Boss

The movie was looong. And felt looong. Characters either speak in elaborate metaphors or stare in the void to convey their inscrutable complexity and depth. Drama ensues again and again from people not checking their phones. Really? My days of trying to swallow this... stuff... are over.

In recent decades, Romanian cinematography has made great strides and has produced amazing films. Spoiler alert: this not one of them.

One thing going for the movie is that it manages to create a good atmosphere of suspense and omen. If only the atmosphere had a compelling story to wrap around - but alas, it doesn't. The story is pretty random and unremarkable.

Everybody talks like they had a stroke and their brain reverted to being 14 and listening to My Chemical Romance. From the soundtrack to the pace and the neon cinematography you can tell that the director tries to rip off NWR, so I guess he got done with the Coen brothers now.

Not a lot happens, but they really try to stretch the running time by having characters spew cringe purple prose and two words a minute. You can also smell the disgusting air of superiority with which the director paints a "social tapestry" of all the small people, people that speak with broken grammar, except when they burst into spontaneous Bukowski monologues.

Sucked balls.

Judging by the title and the fact that I was unfamiliar with the actor on the movie cover, I initially thought this was either a Hollywood or a British movie. However, the first scene instantly made me realize it's a Romanian film. Despite being quite disappointed about what I had missed in the past years, this movie truly stood out. The acting was very good, with flawless performances from every actor. I'm glad I watched it; I was immersed until the end without taking a break. The movie also reminded me somewhat of Guy Ritchie's style... there's always that 'lock, stock and two smoking barrels' element behind the curtain.

I don't understand why most of the Romanian movies are so boring. The right length for everything that happen in this movie would be 90 minutes not 120.

The movie directors don't understand the current realities where our brains are trained for speed and not able to cope with a 3 minutes scene when nothing happens or to wait 30 seconds a reply of an actor to just say one word.

This style of movie would fit with the 70's of the last century. It is a pity because there are many good stories but the way how they are made are not difficult to keep interest of the viewer.

I liked the main character and would love to see him in more movies.

This could have been an interesting 20 minutes short film.

Judging by the story , the writer of this movie knew exactly what he wanted as an opening act.

Wrote the middle of the movie in 2 sentences and had no idea what to do for the ending.

The intro of the movie (the heist) wich is mentioned in the description , gets completely skipped . The movie starts some days after and you don't realize that until you get about 30-40 minutes in.

It seems like they tried their hardest to reach the 2 hour mark. When the scenery changes you must watch the character slowly get out of his has, slowly close the door. Slowly walks up to the house door, slowly opens its. Slowly enters , slowly closes the door, slowly locks the door, and another 5 seconds of him walking until he meets someone and they start a dialogue.

But it doesn't stop here.

The main character frowns at everybody . Whenever there is a dialogue he must first frown at somebody , the camera shows a close up for like 5 to 10 seconds . Then the character speaks .

After the line, the character that must respond , usually takes 5 seconds of looking , just looking, and then it delivers its like. Back to the main character who must ansewer , he frowns again for 10 seconds and then spouts some nonsense. And this is how dialogue works through the movie.

The movie has 2 hours and 10 minutes.

Only 20 minutes something actually happens. The rest is nonsense .

By far one of the worst movies I ever saw.