I think Romanian cinema would benefit from depicting more movies about professional, normal people rather than dysfunctional ones.In some sense, probably cinema is also a mirror of society. Since "corruption" is a subject nowadays in Romania, "Why me?" approaches this subject.I think the movie describes pertinently the influence of the superiors on the prosecutor, their attitude of bullying into getting what they wanted-a mock up trial on other prosecutor so that their material interests would survive, the harassment he is subject to. The question is what to do-to acquiesce or to stand ground? A similar moral dilemma has the policeman in the movie "Police,adjective" and similar harassment suffers "Serpico" .However the movie lacks on two points: 1) it does not show the descent or turmoil of the protagonist which usually accompany up to the final act. He is mostly calm or self-assured up to the end, in contrast with the tragedy of his final act. 2) it does not show what is the origin of his moral conscience. Was it influence of some people, did it come from his own study and reflections? Also, what principles does he support?

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.

When I started watching this movie I wasn't expecting too much, but in the end it really impressed me.The reality of the case was the best part of it and the fact that underlines what's happening in Romania and how rotten is the system. That fact that they chose to make a movie about a controversial case, shows that there are still people ready to change the system, but still, Cristian Panduru was one of those people and the movie shows what happened to him.This movie is a good lesson, not only for Romanian people, but also for everyone. Is about not letting yourself be corrupted by the system and keep your true values, because in the end that's what matters. I strongly recommend this movie.

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.