Recensioni degli utenti

And it ain't Transformers 2 :D.

For me the best thing is how a novel written by a Russian philosopher that died in the year 1900 remains relevant today. Two world wars and millions of dead later it's like listening to 21. Century liberals and conservatives argue.

Hey, but we have Facebook and Arby's!

That's not entertainment. Which forbids it to be appreciated by any viewer who would want to be carried along by a plot, or a tension, or simply character acting. None of this in here. So let's forget about that audience.

This is a serious movie. So serious that it is totally devoid of any second degree, It's a movie proud of being.pedagogic. Therefore there is no humor, no provocation, nothing going over the top. So this is not for those who like their brains teased, or their knowledge challenged, or their cognitive bias toyed with. Let's forget about that audience.

This is too short a movie, running only at 200 minutes, it needed a few hours more, like 8 or 10. The movie endeavors to explore interlacing of society and philosophy at a key time in European history, a fascinating subject, unfortunately it is like a poorly introduced summary for students who have failed to do the proper reading before an exam. There is not enough background to provide learning for those new to the subject, and there is nothing new to be discovered for those already versed in it. So let's forget about this and that audience.

In summary, this a nicely shot, well written, intelligent and ambitious movie, which failed to choose which viewers to address. Too bad.

With impeccable framing of each scene, both in terms of the material environment and the framing -classically precise- by the camera, Puiu dares to film a dense but rewarding theological conversation informed by philosophy, history and the subtleties of upper class politesse. The discussion itself is drawn from the work of Vladimir Solovyev -who in Russia and Eastern Europe is as central a thinker as Kierkegaard in the Wést-, often remembered as the friend of Dostoyevsky and the noble campaigner against antisemitism in Russia. Laced with irony (Puiu's), it offers a meditation on the nature of good and evil. But this is not merely a conversation filmed. The filmic construction of each scene through camera perspective, the bodily language of the actors, the choreography of servants and aristocrats, all combine to produce a deeply moving fresco of an instant in time, a lull before the impending storm which would sweep the characters and their world away. Sublime.

A tedious and ultimately pointless showing.

Put simply, it's at best an audiobook with cinematography tacked onto it with sticky putty.

The philosophical discussions that serve as the film's core, while inherently valuable, are ultimately superficial. The paradox, then, is that if the content of the film is philosophy, the ones interested in the topic have already ruminated these concepts during their first year at various universities, while the ones interested in the continuous furthering of cinema have been hoodwinked into wasting their time.

I start by saying that it is indeed a long and pretentious film with the audience, which requires patience and attention.

I can say that in the first half hour of the movie is the big test of patience for what follows, but patience that deserves every minute. Malmkrog is a cinematic success with a special experimental air vibe underneath a classic presentation of great visual value. The only negative point, if I may call it negative, is that it is not for everyone, not for any level of thinking, therefore not for any age, there is a good chance that you will not understand some of the discussions in the dialogue if you are too young. The essence of Cristi Puiu's films lies in the dialogue and interaction between the characters in relation to the environment. The atmosphere in the film is unique and captivating. if you are not interested in topics such as religion, Christianity and history, chances are you will find it boring. But if you are passionate, prepare to enter into a dizzying dialogue about God, truth, subjectivity, objectivity. The film touches on themes relevant to the world we live in and to which we are heading. It's that kind of movie that's good to see several times. For lovers of the art of cinema, it deserves all the patience and all the attention.

Excellent cinematography, superb editing and the actors play great. A cinematic creation that begins in a special way and ends in equal measure. Malmkrog will surprise you in a way like human nature.

I think this is his best movie creation so far! 9/10

The story lost me in the first 20 minutes. Directing was also as bad as the acting

If you wanna go through Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment in less than 4 hours, this is your chance.

Well, discussing 3 and a half hour about some elevate filpsophical topics one can do also without going in cinema. Who really interested, can also read some books. But going to cinema somebody expects a particular development, some dynamism to underline or strike through some of the ideas. I won't spoil too much when I am saying- there is nothing here. Not even the tone of the voices being raised, or at least a damn Moskito in the room. Nothing. It is the most horrible 3 and half hours spent in cinema.

People who write about "wasting of time" simply don't have appropriate optics just yet. My advice - stop watching Transformers.

It is really difficult to call Malmkrog a film. This wants to be the epitome of Romanian "cinema" that started decades ago the obnoxious trend of long wide shots of people standing at the kitchen table doing nothing, excruciating never-ending dialogues about nothing, 15-minute hand-held shots of people walking on the street, discount photography and barely no sound design, not to even mention the sub-par audio engineering, mixing and recording. It's hard to understand why anyone would finance something like this, except for Cristi Puiu's name, a director that to this day is better known for his commercials than his movies. And those commercials were created and written by an ad agency, go figure!

Anyway, Malmkrog can be better catalogued as a cinematic talk-show rather than cinema. It contains the fabulations (or ranting if you will) of a drunkard with split personality that keeps rambling on and on about... basically about nothing. This should've remained in its book form or at least made as an audiobook. But definitely NOT a movie!

Believe it or not, despite the rumors of this being a tedious and boring film, I found it engaging and interesting. During the last decade, Puiu's films explored in depth the source text of this film, "Three Dialogues" by the russian Belle Epoque theologist and philosopher Solov'ëv. This film feels like the coronation of this study, the ultimate version (following the modernisations that Puiu directed previously). The concept was to figure out if a philosophical dialogue can become a film. I believe that Puiu succeeded, mainly thanks to his personal directorial choices. While the philosophical themes (which range in a too wide spectrum to be listed, though mostly concerned with ethics and moral philosophy) are depicted interestingly by themselves, it's interesting to see what Puiu adds in his mise-en-scène: not only the location is changed, but interestingly the language: curiously, romanian is almost never heard, as the five aristocrats that debate speak in french, whereas the servants speak hungarian or german, the minoritary languages of transilvania, where the titular manor house is placed. Moreover, sound design and noises, the background movements of characters constitute a completely new parallel story, and contribute to create a sense of reality. Despite apparences this Puiu film is perfectly in league with his hyperralism estabilished in The Death of Mr Lazarescu or Aurora, as it is an aim to represent a real aristocratic setting from the late XIXth century. Let us not forget, for example, that french was the language that eastern european aristocracy chise to speak in situations such as the one depicted in the film. As for the way the action (or better, the inaction) is shown, there's frequent long takes, but despite expectations they are not tedious or "sleep-inducing": either the camera or the characters keep moving around, preserving dynamicity to the screen. While the original text is made of of three dialogues, Puiu chose to divide the film in six chapters, each dedicated to one of the five aristocrats involved in the conversations, plus one involving the butler, a silent servant that keeps appearing in the background of the film. This film easily became instantly one of my favourite romanian films and one of my favourite films from last year.

Really wish I'd listened to the reviews, before wasting my time watching this overbearing, overimposed and super pretentious piece about, well, nothing really. Fairly sure a monkey would have done a better job at directing this.

Probably the best way to discover or re-discover phylosophical rivalities in european history. Yes, it is slow, there is no action. But a great way to discover european history .

Well, a good waste of time of 3 and a half hour about nothing at all. This guy promotes values such as not wearing a mask. By no means you should not watch this title, since it says nothing. Better sleep for 3 hours instead of watching it. Created with nothing else in mind, but money and profit. Directing was also as bad as the acting.

After the first 15-20 I started to get bored and I waited for something to happen...but sadly this movie is just a waste of time. Some talk here, some talk there but in the end..you are left with nothing. No idea why it was included on the TIFF festival...

But the rest will enjoy :)

Bunuel, Zurlini and Bergman in 2020 movie

what? :)

I tried to see it, but couldn't complete it. How to expect someone to sit more than 3 hours to view this garbage.

Watch anything else, its nicer.

It is pure beauty. A really nice movie with a good director and fine actors.

If it were edited down to, say 30 seconds, then at least you would have wasted only 30 seconds of your life.

Malmkrog is pure beauty and it's exceptional in every way: directing, acting, cinematography, sound, set design, costumes, location. All you have to do is sit in your seat without any prejudice, any expectations, any bias. If you keep your mind and heart open, you will be amazed and touched that a group of late 19th-century aristocrats could discuss such current issues for our century. You will be amazed and touched that they do not understand their times either. And you will mourn their fate, just as our descendants will mourn ours.

If you don't like it the first time, don't rush, give it another try. Whenever a movie comes out of the "amusement park" and confronts us with serious questions about ourselves and the world we live in, we tend to put it aside and think the movie is to blame. It's either too opaque, or too long, or just a bad movie. It is easier for us to believe that it is the author's fault, not ours. But who is to blame when we don't like Dostoevsky's Demons or Dante's Inferno?

Indeed the costumes and the cinematography are impecable. However, the philosophically intricate script does not justify its misplaced position within the film itself, since it is hardly introduced with a purpose in the production. Although the characters are divided into cinematic sections, they lack aesthetics or the palette of uniqueness, they are rather flat, annihilating the beautiful decorum and the atemporal feeling that would have made a great film otherwise. Furthermore, the script offers philosophical ideas at its core, yet in what seems to be a copy-paste process of the initial Russian work, which fails to bring in originality. It is a good example in analysing the parallel between the director's intention and the cinematic result. Is the film tense or is it just so redundant that it creates the illusion of tension?

It is interesting to observe from the reviews of this film posted here that while an intelligent person would never watch a stupid film and then complain about it not being intelligent, there are plenty of stupid people who are prepared to sit through an intelligent film and then express outrage about it not being stupid. Obviously, they don't explicitly state that a film overloaded their limited reserve of brain cells, given that in order to protect against psychic injury they hold the unshakeable belief that it is they who are in fact the intelligent ones. Rather, they complain, in poorly spelled, ungrammatical prose, about it being "boring" or "pretentious", or about it having wasted their precious time, which, presumably, could have been spent far more productively watching a Steven Seagal flick or some other film with an obvious plot.

Ultimately, what the response to this film from the lowest common denominator of reviewers shows is that while the intelligent are happily able to ignore an insult to their intelligence, the stupid are incapable of overlooking an affront to their stupidity.

I stopped watching after 9 minutes and 20 seconds. This is not a film, this is not cinema. An overlong radioplay perhaps. That this won a director's award at the Berlinale's Encounters section, tells you a lot about film festivals these days. The two points are for the intriguing poster and mysterious title.

Bad directing The plot does not make for a 3,5hr movie