Still, the most horrid aspect of that story is the almost general filth of selfish compromise which, despite appearances of social success sometimes, has actually destroyed the souls of so many around the main character. Thus, in this respect, he may really be the most beloved man on earth (as in the film's ironic title), because he at least tried to remain true to himself. 'If there were no love, there would be nothing'... This famous quote about love adapted from St. Paul was another slap in the face of an atheist, absurd, egotistic and cruel regime.

The title of the movie is somehow paradoxical, since nothing that happens in the movie doesn't come to sustain the idea that might arise from the blunt reception of the title. The main issue that the movie tries to tackle is the issue of the scars that communism leaves on the lives of the ones enduring it, and mostly upon the lives of the learned. The movie comes to cast a diminishing and shameful image upon the level at which the communism used to function in Romania's years under the communist dictature. The level of ignorance that the communism had reached is revealed through the plot of the movie: a man's whole life is ruined for absolutely no reason what so ever. The movie is a masterpiece, as it brings to light the wheakness of the learned man in front of the brute force.

I thought the book by Marin Preda has a lot more substance compared to the movie: Preda explored a lot more the human side of Petrini, there was a lot more introspection and reflection upon the absurdity of the Stalinist times. In fact, most of the characters are more vivid in the book, while in the movie they are dull, dehumanized, ugly, just for the sake of being ugly. Sure, the point of the story is to highlight the tragic nature of the Stalinist repression, but Preda did it with panache and made sure it had all the philosophical underscores worth of a main character ... that was supposed to be a philosopher. The movie is empty of all that, it tries too hard to be provocative and it gets repetitive and tiring after a while. Bleak and dehumanizing.

After reading the book, I felt anger at the immense historic injustice that was allowed to happen (to so many people in the East). A motivating kind of anger. But I only depressed and disappointed at the end of the movie.

The screenplay is mediocre at best. Iordache's performance is linear, unexciting, boring. The scream in his last scene is plain embarrassing. How did that even make the cut? Morgenstern's character is completely off (not on account of Morgenstern's performance though, it's probably a directorial decision): Preda's Matilda was mysterious, attractive, purposeful; the one in the movie plays a marginal role and is plain repugnant. Even the usually masterful Rebengiuc's performance was just OK.

Dorel Visan was quite good as the infamous prison guard Dumnezeu.

The one performance I thought was spot on was Gheorghe Dinica's, with superb delivery of his lines, a spark in his eye, and a DeNiro-esque grin worth all the money. His character was probably the only believable one.

Waiting for a remake of this movie. The book deserves a decent adaptation.

This film adaptation is pure squalidness, a shameful alteration of the book. If he could watch this movie - Marin Preda one of the most successful romanian writers - will be enough to make him turn into his grave and die again. This film adaptation is the worst adaptation in the history of romanian cinema. The book itself is butchered by one untalented director, Șerban Marinescu and one mediocre actor, Mircea Albulescu who came up with the idea of inventing a film character and therewith a horrid scene (prison-rape-homosexual-scene, Albulescu and Iordache). For god's sake, why? Why must be a great book slaughtered in such manner by two uninspired men? Is this some kind of history retribution for the years that we have lived in the dark ages of communism? May be, but Marin Preda doesn't deserve that, that's for sure.