Michael the Brave (1971)
An epic fresco depicting the reign (1593-1601) of Mihai Pătrașcu (better known as "Mihai Viteazul" / "Michael the Brave"), the famous prince who united the three provinces: Transalpine Vallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia, into the country of Romania, at the end of the 16th century (1599-1601) against the opposition of the Ottoman and Austrian Empires, this movie features large scale battle scenes mixed with political intrigues, murderous treachery, and family drama.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Reviews
I love this movie so much
Did you people see the same film I saw?
Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
I like this movie because I´m a history buff and secondly my ancestors come from Transylvania. The characters in this movie are brilliant- Amza Pellea even matches the original Michael Petrascu. The only bad thing in the movie: the guns (Russian Mosin Nagant-Rifles) are not accurate. But!!! The are turned with new stocks and barrel bands into fine, ancient muskets. The marching scenes with thousands of Turcs and Romanians are excellent! Shame is, the movie is not very often seen on TV or at a blockbuster.
Amza Pellea is Mihai Viteazul! Very seldom that you see an actor transforming itself so completely to bring a strong historical character to life. I can only feel bad for the rest of the world for not being able to see this movie. Sergiu Nicolaescu, the movie director proves that he belongs with the best of the historical genre. Time will prove me right, somebody, someday, will bring this diamond in the rough to a full shine. It is disturbing to see the people in charge of promoting Romania's cultural image can't seem to know how to promote some of it's best assets.
The question in title is maybe a critical question when commenting on a historical movie. The director especially, sometimes wants to "tell" too much of his peoples history and the movie began too quickly. But I think this movie succeeded to mantain this frail equilibrium between historical information and artistic part.Of course, comparing with Braveheart this movie isn't so realistic in images, has no such violence, but very real, battles, but it was filmed 27 years before and of course with some censorship involved. But it still is one of the great Romanian movies ever realised. The major critique, in my humble opinion, is a great king is a man too, and this aspect wasn't explored enough in this movie.Maybe the myth was more important than the reality? But the performances were simply excellent and this critique can be minimised.
It's one of the best movies I've ever seen.I think that Sergiu Nicolaescu is the most important romanian directors because he presented the real Romanian history.I'm proud that I'm Romanian when I have the privilege to see a movie directed by Sergiu Nicolaescu