MovieChat Forums > Pozitia copilului (2013) Discussion > Overrated movie, in my opinion

Overrated movie, in my opinion


I have watched it on HBO, last night, and I find it very hard to go through without throwing the remote through the screen... Fortunately, I value my TV more so that remained only an intention.

Obviously, I'm Romanian. And as such, I should be more lenient towards the movie, but I cannot overlook some obvious shortcomings.

Firstly, the artistic choice of shooting the entire movie in a hand-held camera style. It is extremely tedious and tiresome to watch and sometimes during the screening I really wished I have captured the movie and pass it through an anti-shaking filter to stabilize the image. I can understand the documentary feel it gives, but I think enough clues for the documentary feeling were included in the storyboard to be necessary that the idea to be hammered on so heavily.

Second, I disagree with some of the reviewers that says the acting was good. There was, in my opinion, a wide variation of acting talent in this movie. Surely, the main character, Cornelia, is well acted; the short scene with the witness is well played and almost well filmed. But Barbu was one-dimensional and lifeless. Most of the time, I couldn't tell the difference if the actor would have been replaced with a cardboard cutout of him. Most reaction we got from him was at the end, when he finally tries to shake up his mother's influence off his shoulders and even then his acting was quite bad. And what about the father? Florin Zamfirescu is a great actor, if only a bit limited on the range, but here he's subdued, actually feels like telegraphing his lines. I don't know, maybe I expect something different from a stage actor as well experienced as he is.

Third, editing. Good in some places, but awful in parts. A particularly bad moment occurred in the kitchen of the Barbu's home, during the scene where the mother is looking around the previously forbidden apartment. The cut seemed so rough to me, it reminded me to the old days of watching movies in the old theaters of my childhood, during the communist years, with copies several generations over and full of rough repairs of broken film.

Fourth, and that seems to me to be the main fault of the movie, the lack of implication that the director seems to have about the morals of the story. I usually expect to find this kind of unbiased storytelling on documentaries or news, not on movies. Movies have the right to push specific concepts and opinions. News, not so much. But in Romania, the objective and unbiased view comes from movies such as this one, and not from the news (extremely fixated on forming opinions instead of relating the events as objectively they can).

The movie sins by having no opinion about the absolutely revolting way the family begins to protect the obviously guilty driver that killed a mostly innocent kid. Moreover, after missing the opportunity of shunning the immoral behavior and actions of Cornelia, the fact is regarded almost as normal in the reminder of the movie, and this seems to become the normal situation in which the movie goes on with the subject of poor rich boy that's so traumatized not by lack of money and resources to live a decent life, but by the fact that his mother is smothering him with her incessant nagging. And the movie doesn't give plausible backing for this claim: what we see is a normal reaction from a voluntary mother set on defending her child with everything is in her power. I bet everybody had the same kind of behavior from their mother at some moment in life. Anyway, I couldn't shake the feeling, after the abrupt end of the movie, when at least the mother and son seemed to go back to more human and normal feelings of guilt, that they will drive on, abandoning the drama of the last scene, and talking about the small things as if nothing important has happened. I wouldn't have been surprised at all if that had happened, considering the indifference of the first part of the movie over the fact that the actions of the mother were despicably immoral.

Overall, probably it's a good movie, since it provokes such strong reactions, but... I don't know, maybe I'm used to some consistency, or clearer conclusions from movies... but this one did anything wrong to make me say "good movie" at the end.

I'm curious if anyone else feels the way I feel.

reply

Luminita Gheorghiu at her best,she is present 90% of the time of this movie ...rare thing these days.The camera play of Peter Netzer is very smart...observe please the key moments (vibrations,blure,smog,play,focus).Sorry about my *beep* english,If someone wants to get exhaustive on me please do,I will appreciate this.Love you!

my passion is my hobby

reply

I thought it was overrated as well. I didn't watch this because all the hype that surrounds it, but because I enjoyed Catalin Peter Netzer's previous work, Medal of Honor, which in my opinion is much more worthy of praise than this one. I thought Child's Pose was really a step back from Netzer's directorial skills and there are several reasons why.

The camera work, as OP stated, didn't bother me that much if it wasn't for the rather slow movement of the camera from one character to another which made it difficult to catch up with the action (e.g off-screen lines of dialogue, or characters moving out of scene before the camera was able to track them as they leave).

No connection whatsoever with any of the characters. It's as if the director didn't care about his characters, every and each one of them felt awfully cold and one-dimensional that I for one couldn't establish any form of empathy with either one of them from start to finish.

Unrealistic dialogue, motives, behavior in general. Ok I get it that the action revolves around the Romanian contemporary high-class, but I see no reason for the son's ill-tempered behavior towards his parents, especially after an unfortunate tragedy.

Overall subpar acting, except for let's say Ms. Gheorghiu's part, but at times I wasn't so sure about hers either, especially the scene at the end where she's crying in the mourners' house, I couldn't actually tell the difference if her "crying" was purposefully written to be fake because she's a cold bitch or that she actually felt remorse for that kid's life. I also had high expectations on Adrian Titieni's part, which even though it was short (and it's a pity for that matter, the movie would have really benefited if the character would have been given longer screen time and development), I thought he didn't deliver. Instead, you should see him in the short Santul (2012), he's awesome!

As a whole, the movie is caught in this weird state of being too short for any character/story development and at the same time too long, it lingers, has no apparent direction, it's filled with pointless scenes which don't add anything to the core but for the worse, make it feel like there's a lack of substance to it all.

reply

Re the scene at the end: it was 100% clear to me that the tears were real, and that they were directed at her own grief and loss. She went on and on, rather pathologically so, about her son, his childhood and adolescence, and what he meant to her. She was smart enough to sometimes bring this back to the grief of the victim's family, and I think that was somewhat legitimately felt as well, but only a fraction as intensely as the grief she felt for herself. She's a narcissist, plain and simple.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

I'd have to agree, not as good as I was lead to believe, not as good as it could/should have been and not as good as I'd hoped for. I left the cinema just now slightly disappointed that I felt so, well..., disappointed, as I'd been looking forward to something more from this.

It was impossible to feel sympathy with the main protagonists of the film, which is fine as far as it goes... I felt that the quite loveless clinical and selfish nature of the relationships was consistent with the way the characters were portrayed, and that's fine as a portrait of a pretty disfunctional family but where that could have been an interesting part of the film, it fell flat because I didn't just 'not care' about them, I didn't believe in them either. The idea that she was acting out of protective love for her son doesn't wash with me - I think she was acting out of a sense of protecting her own reputation, and her idea of what a family is supposed to be like. The clue to her real feelings was when she said that parents are fulfilled by their children, living out their own failed ambitions through the next generation (or words to that effect). I sensed more grief at the loss of her own desires being fulfilled than at the situation her son was in (or god forbid, the family of the child). That would all be fine, but not when it presents itself as being about something else.

Sure, the performance from Georghiu was good, but it seemed like it was her playing a part well, yet not contributing to a piece. Whether that was because she was not matched by the other actors, or whether there was something lacking in the screenplay - either way, the cast did not seem to be working together in a way which would have made the whole piece hang together.

As far as the camera work was concerned - awful! Again, I'm OK with the idea of hand held jerky filming, but the way it was executed here was appalling. In one scene, where the cleaner was hoovering, the camera snapped about between the cleaner, the floor, the hoover, the door and back and forth and Oh my god! I felt almost seasick! Hand held fine, but rein it in a bit, decide what you want to see, what we need to see and let us focus on that, not the peripherals.

Overall, I felt that this was not a terrible film, but a disappointing missed opportunity.

reply

reply

long story short: boring movie with horrible shooting technique !

reply

[deleted]

Sorry that's just dumb. You don't judge a country or its people based on a movie.

reply