User Reviews (45)

Add a Review

  • In "Police, Adjective", Romanian director Corneliu Porumboiu devotes himself to the story of a small town cop reluctant of busting a minor for endorsing hashish with friends. Although vague at first, we learn that the civil police Cristi is having an unease conscience about nailing the young man, which may inflict seven years in prison for what Cristi believes to be a petty crime that will – soon enough – be looked upon more liberated. Throughout pic we follow his daily routines and interactions in the downbeat and austere town of Vaslui, including scenes of parodic bureaucracy and laudable lengthy takes.

    "Police, Adjective" is admittedly in many ways difficult to interpret. The first half of the film deals with classic police work (classic as in reality, not classic as in previously depicted on film) including Cristi's pursuit of suspects and filing reports. For an audience used to clustered action flicks, this may seem as tedious and unbearable to endure. From a more objective perspective, I find it somewhat original and daring. This course of the film is harmless, it is on the contrary a certain, yet inevitable cul-de-sac initiated by a mere typo, that pushes it in a slightly too academic stand. On the other hand, it could also be considered an ironic twist when deciding how Cristi's moral dilemmas should be solved.

    One of the more unfortunate aspects of Porumboiu's directing, in particular substantial for "Police, Adjective" but nonetheless equally visible in previous film "12:08 East of Bucharest", is that the (black) humor sometimes may appear so subtle that when juxtaposed to foreigners it can be completely lost (in translation.)

    Watching Porumboiu's battle between an objective and supreme law versus Cristi's subjective conscientious law is evidently quite fascinating, despite being a bit too submissive at times.
  • The Romanian film wonder goes on and what's wonderous about it is that it's not afraid of life, like most movies around the world are. Since the beginning of the 1900s, there's an agreement about that life being absolutely boring. Lucky thing you can cut the film.

    But here, we follow the young policeman on a routine mission, trying to investigate a supposed drug crime. The camera goes on for ten minutes, nothing happens or more likely...everything happens. What's morality about. Following the law or following your conscience? Or is it the same thing? Or should it be? An action drama there the action takes place inside the characters and the viewers. And that's absolutely fair enough.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Young director Porumboliu, whose 2007 '12:08 East of Bucharest' has been much admired, is having fun here, but the audience may not be. The rigor with which 'Politist, Adj.' explores a minor moral issue in terms of definitions and uses of words may be interesting, but the emphasis on the dullest aspects of police work leave one numbed. This is a film that makes you realize why Hollywood makes police procedurals the way they do. Paint takes a long time to dry. We don't have to watch the whole process.

    The virtually real-time narrative follows young undercover cop Cristi (Dragos Bucur) in the little Romanian town of Vasliu on a surveillance of a teenage student, Viktor (Radu Costin) who's known as a pot user. His superior Nelu (Ion Stoica) wants to arrest the boy. Cristi would prefer to wait and find the dealer, and feels arresting Viktor will ruin the kid's life for nothing, especially since European trends toward decriminalization of marijuana suggest that soon this won't be illegal in Romania either.

    Cristi's recently married to Anca (Irina Saulescu), a schoolteacher, and his encounters with her at home consist mainly of debates about word use and grammar. Since Porumboliu shows two of Cristi's surveillance reports in their handwritten form so we can read through them word for word, he's obviously interested in how police work is partly shaped by a sense of how it will be mapped out in words for superiors to peruse.

    Porumboliu likes following the (perhaps Asian-influenced) fixed-camera approach. This is realistic enough in following a surveillance, and a lot of Crist's time is spend standing around waiting. It's firmly emphasized that even to get report from other parts of police HQ he must wait and haggle over delivery times. A young woman who has access to files wants to leave early to see her boyfriend. Another who deals with ID photos is too busy and resents being rushed. The film is definitely accurate and realistic in depicting low-level police work. Cristi is dogged and patient; he has to be.

    One scene that calls much attention to itself shows Cristi eating a dinner Anca has prepared in front of the fixed camera while Anca sits behind a wall, watching her computer and listening to an inane love song that they then debate. The restrained irony of the scene is subsumed in a sense that life is a matter of drudgery and dry debates. In the two scenes between Cristi and Anca, it's all about words.

    When he's told repeatedly that he must carry out a "sting operation" (perhaps not the right term?), that is, set up a police arrest with backup, hidden cameras, and well-planned logistics, Cristi refuses point-blank. That is, until a prolonged session with a colleague and the Captain, Anghelache (Vlad Ivanov, the hard-hearted abortionist of the much-celebrated '4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days') during which the superior has a Romanian dictionary brought in and orders Cristi to read from it the definitions of "conscience" and "moral" and "law."

    Perhaps due to the convincing naturalism of earlier sequences, the oddity of this scene, the most dramatic, in a sense, of the film, may slip by unnoticed, though it seems extremely far-fetched; or, at least, like everything else, drawn out far longer than necessary. One can't help thinking that a good police officer would simply tell Cristi what he has to do and not conduct a class in semantics and etymology. Perhaps the cops in Vasliu aren't very busy. Word is that a lot of the Romanian gangsters have transferred operations to Italy.

    Cristi's desire to avoid arresting a minor teenage drug offender because of anticipated future liberalization of Romanian law understandably doesn't go over with his superiors. In fact his repeated subordination in word might be expected to call for threats of discipline or expulsion, but such is not the case here. Nor is it clear why the cops don't want to catch a bigger fish. 'Police, Adjective' has its own special point of view that may appeal to some, but for this viewer it is yet another illustration that the widespread anointment of the "new Romanian cinema" as experiencing a "renaissance" is somewhat premature.

    Shown as part of the New York Film Festival 2009 at Lincoln Center.
  • Like Bruno Dumont's epic police procedural L'Humanité, Police, Adjective is a film of mood, silence, and soul. Winner of the Un Certain Regard Jury Prize at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, the second feature by Romanian director Corneliu Porumboiu is a follow-up to his black comedy 12:08 East of Bucharest which won the Camera D'Or at Cannes in 2006. Police, Adjective is about a taciturn, plain-clothed police officer who has developed a conscience over making an arrest, an unusual occurrence in the bureaucratic, post-Communist society of Romania where the law is rigidly enforced regardless of its logic. Like Phaaron of L'Humanité, Cristi (Dragos Bucur) is an unlikely cop, an unglamorous member of the working class who wears the same pullover sweater four days in a row and goes about his job in a mechanical and emotionally unexpressive manner.

    Shown at the Vancouver Film Festival, Police, Adjective is set in the director's hometown of Vaslui in northeastern Romania, a venue that looks unbearably bleak. The general atmosphere is one of decay with paint inside the houses peeling and chipped, lockers rusted, mailboxes broken, and computers looking like Model Ts. There are no camera tricks here, only long takes delivered from a horizontal pan, cinematography that deliberately enhances the tedium. Porumboiu devotes long stretches of the film watching Cristi simply going about his routine. On orders from his superior, Nelu (Ion Stoica), he follows Alex (Alexandru Sabadac), a teenager at the local high school who is suspected of buying hash and selling it to his fellow students, shadowing the boy daily from home to school in hopes of finding out the source of the drugs.

    In the course of his investigation, however, Cristi realizes that Alex is just a kid who occasionally smokes pot with some of his pals and is not a threat to society. Taking detailed notes, Cristi avoids meeting with his boss, waiting to find out the source of the hash before making a move, knowing that arresting a sixteen year old boy for smoking will mean a prison term of at least three years and possibly seven. Finally, when he is ordered to make a full report and take action, Cristi refuses to follow orders from the Police Captain, citing his conscience and the fact that the law will soon be repealed. Like Phaaron of L'Humanité, Cristi is willing to remain faithful to what he believes in but his feelings are ignored by those in a position of power.

    In a memorable sequence, Cristi's boss, Captain Anghelache (Vlad Ivanov) brings in a Romanian dictionary and asks him to look up the meaning of the words "conscience", "law", "moral", and "police", attempting to show him that as a police officer he must obey the letter of the law, not impose his own morality on the situation. The scene is cold, efficient, and persuasive but it is obvious that the law he is asked to follow is based more on semantics than on morality. While most of the first half of the film is filled with uneventful surveillance, a scene at home between Cristi and his wife Anca (Irina Saulescu) adds some humor to the dour proceedings. Husband and wife discuss the meaning of the lyrics of a popular song that Anca is playing over and over again, Cristi giving the words a literal meaning which make little sense, while his wife ascribes to them their proper symbolic and poetic meaning.

    Police, Adjective provides a welcome dose of conscience to a genre that has been buried in technology and filled with violence, car chases, and ugliness, a genre that has dealt only with methods and not consequences. While the film is austere and requires a great deal of patience, with little dialogue and no musical score, Porumboiu forces us to relate to the characters by observing their eyes, their physical movements, and their facial expressions. He expects us not only to see but to think about what we are seeing and, in the process, to bring us face to face with what makes us truly human.
  • Police, Adjective This is an absolutely brilliant film. Many films have been made in Germany or the Czech Republic or Spain or various Latin American countries, and so on and on, about periods of interregnum between one form of government and another. Writer/Director Porumboiu goes right to the details in Romania. He takes the smallest possible case, an undercover officer checking out a high-school drug dealer, and makes us wonder about the biggest metaphysical situations involving law and justice. Wisely—almost incredibly—Porumboiu sets aside macropolitics and doesn't make a partisan or political film. Instead, he forces us to imagine the links between private behaviour and philosophical concepts.

    Many people are constantly writing that the movie is too slow or too long. Hell, I say that about car-chase movies that are 90 mins. of explosions or 130 mins. of James Cameron's computer-animation teams. There is not one wasted second in this film. It is not indulgent in the slightest. There are no car chases. This is a movie about a narc tailing a high-school kid. That's what it is. The only time the movie really really drags is when Cristi, the narc/undercover guy, is watching the home of the alleged squealer. That does go on for a long time, but, structurally, it makes sense, and Porumboiu leavens it a bit by making Cristi get tea from a nearby shop and discuss what he's doing in a communist-realist way that chips in to the overall narrative.

    The way Porumboiu binds the film together is admirable—we see Cristi early on telling his overweight colleague that that colleague just can't play soccer with them—those are the rules. Then Cristi gets told by the prosecutor that he isn't entitled to comment on laws. And then there's Cristi's girlfriend (the rules of language), and Zelu (sees all laws, accepts none, really) and Cristi's boss, Angelache (the rules of law, expressed by language).

    The endless opening and closing of doors, the bureaucracy, the people who think their lives are so much more important than yours, is compelling. Cristi never really imposes. He just has a sense of what is right (and he is a policing figure). His overweight colleague puts upon him. His lazy (political but useless) colleague Zelu is of no help. He goes to the prosecutor (Marian Ghenea—in a truly wonderful performance) and is granted a promise that we later learn has probably been betrayed. Costi, Vali, Doina—all are unwilling to act, knowingly or unknowingly, towards justice. Part of what made The Death of Mr Lazarescu by Puiu so compelling was precisely the fact that one knew that, whether or not you had the greatest American health insurance in the world (or even the most money in the world, maybe), or you lived in a country with one of the greatest public health insurance programs there were, you still were not immune to basic human failings. If Puiu did that with health care and medicine, Porumboiu does that with law and justice and society. What Poromboiu shows us, relentlessly, is that our lives are contingent upon others, and if others treat us the way we treat them, well. . . .

    There just isn't a bad performance in this film. One would finally have to say that Dragos Bucur is effective in his impossible role. He is the hunched anti-hero post-communist but still communist narc. His girlfriend, Anca, can talk of anaphoras, but when he tries to express what he knows is right, the state, in the person of well-known Vlad Ivanov, gets Cristi out a dictionary from which he cannot escape. Dictionaries, after all, like language, are arbitrary documents. A "tree" in Brazil means something entirely different from a "tree" in Siberia. Language is arbitrary and contextual, and this sophisticated film works with this knowledge.

    This is a carefully filmed movie that rarely draws attention to itself. As far as I can tell, every time Cristi is shadowing someone, the effect is very authentic. There are a lot of long shots. Close shots are sparing. Office shots are always as they should be or oblique. When Cristi gets back to his flat, the way Porumboiu films it so that we could only ever see the hallway and never a bedroom or any kind of intimacy at all is very, very wisely done. In some respects, Porumboiu boldly refuses to answer American hopes. He gives us no cheesy intimacy, and keep us always focused on Cristi, the man outside—outside shadowing a kid who may be a drug dealer, outside the changing Romanian legal system, outside his girlfriend's perfect—but changeable—command of language. Maybe Anca is the one who really ought to be determining things, for images are symbols, and symbols are images.

    As for the climactic scene, 20 mins. of pure dictionary: I can't think of 20 other minutes I'd love to watch more, from _The Getaway_ to _Unforgiven_. The climax of _Police, Adjective_ is utterly riveting, if you've grasped what has gone on before.

    This is just an all-around great movie. At times, you can sense opportunities for indulgence, but Porumboiu never takes them. I hope he'll continue not to.

    Yes, it's a given that people not from the U.S. may not understand movies from other places. But I'm getting a little bit tired of this. I can watch movies from Korea or Argentina or just about any country in the world and enjoy them and understand them and feel my way into them and engage with them intellectually and emotionally.

    Police, Adjective is definitely going to go down as a very important film. It comprises the human and the metaphysical the while excising the obvious political. That makes it political. This is an important film. Negative reviewers desperately cling to seeing "police" as a noun, and that is not what this film is about. ww
  • filmalamosa27 December 2011
    This film is good... by contrast last night I watched Two Women with Sophia Loren (1960)...a film that had a veritable circus of characters none of which stayed with me more than 15 minutes.

    I will remember Christi in this film for a long time. Yes it is slow at times especially the scene of them waiting in the office to see Christi's boss. And the dictionary sequence was tedious. But the pay off is you come to really know this character.

    This is just the sort of film I like to stumble on.. something that stays with you. Distant (A Turkish film) is a similar slow moving film.

    One actor has to carry this film entirely for almost two hours--it was a flawless performance by him.
  • chimie19 October 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    It was interesting for me to read some comments from people who couldn't make it until the unhappy ending. Indeed, this is a very slow movie, so maybe if someone expects an action-based crime movie, he will be surely disappointed.

    However, for me it was a much deeper experience than a usual Hollywood- style piece: when the viewer's eye gets used to the tempo, it start to discover odd, sometimes funny details, insights, old reflexes.

    I saw this movie in a Romanian Film Festival in Budapest and it seemed that those in the audience speaking Romanian liked it much more than those who could just read the subtitles, but still I would suggest this movie to everyone with some interest in general moral problems, human relations and, mostly, in how does it feel to live in a not too nice post-communist town.
  • treywillwest12 November 2018
    7/10
    nope
    Warning: Spoilers
    Corneliu Porumboiu's black comedy is impressive in that it is a decidedly philosophical film that still manages to feel like it is about actual human beings. It is also, occasionally at least, quite funny.

    This tale of seemingly pointless police surveillance is intentionally plodding in pace, in part to show how the life of a cop mostly consists of tedium. It is tedious for the audience too, of course. I am rather infamous amongst my friends for my love of slow-moving movies, but even I was taxed by some of the film's scenes. Yet this deliberately challenging pace is broken up by some dry, but sharp humor that reveals Porumboiu to be a screen-writer of humanistic insight. (Rarely do films of this pace try to be funny. This one tries and succeeds.)

    The humanity on display here is also unique in that this is first and foremost a philosophical film. It's outlook could, I suppose, be described as "post-structuralist" in that it's theme is that there is nothing beyond linguistic definitions shaping the law in the broadest sense, even laws of behavior that one might be tempted to ascribe to "human nature." Ultimately, all we know how to do, Prumboiu implies, is follow rules. This dreary conclusion is made all the more troubling by how human and multi-dimensional the characters come to seem.
  • One of the best movies of the year - and, definitely, of the Romanian cinema all over.

    After "12:08: East of Bucharest" (aka "A fost sau n-a fost" - original title), Cornel Porumboiu does it again: an incisive and tender, empathic and ruthless look into our contemporary humanity. It brings back memories of Kafka's "Trial": the blind mechanism of Law, meant to help us live better and, because of so many machine-like people, turned into a device for destroying lives. In the role of the young policeman who loses his faith into the system, Dragos Bucur brings on screen another of his memorable performances - subtle, deep, finely tuned.

    But the main virtue of this excellent movie, of course, is Cornel's directing - credible, original, precise. The static long shots, creating pent-up inner tensions... the unbearable waiting scenes, under a leaden sky... the discrete plastic compositions of the frame... the insidious rhythm... the careful attention to the minutest details - everything, with a due meaning and a perfectly weighted impact.

    Special kudos for the pivotal scene built up around Mirabela Dauer's song "I Don't Leave You Love" - a rare piece of abstruse idiocy, used as a main axis for the protagonist's confrontation with the life's absolute absurdity. The scene is so masterfully built and shot, that it makes us scream laughing (in Cannes, the audience was delirious) - but the ultimate meaning is tragic... this being Porumboiu's definitory characteristic - as he said himself: "comical authors are often the saddest ones of all".
  • rgcustomer13 November 2009
    This film (currently at about 7.5 on IMDb) is grossly over-rated. I may well be over-rating it by giving it a 6.

    I could tell you everything that happens in the film, without spoiling it, because it is the sheer tedium that is the only experience you will take away from this experiment in sparse word-play as film-making.

    In fact, this entire film could simply be reduced down to the last scene, saving everyone a lot of wasted time. But, I tell you, even then it would still be a pretty unimpressive short. Maybe 7 out of 10.

    The festival audience I saw this with was accepting of the film's tedium for a long time, but as minute after minute goes by with absolutely no character or plot development, we all grew fidgety, talking amongst ourselves about what a waste of a ticket this was, and many just started laughing outright at the screen. It was very much like an episode of MST3K. I suspect the reason nobody walked out was because there was nothing else to do before seeing the next film.

    Although I feel that this film did have a point, and I got the point (which is why I generously give it a 6), I hope never to see another film by this director or editor in my life. One is plenty.
  • jimel9812 January 2013
    2/10
    Ugh,
    I'm not the type that demands lots of action for a cop movie to be good, I just want SOMETHING. This movie had very little. The story idea was great but if moved slower than a turtle in a snowdrift. I sat watching this hoping it would get better, just a little. I was glad I had the option of fast forwarding. A scene where the main character eats while in the background his wife listens to music. WOW, that's entertainment. For a minute, two maybe three minutes I could deal, but this scene was closer to 5 minutes, or at least is seemed like it. Watching the house was far longer than it had to be. The acting was flat as a pancake. I know real life conversations are not always animated and I don't want a lot of that, but everyone sounded like they were stuggling to stay awake, which, if not for fast forward, I could identify with.

    I applaud the moral and ethical soul searching, I just wish it had been cut to a 15 minute movie.
  • This is a film about a policeman and a matter of conscience. There's a circle of three friends, two boys and a girl, one boy has denounced the other boy to the police for supplying marijuana, it appears that this is so he can have the girl to himself. Our policeman, Cristi is being pressed to slap the cuffs on the kid by his superior, the charge is a life-wrecker, seven years in prison for smoking joints at lunch break. Cristi spends the movie trying to avoid this outcome. As he says, it's a foolish law.

    Cristi is pushing against a bureaucracy that simply doesn't care, and ends up looking like a fool when he talks to people who are more educated with him, for example suffering his girlfriend's overanalysis of a ludicrous ballad, or the pseudo-dialectics of his boss, a masterpiece of sophistry. The point is that language or words often constitute another form of aggression, as the Athenians knew, you can win any argument once you have mastered rhetoric. Of course, as soon as anyone raises their voice or gets upset, this is taken as a sign that they've lost the argument, the intellectual warfare, losing having nothing whatsoever to do with being right or wrong of course.

    The film is about conscience, something that totalitarian societies tried to eliminate in favour of the wisdom of the law. Good film although some of the intricacies of the discussions were lost on me not being a Romanian, and unable to follow the thread of Romanian spelling and grammar.

    I actually loved the movie on an aesthetic level, I doubt it was intentional, but I always pick up on dashes of yellow in visual arts, an eccentricity of mine. For example in the street where the kid under surveillance lives, all the utilities pipes that come out onto the street are painted bright yellow, the young girl appears first wearing a bright yellow top under denim, and Cristi uses a yellow lighter and a yellow pen, most of the rest of the colour in the movie is very dull and subdued, I enjoyed these flashes. It's also nice seeing old communist offices, nowadays in the west everything is open plan and new, no-one has offices except the capo di tutti capi. Here there's peeling plaster, old caved in lockers, and a little peace and quiet. Hell I even liked just seeing Cristi sat down eating. Then there's the formal way where letters and plans are just shown on the screen with no background. I like the style of the police reports.

    I would just point out that based on my understanding of the film, the English title is a mistranslation, politist is like the French word policier, which all we can translate as is "police procedural"; another translation is "policeman". The translations are nouns though so I was a little confused as to why it's being referred to as an adjective. Maybe the error is meaningful?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A Wry Comedy – ***Warning: Spoilers*** The appropriate adjective is "absurd." This is an understated comedy about the absurdity of a government bureaucracy and legal system in which no one but the the clerical workers have anything to do. It is not so much a "police procedural" as a satire on how the procedures are employed by everyone throughout the chain of command to justify numbingly wasting hour after hour, day after day, doing essentially nothing. Unfortunately, for most of the film the audience may not be entirely in on the joke.

    We follow the main character, Cristi, as he engages in a meaningless investigation involving three high school students which should have ended on day one but drags on and on as nothing further happens. The plot device which successfully holds our interest is Cristi's supposed crisis of "conscience" over the possibility of ruining the life of the young suspected drug dealer among the three.

    However, in a pair of ending scenes which are truly funny and confirm that for the past two hours we have been watching a comedy, Cristi's crisis of conscience is challenged by his superior in an absurd dialogue involving the dictionary - and the following day Cristi outlines a plan to arrest the subjects which is so detailed you would think the targets are the heads of an international cartel. In the end, Cristi's moral dilemma appears to be as much related to his need to attach some meaning to his job as to any reservations over draconian Romanian drug laws.

    There are no villains here, with the possible exception of "the squealer," the young snitch who started the investigation apparently due to some fissure in his former friendship with the target of the investigation. Everyone including the bosses seem to be basically decent people trying to find some way to cope with the boredom of their jobs in the same way that Cristi uses his crisis of conscience to cope with his.

    As a viewer, this is what keeps you from feeling "punked" when you realize that what you have been watching was an exercise in coping with bureaucratic induced boredom. Just as the characters have to find a justification for the boredom and meaningless of their jobs, we have to find something, in this case Cristi's dilemma of conscience, to justify our watching their boredom for two hours – even though in the end this rationale is rendered effectively meaningless. It's human nature, shared by the characters and the viewers – if there is no real reason to justify how we are spending our time we will manufacture one.

    In the end, although I would hesitate to recommend this movie, I do find substantial things to admire about it. It is smart and has a clear purpose which the director adhered to without deviation despite the fact that it cannot be easy, and requires tremendous restraint, to make a movie about endless boredom – and I don't mean that facetiously. And, in retrospect, it is funnier and more focused than it appears as you are watching it, as well as provocative enough to stimulate discussion. I don't find it as compelling as other recent Romanian works such as "Four Months…etc." And I fall somewhere between those who effusively admire it and those who totally dismiss it – but I would definitely pay attention to this director's future efforts.
  • DaveSeidler27 December 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was so painfully slow, it was almost unwatchable. And I like slow movies! I know all of you who have written that this movie has such a deep meaning will hate me for saying that this movies subject matter is extremely weak. This cop is tailing a kid for days just cause he is smoking a few joints? It doesn't make sense. Why would his boss allow him to drag it out this long. Make the arrest or don't and move on to bigger and better things. For all of you who say this is how cops jobs actually are, you are dead wrong. This type of offense would be taken care of in an hour. He's a cop. Do your job or quit and get a other one. Too add, the lack of character development gives me no reason to care about anyone in this film. And isn't that supposed to be the point of the while movie? Caring and understanding what the character feels? Well I don't feel anything from this film.
  • ionut-1814 October 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    The film depicts a society where the Dictionary has replaced the Bible and everything is striped down to the bare fact, rejecting everything that is human. The main character is a policeman tormented by the remains of humanity buried deep inside him. The system perceives his internal struggle as a potential danger and comes hard on him to "cure" his "desease" once and for good. Alongside this former human, the audience is absorbed into this surreal atmosphere, where even poetry's right to exist is questioned. Humans are robot-like beings, with no real personality, and the cinematography could not have been other than bare simple and static. It's an art film, not easily accessible, but it stays with you long after you left the theater.
  • As a romanian I can not believe that some people actually liked this. The action is so slow. I mean we spend 10 minutes watching the main character eat soup, in another scene we see him for about 15 minutes undressing when he comes home.

    I mean ... come on what were they trying to do ? Waste film. IMHO

    As for the directing goes I have no objection, as this is very easy to film.

    You can honestly fit the script into 1 A4 page. Just trash IMO. But that does not mean that we do not make good films.

    Better luck next time.
  • Let's start off by stating the obvious: if you like films with snappy editing and lots of action, this isn't the film for you. However, it has to be said with due consideration that the directorial style here lends itself VERY well to the subject at hand. The purpose of the film is to examine our roles in society, and in this case, the role of police officer. The film is not interested in character development or in trying to get us to empathize with the characters; it portrays the characters as tiny cogs in a massive machine, that do their job, serve their purpose, and who each play their part in the macro scheme of society as a whole. It's the examination of the free will of a machine in motion, a body let's say, where if one of its components ceases to fulfill it's designated role, then the rest comes crashing down. The film very effectively paints this type of picture in what can probably best be described as being a little bit like a documentarian approach to fiction.

    Personally I generally don't mind a film that's very minimalist and slow paced. I like taking in the ambience; I like observing a moment in time captured on camera and reflecting upon the ebb and flow of the mundane. If like me, you're someone who's mind tends to wander, you probably like this style of directing too. That being said, in this film it definitely is a little TOO much. You really could do without the 5 minute roaming shots that lead into almost EVERY major scene. To me, there just aren't enough focal points in the plot progression, and not enough delivery for all the buildup. The film has specifically chosen to not allow us to empathize with the characters, and with that, there's so much less for the viewer to hang onto.

    The entire film essentially is one single drawn out buildup to the climax, which is the confrontation between the protagonist and his superior, an authoritarian type who clearly enjoys making power plays, having others submit to his will, and talking down to them as if they're children, while the protagonist slowly finds his reason, his morality, and his distaste of a situation that he does not feel is right, picked apart until he barely knows who he is anymore. This is essentially my favorite type of scene in movies, long drawn out verbal exchanges over a point of conflict. This one, like the rest of the film, while effective, still comes across as a little bland to me.

    In the end, it's not a bad film, and I say that largely because I can see what they were trying to show, and I understand the reasoning behind it. THAT'S not necessarily great film-making, communicating a single abstract message to the viewer, and little else. I really wish the film put some major focus on the family who was ultimately going to be affected by what may or may not be viewed as a mishandling of justice. As the viewer, we really do need something a little more to wet our appetites here, and I think exploring the human condition from different focal points is not an unreasonable way to add value. Ultimately this is just not as good as say, a film by the Dardenne brothers, or a Bruno Dumont film, though still, I would consider watching it again. That being said, I would really really have to be in the right mood.
  • I recently saw "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days", about a woman's efforts to have an abortion in Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania. Now comes "Politist, adj." ("Police, Adjective" in English), Romania's submission to the Academy Awards as Best Foreign Language Film of 2009. This one looks at small-town cop Cristi (Dragos Bucur) assigned to investigate a boy smoking hashish, and how he begins to have misgivings about the ethical ramifications of the task.

    What strikes me is how much this small town in Romania looks like Russia. Most of the buildings all have a very Eastern Bloc look. To be certain, there are a few scenes where Dragos goes to the boy's house in what appears to be a posher section of the town, with more modern-looking houses. Many of the scenes in the film are long shots, especially the scene where Cristi and his superior use the dictionary to debate the true meaning of conscience and other words.

    I don't know if I would call this the greatest movie ever made, but I still recommend it. The scene where Cristi eats dinner while his wife has an obnoxious song playing on the computer really shows Cristi's break in terms of conscience, just because of how he reacts.

    Anyway, I like to get to see cultures that we don't often see, and I really liked this movie. I hope that Romania gives us more like this.
  • dromasca16 November 2020
    It took me more than a decade to get to see Corneliu Porumboiu's second film, made in 2009, 'Police, Adjective'. The film presented and award-winner at Cannes and other important festivals of that year was one of the most representative films, perhaps even the most typical, of the minimalist style of the New Romanian Wave of the first decade of our century. The wave passed, the awards taken by Romanian films at festivals became rare, Romanian cinema began to go in various other directions, but Porumboiu remained together with Cristian Mungiu and Cristi Puiu a well-established and respected name in the international film world. The late viewing of this film allowed me to see it from the perspective of the time elapsed since the premiere and of the subsequent films of Porumboiu and his generation colleagues. It was, I think, a good opportunity to re-examine the themes of Romanian films of the period, the qualities but also the repetitive patterns and the problems that viewing these films pose to viewers, which have become more obvious now, when the elements of novelty and surprise no longer exist.

    The story in the movie is relatively simple. In Vaslui, a provincial town where nothing ever happens and, not coincidentally, the director's city and the place where his debut film '12: 08 East of Bucharest 'took place, the young policeman Cristi (Dragos Bucur) is assigned on the case of a high school student who is denounced by a colleague of his who is also a police snitch, that he is a drug dealer. It is clear that the boy is a marijuana consumer, but the drug trafficking accusation does not seem well-founded, and may be rather caused by the rivalry of the two teenagers for the same girl. Cristi tries to avoid framing the boy as his boss demands, knowing that this would land him to several years in prison for a minor crime. The policeman acts more according to what his conscience dictates than according to the letter of the law. But are these notions, these words - 'conscience', 'law', even 'policeman' - clearly defined in a society that still seems confused after communism and is slowly learning the lessons of democracy? At some point, a dictionary will appear.

    A few words about the translation of the title of the film, 'Police, Adjective', a title under which it was distributed on the English-speaking market. 'Politist, Adjectiv' in Romanian uses a form ('politist') which is indeed both a noun and an adjective as opposed to the English form ('police') which is a noun or verb. Thus, part of the linguistic subtlety is lost through translation, wasting one of the key elements of the film along with the gray and sordid rectangularity of the cinematograpy. Viewers need to be very careful not to miss the few seconds when the 'adjective' in the title is on the screen filmed from a dictionary page, and remember a previous discussion between the film's hero and his wife, in which the metaphorical meaning of words is contrasted with their dry and direct meaning.

    The acting is excellent. Dragos Bucur melts in the role of Cristi, the young policeman. Vlad Ivanov in the role of police chief dominates most of the film by his absence, but when he appears he is impressive, as always. The sets offer us a representative, almost documentary image of the Romanian world the first decade of the century: the dark corridors and the offices at the police station, the muddy streets and the standard blocks of flats of the provincial town, the apartment of a couple at the beginning of their marriage. The police routine and the routine of life occupy most of the screening time, which is quite common in Romanian films in the 'minimalist' style. However, this is also the main problem and the challenge faced by the spectators, which became even more visible after a decade from the production. The film is intelligent and conveys a sensitive and important message. The characters deserve attention. The core of the film that demands the interest of the spectators is buried in reality details. I know it's intentional, but it seemed to me excessive. I don't think we needed to see the hero eating the whole dinner or waiting for long minutes in the boss's waiting room in order to understand the passage of time. 'Police, Adjective' is an interesting and well-made film, but the dose of minimalism in it is maximum.
  • I will not bore you with much talk. The film I am talking about is not talking too much either. But what talked there is, is good talk. To some it might be even be boring, tedious, senseless or even useless. But for the brilliant mind, the deep soul, the person who can understand human beings and behavior, this film is a masterpiece. Very simple, if you liked "gone in 60 sec." this film is not for you. just move on to the next mindless, senseless, empty film. There are thousands of them. This gem, this masterpiece, this amazing film, requires some brains and a understanding. BRAVO! is all I can say.

    It will stay with me as long as I live. It marked me, it made me be ashamed, it made me become a better person, and if a simple film can do something like this to anyone, in my books, is a great film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I saw this on IFC in Theaters and it was a really poor choice for a Christmas movie.

    File this under the definition of glacially boring.

    This played the New York Film Festival?

    Romanian film concerns a cop who tailing a kid as a possible drug suspect but can't get anything on him. We watch as he stands ans watches and waits, and follows, and avoids his bosses who want a bust, and eats meals with his wife and watches some more. And then he walks around and he watches some more. And then he gets called into his bosses office and reads the dictionary and then...

    I spent much of the running time trying to deduce how this got a release anywhere. I think the film was sold as the next big thing in Romanian cinema after Four Months Three Weeks and Two days. I think they were sold a bill of goods. This is a snoozer. Nothing happens....or rather nothing that requires a two hour running time. Only for those who like paint drying (IFC listed this as a comedy, but I don't find it funny)

    Take a pass.
  • Hey gang...are you in the mood for a cop thriller with loads & loads of one car chase scene after another,enough stuff being blown up,real good,ditzy mindless blonde's with size 40 hooters parading around practically nude through out most of the film,as well as lots & lots of bloody,graphic scenes of people having their heads blown off with double barrel shotguns (at point blank range)? Well if you are...do yourself a favour and avoid 'Police,Adjective' like the plague. That aside, 'Police,Adjective' is a drama with some comedic touches from Romania that goes for the brain,instead of the testosterone fueled quarter oz.excuse of functional gray matter (and you know who you are). The story here concerns a plainclothes detective,Cristi (played to perfection by Dragos Bucur),who is on assignment to shadow a potential drug pusher,who is a high school student,to be set up for a drug sting. Problem is,Cristi has nagging doubts that this boy is truly guilty & objects to said such sting. Throughout his working day, Cristi has to deal with un-cooperative co workers,as well as his wife, Anca (Irina Saulescu),who has a penchant for turgid Romanian pop songs (she plays the same banal video over & over again on You Tube,while Cristi tries to enjoy his supper). For me,the (obviously)high points of this film concerns the occasional diatribes between Cristi & his co workers,replete with semantics (had this film been directed by the likes of Quentin Tarrentino,they would have droning on about American pop culture of the 1970's---thank goodness it wasn't). Corneliu Porumbiou ('12:08 East of Bucharest')writes & directs this low key police drama with more than a dash of brains going for it. The rest of the cast turn in equally fine roles. A director that is worth keeping an eye out for. Spoken in Romanian with English subtitles. Not rated by the MPAA,this film has a few drug related references,but ABSOLUTELY no nudity,sexual content,violence or pervasive strong language
  • This is surely the most boring and pretentious movie I have ever watched. Even for the artsy standards you can encounter at a festival such as Cph Pix, I found Politist to be a tedious experience. Luckily I persuaded my friend to leave after 70 minutes, at that stage I was outright puzzled by how such a boring piece of cinema could have won such critical acclaim. In fact, I think it is because the movie naturally makes one reflect and meta-analyze about the movie as it unfolds - it is simply not possible to merely enjoy the movie, relate to the characters, get moved by the story - the only way to cope with this miserable movie is to start thinking about it as it unfolds. The story is simple and I suppose the director and proponents wants to make a Kafka/Camus-kinda point about the absurdity of life in some bleak post-communist provincial city in Romania. How this cliché of a movie can be considered prober art and/or entertainment by any intelligent human being is simply beyond me. My advice: don't see it unless you want to see a text book example of boring and pretentious cinema.
  • "This movie may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, the movie should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied." My point is that this movie is not for everybody. If you look for Terminator-type movies, or superhero crap you definitely won't find it here.In this movie we see things as they are, we see people as we are.

    The director successfully captured the thoughts and actions of a young policeman at a moment of doubt and insecurity in his life, a balance between law as it is written and law as every one of us pictures it.

    I won't say more and I encourage you to go and see it. I loved it.
  • amirsiddique19 January 2010
    loved it, so simple, yet meaningful, real-life like, and profound. Enjoyed every minute of it. The movie is full of peace, love! Any person who loves to look deeper in movies and scripts will immensely enjoy the experience.

    This movie makes you think that how in studio movies, we have moved away from real life and into make-up, gadgetry, fancy cars, fancy houses and in the process we loose the real feeling that makes a movie close to life. The movie is set in no pretentious neighborhood, no fancy houses, cars, dresses and gadgets. Because all is real.

    Plot: a police detective is faced by a situation where his moral voice does not allow him to follow orders and become a party in the arrest of some kids who smoke hashish. He believes that if he became a party to the arrest, his will never be able to walk with clear conscious. The movie is all about how he does not want to do something which he thinks will haunt him for the rest of his life.
An error has occured. Please try again.