Brâncusi din eternitate

My guess is that the best part of this movie is the title, and even in this the only part of the title that means someting is "Brâncusi". The rest of the word play, aspired to something, that is neither needed, nor in a story lines that at least could aim to meet in between them.

This should be a movie about an artist that stands for deep heartfelt art, and some portions of the man behind it. But it turned out to be a kitsch product, from the kitsch story line, through kitsch screen play, kitsch scenes, kitsch filming, kitsch decor, kitsch lines, and even worse punch lines, awful acting, for awful aims, all in an amateur manner. I'm trying to find something to redeem the existence of this, but I can't, I just can't.

I've seen worse, but for worse aims, this was meant for something higher, and the output is less than dirt.

I was wondering why haven't they made at least one good film about Eminescu or Brancusi, two of the greatest Romanian artists and two very interesting characters, too. After watching this, I'd say it would have been for the better if they didn't.

This film is a poorly constructed, lame attempt to show something about the sculptor who has revolutionized modern art and about the impact of his work on society, but it only ends in pretense and occasional ridicule. The three stories, or viewpoints, are a fine idea, but sadly the only good (read: bearable) parts of this flick are sometimes the acting of three characters (Brancusi, Elaine, and the forger).

The rest of it is pitiful: thin script, dialog full of clichés, bad acting, horrendous special effects, at times bad editing, and especially the scenes 'in Nirvana' with the Tibetan mystic Milarepa are shameful, ridiculous, almost mocking and circus-like.

Perhaps they had some good intentions about making this film, but it hugely misses its mark. There is nothing of Brancusi's spirit and nothing worth watching in this.