Columna

Excellent movie. Today is our national day here and I accidentally came across it while going through the local channels. I always have trouble staying away from it, no matter at which point in the movie I happen to come in.

The Western actors/actress were excellent, and it's always lovely to watch our Romanian actors, like Piersic or lovely Ciubotarasu, whom we've grown up watching in films here.

Wish the world knew more about historical movies involving this part of the world - I think they're the best this country has to offer, moviewise.

This is the best mythological movie that the Romanian cinematography gave to the world. The historical informations are true in the most part but being so few about the times in witch the action took place, they are spiced in abundance with many mythical ideas about the Dacians and the Romans of that age. The main characters are the prototype of the Romans and Dacian leaders,each one having all the qualities and defaults of their nations and about each you can say that they have the best and the worst from their worlds. In the end they give birth to the Romanian nation, symbolized by a boy whose father is Tiberius and teacher becomes Gerula. Gerula is by far the most powerful character in the movie being the best incarnation of a Dacian in all the Romanian and foreign cinematography. This movie has become a "cult movie" in Romania and it's right to be so.

Thinking of sword and sandal movies (aka 'peplums'), I get the picture of a bodybuilder struggling through a think plot as stereotypical, stupid and colorful as possible. Candy stuff. That's what I expected when I started watching this film. What I got was something completely different: a more realistic, serious and pensive approach to the genre. For peplum fans, the battle scenes are a feast: The costumes are well done, looking as real as it gets at that time, and the fighting is convincing and violent. However, compared to other peplums, the movie is unusually dark and pessimistic in tone, mainly as a result of four factors: 1. The heavy, almost operatic soundtrack, which is a far shot from being easy on the ears. 2. The cinematography, which makes sporadic use of modernistic techniques such as extremely fast cuts and image distortion. 3. The set design and locations, mostly in the (Carpatian?) mountains, where mist or the black smoke rising from pillaged and burnt down villages is nearly omnipresent. 4. The plot and dialogue, which cleverly let viewer sympathies oscillate between the Roman conquerors and the Dacian guerillas. The film takes on the problems of Roman imperialistc policy in a truly epic fashion. Most of the plot is concerned about the leaders, their marriage, and their offspring. It is here that central concepts of imperialism are put to the test. Should the Romans still be fought once they have conquered the land and want to establish peace and prosperity? The dialogue reveals the troubled position the Roman general has to defend: "You will have your peace, whether you want it or not!!" The mixed Roman-Dacian love affair at the core of the film is unfortunately marred by inconclusive character design. Still, the movie is well worth a look, since it does not hesitate to draw the final consequence from all the violence and counterviolence, ending on a dark note. No happy end in sight for the Romanian nation to come: there will be fighting, more and more.

it is far to be a comfortable film. because it is an exercise to propose a realistic version of the clash between Romans and Dacians. but a forbidden love story, looking for give a symbolic solution, it is not the best choice. like "Dacii", it is a film of portraits. Decebal, Ciungul, Gerula, Andrada, Tiberius, the great priest, the presence of many foreign actors in a Romanian film, as proof of the independent policy of Comunist Party in the Eastern Europe are pieces defining a film who , not ignoring the sins, remains interesting.

Historical drama. The joint work of the GDR and the CPR with the participation of Italian and English actors, which is a direct continuation of the 1966 film "Dacians" and tells about further events in the history of the conquest of Dacia by the Romans, but under the leadership of another emperor Trajan (and this conquest was the last in Roman history). The author of this review watched the painting "Ducky" as a child, when it was shown on Channel One during the New Year holidays (yes, then this channel could still be watched), and he remembered it for a couple of vivid episodes, good costumes and the theme itself. Perhaps someday, the author of this review will tell you about this painting, but for now, let's return to the "Column". He stumbled upon this painting by chance, and immediately took note of it, and now, the time has come, and he got acquainted with the painting. And here is a brief opinion - Excellent Romanian historical cinema. There were both pros and cons in the picture. And this should be the end of the much-needed introduction and move on to the interesting.

So, the pros: 1. Scenario - the film tells the story of the second Dacian campaign of Emperor Trajan in 105 AD, which allowed him to finally conquer Dacia and turn it into a Roman province. One of Trajan's bravest and noblest generals is Tiberius, who, after the end of the war, is ordered by the emperor to strengthen the northern border of Dacia using the local population (which the Romans, to put it mildly, hate). And although the Dacian army is defeated (and the gold mines are now under Roman control, for which there was a war), the unfinished Dacian wars are still hiding in the mountains and secluded places, ready to fight the Romans to the end. In these circumstances, Tiberius and his men will have to do the impossible - strengthen the border and establish a dialogue with yesterday's enemies. And this task requires a non-standard approach. At the same time, the picture is not focused on one side of the conflict. Dacians and Romans are equally important here, and both of their points of view have a right to life. They are separated by a chasm of civilization, but there are brave and determined people there who are ready for dialogue and to confront new threats that are just around the corner. And although the ending of the picture is very sad, it is nevertheless full of hope for the great future of this land and its people, who are now both Dacians and Romans. The characters here are vivid, and the representatives of both sides are catchy. The dialogues are good, although there is nothing outstanding. And although the script is "not brilliant," nevertheless, it cannot be called a passing one. It is clear that they were working on it and that they wanted to show that both sides were right. Romanians honor this history of their country, and it can only be praised.

2. Costumes and decorations - the Romanian nature itself served as decorations, because the picture was shot there, so it's nice to watch it, admiring the local beauties. I was also pleased with the city and the fort, as well as the hiking camp. But the costumes were a little pumped up, because not all the characters have them well-fitted. But if you close your eyes to some details, you should admit that in terms of costumes and extras, this is a good movie, although it does not reach the level of Ben-Hur in 1959 and even more so Cleopatra in 1963. Well, the budget of the "Column" was not as huge as in the listed paintings.

3. Acting - Richard Johnson in the role of Tiberius is incomparable. His hero is a role model, a noble Roman (which there were very few in history), and the character traits that he shows here already speak volumes, and it's not for nothing that his legionnaires and commanders revere and respect. Hilarion Ciobanu in the role of Jerula was also pleased - from here the enemy of Tiberius and all the Romans, intending to fight the invaders to the end, although he is also not devoid of nobility (in his understanding). And the rest of the actors did their best. I especially remember the rebellious Andrada, who made the right conclusions and did what she should have done. And the actress also pleased the eye.

So, the cons: 1. Historical mistakes - some armor (especially on Tiberias) looks like fiction from deep space, not real armor. The Romans didn't wear bracers, but here they all wear them. The real Tiberius and Tiberius from the painting are two different people. Purple was worn only by the emperor and his family members, and here Tiberius is wearing it (a respected man, but not even a senator or consul). The author of this review did not notice any more errors. And if they still exist, then the comments are at your disposal.

2. There is a lack of context - since the picture tells about the events of distant centuries, an introductory information about the conflict would not hurt. But there is practically none here. We learn everything we need exclusively from the dialogues between the characters. But they didn't tell us about the reasons for the war, how the Dacians heroically fought in a clear minority, and the inhuman cruelty of both sides was also practically not mentioned (during the capture of Dacia by Trajan, the number of Dacians sold into slavery went to hundreds of thousands, although this is a clear exaggeration).

The film was a resounding success at the international box office, awards, honoring the creators and actors, and a tremendous success at the Soviet box office. Excellent dubbing played an important role in this. Such paintings are no longer being shot, and even more so on such a topic and about that historical period, so we must appreciate it and wonder how, with those opportunities, Romanian cinematographers were able to shoot an epic historical canvas about their history, which still looks good, even despite obvious technical problems and some problems with costumes.

A score of 8 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!