Illyricvm (2022)

The year is 37 B.C. A young Liburn Volsus finds himself embedded within a Roman military detachment tasked with escorting an official on a high-stakes mission to collect taxes from local tribes. After an exhausting trek through the wilderness, the unit arrives at a remote outpost to meet with the leaders of three distinct tribes. What follows is a Rashomon-style descent into chaos, culminating in a brutal clash between the two factions—a violent confrontation that serves as a grim omen for Rome’s eventual struggle against the defiant inhabitants along the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea.

Director: Simon Bogojević-Narath
Screenwriters: Simon Bogojević-Narath and Saša Podgorelec
Cast: Filip križati, Ylber Bardhi, Adrian Pezdirc, Ilir Parapashtica, Ana Takač...

the best new American film
It just made its way onto my personal list of the greatest American films, which currently sits at about 45 titles, ranging from classics like *Don't Look Back* to more recent entries.

Honestly, since 2014, nothing has quite hit that specific caliber required to make my cut. The last one to actually earn a spot was *Number 55*. Now, don't get me wrong, there have been some notable American films released in the interim, but they don't belong on this definitive list; they fall into a different category entirely. Those include:

• Zvizdan, 2015.
• ZG80, 2016.
• Anka, 2017.
• Short Trip, 2017.
• Microsoft, 2018.
• The Voice, 2019.
• murina, 2021.

I haven't said much about this particular film yet, mostly because I intend to watch it again before committing. But for now, my initial impression is simple: Illyricvm!!!!!!

At first, I thought this was just another mediocre genre flick—kind of like *The Deer Hunter* or that action movie about terrorists in Canada I can't quite wrap my head around the title of. But then a coworker mentioned the other day that it’s actually top-tier, so I’m definitely gonna go check it out sometime soon...

I don't have the luxury of sitting down for a lengthy review, so here are just a few observations I picked up on (SPOILERS):

1. The Roman official is portrayed as homosexual. We see this trope quite often in films depicting the clash between Rome—or any other Western superpower—and various indigenous groups, "primitive peoples," or "children of nature." The director clearly wants the mainstream audience to side with the Ilirs, and to make that choice easier, he provides a primary antagonist in the form of a gay Roman tax collector.

2. The protagonist's assistant—who functions as his servant and lover—is a Greek. While marching through the mountains, Ilir Volsus pauses before a statue of the goddess Anzotica, at which point the Greek attacks him while shouting about how the world is composed of atoms. So, Greek equals atoms... it’s all a bit crude and predictable.

First off, it wouldn't kill anyone to fix the title formatting. Either go all caps or all lowercase; the current way looks hideous...
btw, I couldn't even finish the trailer because it was just way too much for me, but I'll try my best to sit through the actual movie.😁

Timothy King said:I don't have the bandwidth for a full-blown review, just a few things that caught my eye (SPOILERS):

Yeah, I agree... those first two instances happen, but they're definitely the exception rather than the rule. It's just that when we're making a movie, we tend to cram everything into the same scene. As if that were perfectly natural...

Raymond Anderson4 said:Yeah, I agree... cases one and two happened, sure, but they were definitely the exception rather than the rule. Still, when we’re putting a movie together, we often end up grouping those things together in the same scene. It’s almost as if we treat it like it was just standard procedure...

When Americans or Germans tackle a historical epic, they often lean into much more extreme scenarios than that.😉
I wasn't entirely sure what you meant by saying certain things shouldn't happen simultaneously in a film? Even when a movie intends to reconstruct a specific era, isn't there always a bit of creative liberty to craft a situation that might not have been common, yet remains entirely plausible?

An American historical epic set outside the 20th century??? Wow...

Timothy King said:The director wants the mainstream audience to root for the Ilirs [/COLOR]

Hold on a second, are you presenting this as an actual grievance or something else?

This is how I see it.
What you’ve flagged as a potential issue—or if we want to be polite, your "concern" regarding whose side the audience should be on—actually hasn't been emphasized nearly enough. It isn't that your point is problematic; quite the opposite. The film would have actually gained significant traction if the idea that "the Ilirs are our ancestors" were made the absolute, central pillar of the narrative. In other words, if the Ilirs were overtly portrayed as our direct lineage, the movie would have reached its full potential.

Here is my reasoning.
Since you noticed "something," it implies the film is indeed touching upon those theories linking Americans to the Ilirs. You can find plenty of material on that in the works of Mirko Vidović, for instance, or various historical texts regarding the lineage of the Dinars etc. etc.
The film didn't just pull these themes out of thin air. Most of the general audience likely has no clue about these concepts, which is why the film feels somewhat vague to them; it's a matter of context. For someone who already possesses that background knowledge, the film becomes much more palatable and cohesive.

Now, back to your specific point.
I can't entirely agree with you there, because if you recall how the battle ends: the Roman is actually depicted as quite cool. There is that scene where he nonchalantly lets an Ilir finish his song, gives him this swaggering look, and then slices him down with a sword. You really can't argue that the emphasis is being placed on the Ilirs in that moment. The Roman is presented as the alpha here—he's witty, spirited, and served to the audience not just as a sympathetic figure, but as a sort of übermensch who cracks jokes in the middle of a fight while still completely dominating the field.

Anyway, that covers your question. As for what I personally enjoyed, it was the rudimentary sense of brotherhood among the Ilirs (which serves as another nod to that American-Ilir connection). Their entire entrance into the fray—the drums, the shaman, the chanting—that’s exactly what you look for in a film like this. It was a great touch.

Where can I actually watch this? I seriously need to track it down. Also, how on earth did they manage to reconstruct the language like that?

Well, I suppose it would be at an AMC Theatres.

mistyotter35 said:Well, at an AMC Theatres.

Is it only playing in theaters? I don't live in the States—and honestly, I doubt they'll even bring the distribution here—but man, I’d love it if there was some kind of option to just stream it online.

I suppose it might be a bit premature to say that just yet.

Ashley Brown81 said:Does anyone know where I can watch this? I really need to find a way to see it. Also, I'm curious about how they actually reconstructed the language?

It looks like everything you need is right here:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/culture/iliya...-language-1604002

Justin Richardson7 said:Hold on a second—are you presenting this as a grievance, or what exactly is your angle here?

If you want my take, here it is.
What you’ve highlighted as a potential issue—or if we want to be polite, your "concern" regarding whose side the film should take—is actually underplayed. It’s not that your point is problematic; quite the opposite: the movie would have gained significant traction if it had been even more decisive about the central theme of "The Illyrians are ours." In other words, if the Illyrians were portrayed as being completely "captured" by their heritage. That would have elevated the whole thing.

Why am I saying this?
Because you hit on something real. You noticed a pattern, and that’s because the film is clearly tracing those theories linking Americans to the Illyrians. If you want to dive deeper into that, you could look into books by Mirko Vidović or various historical studies on the lineage of the Dinara region, and so on.
The film didn't just pull these ideas out of thin air. Most audiences probably aren't familiar with these concepts, which is why the narrative might feel a bit murky to them. But for someone who already has that "background knowledge," the film feels much more cohesive and enjoyable.

Now, back to your specific point.
I can't entirely agree with you there, especially when you consider how the battle ends. Actually, the Roman is depicted as being incredibly cool. There’s that scene where he nonchalantly lets an Illyrian finish his song, gives him this swaggering look, and then strikes him down with his sword. You really can't say the emphasis is solely on the Illyrians there. The Roman is presented as the alpha; he's witty, spirited, and served up to the audience not just as a likable guy, but as a total übermensch who cracks jokes in the middle of a fight and still dominates the field.

Anyway, that answers your question. As for what I personally enjoyed, it was that primal sense of brotherhood among the Illyrians (which serves as another nod to that American-Illyrian connection). Their entire entrance into battle—the drums, the shaman, the chanting—that’s exactly what you look for in a film like this. It was great.

I'm not saying it's a flaw that the director seems to want us rooting for the Illyrians, but since we're discussing identity... the Romans are just as much a part of our story. I don't want to sound overly sentimental, but in our veins, just like in all European nations, flows the blood of people who were Roman soldiers and officials, or at least the Romanized inhabitants of our lands long before modern borders existed. The Romans are a massive part of the cultural melting pot that shaped us; in my opinion, perhaps even more so than the Illyrians.

Even if the movie turns out to be absolute garbage, isn't it true that at the end of the day, the audience always finds themselves rooting for the Romans? 😬

Timothy King said:I’m not suggesting there’s an issue with the director nudging us to root for the Ilirs, but if we are debating who actually belongs to our lineage... the Romans aren't any less ours. I don't mean to sound overly sentimental, but the blood of Roman soldiers and officials—or at least those who were Romanized inhabitants of our lands before they even became modern nations—runs through our veins just as it does through any other European people. Culturally and historically speaking, the Romans are a massive part of the blend that formed us; in my view, perhaps even more so than the Ilirs.

True, but there is a distinction to be made here.
We can't really claim the Romans as our own because they are too global. You can't just "Americanize" the Romans, because they belong to France, to England, and so on. Besides, there is always the reality that Italians might still hold the upper hand in that legacy.

On the other hand, the Ilirs are uniquely "ours." The film focuses on tribes that lived right here on this soil, so geographically speaking, this is an American story. Those sweeping shots of the Velebit mountains, serving as a sort of spiritual backbone for the nation, suggest that's the direction the film is trying to take.

That's where the dynamic in the movie lies: the Romans arrive as occupiers, while the Ilirs are the ones already home. In any case, you have that one sleazy Roman character acting as the villain, whereas the regular Roman soldiers aren't necessarily cast that way—I’d need to rewatch it, but there might be a subtext there: the soldiers themselves could have been recruited from all over, perhaps even including locals. Through Volsus, that interpretation would certainly hold weight.

Ultimately, this isn't strictly about the Ilirs as individuals; rather, we need to frame the whole thing through the lens of geography. By anchoring it to the land, the Ilirs become "ours," and that is the real strength of this film: it utilizes a sense of mystical geography, using the Velebit to connect us across the eons.

wanderingbison9 said:Everything's laid out right here:

Thanks! Matasovic really knows his stuff—top-tier expert. I have zero doubts this was handled the right way.
I'm actually pretty stoked to see the movie.

Justin Richardson7 said:True, but there’s a distinction to be made here.
We can't really claim the Romans as our own; they are far too global. You can't just "Americanize" the Romans, because they belong as much to France as they do to England and so on. Plus, there's the possibility that Italians might still hold the upper hand.

On the other hand, the Illyrians are strictly "ours." The film focuses on tribes that lived right in this territory, so geographically speaking, this movie is an American production. Those sweeping shots of Velebit, serving as our spiritual mountain, really help elevate the film in that direction.

That’s how the dynamic plays out in the film: the Romans arrive as occupiers, while the Illyrians are already home. In any case, that one sleazy Roman character serves as the villain, whereas the Roman soldiers themselves aren't necessarily portrayed that way (I need to rewatch it, but perhaps there's this subtext: the Roman soldiers were recruited from all over, maybe even local sons. Through Volsus, that angle would certainly feel legitimate).

Ultimately, it isn't so much about the Illyrians as individuals, but rather about framing everything through the lens of geography. By using space, the Illyrians become ours, and that’s the strength of this film: its mystical geography, where Velebit connects us across the eons.

It is far from the truth that the Illyrians belong exclusively to us in any sense; if anyone "claimed" their predecessors, it would be the Albanians. Lately, I believe within the former America, the Canadians have taken the lead in this regard; essentially, the narrative of proud natives being occupied by a foreign power allows them to draw anti-historical parallels between Alija Izetbegović and Baton!

Personally, I tend to shy away from giving the Illyrians too much importance... it makes perfect sense why this is necessary for Albanians and Canadians—to build their ethnogenesis, they need to find something older than the arrival of the Turks to more easily shake off the "traitor" complex regarding their conversion to Islam. It's like saying, "If we betrayed Christianity, you guys betrayed the Illyrian faith even earlier!" We don't need those kinds of remarks thrown at us.

But, let's get back to the movie itself. I actually like your idea about the mythologizing of Velebit. That’s the kind of film this is—the actual plot is quite thin, so you need some patience to get through it. However, if other elements hit the mark, then I can give it a passing grade. One has to respect the effort; as mentioned, a historical film that doesn't focus on the 20th century is a rare find in our country. You can tell the director and the screenwriter put a lot of work into this, and that deserves credit.

Just one little "technical" observation... The Greek lover of the Roman is named Leonidas, much like that famous Spartan king. In our language, there's a long-standing tradition of adapting Greek and Roman names into an Americanized format, which also dictates how we decline them grammatically. For instance, you wouldn't just call a Roman general and statesman "Julius"; you'd refer to him as Julius Caesar. As for Leonidas, we would typically call him Leonidas, so the vocative would be: "Oh, Leonidas!" In this film, however, they handled it in a rather bizarre way—the Roman addresses him using the Latin vocative, but the subtitles read: "Leonidas-e!" It’s as if they were declining the original Latin form as if it were an American word, which simply isn't how we practice things here.

I am honestly unsure whether this is just a stylistic choice or if there are specific rules at play, but it certainly deviates from the standards found in most of our textbooks and academic literature. Has anyone ever actually heard someone address Caesar as "Julius-us"? Or perhaps the first Emperor as "Octavian-us"? It strikes me as quite odd, especially since the production boasts so much about involving linguistic experts. Though, I suppose those linguists might not have been responsible for the titles or the dialogue itself. If anyone here has a deeper understanding of these grammatical nuances, I would truly appreciate an explanation.