Time of Violence (1988)

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

So much average

best movie i've ever seen.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

As a Serb, I always wonder why my country never made any movie about islamisation of Balkans through 14-20 century. Then I stumble on this Bulgarian epic. For anyone who want to explore darkest moments from history of Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians & other nonmuslim nations under Turkish government, this is a must see film. But the best thing in this movie is solution which he offers. You begin to understand it in last quarter of movie when things begins to unravel. And at least for me, priest in this movie is one of the best clerics I ever watch. I strongly recommend it to everyone except to those stubborn (crypto)jihadist, who may get sick from it (which can be actually good reason for them to watch), and who think that Turkish occupation is second best thing in world history.

The movie is indeed one of the biggest Bulgarian classics. As they say, if you're Bulgarian, you must have watched it. And if your heart doesn't tremble when you watch it, you're not a Bulgarian.On the other hand, I like very much one quote from one of its resumes: "The film is painted on a large, sweeping canvas, with many characters and subplots, all cleverly woven into a single story. And, surprisingly, this isn't a "vile Turk" story. Director Ludmil Staikov has much more ambitious goals, including an examination of the power of religion and of the destructiveness of violence and fanaticism. Not all of the Christians are good, nor all of the Muslims bad." And I agree with this, the movie is not black and white - neither in real colour, nor in character's colour. Even the "most evil characters" have their inner struggles and their reasons, while even the "nicest characters" have their flaws and weaknesses. Like all human beings...So, the script is great, the acting is great, the music is touching, the scenery is magnificent - no wonder this is one of the very few Bulgarian movies (if not the only one), which have foreign subtitles in its DVD set.P.S. Indeed, the movie is definitely not for minors, not only because of the scenes of violence, but also because they would hardly understand its true meaning.

This movie explains the story of the people that lived in the region of Rodopi mountains in Bulgaria during the 17-th century. This is a region in south-central contemporary Bulgaria. All the facts presented in the movie are true, I don't mean now the small details but the general idea - What used to happen during the period, that the movie describes. I read somewhere a comment for the movie, sounding like this: "The movie is interesting, but the happenings are not real." Well I will give you one incontestable fact in favor of the main line of the movie: Bulgaria falls finally under the Otoman conquerors in 1396 and gains its independence in 1878. The population before the first date is only consisted of orthodox Christians. Now in contemporary Bulgaria, besides the ethnic Turks also known as Bulgarian Turks, there is a specific group of people that speak Bulgarian language as their native language but their fate is Islam. These people are mainly located in the Rodopi mountains, where the story of the movie goes. History of the Balkans is full of blood and violence. We can live now in peace and on good terms, but this doesn't mean to strike the history out, because we all should know where we come from.

The movie is very true to the book it's based on, Vreme razdelno (Time of Division) by Anton Donchev, and the casting is near flawless. Very good soundtrack too. Highly recommended.As to how representative it is of Bulgarian history, I beg to differ from the user who commented before me. The Rhodopa mountains (which is where the movie takes place) are, to this day, populated by Bulgarian "turks," that is, Bulgarians converted to Islam in the 1500-1600 period. Some of them, when interviewed, relate stories (dating back to the period in question and carried across generations) that are very reminiscent of the picture painted by Vreme razdelno. It's no coincidence (or accident) that the book claims to be based on the accounts of two people who witnessed the events described. Anton Donchev did his own bit of extensive research before setting out to write the book (as he usually does, he specializes in the history genre) - what he found out is reflected in the book, and hence the movie. Whether the accounts of those who suffered the conversion to Islam (as retold by their descendants) can be defined as harsh or "historically inaccurate" is obviously a question of perspective. However, the fact remains some of those accounts are what's reflected in the book (and the movie). Claims that they are fiction are, to put it mildly, overblown.