User Reviews

It seems that 15 it's a film raising some very serious questions about how cinema may be a source of coping with our recent history. Is 15 - a film that evokes the days of the Romanian Revolution from December 1989 which led to the new achieved Romanian democracy - a good piece of cinema because it brings back those tragic moments? For me, this film is a failure. Not a complete failure, but still a failure. The film implies an emotional impact on those who know what the December '89 Revolution was all about: the journalist who comes, after 15 years, to Romania, to find a child who was born during those days, a journalist who is searching for the way Romanians dealt with the moment they gained their freedom. Unfortunately, the technique spoils this whole idea: the sound and the music are appalling, the dialogues are artificial, the shooting is dull. They really make this film un-watchable and make you wonder on the so-called "great Romanian directors"...

The idea of the movie is a good one.

The actors are well known Romanian actors and they put up quite a good acting.

Of course, there are a lot of flaws in the movie, including super acting (pretty unusual for Sergiu Nicolaescu). Also don't expect any special effects, even if the movie action is placed as time and space in the Romanian revolution from 1989.

Although the Romanian revolution is only the background for the main story so probably that's why you don't get the real feeling of how it really was (or maybe it was intentionally made this way to emphasize the perception of the main characters on the Revolution).

Overall is a nice movie, but if you're very selective with what you watch to, probably you should skip this one.

Come on ! Everybody says this is a horrible-demented-terrible movie! It's not that bad. I've seen it recently and I have appreciated the twist in the script (Marinica dreams that he escapes from the "death truck"), the reconstruction of some areas in Timisoara, so that they should look like they were in 1989. Mihaela Radulescu is no good. The same for Daniela Nane. Romanian film goers are rushing to find fault with Sergiu these days, because he did some nasty things in the Commission for Film Projects the last years. Indeed, he's not a perfect fellow, but this film ain't that bad.

The ending is kind of silly, though...

Not worth waisting to much time on this, i just have to say it's one of the worst movies I've seen( and I've seen my share of bad movies from Manos to Master of Disguise), and you should stay away unless you want to see how bad sergiu got in his old age... Kinda sad he's so lame and doesn't even know it... Pretty much the worst thing that ever happened to romanian movies

I know pretty much all his stuff is awful, but he outdone himself this time. I mean It's not even so bad it's funny it's... well just bad

PS I usually don't like to insult people online but whoever gave this one a 10 is either a retard or sergiu got 10 accounts and voted himself.

It is said that those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to re-live them. This movie is about the mistakes of the past. It's one of the most dramatical movies I've ever seen. It's about the tragedy of one family during the bloody events that took place in Timisoara, Romania, in December 1989, that ended with the collapse of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu and the death of 1100 people.

The movie is called 15, because the events took place over time, both in December 1989 and December 2004, when a Romanian journalist from a Parisian newspaper returns to Romania to write an article about the changes from the collapse of Ceausescu's regime, 15 years ago. She's in the search of a child told to have been born in the orthodox cathedral in Timisoara, in the days of the Revolution of 1989. The most scenes of the film take place in December 1989 and represent the drama of this boy's parents.

It definitely worth seeing.

First time when my son brought home the CD with "15", we just had a look. And we reacted.

We saw the opening credits, with the long list of acknowledgements - and we laughed our asses off.

We saw the opening shot, with that ferris wheel - and we laughed our asses off.

We fast-forwarded to a scene where Maia Morgenstern is in a sewer and calls for someone - and we laughed our asses off.

We FF-ed even more, to some militiamen invading an apartment - and we laughed our asses off.

We switched at random, to find a scene self-pastiched from "Revansa" (some guy jumping from a bridge on a train carriage) - and we laughed our asses off.

...This was the first impact.

After a while, we gathered enough patience to sit down and watch all the movie. And we both reached to the same conclusion: It made no difference. Really none.

And we cried our eyes off.

Meybe is not the special effect movie like u expect but i think is a great movie because : Commemorate the 1989 revolution from Romania and those who fight for that country to be free .The movie reflects the reality from Romania since 1989 and 2006 .Is a great tribute for the revolution heroes It's a tragic movie like all Romanian movies ...no happy ending here .And a great movie is a drama movie .That why i think this movie worth to be seen not for his special effect but for this subject .The movie is the tragic story of a family from Timisoara who lived in that events. This drama reflects the Romanian people drama for those times.Thank God for those heroes who fight in that revolution ,becouse of them now we are a free country Anyway i think is the most great movie make by Romanian after the 1989 revolution that why i note this movie with a 10

I expected this movie to be just another political thriller/drama from Sergiu Nicolaescu but instead I got a character story in the background of the '89 Romanian Revolution, plus an almost more grabbing subplot about a newspaper story of the 15 years since the Revolution. The main actor, Cristian Iacob does a very good job, as well as Maia Morgenstern & Florin Chiriac. The film itself is more like the old movies of Sergiu Nicolaescu with a lot of tragic situations, memorable characters (like the driver played by Valentin Teodosiu), a slight amount of violence... Very recommended. 9 out of 10.

P.S. 15 doesn't mean the 15 years that have passed, but something else;).

for me it was a nice movie (excellent) good actors with good parts,and the director (the best of the best) i've always enjoyed a good movie, i've always liked Sergiu Nicolaescu ,he directed a lot of good movies, the script it's good,the actors are very goods;in the movie appears Maia Morgenstein who played in "The passion of the Christ" directed by Mel Gibson,one of Romania best actress . I recommend this Romanian movie to everyone, and i also recommend to the so called "critics" to watch the movie more than one time,because maybe there "intelect" did not allowed them to understand'it from the first time.

PS-go and see the movie it's good

I went to the cinema to see this one, but I left after almost an hour. I learned my lesson after watching Orient Express and I did't stay for the whole thing again. Unlike Clint Eastwood who makes great movies at his age, Sergiu Nicolaescu just got old and makes movies that only he and people who remember the "good old times" like. Sergiu did make a few good movies "at his time", but it's time to stop and maybe help others. This movie, 15, is as bad as it gets, don't waste your time and even if you have nothing to do but watch this movie, do nothing! I'm not sure how the script for this movie ever won an award, because it's awful, it's got nothing new and some of the worse character lines I've ever heard. The cast is good, but without a director it all falls apart.... I saw a few comments by people who liked the movie. The only way someone can say 15 was a good movie is if that someone worked on the production of this movie or hasn't seen it. Because everyone I know curses the time spent watching this movie.

If you like movies with happy ending, don't watch this one. Is an dramatic movie about the Romanian revolution from 1989. For someone who didn't knew how it was back then, this is an awful movie, but for someone who lived the moments and lost someone (the wife of a fiend) who was murdered only for being in the wrong place at a wrong time, is an disturbing film who tried to show an unseen face of the events. In essence, the story is divided in two. One part is taking place in 1989 when a marine officer comes to Timisoara to marry his pregnant girlfriend, but ends being shot and taken to a crematory where it is burned alive. Meanwhile, his girlfriend gives birth to a boy on the stairs of the Cathedral in Timisoara. The other part of the movie take place in 2004, 15 years after, when a Romanian journalist who lived in France for the last 15 years, wants to write an article about that boy found on the stairs of the Cathedral in 1989 and tries to find that boy. This is it.

This is the worst film I've seen for as long as I can remember. It isn't even worth a thorough comment/review. Nicolaescu is obviously a delusional character (interesting - or better said, funny - to note that when the film was released he appeared completely drunk on the news, giving an unimaginably incoherent interview); I did expect something very cheesy but this just blew me away. Nothing is good in this film: incredibly bad acting, bad script, bad directing, you name it. This can't be considered a historical film. This film is a bad joke. "Rambo" is a historical masterpiece compared to this thing. The fact that this film was funded by the state (!!!!!!!!) should raise some eyebrows...

May be for the foreign viewer it's more easy to watch this film and to appreciate the work of the director. There are two parallel stories in the film. 15 years gone since the fall of dictatorship in Romania and French journalist arrives in Bucharest in attempt to find the child of the participants of these tragic events... December, 1989. Jolly sailor Marinika goes to Timishoara to his bride, but people's revolt is started and the troops are ready to use the weapons against the rebels...

Sergiu Nicolaescu shows us how the machine of the state cruelly destroys the people who are standing on its way to power and control over society. There are many dark and shocking scenes in the film but the most sad part of it is about modern day Romania/Eastern Europe. Rich houses of new elite and poor abandoned children are living in the underground in their neighborhood. And the machine of the state still is ready to work.

The playing of actors sometimes looks a little bit naive, as in TV series, but in general it works for the idea of the film. The film is quite dark and in the same time the film is humane and sincere. From my point of view it's one of the best and serious works by Sergiu Nicolaescu. Film won Golen Knight festival award in Russia in 2006.

This movie is bad, because of the script, directing, acting ..., everything. There is an awful attention to detail and you can see today's Romania everywhere in the so called '89 era..., from the plastic chair in the train stations, signs, renovated roads, and even foreign cars. And incredibly today's Romania looks as awful as the Communist age, so cannot support the directors opinion of how any things have changed. The script is an artificial construction, collecting some horrible facts, into a story that tries to disgust and haunt you. And the characters..., oh god.., they are so week, and acted so badly. really pointless, nothing to connect to. The settings are all wrong, there is nothing of the great openings and large masses of people that acted the Revolution. The film might suggest to the unfamiliar, that these were some kind of Paris riots, where the police used real guns. Everithing is suburban, a world of vagabonds. And what about the whole France thing, maybe Nicolaiescu tried some fine irony, when the french editor suggested the journalist that she may write something about: orphans, dogs, AIDS, crap like that..., so Mr. Nicolaiescu WTF.., is in your movie..., isn't exactly the same... SOME FRENCH GUY WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME STEREOTIPICAL CARACTERIZATION OF ROMANIA ...

And the people of '89 Romania, they all had BLUEJEANS, WOW..., incredible, And what is with all those poor animals, thats cruel and unfair and STEREOTIPICAL as well. And finally why the Romanian revolution is portrayed by its most brutal and inhuman episode..., and Elena Ceusescu is the only guilty one. Why everyone is portrayed so nicely..., and caringly... WHY I DON't FELL ANY HATE TOWARDS THE COWARLDLY MILITIANS WHO DID THAT!!!..

and finally What is the point of the scene where people get shot on a bridge..., if the guy is dreaming..., why that is the only scene that merely brushes with the reality I know about the revolution, when everything else feels artificial and farfethced

!!!FLAMING:!!! Sergiu Nicolaiescu should have just remained silent after '89. It's unbelievable how a guy who had it all under the Ceausescu regime. If it's not a overly nationalistic-inflated historic movie, or some stupid action thriller portraying the regime in an good light, Nicolaiescu cannot do a decent job. That's because for some tyrannosaurus-Communist-red people, freedom of speech is such a bad thing. I cannot understand the nerve this guy has in preaching to us his "truths" .., I still cannot believe that the very same people that build the Socialist Republic of Romania, still think they can teach us something, to us the people that made the '89 revolution, we the young, the generation that pushed this ass-pit of a country towards NATO membership and EU. !!!/end of FLAME!!!!

I am truly disappointed... I saw the cast, and I was really expecting something out of this movie. I try to give Romanian cinema the benefit of a doubt, but this film is more than a sane person can stand.

Two particular comments (other than the ones of my colleagues): (1) I am a strong believer in the fact that if you want to see disgusting scenes with no apparent role in the plot, you should try a third-rate horror movie, the kind with zombies and crap. In no circumstances such scenes should appear in a supposedly respectable film about historic events and social issues. If the director wanted to induce psychological tension, there are other ways to do it, except extensively showing people die and being burnt alive!

(2) Also, for someone who has lived in Timisoara all her life (the place where the action takes place), I can really tell that the accent of the actors is far off. You want a movie that takes place somewhere else than in Bucharest? Fine! But have the courtesy to make a survey of how people live, behave and talk around there! Otherwise, it is just NOT authentic. It really sounds fake! (Especially the "German girl"...)