The Rest is Silence

Well first of all I like the title : it is very suggestive , very theatrical . This movie is a needed change of rhythm in the Romanian cinema because it is depicting an episode of pioneering cinema in Romania . The year is 1912 but INDEPENDENCE WAR do not forget : is not the very first Romanian movie , maybe it is the first historical movie , even from the historical point of view the real UNION came in 1918 with Basarabia and Transilvania joining Valahia and Moldova ...but we are getting too much into national history .That era depicted in film is when Bucharest was opening more to European influences and especially french culture , it later became LITTLE Paris and it was not an exaggeration at all. French was spoken by aristocrats , intellectuals , artists and even common people. Of course the movie is got a lot of comic moments , we are Romanians N'EST CE PAS ? Do not forget also that haughty people they despised cinema , they preferred theater . I know they we're right but , let's get over it . Cinema was incredible cheap , even in those days , it was a sort of entertainment for low social classes , for the mob . But of course in time people they changed up minds , it is to admire the passion the people involved in this project they sacrifice to see their dream come true . Also it is showing us how VOLATILE and transient the films are ......they burn so easily .I enjoyed watching this movie , and is a nice feeling to know that they are still people who cares about CINEMA .

it could be another successful film of a special Romanian director. or the return of Romanian cinema to the historical genre. or occasion to see great actors in impeccable performances. or, just, a different film. but its virtue is the status of beautiful homage. to film. to sacrifice of few idealist people. to a slice of Romania modernity. to figures who looking for change everything. it is a basket with stories. love, humor, dramas. and the beginning of Romanian cinema. the same flavor of films and making of and clashes between different visions. for me, "Restul e tăcere" has two fundamental virtues : the original portrait of the king Carol I, the splendid presence of Ioana Bulcă. and , sure, the impeccable atmosphere.

An absolute masterpiece of Romanian cinematography and a solid quality picture. Its romantic and humorous atmosphere, its gorgeous reconstruction of Romanian belle epoque is fantastic (since that time, beginning of XX century, Bucharest was named 'Little Paris', due to many resemblances to the original city), the acting is impeccable and scenario is well-paced, humorous and inventive. The story is the making off of the making off of the Independence War that Romania, along with Russia took part against Otoman Empire in period 1877 - 1878. A must see picture, remarkable for the new spirit in Romanian cinematography.

First time when i heard about this movie i thought it's gotta be another sad romanian movie with a low budget, but i was wrong! After i saw it, all i can say it's that this movie is one of the greatest romanian movie made in last 20 maybe 30 years. It has great humor, the acting it's very well done and the story-board it's amazing. I didn't knew that romanians are the first who made a long movie.

Anyway, from all the movies that i saw this year "Restul e tacere" it's in top 5 of my favorite movies.

After i saw it, i decide to buy it! If you want to see it, don't pirate it, buy it!

Love films. Always have, always will. Would like to love Romanian films too, because it just feels good to hear a film unfold in my very own language. But things are as they are and I can't make them any different. All I can try is change my "optic" of things, which I can't seem to do in this particular case. Some films sway you to, others don't. It's just as simple as that.

In Caranfil's style, "Restul e tacere" is a jolly new film about film, but also about jolly old Romania and the people inhabiting it. It looks good and is decently acted, as a young protagonist tries to make a film about the Romanian battle of independence, against the Turks, which leads him on a road of enlightenment about the people of that world. A lot of character types pop up in this morally vile Romania which bear a lot of criticism to the contemporary one as well.

What disappoints me is that subtlety is often sacrificed for clarity, with an ending so full of itself that it just undermines many of the things said and done along the way. It is undeniable that the film has moments of poignant humor and all in all manages to sketch a very true form of the ill society which rules the land, now and then, but it isn't "round" enough to be placed on the shelf it wishes to place itself.

I may be overly harsh about Caranfil's latest effort, but I do not wish to ignore the underlying themes and motifs he ties in with the story, the allegorical parallels of other stages of the world and some of the great single elements which are part of it. However it isn't enough - as far as I'm concerned - to be really smart about the things you say, if the way you say them doesn't fit.