Watch Why Me? For Free

Overrated and overhyped

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The movie is based on a true story from Romania's rocky path from a corrupt totalitarian country to a modern society. Although based on real characters, the movie is not a documentary. It paints the characters with enough depth to capture the essence of the events, while being an entertaining thriller along the way. I found the director struck a superb balance between introspection and entertainment, making the movie both appealing to watch and thought provoking (even inspiring).In a tip of the hat to "The Conversation" (with Gene Hackman), there is a scene where the young prosecutor, driven close to (justified) paranoia by being watched by the secret service, starts tearing up the wires in his house. Of course, nowadays surveillance is far more sophisticated and non-intrusive (wireless), but the scene drives home the point that the danger of a corrupt surveillance society is not specific to countries of the Eastern block.

There is no doubt to me that the film is very well informed on what surrounded the real-life case of Cristian Panait and Alexandru Lele. The former, a young prosecutor in Bucharest, was pressured to initiate the criminal prosecution of the latter, a local prosecutor in Oradea. Lele had ordered the arrest of the son of a local party bigwig, on charges of being involved in a petrol smuggling ring. The political ramifications of the case were immense at the time, in an era that can arguably be identified as the worst for the rule of law in post-communist Romania, especially in relation to the complexity of the criminal/political machinations. Tudor Giurgiu and Loredana Novak adapted this story into the semi-fictional "Why Me?". In doing so, they kept the core themes of corruption, political webs of interest and individual persecution, and molded them to fit a traditional narrative structure. What came out was the tragic story of Panait, here renamed Panduru, who is cornered into losing his mind while passing through cinematic stereotypes of political thrillers, rather than exploring the deeper roots of his anxieties. This leads to the crux of its undoing, creating a believable scenario where Panduru goes from self-confident to self-destructive within a time frame of a couple of weeks. That is not to say that the movie is without merit. At times, it is a powerful indictment of powerlessness in the face of systemic corruption, as it effectively portrays the bullish hierarchical relationships that arise in certain bureaucracies. But as it focuses on Panduru, it has a hard time delivering an empathetic character - instead, we are served with Emilian Oprea's stiff and robotic interpretation, which occasionally engages, but never emotes. Moreover, Giurgiu employs several stereotypes and tropes you would expect from a Hollywood screenwriter/director, as lurid sex scenes of no obvious relevance and pointless mistresses spice up some unimaginative camera pans and shots, including the already classic downwards looking spiral staircase, which is complemented here with repeated battery removal procedures from some old school Nokia phones. Perhaps I am being overly harsh, because it all comes together in a compact, competent, if rather undisciplined manner. But it is unusual to see Romanian films failing to be authentic in dialogue or setting, as what should be 2002 rarely feels farther away than 2015, while the bullishness doesn't have the expected bite. When it actually does work, like in the repeated use of the utterly condescending and demeaning expression of "boy", generally used by superiors in conversation with Panduru, you do feel the weight of the world on his shoulders, right there. It's just that the film lacks the fascinating depth that a proper analysis of the facts would have allowed.

My expectations about this movie were low, because i'm sick of law/cop/prosecutors Hollywood crap, but i was surprised."Why me" has strong acting and an interesting story, especially because is a real story. We are introduced in year 2002, 13 years after the revolution in Romania and the fall of communism. But for the judicial system of this country, is like there was no revolution. In the highest level of Prosecutor Office there is still that smell of socialism. The Securitate(secret police which served the Communist party, something like the German STASI)is still there, but now is renamed SRI, some ex-securitate officers now rule the country as politicians, and the old corrupted/repressive prosecutors are still in charge.Add a young, honest and competent prosecutor in all that mess and you've a good movie, worth watching.I'll give it a 7 out of 10 because i wanted to see more depth. Also, character progression seemed a Little bit hard to believe, like they were skipping some scenes.

I've just watched this fine example of a gritty Noir at Berlinale. I'm a lousy movie critic, but just to give you an idea: think "Chinatown", minus the sun-drenched California landscape. The protagonist has to fight various factions, and gets to feel like being but a pawn in a game bigger than him. The setting is Romania, in 2002, it is gritty, dark, and pretty gray, for the most part. Quite atmospheric, and realistic - chillingly so, as a lot of the plot was informed by real events, as the director confirmed during a Q&A after the viewing. The cinematography and color palette is just right for the occasion, the camera is often close to the characters. The actors do a fine job in my book. I recommend this movie, and I'm curious to see what it'll stir up in Romania once it is released there.