[go: up one dir, main page]

    Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    EmmysSuperheroes GuideSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideBest Of 2025 So FarDisability Pride MonthSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
Back
  • Cast & crew
  • User reviews
  • Trivia
IMDbPro
William Berger and Woody Strode in Cuibul salamandrelor (1977)

User reviews

Cuibul salamandrelor

4 reviews
6/10

Stuart Whitman: my god man! Trim your eyebrows!

Why does IMDb list this as being a sequel to Explozia? Because there is no real connection, other than the director, Mircea Dragan, and a basic premise about attempts to extinguish a large fire burning out of control.

Anyway, this film has only two comments, the latter is nothing more than political ramblings, while the former is a moronically numbered list of points about it (any 12 year old can do that) so I will attempt to comment on the exploitation flick itself.

Anyway again, this is a moderately engrossing thriller about fire in a Saharan oil field burning out of control, and Stuart Whitman, and his double-breasted suit jackets, and bushy sideburns are sent to extinguish the blaze. Good pyrotechnics and photography (if a bit faded and washed out, or was that just the print I watched?) mix quite awkwardly with subplots of politics and corporate greed; perhaps that is why the second comment went the route it did?

If this was indeed meant to be a sequel to Explozia (a film which I highly recommend) , it never reaches the same heights as that film did, as it over complicates what is (or could have been) a simple, basic thriller, in the memorably unusual setting of Saharan Africa.
  • Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki
  • Jun 24, 2015
  • Permalink
10/10

Gheorghe Dinica - respect!

To really understand the movie ... Romanian citizen must be (at least) has lived in Romania during those years ... The rest are just aberrations and opinions of some "speculative" claims by critics of ideas. Do not have anything to do with the reality of those times and even the topic itself. The film is made after a fact, that existed because the team won notoriety and respect in many battles with fire, as called for this ... "party" in his folly, namely political activists have decided to put in pictures of their accomplishments. Interpretation of exceptional Dinica, Piersic, Jean Constantin, Mircea Diaconu, and so on. It brings a distinct note of the film. Dinica If born in America ... certainly was DeNiro's caliber and reputation ... had the misfortune to be born in romania. God rest him in peace!
  • btitib
  • Jan 26, 2011
  • Permalink

Let's weigh the pros and cons, shall we?

REASONS NOT TO WATCH THIS MOVIE:

1) Ray Milland looks even more embarrassed here than in THE THING WITH TWO HEADS.

2) The captain of this hard-working team of oil firefighters puts a ban on anyone smoking while battling one particular blaze, then asks for a cigarette.

3) The American actors are all dubbed.

4) The cinematography here is as muddy, murky and (un)stomachable as a McDonald's coffee.

5) For a movie about people with such a unique and dangerous line of work, this is about as exciting as watching a houseplant grow.

REASONS TO WATCH THIS MOVIE: ...well, if you're THAT much of a bad movie lover...
  • madsagittarian
  • Aug 28, 2003
  • Permalink

decent

You could critic hard. or see it as reflection of the spirit of a time. admire the performances of Romanian actors or see it as only a politic film. but its source is a real fact. presented not so bad to define it as a bad movie. using cliches as many others films about same theme. proposing, maybe not in the most inspiired mmanner, models and facts. so, a decent film about a dramatic event.
  • Kirpianuscus
  • Jul 12, 2018
  • Permalink

More from this title

More to explore

Recently viewed

Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
Get the IMDb App
Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
Follow IMDb on social
Get the IMDb App
For Android and iOS
Get the IMDb App
  • Help
  • Site Index
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • License IMDb Data
  • Press Room
  • Advertising
  • Jobs
  • Conditions of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, an Amazon company

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.