Military Review

"Stalingrad" unprofessional gaze

396
Almost a week has gone since the premiere of Fyodor Bondarchuk’s film “Stalingrad” (there were also pre-premiere shows in Volgograd). It was not possible to get to the premiere itself (that is, on the first day of the screening) of the film, which was initially somewhat upsetting. Then the feeling of frustration was transformed into "it is better", since it was possible, before actually watching, to carefully read the materials in the form of reviews, reviews and evaluation articles, which literally flooded a wide variety of publications. Film critics, non-specialists, as well as people who consider themselves to be nothing more than freshly baked film critics who are ready to spread out the script, directing and acting in the film on the shelves, began to fill various forums, blogs and other platforms with their impressions of Stalingrad. At the same time, some comments and assessments are such that two opinions can be made about their author: either this person managed to write his own review and didn’t see the movie at all, or at least Quentins Tarantino or James Cameron did it, behind which are placers of masterpieces, but because they have every right to any statement about any picture.




After reading dozens of various reviews, the desire to see Fyodor Bondarchuk’s film only increased. I am not a film critic, and therefore I am not going to present my personal opinion about the film as a kind of professional assessment of Stalingrad. I will say the following: what I saw on the screen in the IMAX 3D format, I (again, personally) really impressed me. I see no reason to retell the plot of the film, as this can only harm the person who is going to see the film with his own eyes. But to speak out from the point of view of an ordinary viewer, an amateur from the cinema, and to speak out not only about Stalingrad, but also about negative reviews on the Internet, rippling on the Internet, he considered it necessary.

Immediately it should be said that the film will be difficult to watch to the person who came to the cinema with the sole purpose to compare the real events of the Battle of Stalingrad and what is shown in the film. Such people for trying to compare the calibers of "cinema" and real weapons, the bends of the Volga riverbed in 1942 and 2012, the height of the tops of the boots or the “splitting” of human viscera from a projectile rupture risk completely forgetting that this is not a documentary, but an artistic tape, in which documentary, of course, plays an important role, but still it should not dominate the rest.

It will be difficult to watch the film and the person who decides from the moment of the start of the viewing will certainly compare the film of Fyodor Bondarchuk with the films of other directors (both past and present).

Before watching, I read a review about a film of the following nature: they say, a film about how several smeared with soot actors depicting Soviet fighters, together with a girl, sit in the basement and wait for Bondarchuk to spend the last cent of the 30 million allocated to him ... And the same person immediately writes that “Stalingrad” doesn’t fit into the soles of the old Soviet films “Only old men go to battle” or “... And the dawns here are quiet”. Well, the “commentator” in his thoughts is clearly inconsistent: according to the same logic, he had to write that in his film Stanislav Rostotsky told how a foreman and several girls-fighters “endlessly” roam the woods; that the film by Leonid Bykov is not about those pilots who spend their time daily exclusively in air rams, but about “some other” - those who dance and sing.

This is me to the fact that if a person came to watch a movie with a desire to find only minuses in it and with the thesis that before the grass was juicier, the mountains are higher and the stars are brighter, then such a person, excuse me, cheat on any movie, no matter who he took it off, whoever appeared in it, and what storyline in it would have developed ...

“Stalingrad” is a film that was shot not in 60's or in 70's. Therefore, we should not expect a certain repetition from the film. history Soviet cinematographic tradition, no matter how wonderful it is. This film is just different. It is modern, it is an event, and it looks different. And yet, and it is simply impossible not to note today, it is interesting not only for film aesthetes, but also for representatives of modern youth. When you see in the cinema, the interest is shown by representatives of the middle and older generations, as well as by people, let's say, until 20 or so, when you don’t see attendants with popcorn or you can see them side, then it says a lot today. Even the so-called “places for kisses” at “Stalingrad” turn into places for interested viewing. This is evident, and the audience interest in the hall, if I may say so, is felt.

It is noteworthy that during the viewing, the audience gathered (and these were people of different age groups) did not utter a single caustic word, and no one had left the hall before the end of the show, which they often had to face in other pictures. As they say, whether the audience at this moment gathered extremely intelligent, or whether the film really hurt everyone sitting in the hall ... As it really happened there, it doesn't even matter anymore. It is clear that the Bondarchuk tape is of interest.

The film was made in the wrong way, so that at every stage of the plot development, it would be scrupulous to reveal the historical course of the Stalingrad battle. This is a film in which the Battle of Stalingrad itself is chosen as the background of two developing love stories at once. Of course, someone may not like it, someone will declare that this is some kind of military love glamor, and love, they say, is not the place in war, someone might argue that he would have shot everything differently — certainly it is better, historically verified and, of course, cheaper, and the “saved” millions of dollars would be distributed to orphans ... But lately, such demagogy is all the time: lean out for a couple of seconds, shout out something absurd and right there in the bushes - they say, mission accomplished, moral satisfaction obtained.

In Stalingrad, Fyodor Bondarchuk made an attempt to saturate the plot with a multitude of intersecting processes, and this, in my humble judgment, was possible. The film is not so much about the war, but about the fact that the war - it, like life, is different, multifaceted - cannot be displayed in one black or one white.

The film is capable to cause the most powerful emotions in any normal person, the effect of empathy, participation. The viewer is immersed in this atmosphere (the technologies applied here, of course, play one of the most important roles). At the same time, “Stalingrad” is not for those who come to the cinema to have a rest, and this film is not for regular TNT viewers (not switching to other TV channels), although for such a contingent “Stalingrad” would be the best medicine for an unhealthy “gee-gee” -manias "and total" pofigizma. "

There are historical inaccuracies, there are exaggerations. But once again, for a moment, this is a feature film ... And the work, the authors of which do not pretend at all to position themselves as authors of video sequences to a school history textbook. And any book materialists will find what they want to find: even in the documentary video footage of the Battle of Stalingrad itself (this, of course, not about the film “Stalingrad”), they can see something that does not fit into their understanding of history - they say everything is another was - heard, we know ...

In general, “Stalingrad” is, unequivocally, an event in the national cinema, which is difficult to ignore and for which it is difficult to remain indifferent.









Author:
396 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 16 October 2013 08: 48 New
    31
    Well, just at least once go and see, and there draw your own conclusions. This is me for those who want to talk about this film ...
    1. feanor
      feanor 16 October 2013 09: 00 New
      30
      Quote: svp67
      Well, just at least once go and see, and there draw your own conclusions. This is me for those who want to talk about this film ...

      I watched the film in 3D, it was very beautiful, of course I was waiting for a film about the war, but I received a film about love in the war, but I liked the film. At the cinema search, many lovers of spitting in Russian cinema did their job, and 12% of those who rated the film as 1 out of 10 said that brainwashing with Hollywood makes itself felt.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov 16 October 2013 09: 31 New
        38
        Quote: feanor
        and 12% of those who rated the film 1 out of 10 say that brainwashing with Hollywood makes itself felt.

        The result of a failed ad. The people went like the "Liberation" of the Soviet era, but at a modern technical level. But I saw something else. So don't be surprised at the number of disappointed people.
        1. Natalia
          Natalia 16 October 2013 11: 11 New
          12
          The film is AMAZING, AMAZING, my husband and I went recently .... I honestly thought that there would be just one shot, shooting and blood ... but no, an amazing game of actors, an amazing idea ... show war, dedication, love , feelings, devotion (and what is most interesting devotion and love contrary to circumstances), joy to simple trifles when such a nightmare is around, it’s great ... and moreover, it pleased any imitation of Hollywood.
          Amazing movie I recommend to everyone good
          1. T80UM1
            T80UM1 16 October 2013 12: 11 New
            20
            There is no soul in him, some kind of artificial, for example, in "Legend -17" the soul was
            1. feanor
              feanor 16 October 2013 14: 35 New
              +1
              Quote: T80UM1
              There is no soul in him, some kind of artificial, for example, in "Legend -17" the soul was

              Whatever the film, in less than a week it scored $ 17 million and it has already been watched by 500 million in Russia, and on October 000 it will also be released in China.
          2. Breard
            Breard 16 October 2013 14: 32 New
            25
            Hmm ... yes, the degradation of perception ... a Hollywood description of a sort of "garik rubbed" on the theme of the Great Patriotic War.
            Look ... with the whole family - "The Living and the Dead"
          3. Egoza
            Egoza 16 October 2013 19: 53 New
            33
            Quote: Natalia
            The film is AMAZING, AMAZING,

            I can not resist, I will put the article in full (or in parts)
            A petition to ban the film by Fyodor Bondarchuk "Stalingrad", addressed to the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, was filed by a certain Pavel Morozov from Samara. The petition requires a complete ban on film rental in Russia and abroad, as well as the withdrawal of applications for the Oscar. The document states that Bondarchuk’s film, which was almost entirely shot with state funds in the amount of 1 billion Russian rubles (i.e., with taxpayers' money), shows the low patriotism of the Soviet people, and “in fact, the main character of the film is a German officer who is shown as intelligent , a noble person (which is the undisguised heroization of Nazism, the prohibition of which Russia is seeking from the UN). ”
            In addition, the petition contains a demand to hold accountable the decision-makers on financing the painting "Stalingrad" and to consider the question of their lifelong exclusion from the commissions and councils that decide on the allocation of state funds for films, as well as members of the council that checked the historical authenticity of the painting "Stalingrad." At the moment, about 1500 people have signed the document, including not only Russians, but also Belarusians, Ukrainians, Moldovans, residents of other CIS countries and Europe. On the site where the petition is posted, signatories publish commentary justifying why they advocate banning the film made by Bondarchuk Jr. Evgeny Prokofiev, Torzhok, Russia: “This is the glorification of Nazism in a country that defeated fascism. Shame on the son of the great Bondarchuk! ”
            Veronika Mikhalchuk, Pinsk, Belarus: “My great-grandfather died during the war, and my husband’s living grandfather was very angry and upset after watching this“ masterpiece ”. Litvinenko Irina, Zelenograd, Russia: “You cannot use the sacred for every Russian person as a backdrop, as a backdrop for a third-rate American shooting film.” Bogdan Viktorovich, Gomel, Belarus: "It’s painful to rewrite history with corrupt creatures." Sergey Potashev, Kiev, Ukraine: “There is a lot of history for the Ukrainian people - a part of the Russian history. And Velika Vіtchiznyana vіyna - the whole part of the country from the top. I do not spit on any any young Bondarchuk younger. For the Motherland, for Stalin! ”Elena Dunn, Luton, United Kingdom:“ What F. Bondarchuk shot is a film about nothing mixed with creative sexual suffering amid “plywood” scenery. To shoot such a thing with the name “Stalingrad” is a slap in the face not only to our grandfathers and fathers who liberated the world from fascism, but also to all who value our history. "It is impossible to allow playful and creative little hands of businessmen from holy art to paw."
            1. Natalia
              Natalia 16 October 2013 23: 32 New
              -14 qualifying.
              Quote: Egoza
              I can not resist, I will put the article in full (or in parts)
              Petition for banning the film of Fyodor Bondarchuk "Stalingrad",

              Yes, I do not need your arguments ... you have your own opinion I have mine, I expressed it. If you want, you can vulgarize everything ....
              Minus you negative .....
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 16 October 2013 23: 40 New
                +4
                Quote: Natalia
                Yes, I do not need your arguments ... you have your own opinion I have mine, I expressed it. If you want, you can vulgarize everything ....

                Natalya, good evening!
                I remember our "get-together" in the spring, which began precisely with differences of opinion about the artistic and propaganda values ​​of military filmslaughing
                1. Natalia
                  Natalia 17 October 2013 09: 21 New
                  0
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  Natalya, good evening!
                  I remember our "get-together" in the spring, which began precisely with differences of opinion about the artistic and propaganda values ​​of military films

                  Hello stalkervalker)))
                  And I forgot it too .... and I'm sorry for the minus, I wanted to put a plus lol
                  1. loft79
                    loft79 17 October 2013 15: 13 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Natalia
                    sorry for the minus


                    Nothing, I'll fix it. hi
                    1. stalkerwalker
                      stalkerwalker 17 October 2013 18: 06 New
                      +4
                      Quote: loft79
                      sorry for the minus

                      Nothing, I'll fix it.



                      Thank you! hi
                  2. stalkerwalker
                    stalkerwalker 17 October 2013 18: 07 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Natalia
                    And I forgot it too .... and I'm sorry for the minus, I wanted to put a plus

                    Women are thin matter ...
                    They are all forgiven. laughing
            2. Firstvanguard
              Firstvanguard 17 October 2013 06: 55 New
              +5
              Brainwashing with "feature films" is a long-established and effective technique. Moreover, when you try to explain to people that their brain is being liquefied, an "iron" argument is used - this is a feature film. It's hard to admit that you are a fool who is being bred.
          4. воронов
            воронов 16 October 2013 19: 55 New
            +1
            You have a degradation
        2. Ribwort
          Ribwort 16 October 2013 12: 36 New
          +9
          Quote: Spade
          The people went like the "Liberation" of the Soviet era, but at a modern technical level. But I saw something else.

          Quote: Spade
          The result of unsuccessful advertising.

          Most likely I agree with your opinion. But the whole family went to the film and we do not regret it. For the children, although it looked pretty hard for them, it was just NECESSARY to see something like that. It is impossible to educate a full-fledged person on "Univer" and "Interns". And good films are shown on "Zvezda", as if on purpose, at a fairly late time ...
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 October 2013 15: 52 New
            0
            I am by no means against the film, for Bondarchuk this is generally a huge step forward.
            I am just pointing out the flaws in advertising and explaining why disgruntled people appeared in "kinopoisk".
            1. Egoza
              Egoza 16 October 2013 19: 56 New
              21
              Quote: Spade
              and I explain why disgruntled people appeared in "kinopoisk".

              (continued feedback)

              Tatyana Borisovna Gorshkova, Vladivostok, Russia: “I do not want my grandchildren to consider their great-grandmother a whore.” Elmira Pakbaz, Århus V, Denmark: “The film offends the feelings of survivors of the German occupation, and will also form a negative view of Russian women among foreign film viewers.” Marina Averina, Kurdzhinovo, Russia: “The film desecrates the memory of my grandfather - an officer of the USSR, all the soldiers and my compatriots. He is a vile mockery at the memory of our ancestors who died. ” Tatyana Kuznetsova, Almaty, Kazakhstan: “One gets the feeling that the most terrible enemy of the Russian people is the Russian“ creative ”intelligentsia, so to speak. Please do not let this happen ... for hire beyond your borders. We are disgusted to watch it. " Demyan Andreev, Ufa, Russia: “My grandfather is all in orders for Stalingrad. It went through and lay down in the grave of the house. The first time I thanked the sky, that he does not see this. " Vladimir Romanenko, Ivanovo, Russia: “I am against the moral rehabilitation of the Nazis.”
              Alexander Ermolyuk, Chisinau, Moldova: “My father fought in the south of Ukraine and Russia, 2 times left the encirclement. The German drove the remnants of their division into the mountains of the Caucasus. So here. The content of the film is completely contrary to what he told about the 1942-43 period. ” Lilia Kuksa, Germany: “One cannot disgrace the memory of the people who defended Stalingrad. The Germans are more honest than the young businessman Bondarchuk, who trades in the memory of the defenders of Stalingrad and the Soviet Victory. ”
              Source: http://polemika.com.ua/news-129050.html#title
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 16 October 2013 21: 02 New
                -15 qualifying.
                Come on, do you want me to "sort out" the canonical "Hot Snow" in exactly the same way?
                1. stalkerwalker
                  stalkerwalker 16 October 2013 22: 58 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Spade
                  Come on, do you want me to "sort out" the canonical "Hot Snow" in exactly the same way?


                  Don’t you take IT into your head ...

                  This summer, one "shot down pilot" with a suspicious number, dashed off a similar article, in spirit, about that "ever-memorable woman" ...
                  How many, "denouncing" the director, responses, there were - do not count. There are no less similar "FOR".

                  Everyone who is noted here for one reason or another, wants them to be heard - this is primary. And what, in this case it will be said - a second time. The main thing is to light up (pride is a sin?).

                  I am not delighted with the personnel of Bondarchuk Sr. as an actor, and with the already sore mouth, the mention of "They fought for the Motherland." I can add "black water" to the address of other, almost canonical, films about the Great Patriotic War, filmed in the 60s - 70s.
                  But I do not consider it necessary to do it. feature films and documentaries are two, as they say in Odessa, big differences. It is possible and necessary to discuss the artistic value of the film. But talking about some political component is incorrect, at least.
          2. lelikas
            lelikas 16 October 2013 16: 44 New
            +1
            I liked interns laughing although in the end they clearly ran out of imagination and creativity.
        3. bolonenkov
          bolonenkov 16 October 2013 13: 07 New
          +8
          I completely agree, I also thought there would be an emphasis on the heroism of soldiers and commanders, about the Great Battle of Stalingrad itself, and here, as the author correctly noted, the war is the background of two storylines.
      4. Dmitriy69
        Dmitriy69 16 October 2013 09: 42 New
        39
        The film is not about war, but about PEOPLE in this war.
        Bondarchuk managed the main thing: to show why our people won and why it could not be otherwise.
        Cinema is not for the brainless public who does not like to let govnolivudskie tales look.
        1. LaGlobal
          LaGlobal 16 October 2013 10: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Dmitriy69
          Bondarchuk managed the main thing: to show why our people won and why it could not be otherwise.
          Cinema is not for the brainless public who does not like to let govnolivudskie tales look.


          It’s true that you are talking Dima! I agree with you on everything 100% drinks
        2. Mikado
          Mikado 16 October 2013 10: 12 New
          29
          This is already a standard excuse "I have a film here not about war, but about people, about love in war." For some reason, some directors, both ours and Hollywood, can make films about the war, while not forgetting about people, and for some you have to look for such an excuse.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 16 October 2013 11: 08 New
            34
            Quote: Mikado
            This is already a standard excuse "I have a film here not about war, but about people, about love in war."

            You see, that's all, I emphasize - ALL Soviet films about the war were about people in this war! About how the war affects their fates, about how they cope with the trials that have fallen to their lot. After all, from the technical point of view, in old Soviet films, German tanks are entirely "plywood tigers" (and they appear already in 41) or something completely inconceivable with a square tower, in the role of "messengers" and "fockers" our "lavochkin" and etc., but films from this and take for the soul, because war is the background - the main thing is man.
            I saw a couple of Amer’s films about the war - technically, everything’s tip-top: the uniform of the soldiers, weapons, tanks are excellent replicas, but you don’t see a person — some tin soldiers shoot at each other and utter pathos in the control places, well, stupid Amer’s of course, humor hasn’t gone anywhere ...
            1. Orel
              Orel 16 October 2013 11: 19 New
              +3
              I saw a couple of Amer’s films about the war - technically, everything’s tip-top: the uniform of the soldiers, weapons, tanks are excellent replicas, but you don’t see a person — some tin soldiers shoot at each other and utter pathos in the control places, well, stupid Amer’s of course, humor hasn’t gone anywhere ...


              I agree, but there are also wonderful works by the Americans, for example, the same "Pearl Harbor" seems to be about war, but it also shows how war changes destinies in a love triangle ... Takes you by the soul ... Makes you empathize
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 16 October 2013 12: 52 New
                +8
                Quote: Orel
                "Pearl Harbor" seems to be about war, but it also shows how war changes destinies in a love triangle ... Takes you by the soul ... Makes you empathize

                I agree, but this is rather an exception, which only proves the rule, especially against the backdrop of numerous Hollywood "fantasies" like "Inglorious Coves" or "Captain America".
                1. Orel
                  Orel 16 October 2013 13: 10 New
                  +6
                  I agree, but this is rather an exception, which only proves the rule, especially against the backdrop of numerous Hollywood "fantasies" like "Inglorious Coves" or "Captain America".


                  Right, of course. Exceptional films are rare in the United States these days. But if you remember the classics of American cinema, then "Apocalypse" or, say, "Platoon" films are cult and make you think about serious things ...
                  1. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 16 October 2013 13: 18 New
                    +6
                    Quote: Orel
                    then "Apocalypse" or let's say "Platoon" films are cult and make you think about serious things ...

                    This is indisputable, but after all, modern teenagers and those who are "about 20" in the overwhelming majority do not watch such classics, in their field of vision only modern films.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. Orel
                      Orel 16 October 2013 13: 24 New
                      +4
                      This is indisputable, but after all, modern teenagers and those who are "about 20" in the overwhelming majority do not watch such classics, in their field of vision only modern films.


                      Such a reality today. There is no arguing.
                  2. maxvet
                    maxvet 16 October 2013 19: 33 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Orel
                    Right, of course. Exceptional films are rare in the United States these days. But if you remember the classics of American cinema, then "Apocalypse" or, say, "Platoon" films are cult and make you think about serious things ...

                    I liked the all-metal shell more, right up to the shiver, the training makes its way, they say there the sergeant the real sergeant played from the training of their marines
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 16 October 2013 19: 39 New
                      +4
                      Ronald Lee Ermey (born Ronald Lee Ermey; born March 24, 1944) is a retired instructor in the drill training of the US Marine Corps, a participant in the Vietnam War, commissified after several injuries, and later an actor.
                      1. Pimply
                        Pimply 16 October 2013 21: 14 New
                        +2
                        Oudi Murphy's career is equally interesting. The hero of the war, made several feats, and after the war he played himself in the movies. By the way, he made an excellent film career.
                2. edge
                  edge 16 October 2013 14: 21 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Albert1988
                  it is rather an exception that only proves the rule, especially against the backdrop of numerous Hollywood "fantasies" like "Inglorious Coves" or "Captain America"

                  I enjoyed watching "those who talk with the wind"
                  1. Orel
                    Orel 16 October 2013 14: 40 New
                    +2
                    Quote: hert

                    I enjoyed watching "those who talk with the wind"


                    There are good films, if you still remember, "Born on the Fourth of July" is a very interesting picture. "We were soldiers" is also catchy in its own way, but as for me, it went over the pathos and it spoils the impression ...
          2. bolonenkov
            bolonenkov 16 October 2013 13: 11 New
            +3
            What, for example, is a film of Hollywood masterpieces about war and about people? Pearl Harbor? I rewound the snotty moments to air battles, and after the destruction of the harbor, I could turn it off. Or maybe Save Private Ryan? The only film about the war and about people is in my memory "38th parallel", yes, yes, a man is not ashamed to cry!
            1. Orel
              Orel 16 October 2013 13: 20 New
              +1
              I rewound snotty moments to aerial combat, and after the defeat of the harbor, I could turn it off.


              And you do not rewind, but look. If you need films about people, then it’s strange why you weren’t interested in anything other than the "destruction of the harbor" and "air battles"? A life story and not a fantastic one, two guys, one girl, a classic of the genre, friendship, envy, rivalry, duty, love and war. I do not pretend to be true, but I think the work is excellent, but it did not take many victories in film awards, but there were enough nominations, and this is not the main thing ...
            2. Bizzz
              Bizzz 16 October 2013 14: 49 New
              +6
              So it seems like "38 parallel" was filmed by Koreans, not Hollywood
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 16 October 2013 14: 52 New
                +4
                year
                2004
                country
                South Korea
                tagline -
                Director Kang Jae Gyu
                script Ji-hun Han, Kang Jae Gyu, San Dong Kim
                producer Seon-hong Lee, Ha-na Lee
                cameraman Hong Kyung-pho
                composer Dong-jong Lee
                artist Bo-Kyung Sin
                montage keng-hee choi
                action movie, drama, military, ...
                1. Marek Rozny
                  Marek Rozny 18 October 2013 16: 12 New
                  +1
                  Koreans are making awesome movies. It is a pity that many pictures do not reach us. The movie "Welcome to Donmakgol" shocked me. It is on the internet, though without translation, only Russian captions, but the play of the actors and the plot is fascinating.
                  The plot in a nutshell: after the fierce fighting, the same village, torn from civilization even by Korean standards, includes several fighters of the opposing armies - the Communists and Southerners.
                  The film captures from the very beginning, and does not release until the very end.
            3. matross
              matross 16 October 2013 15: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: bolonenkov
              What kind of movie is from Hollywood masterpieces about war and people?

              How do you, for example, the dilogy of Comrade. K. Eastwood "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Flags of Our Fathers"?
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 16 October 2013 15: 45 New
                +2
                "Thin Red Line", "Iron Cross" Pickenpa, "Tin Drum", excellent "Brothers in Arms" and "Pacific Ocean", "Casablanca"
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 16 October 2013 15: 51 New
                  0
                  Longest Day, Midway
            4. politruk419
              politruk419 17 October 2013 04: 07 New
              +1
              "Letters from Iwo Jima" + "FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS". Directed by Clint Eastwood. Awesome films. Especially "Letters from Iwo Jima".
            5. Cristall
              Cristall 18 October 2013 00: 58 New
              +3
              Pearl Harbor is a great movie. Such films are no longer even made in Hollywood ...
              the last film with explosives and old shooting techniques ...
              look how much they spent explosives and how they shot ...
              Wait, they are already doing everything on computers.
              The film itself is very good but expensive because of the reasons above.
              Of course, this has nothing to do with Stalingrad.
              But - there is a film about Zaitsev - Enemy at the gate. It’s not bad there about Stalingrad (although a lot of points about stereotypes)
        3. soaring
          soaring 16 October 2013 12: 21 New
          +1
          Dmitriy69 completely agree with you! I won’t even add something of my own! good
          1. timurpl
            timurpl 16 October 2013 16: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: soaring
            I won’t even add something of my own!

            I forgot the all-metal shell!
            - Yes, and the last bullet about two snipers, catches on an adult!
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 16 October 2013 16: 31 New
              +3
              You can still remember a lot, in fact. But the all-metal shell is, nevertheless, Vietnam
              1. Thunderbolt
                Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 21: 54 New
                0
                I like Gibson's film "When We Were Soldiers and Were Young" even more than very, well, very much.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 16 October 2013 22: 13 New
                  +2
                  Hello Lesh, if you didn’t watch the War Horse movie, be sure to check it out.
                  1. Thunderbolt
                    Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 22: 58 New
                    +2
                    good When we were boys and were young ... I was taken for 2 months to the "ancestral" village of my mother. There was an excellent Soviet stable and my grandfather had a riding horse and foals. The most vivid childhood impressions are to ride and breathe the spicy air of steppe herbs. Yes, we will definitely look it over next weekend, thanks.
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 16 October 2013 23: 01 New
                      +1
                      A very strong film, and emotional, my wife and daughter roared the whole film. Here's another one for you: When fanfare is silent.
                2. Pimply
                  Pimply 17 October 2013 00: 52 New
                  +1
                  It’s interesting to track the colonel’s biography itself. Very interesting comrade. And the movie is not bad.
        4. Ascetic
          Ascetic 16 October 2013 12: 53 New
          +7
          Quote: Dmitriy69
          why our people won and why it could not be otherwise.


          Dmitry! Well, I shot it right from the tongue, you won’t say it better ... The film is more for the younger generation, shot in a format popular for computerized youth. The main IDEA of the film itself was tried to convey to Bondarchuk. After such films, I think there will be much fewer young people who consider Americans to be the main winners in the war. Besides the plus from me, the rating is up.
          1. Dima67
            Dima67 16 October 2013 14: 05 New
            17
            Good day. Stalingrad has not yet looked. And, from the old excellent films about the Second World War, I think 'They fought for the Motherland' I have watched it many times, but I have never had such a lump in my throat. My two grandfathers went through the whole war, but I regret that they told very little about the war, although I asked for it as a boy. Only later I realized how hard it was for them to remember about the war. Yesterday on TV on Zvezda they showed a program about the Baltic SS men and their punitive operation "Winter's Tale" on the border of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The wife could not look, went into another room. And then these nedobitki consider us invaders and arrange parades, bastard! Sorry, ate not much out of topic, just under the impression to this day. That's what needs to be shown more on central channels so that the younger generation knows and remembers, not these idiotic shows.
        5. ziqzaq
          ziqzaq 16 October 2013 16: 35 New
          0
          Quote: Dmitriy69
          The film is not about war, but about PEOPLE in this war.

          That's for sure! Good movie !!!!
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. afire
        afire 16 October 2013 09: 51 New
        13
        The fact that the film was made here speaks volumes. Those who are looking for bloopers in this film also show themselves on vacation, when, having arrived at the resort, they begin to count the stars, look for shoals, be dissatisfied with everything around. There is a category of people who are always dissatisfied, they believe that everyone owes them. Savages who have the opportunity to culturally rest, education is zero, but they consider themselves D'artanyans who have done a bunch of useful things in life.
        The second - the film is still about the war, about those events. Young people need to be prepared not only for life, but also for war, so that there is no panic, fear, they are ready to kill and win by cunning for the Motherland, to defeat the enemy everywhere. Everything else just needs to be ignored, the goal of the film is correct - youth
        1. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 16 October 2013 10: 20 New
          14
          About bloopers. In modern films, there are often a lot of them (blunders). That form is not clear what historical period, then the weapon, which at the described historical moment has not yet been born, then insignia or awards are attached to hell knows how. Apparently, money is spared for normal consultants or the directors themselves have no time to go into such "trifles". I'm not a bore, but if the soldiers of the Red Army run around with Kalash, the impression will be at least negative. And not a single argument that the film was made about the relations of people in the war, and not about the war itself, will convince me of a negative attitude towards this work.
          I’ll watch a movie if possible. Then I will draw my conclusions about him. And so - how many viewers, so many opinions.
          1. Poppy
            Poppy 16 October 2013 12: 23 New
            11
            I acted in this film (like the fourth on the right in a helmet I lay laughing )
            so I can say that from the point of view of the reliability of the form, weapons, etc. a lot of work has been done, the approach is very serious, there should be a minimum of mistakes ... and the scenery in my opinion is a masterpiece in general
            in general, the seriousness of the approach pleasantly surprised me, I starred in many films about the war - I can compare
            and Fedor himself surprised that he was a completely normal person near him, without starry and other fanabery
            1. timurpl
              timurpl 16 October 2013 16: 34 New
              +2
              Quote: Poppy
              bloopers should be a minimum.

              I just didn’t understand what kind of tanks (with crosses) were shown at the end of the film?
              - Painfully they look like "something tank-like" from Inhabited Island 2 ...
              1. regsSSSR
                regsSSSR 17 October 2013 03: 12 New
                0
                yes no, it’s most likely the usual pz-4 just in the reinforced armor of the turret and chassis specially used for fighting in urban conditions or Bondarchuk deliberately covered it all with plywood sheets to tear off the nuts)) (by the way, in World_of_Tanks there is a very similar combat unit)
                1. Doctor71
                  Doctor71 19 October 2013 14: 19 New
                  0
                  Good day. I may be wrong, but the T-4N aka "long" appeared in 1943. After the Battle of Stalingrad. With respect.
                  1. rexby63
                    rexby63 21 October 2013 20: 48 New
                    0
                    Or maybe there are still 43 calibers, and not 48?
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. lelikas
              lelikas 16 October 2013 16: 38 New
              0
              drinks
              Quote: Poppy
              like the fourth on the right in the helmet I

              Well, for the fourth!
            3. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 16 October 2013 16: 46 New
              +2
              Quote: Poppy
              so I can say that from the point of view of the reliability of the form, weapons, etc. a lot of work has been done, the approach is very serious, there should be a minimum of mistakes ... and the scenery in my opinion is a masterpiece in general

              As I understand it, there was only one minus, they didn’t give you live ammunition, but I wanted to dump the Fritz laughing
      7. LaGlobal
        LaGlobal 16 October 2013 10: 08 New
        -1
        Quote: feanor
        At the cinema search, many lovers of spitting in Russian cinema did their job, and 12% of those who rated 1 from 10 rated the film say that brainwashing by Hollywood makes itself felt.


        Because these people are small children! And the concept of a patriotic spirit is alien to them, they are alien to the understanding of the Battle of Stalingrad, where they know nothing about it. People who rated 1 from 10 wanted to see a beautiful Hollywood-style picture. And here you are absolutely right about brainwashing!
        1. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 17 October 2013 07: 07 New
          +2
          Because these people are small children! And the concept of a patriotic spirit is alien to them, they are alien to the understanding of the Battle of Stalingrad, where they know nothing about it. People who rated 1 from 10 wanted to see a beautiful Hollywood-style picture. And here you are absolutely right about brainwashing!

          Hollywood crafts, cause not just rejection, these crafts are often information weapons. But Bondarchuk’s films of junior delight do not cause much either.
      8. vladimirZ
        vladimirZ 16 October 2013 10: 13 New
        26
        So I am afraid that "of course I was waiting for a film about the war, but I got a film about love in the war" according to modern American cinematic concepts.
        To be honest, they are tired of the "canvas about love" in modern war films, which erases the cruel bloody truth about the war, when, as one of the veterans recalls, "embrasures were made from the bodies of the dead soldiers."
        In rare cases, love was at war, but it was there, as an exception, and not in such fierce battles. Read the recollection of comfrey war veterans about the war - a terrible truth, where there simply is no place in the soul for love.
        1. Danafxnumx
          Danafxnumx 17 October 2013 00: 32 New
          +3
          Do you think that youth would go to such a film?
          this is a movie for her ...

          besides, if you remember "Only old men go to battle" or even "17 moments of spring", then one of the central themes is love ...
      9. Starfish
        Starfish 16 October 2013 14: 30 New
        10
        Bondarchuk, in principle, makes good, interesting, and young people watch such films more often than old ones. and it seems to be good that even so boys and girls are involved in patriotism.
        but after his films there still remains some kind of sediment, albeit a little. for example, the film of the 9th company is a good film, but we are told by voice-over that the company forgot the leadership. Thus, they put into the mind the idea that in the army you can be a hero, and you will be betrayed - this is possible, of course, as it was in 1st Chechen. but it turns out the anti-advertising of the army.
        for some reason a scene with group sex with a girl with dementia was inserted into the film !!! and what is this for? we tell young people about the dangers of promiscuous sexual intercourse, but here we seem to legitimize it in "patriotic" cinema.
        so the Bondarchuk films leave me a bad aftertaste
        and "stalingrad" is an interesting film, of course, but the name is inappropriate
      10. popoves
        popoves 17 October 2013 01: 58 New
        +3
        Brainwashing - even in a sincerely, and probably still cruelly hated by me country (USA), I emphasize without quotation marks, they shot the film "Enemy at the Gates", about the love of a Soviet sniper and a Soviet girl nurse or something. Which is very full of patriotism of the Soviet (RF) person. In this same tape, a certain Soviet girl appeared, who surrendered herself to a German officer, over time, even for love - I'm not saying that this was not, but why is she in this film, and how does she relate to the patriotism of the film, if he (the director) declared it as such, a completely unnecessary episode. After watching the previous Stalingrad (without Hollywood special effects) I wanted to call my grandfather ... In general, the film is good, but Bondarchuk does not grow up (purely subjective opinion).
      11. Black sniper
        Black sniper 15 September 2017 14: 52 New
        0
        An excellent spectacular film about love in the war, I really liked it, I advise everyone to watch it.
    2. domokl
      domokl 16 October 2013 09: 18 New
      29
      Quote: svp67
      Well, just at least once go and see, and there draw your own conclusions.

      Unlike Alexei, I watched the movie on the first day by blat. Almost at night, calmed down and tuned in to war ... I looked and went a little stunned. Is it war like a background? Love is like a background? Special effects? Sometimes it seemed like the film consists from posters. In the frames from the film to the article there are only some of them. Brilliantly made, but posters ... What is only the speech of the Wehrmacht captain before the soldiers ... What is the panorama of the attack on the house ... The breathtaking work of the cameraman and director ...
      But in general, I went out in thought. History? There is no history at all ... Love? Well maybe ... Consciousness of the soldiers? Patriotism? I don’t know ...
      Then there was a lot of dual about this and I realized what was happening .. I understood for myself - the film suggests that they will win anyway. They will win even after they die, they will win after the house turns into ruins.
      There is something bright in the soul of the film. Whoever has not watched, I advise very and definitely in 3D
      1. LaGlobal
        LaGlobal 16 October 2013 10: 12 New
        +4
        Quote: domokl
        Sometimes it seemed that the film consisted of posters.

        I forgot to add in my post that Fedor Sergeyevich was looking for the very same posters from the archives that we saw in the film.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 16 October 2013 10: 20 New
        +9
        Art affects a person's feelings, what kind of impact it will be, strong or weak, positive or negative, is largely determined by the talent of the artist, poet, director. Modern cinema increasingly focuses on special effects, as a result, the background becomes the main one, and everything else acts as a background to the spectacular graphics. Remove 3D, remove computer graphics, what is left, what will give rise to feelings? Unfortunately, in my opinion, we have more and more imitations of Hollywood, and, more and more than what was previously called "Soviet cinema", distinguished the domestic school of art. "Pearl Harbor" or "Stalingrad", yes, this is a spectacle, if this is the main thing, then the film was a success. Nevertheless, if we really focus on entertainment, technical reliability, impressing the viewer with the fall of the German Heinkel He-111 bomber, then it was not worthwhile to insert "plywood" tanks into the frame, which can hardly be called a passable "replica".
        1. feanor
          feanor 16 October 2013 10: 37 New
          10
          Quote: Per se.
          plywood "tanks, which can hardly be called a bearable" replica ".

          Well, I don’t know, the tanks look more or less sane, though in Pz4 Soviet skating rinks (from the T-44 tank) are visible in frames when attacking a house, but StuG III and T-34 turned out to be very similar. In general, real tanks are rarely used in films now and this film is no exception.
          1. loft79
            loft79 16 October 2013 11: 22 New
            +4
            Quote: feanor
            Well, I don’t know, the tanks look more or less sane, though in Pz4 Soviet skating rinks are visible in frames when attacking a house

            I agree. Just the eye still cuts a little (
            It's a shame that our craftsmen make various remarks, but this must be sought, agreed, etc. It’s easier to take from Mosfilm.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsC6UAshYYQ
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCC0Df6N00Y
            1. lelikas
              lelikas 16 October 2013 11: 46 New
              +1
              Quote: loft79
              I agree. Just the eye still cuts a little (

              There are 500 such people all over the country, maybe 1000 will be typed - who knows how skating rinks look under the screen, among the rest there are no Doyle and Baryatinsky. ;)
            2. Albert1988
              Albert1988 16 October 2013 13: 43 New
              +5
              Quote: loft79
              I agree. Just the eye still cuts a little (

              I remembered that for the shooting of the film "White Tiger" one good company made an excellent replica of the tiger, although its creators did not meet the deadline and there was again something plywood in the film, but the question arose: we have enough films about the war now, Is it really not cost-effective to order such a "firm" to make a pair of good replicas pz-III / IV, "stugs", tigers and panthers, replicas of our T-34/76, KV, "St. John's wort", in general, what is not on the go already (the IS-2 and T-34/85 seem to still be on the move) and use it in filming, they will not eat solariums more than 44 and 55 of which they tune with plywood, but at the same time they will look historically reliable and realistic)
              1. Poppy
                Poppy 16 October 2013 14: 21 New
                +4
                here the question rests on money: who will finance the production of these copies, they must first be made, and then money must be collected
                theoretically, this should be, for example, MosFilm, and then rent them out to a film crew of different films
                But from experience I can say that most modern filmmakers are not interested in any accuracy, most of the films about the war are done stupidly for cutting dough
                as an example, I can give one film, where I also participated, so there they got Gaster to the extras of Soviet soldiers, because the extras actor needs to pay 800 re per day, and the Gaster for 300 are ready
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 16 October 2013 16: 29 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Poppy
                  The question rests on money: who will finance the production of these copies,

                  So the fact of the matter is that our Ministry of Culture constantly insists that it is necessary to sponsor the filming of patriotic cinema, and that it is ready to support this undertaking financially. Why should the Ministry of Culture not finance the construction of a couple of dozen replicas - I think the money is not sky-high, than to give funds to Mikhalkov for another something with sailing tanks and other heresies? And so even the mat part in the films will look realistic)
              2. Andrew 447
                Andrew 447 16 October 2013 14: 43 New
                +8
                Under the USSR, in the Taman division there was a regiment of special equipment for MOSFILM. In this regiment there was even a cavalry division. A battalion of Soviet equipment from the time of the Second World War and the Wehrmacht of the same period. In 81g. was there on an internship and being surrounded by a stiff gaze, he saw a convoy of 5-7 REAL Tigers and Panthers moving towards me belay . As I found out with them, we went to the shooting of a movie.
                1. Thunderbolt
                  Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 22: 16 New
                  0
                  In Kantemirovka, on the day of the Tankman, the BRDM was rolled out once, which depicted the KV tank, that's where the "plywood" was))), but after all, they tried for themselves, showed dexterity and did it with a soul! wink In some Soviet films, in the front ranks of the attacking Germans there were "make up" with crosses, and in the second line there were quite such T-55s)))
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 16 October 2013 22: 22 New
                    +2
                    That's generally pure T-34, or under what they made up it, I do not understand.
                    1. Thunderbolt
                      Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 22: 44 New
                      +1
                      Hi, Sasha-gun in between with a thickening (this is called differently, but forgive my German laughing , and the rounded massive tower of later tanks of the "T" series is guessed .. Where did the fireballs come from? The wedding in Malinovka-2 began to be filmed wassat ? I’ve talked about this when I see such blunders, it amuses me. But it's okay --- it’s still art, there are TV antennas in 17 episodes in some episodes on the houses, it doesn’t suffer from this SPIRIT of the work if it's real piece of art.
                      1. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 22: 51 New
                        +2
                        Ejector Lesch. In the film Cleopatra, with Taylor, a clock flashed by the centurion in the frame laughing
                      2. Thunderbolt
                        Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 23: 05 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        watch flashed
                        belay Sand or Rolex wassat ? Call for an ejector, because there was only an injector on my wedge laughing
                      3. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 23: 07 New
                        +1
                        Did not specify Lesh laughing good
                      4. Thunderbolt
                        Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 23: 19 New
                        +2
                        My wedge heel))
                      5. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 23: 23 New
                        +1
                        9s15 Lesh ??????
                      6. Thunderbolt
                        Thunderbolt 16 October 2013 23: 38 New
                        +1
                        Sasha, yes, but why do you need to know that, you’re not a NATO pilot bully
                      7. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 16 October 2013 23: 48 New
                        +1
                        Lesh suddenly pulls something laughing
                      8. Thunderbolt
                        Thunderbolt 17 October 2013 00: 40 New
                        +1
                        Do not turn off your friend or foe and everything will be normal)))
      3. Doctor71
        Doctor71 19 October 2013 14: 26 New
        0
        This is the 72th poorly made up for KV-1C.
  • lelikas
    lelikas 16 October 2013 16: 50 New
    0
    I agree with Mack - a 100% replica in price will be like the tank itself at prices of 40 years, it is not beneficial to anyone, and to build a whole column of tanks is generally ruinous.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 16 October 2013 11: 24 New
    15
    Quote: feanor
    In general, real tanks are rarely used in films now and this film is no exception.
    Real is not necessary, but historical accuracy should be. Sergei Bondarchuk, filming "War and Peace" did not use computer graphics, there were not those opportunities, but the soldiers there were not shot with Mosin rifles, the picture is a true masterpiece, both due to the historical accuracy of that era, and in direction. In the Novosibirsk region, designer-enthusiast Vyacheslav Verevochkin makes copies of tanks himself, and there is a whole museum in his garden. For a film, you cannot order copies of equipment from the same Chinese or in our defense industry? We have already reached the point that in some films the An-2 is filmed like an aircraft of the Second World War. If there is no way to create credibility, why take on plots without the necessary "props"?
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 16 October 2013 11: 44 New
      +5
      They made a normal tank - here it’s necessary either to take a real IVka, or draw it completely on a computer,
      Even in your photo, the craftsman’s tank has a leading sprocket and tracks from the BMP-1.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 16 October 2013 13: 27 New
        +9
        Quote: lelikas
        Normal tank they made
        No, dear Alexey, this is not a normal tank "they made it", it only somehow reminds of the Pz IV, especially since the Germans fought Pz IV Ausf F2s near Stalingrad, on which the side screens were not installed. The side screens received the late "G" modifications and the "H" modification from April 1943. Of course, if we do not care about the reliability, so it will be possible to shoot the Germans with AK, what to bother ... We, after all, are talking about entertainment and reliability? If so, then you need to be serious about the "little things", then there will be that realism, which will make the film believe. You have to look for good "replicas", copies or genuine technique, this movie will only benefit.
        1. Zhenya
          Zhenya 16 October 2013 14: 54 New
          0
          For itself You are absolutely right, they did it smartly, but the 8 PZ IV tanks that were shown are certainly not the original, but as close as possible to this. And renting these 8 tanks would cost the budget another 30%. A very expensive pleasure, even Spielberg did not dare to rent the Tigers in "Saving an Ordinary Rien", there each cost 1 and that was for 000.
        2. T80UM1
          T80UM1 16 October 2013 14: 55 New
          +8
          I agree, for example, in the "Brest Fortress" they shot a Pz3 with a 50 mm gun, complete accuracy. It seems that the budget was less and more reliability
          1. Zhenya
            Zhenya 16 October 2013 15: 00 New
            +3
            T80UM1 Absolutely, he could have taken 3 and 4 in the film, I think the budget would not have hit so hard, but there would not have been so many tanks, BUT no one would have dug in because of the tanks. Although there were also "Cardboard Tanks" in the Brest Fortress, just if you look closely, it doesn't hurt your eyes and everything seems to be reliable.
            ps
            With saved on nonsense.
          2. lelikas
            lelikas 16 October 2013 17: 02 New
            +1
            Quote: T80UM1
            I agree, for example, in the "Brest Fortress" they shot a Pz3 with a 50 mm gun, complete accuracy. It seems that the budget was less and more reliability

            So there is a chassis from the BMP request
            1. T80UM1
              T80UM1 16 October 2013 18: 10 New
              +4
              Well, where would the creators of the original running would take ??? at least they tried to make it as similar as possible, even the weapons of those times, submachine guns, machine guns, swt, etc., an armored car ...
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. lelikas
          lelikas 16 October 2013 16: 57 New
          +3
          Eugene overtook :), look at the Tiger in Ryan, then our relatives. If you bring all 4s from all museums, the budget will end here.
          Why in "They Fought for the Motherland" no one pays attention to the tanks? - because the film leaves no time for it.
          I know about screens - but without them it would have turned out to be a complete grave.
          The film is not documentary though.
          As I recall the tank in We are from the future - still a quiet tantrum.
          1. T80UM1
            T80UM1 16 October 2013 18: 15 New
            +3
            But the plot "We are from the future", the acting is great, tanks of course UG, especially the plywood tiger and the T-34 based on the MTLB, killed, and also a 100mm rapier battery ...

            PS, for all its international position in that movie, I liked the skinhead character)))
          2. T80UM1
            T80UM1 16 October 2013 18: 38 New
            +2
            I will tell you about the tiger even more in the film from the BBC 10 best tanks for the documentary chronicle about the tiger was taken from the Soviet film "liberation" there is a tiger based on t-54 ...
    2. erg
      erg 16 October 2013 13: 51 New
      +6
      Just the same with Mosin rifles. And in some shots, it is clearly visible. (look more closely at 3 series). And there are flaws in the uniforms of the soldiers. But the film is still a masterpiece. This is the talent of the master. And about Stalingrad, I'll tell you my feelings. At first, the film is a little annoying (too many, in my opinion, slow-motion frames). But then you realize that you cannot tear yourself away from the screen, it is so exciting. I also noted one peculiarity - there was silence in the hall, no one got up, left, or chewed. Even after the end of the session, they parted in silence, everyone was kind of pensive. After graduation, at first I felt some disappointment, still expecting large-scale battle scenes. But then he noticed that the film was not letting go, thoughts were constantly revolving around the story shown in the film. Moreover, all their everyday troubles seemed to be small, not worthy of attention. In general, it's funny, but you start to really empathize with the characters after watching, when everything that the director wanted to show and say gradually comes to pass. There are such works of art (from cinema and literature), which, in order to finally understand, must be reviewed or re-read. Back in school, I heard from adults that you really understand Tolstoy's "War and Peace" after the 2nd, 3rd reading.
  • fennekRUS
    fennekRUS 16 October 2013 14: 55 New
    +1
    Well, in any case, it looks like good ... sorry for the T4. But in general, cinema is the same theater. You don’t shout that there are cardboard trees in the theater? The game, and elements of conventionality are inevitable. The movie is probably worth a look. I'll go on the weekend.
  • rexby63
    rexby63 21 October 2013 20: 53 New
    0
    Well started !. No one blames Gabriel Egiazarov and Vladimir Chebotarev for very free shots involving tanks, even more so, some hold them for the classics
  • bolonenkov
    bolonenkov 16 October 2013 13: 14 New
    +2
    They shot the film "Legend number 17", where all the reviews focused on the lack of graphics and special effects ...
  • LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 16 October 2013 10: 03 New
    10
    I went to the film and was very pleased with it!
    Moreover, he himself took part in the filming of this film in the city of Kronstadt and in the village of Sapernoye, near St. Petersburg. He was a technical understudy of one of the heroes.
    In short: on the set, there was a complete understanding between actors of mass scenes, understudies, stuntmen, assistants and actors!
    Comments of people who are unhappy with him, after watching, kill me. Because they expected a two-hour mess with guts, torn arms and legs, and other meat. Yes, there were such scenes. Fedor Sergeyevich invited specially for such scenes a stage director (Russian). But these scenes were cut, however, like the film itself - for about 20 minutes, due to the assignment of an age rating of + 12. The film of Bondarchuk tells about the soldiers from the reconnaissance, which was entrenched in the house (http://warrax.net/48/pavlov.html), where a girl named Katya lived. And from that moment, their story begins. Perhaps the film should have been named differently, but that would have been a different topic. And the Russian, the most fastidious viewer, would not be so intrigued by the picture. And perhaps he would not have gone to such a number of viewers as he does to this film. For it is better to go to the movie "The Best Film" and "fuck up" with the type of funny jokes below the belt.

    Bottom line: it’s better to see once than hear a hundred times. And there you will draw your own conclusions. But the movie is worth a look!
  • Trailer
    Trailer 16 October 2013 10: 04 New
    +3
    "Today we will conquer the Volga, beyond which India awaits us. Indian whores have six hands. Can you imagine what they can do with them?" (c) "Stalingrad".
  • w.ebdo.g
    w.ebdo.g 16 October 2013 10: 55 New
    13
    I watched the girl in the same breath. Great movie. The whole room clapped. Everyone dispersed in silence, everyone was thinking about something ...
    RECOMMEND.
    subtly conveyed male characters in the group. the leader’s strategy when managing a group in extreme situations is well shown ...
    and indeed the Russian spirit is shown simply and without embellishment, as it is ...
    I really liked the movie.
    thanks for the movie.
    Threat. my girlfriend sat clutching my hand and I noticed how she was worried, afraid, rejoiced, shuddered by surprise ... The film keeps in suspense all the time.
    Popcorn is best not to go. Do not even touch ...
    1. Akhtuba73
      Akhtuba73 16 October 2013 12: 30 New
      +7
      Quote: w.ebdo.g
      I watched the girl in the same breath.

      He took his father and wife. On one side there was a man who had read all the memoirs of the commanders (Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Chuikov ... the "scoundrel" Manstein ...), lived and worked in Volgograd, on the other hand, a young woman who did not bother herself with much historical load (I confess , and my fault). So: my wife had tears to her collar, my father poured a glass at home and we drank both for Stalingrad and for "Stalingrad". I have been impressed for two days. There was silence in the hall after the session, I regret now that I did not start applauding. I saw those who came out with tears ...
      I agree with the author by 102%, no need to wait for a documentary movie and compare it with Soviet masterpieces.
      "Brest Fortress", "Stalingrad" - !!!!!!
    2. domokl
      domokl 16 October 2013 12: 37 New
      +4
      Quote: w.ebdo.g
      . my girlfriend sat clutching my hand and I noticed how she was worried, afraid, rejoiced, startled by surprise ..

      I was also with a woman. The reaction generally killed ... So where did you get these scars ... And roared half the film ... Somehow I associated with these soldiers. I must admit, it was nice.
      1. воронов
        воронов 16 October 2013 20: 03 New
        +6
        Well done, a participant in the Battle of Stalingrad, and still communicate with women laughing
    3. Soldier
      Soldier 16 October 2013 13: 01 New
      +3
      And I was at the beginning of the film, after the phrase, “I had five fathers ..., I thought, well, I took up Fedya, cranberries.” It turned out that I was wrong and after watching, too, had a desire to applaud.
  • here and there
    here and there 16 October 2013 14: 34 New
    +9
    watched the film, it seemed that in the main role a noble fascist officer, fights with Russian bandits, saves a beloved ... our soldiers shoot their own, kill treacherously fascists going to a watering place, finish off the civilian population. there is no desire to review the film. an information war is definitely waged against us. for now all
  • Fullback
    Fullback 17 October 2013 07: 20 New
    0
    I went and looked. I thought that "Stalingrad" was a film about the war, but ended up in a melodrama.
  • Ustas
    Ustas 17 October 2013 09: 04 New
    -1
    Quote: svp67
    Well, just go and see at least once

    And in our city there are no cinemas. I will wait for the film to be released on TV.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 17 October 2013 18: 10 New
      +4
      Quote: Ustas
      And in our city there are no cinemas. I will wait for the film to be released on TV.

      ??? !!!
      But ...
  • Ross
    Ross 20 October 2013 18: 33 New
    0
    Great goblin comment
    http://www.pravda-tv.ru/2013/10/20/28737
  • bodriy
    bodriy 16 October 2013 08: 50 New
    47
    The film is good ... I was in a full cinema with 10th grade schoolchildren, asked one kid after the film, "How is it ?!" He said it was great, and asked me how long the battle for the city had lasted ... and here I am I realized that he became interested !!! for this, it is necessary to shoot such films !!!
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 16 October 2013 09: 04 New
      24
      If the tenth grader does not know how long the battle for Stalingrad has been going on, it becomes sad.
    2. Lindon
      Lindon 16 October 2013 09: 23 New
      17
      10 grader does not know the battle of Stalingrad ???? belay
      Glory to the exam and Fursenko.
      And then we wonder why the Poles erect monuments to Soviet soldiers-rapists in Gdansk. In general, the ideological vacuum is complete - thanks to Putin, it is not Stalin.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 16 October 2013 09: 33 New
        -9
        Graduates of Soviet schools did not particularly know this either.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 16 October 2013 09: 45 New
          19
          Quote: Spade
          Graduates of Soviet schools did not particularly know this either.

          You said it without thinking. ALL schoolchildren knew about Pavlov’s house.
          1. gispanec
            gispanec 16 October 2013 10: 07 New
            +4
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            You said it without thinking. EVERYTHING knew about Pavlov’s house

            70% knew about Pavlov’s house in my class, including myself, but I still don’t know how long the battle for Stalingrad lasted ..... I know about Leningrad, but not about Stalingrad ... well, they didn’t teach us the number of days in the battle of Stalingrad !!!! 10 cells finished in 1986. According to history, he had the hardest 5 !!
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 16 October 2013 10: 23 New
              +5
              Not how many days, but how long. Even having a rather vague idea, one can say "from July to February" without remembering specific dates.
              1. Doctorleg
                Doctorleg 16 October 2013 14: 51 New
                0
                Quote: Basileus
                Not how many days, but how long. Even having a rather vague idea, one can say "from July to February" without remembering specific dates.

                I finished school in '85 and I want to disappoint you. There were such students in our class that they probably did not know the multiplication table. And Stalingrad was deeply indifferent to them (as well as other events)
              2. Serg 122
                Serg 122 16 October 2013 21: 54 New
                0
                200 days of the Battle of Stalingrad ...
            2. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 16 October 2013 10: 27 New
              +5
              Quote: gispanec
              but about Stalingrad - no ... well, they did not teach us the number of days in the battle of Stalingrad !!!! 10 cells finished in 1986

              I agree, the information was not complete, I also did not know about the exact duration of the battle. I had 3 in history. But we knew about Mamaev Kurgan, and about Pavlov’s house, and about other episodes. The current generation makes round eyes on the question of the blockade of Leningrad, on the Kursk Bulge, etc. Pepsi generation, in a word.
            3. igor67
              igor67 16 October 2013 19: 25 New
              +4
              Quote: gispanec
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              You said it without thinking. EVERYTHING knew about Pavlov’s house

              70% knew about Pavlov’s house in my class, including myself, but I still don’t know how long the battle for Stalingrad lasted ..... I know about Leningrad, but not about Stalingrad ... well, they didn’t teach us the number of days in the battle of Stalingrad !!!! 10 cells finished in 1986. According to history, he had the hardest 5 !!

              I graduated in '84 and I don’t remember either, although my grandfather died there near Stalingrad, but you just remembered the history and remembered us you started to teach in the first lesson on history in the fifth grade not about the War, but about the ancient world, I remember which the conqueror in what century BC, how many legions, then there was the history of the Middle Ages, etc.
              1. phantom359
                phantom359 16 October 2013 23: 33 New
                +3
                Quote: igor67
                Quote: gispanec
                Quote: Ingvar 72
                You said it without thinking. EVERYTHING knew about Pavlov’s house

                70% knew about Pavlov’s house in my class, including myself, but I still don’t know how long the battle for Stalingrad lasted ..... I know about Leningrad, but not about Stalingrad ... well, they didn’t teach us the number of days in the battle of Stalingrad !!!! 10 cells finished in 1986. According to history, he had the hardest 5 !!

                I graduated in '84 and I don’t remember either, although my grandfather died there near Stalingrad, but you just remembered the history and remembered us you started to teach in the first lesson on history in the fifth grade not about the War, but about the ancient world, I remember which the conqueror in what century BC, how many legions, then there was the history of the Middle Ages, etc.

                I looked at the textbook and almost wept - I remembered a happy childhood and how I dreamed of becoming a pilot.)) I agree with you.
          2. Albert1988
            Albert1988 16 October 2013 11: 16 New
            +2
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            ALL schoolchildren knew about Pavlov’s house.

            In Soviet times - yes, but in my memory, long before the reforms, Fursenko and the "exam", the graduates of the best gymnasium in the city did not know not only about Stalingrad, but also when the war began and when it ended, they did not know history at all - they only "Hollywood" was interesting, so Bondarchuk's film is really useful in modern conditions, because only in this "way" the majority of modern youth can awaken interest in history)
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 16 October 2013 11: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: Albert1988
              most modern youth can be aroused interest in history)

              +, but no matter how they fall asleep again.
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 16 October 2013 12: 55 New
                +1
                Quote: Ingvar 72
                but no matter how they fell asleep again.

                And for this it is necessary that they regularly wake up interest in such works here))) and it will not be a pity for money for art)
          3. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 October 2013 15: 48 New
            0
            This I said after thinking. And the history of the Battle of Stalingrad, and in general the history of the Great Patriotic War, not to mention the general history of the Second World War, people know very little. Regardless of which schools graduated from, Soviet, post-Soviet or Fursensky.
            So, separate episodes, mostly used in propaganda. You know, without Google, what kind of operation "Little Saturn" is?
            1. Dima67
              Dima67 16 October 2013 16: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              So, separate episodes, mostly used in propaganda. You know, without Google, what kind of operation "Little Saturn" is?
              That is why it is necessary, those dok.filmy and art that show on the Star, show on the central channels, and day and not night.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 16 October 2013 16: 25 New
                +3
                No, you have to make good documentaries. And in order for them to be interesting to the youth audience, a lot of money needs to be allocated for them. Good computer graphics, good production scenes, excellently restored newsreel.
                And the state should work here. And there will be quality - there will be a show not only on "Zvezda"
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 16 October 2013 16: 33 New
                  +1
                  What is only the BBC cycle worth when they put ordinary people in the conditions of an era, for example, the First or Second World War - with the same products, norms, problems. Why, interestingly, they don’t shoot here in Russia.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 16 October 2013 16: 42 New
                    0
                    Because the BBC has the rights to the idea
                    1. Pimply
                      Pimply 16 October 2013 17: 55 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Spade
                      Because the BBC has the rights to the idea


                      A license is bought for this, which is usually not that expensive. And it is not necessary to make a complete analogue. It’s just that the BBC can do high-quality documentaries and historical programs, with fiction and a non-standard approach.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 October 2013 17: 59 New
                        0
                        Even an inexpensive license costs money. And this is not a "stay alive" reality show to recoup such costs.
                        In addition, ape is not a very successful first step towards a normal documentary.
                      2. Pimply
                        Pimply 16 October 2013 19: 43 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        In addition, ape is not a very successful first step towards a normal documentary.

                        There is such a thing - format. At the moment, money is being thrown away for projects that claim to be patriotic and that bear zero patriotism. But this is not the main thing. The same BBC just approaches documentary programs unconventionally. And with proper approach, documentary programs can be very profitable and attract viewers. They create OTV when it would be possible and necessary to create a historical channel.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 October 2013 20: 32 New
                        0
                        The BBC can be very good at financing. It is partly state, and partly direct social gathering. And therefore, their projects do not have to be commercially successful.
                      4. Pimply
                        Pimply 16 October 2013 21: 14 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        The BBC can be very good at financing. It is partly state, and partly direct social gathering. And therefore, their projects do not have to be commercially successful.

                        Right. Like the Culture channel, for example.
                      5. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 October 2013 21: 24 New
                        0
                        "Culture" is financed only by the state. In addition, the BBC in Britain is more like an analogue of our "First" in terms of audience coverage.
                      6. Pimply
                        Pimply 17 October 2013 00: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        In addition, the BBC in Britain is more like an analogue of our "First" in terms of audience coverage.

                        Well, let's start with the fact that there are several 8 there) BBC 1-2-3-4, etc.
        2. Dima67
          Dima67 16 October 2013 16: 50 New
          +1
          Yes, so, it would not be bad. I agree with both of you. I remember they had a doc serial 'Cinema Epic Great Patriotic War' Good serial.
          1. 12061973
            12061973 16 October 2013 17: 19 New
            0
            "Eat Like a King" is a good educational, mouth-watering documentary
      2. rexby63
        rexby63 22 October 2013 19: 20 New
        0
        good documentaries


        In the ninth grade (79th year) they took us to "Ordinary Fascism". Komsorg the next day said that until the end of the session 4 people out of 26 had been sitting. I watched this film later, as a student, at the age of 24. I still cannot talk about him calmly. Only the stories of the front-line grandfather are stronger than him. So the documentary, no matter how strong, will remain documentary, the youth audience learns from the fiction. But what to say: my senior, already an officer, plays tanks with the younger
  • rexby63
    rexby63 22 October 2013 19: 04 New
    0
    And why did you instruct the minuses? Let local "experts" conduct a survey of people aged, say, from 40 to 50 years. They will be "pleasantly" surprised. On this site, I have already raised the issue of the quality of Soviet education. No one can distinguish the methodology of the educational process from the process itself. The technique was then at a decent level. But it was never implemented by the Ushinskys
  • Vadivak
    Vadivak 16 October 2013 09: 35 New
    +7
    Quote: bodriy
    "he said it was great, and asked me how long the battle for the city had lasted.


    Well, at least Fedor, God grant him not a reformer of health, educates young people.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 16 October 2013 10: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: Vadivak
      Well, at least Fedor, God bless him, not a reformer

      Maybe it’s good that it’s not a reformer, it’s not all freaks.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 16 October 2013 11: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Maybe it's good


        Eugene can all the same blood takes its? Dad was his master.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 16 October 2013 12: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: Vadivak
          Dad was his master.

          The film "They Fought for the Motherland" immediately came to mind, also, in general, the film is not about the battles themselves, but about a man in war, but how it was made. And after all, too, about the battles before the Battle of Stalingrad.
          1. Dan
            Dan 16 October 2013 13: 49 New
            0
            The film was shot according to the book of Mikhail Sholokhov. The role of the Elder was to do it qualitatively, which he did. And the plot is not his merit.
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 16 October 2013 13: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: Dan
              The film was shot according to the book of Mikhail Sholokhov. The role of the Elder was to do it qualitatively, which he did. And the plot is not his merit.

              I kind of know. wink You can also film a strong book in different ways.
  • redwolf_13
    redwolf_13 16 October 2013 10: 53 New
    12
    You know, I went specifically because of the big advertising. He was conscious, well, few began to shoot GOOD films about the Second World War. He took his daughter 15 years and went. Why did he take and for the words of Bandarchuk that he was making a film for young people. What is the war of 1941 for them? What is the war of 1812 in one place (this is somewhere far away and is not clear). Maybe I don’t know, but in the next row there were 2 grandmothers and children. The film was ending, but for me there are controversial moments, but this is later. the main thing is another look at the daughter interested person means something hooked and most importantly in the eyes of tears means empathy for the heroes touched the heart. I turn to the old people. Grandmothers wipe away tears and grandfather sits with what expression, well, the feeling that he saw his friends or experienced something of his own now just now again. For me, this was an unambiguous opinion. FILM turned out. Bandarchuk well done he could. And in the evening the child climbed the Internet (read about Stalingrad) wink
  • alone
    alone 16 October 2013 11: 00 New
    +5
    for those who are interested

    July 17, 1942 - February 2, 1943

    I think how many days lasted you can count
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 16 October 2013 12: 21 New
      +3
      Quote: lonely
      July 17, 1942 - February 2, 1943

      Especially Germans remembered winter days lol
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 16 October 2013 14: 33 New
        0
        Hm, 201 days it turns out winked
  • Predator-74
    Predator-74 16 October 2013 08: 54 New
    +8
    I absolutely agree with the author, this is a feature film, not a documentary. For those who didn’t like it I can say one thing: “If you don’t like the film, don’t watch it!”.
  • stalker
    stalker 16 October 2013 08: 54 New
    11
    To the author plus. I'm going to see my wife on the weekend, it’s better to see once than read a hundred times on the Internet smile
  • tomket
    tomket 16 October 2013 09: 00 New
    +9
    Compared to such "masterpieces" as "Anticipation" or "Bastards", the film is an undoubted progress, and schoolchildren will be interested. By the way, the moderators apparently do not tolerate an excellent point of view on this film, and there were many questions about the film when watching. For example, Captain Anischenko, who fights against smoking during the entire film, or the fact that only Jews were affected by civilians for the entire film.
    1. Xunta
      Xunta 16 October 2013 09: 13 New
      +5
      What's wrong with fighting smoking? Moreover, it was very organic and veiled. Have you watched the movie at all? What are the Jews? These women and girls were generally pulled out of the crowd and "appointed" by the Jews ... but the crowd driven to the end of the camp does not bother, or is it necessary that the guts of the civilians be wound around the caterpillars?
      1. tomket
        tomket 16 October 2013 20: 07 New
        +1
        Look, don’t worry. In general, the shag in the war was sacred for the soldier, I remember the stories of my grandfather, and if some kind of brave captain, showing his coolness would have pulled a cigarette from a soldier, he would not have gone far, a maximum of five meters, since the captain is alone in There are many company soldiers. I have nothing against the Jews, and I am convinced that Jews as such appeared in the year 46-48, but forgive me, when they poke straight into the eyes that the poor and unhappy Jews were the only ones who suffered in the war, then forgive me here without comment. Apparently, a point from Bondarchuk was to report on the Holocaust in the film.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 16 October 2013 21: 18 New
          +2
          Quote: tomket
          when they poke straight into the eyes that the poor and unhappy Jews were the only ones who suffered in the war, then forgive me here without comment. Apparently, a point from Bondarchuk was to report on the Holocaust in the film.

          It was just that Jews were killed immediately and without talking. As are the families of red commanders and commissars. But if the latter was outwardly difficult to distinguish, then any person with black curls or a nose of "irregular" shape was, in fact, doomed. This was shown by Bondaruchuk. If you took out of the scene only hatred of Jews, maybe this is a reason to think?
          1. tomket
            tomket 16 October 2013 22: 14 New
            +3
            At least someone did not deny the Jewish component of this episode. Let's think about what Bondarchuk shows us. About the civilian population. the civilian population there is a kind of vegetables. A teen dibil is shown, constantly screaming a greeting to Hitler. in childhood, the son of the regiment read a book and, on those, Fedya discovered the truth, so to speak. the residents of the basement are shown who take away canned food from an unfortunate girl who also began to suffer from the Stockholm syndrome in the end, no matter how funny it sounds, well, her dumb hatred for them is shown when the same girl was shot dead just like that, by the way, she during the film all the time they wanted to put a bullet in the forehead, which is why, apparently, the Fed showed so what kind of bestial relations between fellow citizens at that time.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 17 October 2013 00: 58 New
              +2
              Quote: tomket
              the residents of the basement are shown who take away canned food from an unfortunate girl who also began to suffer from the Stockholm syndrome at the end, no matter how funny it sounds, well, her dumb hatred for them is shown when the same girl was shot dead just like that, by the way, she during the film all the time they wanted to put a bullet in the forehead, which is why apparently Fedya showed what kind of bestial relations between fellow citizens at that time

              Do you think they were too kind? According to the memoirs of relatives - not really. Everyone survived.

              Remember, by the way, how they treated women who returned from the war. The first twenty years they did not put on awards. People are cruel. So there are just no complaints.
          2. tomket
            tomket 16 October 2013 22: 28 New
            +2
            By the way, why should the Fed in this episode not show how to burn a camp of gypsies? After all, they were also destroyed immediately, a true episode would have shown. Or you can’t earn dividends on gypsies for Oscars ????
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 17 October 2013 01: 02 New
              +1
              Quote: tomket
              By the way, why should the Fed in this episode not show how the Gypsy camp is burned?

              Burned. Only the Oscars are given not for cobbled-up gypsies or cobbled-off Jews. Oscars give for the movie. For the story told in the frame. Let there be a taste of some political correctness in this story - but if the story is bad or unreliable - it’s unlikely that anyone will ever receive an Oscar, no matter how many Jews are killed in the frame.

              If Gypsies were burned in the frame, you would shout where the Gypsies camp came from, in Stalingrad, in the city. I am wrong?
    2. BBM
      BBM 16 October 2013 09: 14 New
      12
      by the way, my grandmother, who, for about three years lived in the occupied territory, never spoke particularly bad about the Germans (well, they stole chickens there and that's all) and the biggest threat always came from our local policemen and freedom fighters "from the forest" according to her stories there were a lot of them there - "bulbashi" "banderivtsi" "melnikivtsi".
      1. soldier's grandson
        soldier's grandson 16 October 2013 09: 42 New
        +3
        I also heard about it from the locals, this is because there were many local policemen and the Germans behaved calmly
      2. Borz
        Borz 16 October 2013 10: 26 New
        +3
        My father said that during the occupation of Odessa, the Germans behaved much more dignified towards the local population than the Romanians. They did black.
      3. tomket
        tomket 16 October 2013 22: 30 New
        +1
        and mine talked about how the Germans atrocities in the offensive zone of that 6 army were atrocious, the Italians simply had earthly angels after them, there were still Hungarians, but apparently the Hungarians and the 6 army had an unspoken competition in terms of gore.
    3. domokl
      domokl 16 October 2013 09: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: tomket
      By the way, the moderators do not seem to take a great point of view on this film, but there were a lot of questions for the film when watching

      I wonder on what basis did you make this conclusion? Is it fighting smoking? laughing I myself, an avid smoker, but also always struggled with this. I myself am weak-minded, so at least save someone from this ... Civilians? Have you seen what was happening near other houses?
      Moreover, I will throw you a couple more of the same comments ... The Germans were armed before the attack, just like the Russians-internationally lol and their cars and ours. Tanks of strange design they had laughing And the sights for some reason completely copied our swedish ..
      But is this really the task of the film? Someone positioned it as historical? This is a feature film about soldiers .. Soldiers of both armies. About civilians (if you remember they were there, too, and not only when they were executed, but also in the house, militias).
      I agree, you watch the movie. Not the squeeze television and the movie itself ...
      1. erg
        erg 16 October 2013 14: 38 New
        +2
        About smoking. I heard from my grandfather (who got to us in the war in 1943, 17 years old) that the foreman, even in school, weaned them (meaning minors) from smoking. Not only did I drive for it, so seeing with a cigarette, I forced to dig a single trench in full profile, put a cigarette and bury. Type still small to smoke. And instead of the prescribed portion of vodka, he gave out a double portion of sugar.
      2. tomket
        tomket 16 October 2013 20: 13 New
        +1
        1. At the expense of the moderators, I watched the film on Sunday, for the sake of this I donated it to the car, and Sunday sleep. He came, decided to turn the boiling rage into lines, the moderators deleted the article, and did not even bother to explain the reason, I understand that the film may be liked, but understand that the film may also not be liked. Or was this film informally advertised by a sacred cow ???
        2: As for the props, for example, in saving Private Ryan, the Tiger is also not real, it is especially visible from the skating rinks, when Velcro in their socks clings to them, but is coated with tsimirit, and it was possible to notice the fake from viewing the third.
    4. Dmitriy69
      Dmitriy69 16 October 2013 09: 49 New
      +5
      I agree about the undoubted progress.
      Quote: tomket
      or the fact that of the civilians for the entire film only Jews suffered

      And here it’s not, look more carefully at what the episode is worth describing how a girl of relatives and neighbors buried, and not only this one.
    5. Ribwort
      Ribwort 16 October 2013 12: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: tomket
      For example, Captain Anishchenko, the whole film fighting against smoking, or the fact that only Jews suffered from civilians for the entire film.

      The fact that the Soviet sniper shot only the Russian girl for the whole film was striking. I understand that this scene was beaten to reveal the character of the character and his attitude to what is happening, but as a result, a somewhat distorted idea is created. In addition to this, I could put a dozen more Germans in the frame ...
  • Selevc
    Selevc 16 October 2013 09: 00 New
    17
    The film is probably very correct and Bondarchuk’s face is so correct and photogenic :))) Only sooner, as always, again Hollywood things with which the generation of our children will not really know the truth about the Battle of Stalingrad ...
    How many films and programs have already been shot about Stalingrad, the Brest Fortress, the Kursk Bulge, etc. etc. - Probably very good topics for making a directorial career on TV !!!
    And other episodes of the war for some reason are completely covered in darkness and films about it are not filmed !!! For example - the capture of Konigsberg, the storming of Poznan, the Balaton operation, the capture of Vienna and much more - perhaps there is nothing to film about those events? Or perhaps not such "correct" actions took place there? Or did the wrong soldiers fight there?

    Generally ????????????????? In general, in my mind the brains of modern filmmakers are somehow strange and mysterious :))) Contemporary Russian films about the war more and more resemble a comic farce - too much posturing and obvious nonsense ...
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 16 October 2013 09: 08 New
      +8
      By the way, yes, the history of the war, even in textbooks, is built one-sidedly. June 22 - Moscow - Stalingrad - Kursk - (sometimes Bagration) - and unexpectedly Berlin. Everything that happened between these events at school almost does not go away.
    2. BBM
      BBM 16 October 2013 09: 19 New
      +5
      Quote: Selevc
      And the other episodes of the war for some reason are completely covered in darkness and films about it are not removed !!!

      say so. But in Soviet times, many very important episodes were covered in darkness. Like a tank battle near Dubna or events preceding the encirclement of a giant group of Soviet troops in the Kiev boiler ...
      Do not forget that cinema is primarily a propaganda weapon. As there in one amerskoy film "good ... bad - the main thing in whose hands the gun."
      1. Fornit
        Fornit 16 October 2013 11: 10 New
        +1
        Quote: BBM
        As there in one amerskoy film "good ... bad - the main thing in whose hands the gun."

        Actually, this amazing film is not "amerskoy", but Italian - the so-called. "spaghetti western" ...
    3. Xunta
      Xunta 16 October 2013 09: 20 New
      +1
      Specifically, your subjective opinion from the category "well, at least something to say that must be !!!!" Watch the documentary television series "The Great War" there it all ... and do not confuse sour with insipid, this is documentary ... And Stalingrad is an excellent feature film.
    4. kavkaz8888
      kavkaz8888 16 October 2013 11: 24 New
      -1
      Maybe effects and norms, but the film is not about effects. Let the pepsikola look at the effects. Okay, without entertainment today is nowhere. But why bl..v in the film? There are ours with our ghouls and FSUs for war. There are none of ours, the true Aryan will go.
      The fighters are also interesting. Instead of defense organizations they drink, then they run into idiotic attacks. After watching, I got the impression that the city was captured.?!?!
      Fedya do not disgrace the Pope.
      1. domokl
        domokl 16 October 2013 15: 17 New
        0
        Quote: kavkaz8888
        The fighters are also interesting. Instead of defense organizations, they drink, then they run into idiotic attacks with shovels.

        laughing Have you ever read the history of the Great Patriotic War? I strongly advise you. What kind of defense are you talking about in Stalingrad? Defended what you were able to capture and there was no organized defense in the city itself. There were centers of defense, such as Pavlov’s house (and even then not entirely, and floor)
        And the essence of the film is not in the historical truth about the battle. There are many such films now. Yes, there are quite a lot of documentaries. The point is why we won. We defeated a strong and brave opponent. This Wehrmacht captain is a worthy opponent. A fighter, a warrior ... And we’ve broken their spine anyway. And attacks with shovels are also not just shown. A handwriter is only beautiful in the movies. In reality, it is scary. And a sapper shovel is not a shovel at all, it is a symbol of soldiers' self-denial. A symbol of complete neglect of one’s life for the sake of others ...
        And a sniper only in the movies is a master of his craft. And only a few survive in life. The rest die very quickly. It is good if one out of a thousand survives ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 16 October 2013 15: 36 New
            +2
            He shot and played enough. "Military-field romance", "Anchor, still anchor", his role was excellent in "It was the month of May"
        2. kavkaz8888
          kavkaz8888 16 October 2013 16: 27 New
          +3
          "Have you ever read the history of the Great Patriotic War?"
          Not, three classes of the parish school, and so we, the uncle, are illiterate.
          And they killed me with a shovel. I know her well. And I know about snipers, and so on and so forth.
          And the Germans are worthy enemies, I agree. Therefore, they were incited to Russia. Others would not have been taken out.
          And on the subject of attack ... ORDER was held on. The commander leads a handful of fighters into melee from which you can only return to the CINEMA. So there are few fighters, and he also shoots them. He is normal? Ah, I forgot the movie after all.
          And the last.
          It WAS a wonderful action movie, if I were to remove women from it. I am ashamed of them. dishonest ones.
          1. kaktus
            kaktus 17 October 2013 18: 30 New
            0
            it would have looked even better in the spirit of fantasy - elves, orcs, hobbits ...
  • ed65b
    ed65b 16 October 2013 09: 07 New
    10
    The author is a demagogue. The film must correspond to reality, albeit an artistic one. And so under this guise of "artistry" sometimes disgusting pictures about our not so distant past and about the Second World War also fall. so no la-la author. We already have one laureate Nikita Mikhalkov, then he has women swimming on mines and German tanks sailing under sails, and burned tankers before death necessarily want to see a woman's breast. But Mikhalkov also talked about "artistry".
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 16 October 2013 09: 13 New
      +5
      In "Citadel" I liked the miracle hand sawn with a file on the zone. laughing
  • svskor80
    svskor80 16 October 2013 09: 19 New
    +7
    And other episodes of the war for some reason are completely covered in darkness and films about it are not filmed !!! For example - the capture of Konigsberg, the storming of Poznan, the Balaton operation, the capture of Vienna and much more - perhaps there is nothing to film about those events? Or perhaps not such "correct" actions took place there? Or did the wrong soldiers fight there?

    Here, apparently, one is lucky, by the way about the Afghan war, there are no normal films at all, and there were also many operations there, events that are worthy of being embodied in the movies. But the Great Patriotic War is a topic too voluminous and requires a lot of time to study.
    1. Fornit
      Fornit 16 October 2013 11: 12 New
      0
      Quote: svskor80
      there’s no normal movie about the Afghan war

      Colleague, what are you, the "9th company" of the same F.B. did not look? !!! Very sorry!!!
      1. feanor
        feanor 16 October 2013 12: 43 New
        +4
        Quote: Fornit
        Colleague, what are you, the "9th company" of the same F.B. did not look? !!! Very sorry!!!

        The film turned out to be beautiful, high-quality, but those who were involved in the historical component of the film need to tear their hands off because the whole story was distorted.
      2. badabing
        badabing 16 October 2013 14: 39 New
        11

        9th company of Bondarchuk - a historical crime
        if Stalingrad is filmed in the same vein, it’s not even a shame, it’s an abomination
        1. air wolf
          air wolf 16 October 2013 16: 15 New
          -5
          What did you want from a Jew?
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 16 October 2013 16: 34 New
            -2
            Quote: air wolf
            What did you want from a Jew?

            And here is more detailed, please
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 16 October 2013 09: 19 New
    12
    It is very scary, to be honest, to go to modern Russian films, it is certainly not worth comparing them with Soviet ones, in the USSR, in the first place, they knew how to shoot films, and not to cut and assimilate the budget, and secondly, in Soviet films everything was somehow done with a soul and the actors they played like that, in short, it's like comparing a real high-quality thing with Uncle Ho's Chinese handicraft. I haven't seen Stalingrad yet, because I'm afraid to see a pink Pz IV + a glamorous love story there, because Bondarchuk has already fucked up "Inhabited Island".
    1. Xunta
      Xunta 16 October 2013 09: 25 New
      0
      Oh, these "WRITERS" ... you start your post with the phrase "THIS FILM I HAVE NOT SEEN YET" but right now I will wrap up the detailed analysis! So that, apart from the same graphomaniac, no one reads. The film is EXCELLENT, watch everything and only in 3D !!!
      1. 12061973
        12061973 16 October 2013 09: 42 New
        -2
        Download and watch at home, do not support the Fed ruble.
        1. Xunta
          Xunta 16 October 2013 09: 46 New
          +1
          Well, I also didn’t see the movie’s campaign ... the adviser ... ONLY IN MOVIES AND ONLY 3D !!!
          1. 12061973
            12061973 16 October 2013 17: 26 New
            +1
            then I have not seen his other films.
        2. LaGlobal
          LaGlobal 16 October 2013 10: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: 12061973
          Download and watch at home, do not support the Fed ruble.


          I can say the same about you! Cut hands 12061973 (Mingiyanu), do not support him! Why watch and read that nonsense that you write?
          1. 12061973
            12061973 16 October 2013 17: 39 New
            +3
            where did you read the nonsense? quite sound advice, it will now appear on the network in good quality and you can watch.
            Quote: LaGlobal
            Chop hands

            you were so excited by the scene where the German Hauptmann tears a blouse on a mache, then you need hands, of course. if Bondarchuk so wants to make a movie about the role of women in the battle of Stalingrad, then let him make a film about the exploit of the 1077 air defense regiment vs the 14-tank corps.
        3. Fornit
          Fornit 16 October 2013 11: 13 New
          +2
          fool "Only no victims!" (FROM)
      2. Standard Oil
        Standard Oil 16 October 2013 09: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: Xunta
        Oh, these "WRITERS" ... you start your post with the phrase "THIS FILM I HAVE NOT SEEN YET" but right now I will wrap up the detailed analysis! So that, apart from the same graphomaniac, no one reads. The film is EXCELLENT, watch everything and only in 3D !!!

        And where am I analyzing the film? I just said that I was afraid to see there pink tanks + "Twilight", where a Soviet girl falls in love with a bloodsucker of a fascist, and then on the knurled ...
        1. Xunta
          Xunta 16 October 2013 10: 11 New
          -1
          Aya I say that LOOK at the movie and then comment!
          1. edmed
            edmed 16 October 2013 15: 54 New
            +2
            hi Read "Inhabited Island" and see this "imperishable" made by F. Bondarchuk and then read it again. Feel the difference, as they say.
            1. Rudy
              Rudy 16 October 2013 17: 19 New
              +1
              So what, I read, looked and re-read. The normal film didn’t see anything inconsistent with the spirit of the book, but there are reductions, some not connections, most likely related to the inability to shoot strictly according to the book. If the film does not fit your presentation of the book, then I'm sorry, these are your problems. By the way, I also presented the book in a slightly different way, but I liked the vision of the film and once again I will repeat quite accurately the spirit and world of the book.
              1. edmed
                edmed 16 October 2013 19: 10 New
                +2
                I agree with you, these are my problems, but in my understanding you can make a good film, mediocre, bad, but to make a "clip" "based on the work", you have to try, but this is my opinion, and let me stay with it.
            2. 12061973
              12061973 16 October 2013 17: 46 New
              +1
              for the first time, a schoolboy saw a film about the war shot in the style of a la Hollywood, it’s like a first love, not to himself, and most importantly, to rest
      3. LION
        LION 16 October 2013 10: 25 New
        +3
        You're right. I did not read Pasternak, but I condemn.
  • demon ada
    demon ada 16 October 2013 09: 20 New
    +1
    good movie, very good,
    I like this.
  • Kushadasov
    Kushadasov 16 October 2013 09: 24 New
    +5
    It is clear that everyone on this respected site has the right to any point of view, but to write about this hollywood as an art picture ... sorry, into any gate. The theme of the war, especially the theme of Stalingrad, is the grief and pain of an entire people and liberties on this topic, such as "this is an artistic picture, not a documentary" and other nonsense - not valid... What the Bondarchuk and similar "figures" are doing now is the deliberate devaluation of things that are sacred to the people. Consultants? What for? Expensive special effects, moral and sexual quest of five fighters))) and complete lack of ideology at the exit - this is Hollywood. No wonder, the picture has not yet appeared on public display, and Mr. Bondarchuk is already running, dropping his slippers, to show his "masterpiece" to Hollywood. Like, what they say at home is bullshit, the main thing is that Hollywood will appreciate ... And Hollywood will. He will appreciate everything that portrays a Soviet soldier in a parody key, and to portray a woman in war as a madam of not harsh behavior is generally a bang! So who do you work for, Mr. Bondarchuk?
    1. Xunta
      Xunta 16 October 2013 09: 36 New
      -9
      Here you have porridge in your head ... go to the Swamp there they love such people. Don’t suck .. brains of people, You’re just lying!
      1. Xunta
        Xunta 16 October 2013 09: 47 New
        -2
        Here really right now the facts refuted my point of view ... put a minus ...
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 16 October 2013 15: 01 New
      -2
      Have you ever watched a movie?
      Excuse me, how do you yourself understand the concept of "Feature" film?
      What do you think should be called a film in which the idea (fantasy) of the director is realized, with invented characters (actors), using props, layouts, computer graphics, extras?
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent 16 October 2013 09: 25 New
    12
    What I read about the film, and knowing the habits of the main director of the production and his unwillingness to cooperate with military consultants and historians during filming. Which shoots on the principle of "and so will go" to the film, I definitely will not go.
    1. badabing
      badabing 16 October 2013 14: 43 New
      +1
      after the 9th Company, Stalingrad can be watched if you accidentally stumble upon it on TV, as indeed happened with the company ..
      1. liteha
        liteha 17 October 2013 07: 44 New
        +1
        Yes, cranberries are still ...
  • Letnab
    Letnab 16 October 2013 09: 26 New
    +7
    I went to see a film about the war. After the 9th company of Bondarchuk, I expected something similar, it turned out that about love ... I experienced some disappointment ..
    Filming is certainly good, special effects too, but I honestly didn’t convince the film to be honest! The very name of the film implies something very tough, which is what you are waiting for, but you see I don’t know what to call it ... An attempt to show that all people are beautiful against the backdrop of the war? And correctly noticed tomket only Jews suffered, the rest were almost politely taken to save them from the front line ..
    Quote Selevc : Generally ????????????????? In general, in my mind the brains of modern filmmakers are somehow strange and mysterious :))) Contemporary Russian films about the war more and more resemble a comic farce - too much posturing and obvious nonsense ...
    Yes you are right!!
    1. Xunta
      Xunta 16 October 2013 09: 44 New
      0
      When I left the cinema hall. NOT A SINGLE person said a word, there were no laughs, discussions, phrases like "I'm in a jerk", my wife cried half the film ...
      It got through everyone! Letnab you didn’t understand just a damn ... there was no posturing ... there were no beautiful people ... And the main idea of ​​the film if you really need to bring it out is what our grandfathers fought for .. !!! For his family, for his homeland, for women and children, for friends.
  • Forest
    Forest 16 October 2013 09: 27 New
    10
    All the latest films about the Great Patriotic War were photocopied: the persecution of Jews by the Nazis, poor political officers and the NKVD make it difficult to fight. I hope that this film was shot without liberal templates.
    1. stas52
      stas52 16 October 2013 14: 25 New
      +4
      In the film about Stalingrad, in theory, they could not show anything bad about the NKVD, since the NKVD troops defended it before the army approached. They are only trying to keep silent about this fact.
      1. Forest
        Forest 17 October 2013 08: 39 New
        0
        Our go often does not fit in with the director’s vision (order?). I hope, at least in this film, slander has been avoided.
  • saag
    saag 16 October 2013 09: 27 New
    14
    They make the strongest and first impression in the film, probably the computer special effects and the film format itself, the content here is a trailer, the film seems to be about a war, but how is it about louboff once again, and not about a feat, where is an example to follow? It’s always enraged in modern war films that these are the saturated colors of everything — the background, the tunics, as if only from a warehouse, watch Soviet films, where all the colors are natural — dusty, faded, in the soot of fires and already seeing this, you believe in the sincerity of the film
  • Lindon
    Lindon 16 October 2013 09: 29 New
    +5
    Do not understand Hollywood has a claim?
    If not then what to talk about?
    This is no longer Soviet cinema - this is Hollywood.
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 16 October 2013 09: 57 New
      -1
      Lindon This is Russian cinema, understand? Not?! We need to educate our youth, not yours, of such a plan, I think films are very suitable for raising the younger generation, do not like it, make your own films. Are free hi
      1. Lindon
        Lindon 16 October 2013 10: 01 New
        +6
        Live further in your world.
        Bondarchuk and Mikhalkov - ordinary Hollywood.
        Russian cinema is what happened in the USSR. Unlike Hollywood, it is always extremely accurate transmission of real historical events. Fiction about Captain America fighting Hitler is Hollywood.
        Bondarchuk violated all the rules of Soviet cinema and shot pure Hollywood.
        1. Zhenya
          Zhenya 16 October 2013 10: 09 New
          +5
          Lindon
          1.Count as you like, I absolutely do not care. Mikhalkov beautifully shot His among strangers, a stranger among his own, but then he suffered and now he removes NONS.
          2.Bondarchuk the worthy son of his father And one of not many who make good films, not all, but many.
          3. The Soviet Union has not existed for 25 years, there are as many Soviet cinema, there is Russia and Russian cinema, which is better every year. Do not like do not watch, make your own films. hi
          1. Lindon
            Lindon 16 October 2013 10: 15 New
            +2
            Quote: Marrying
            Lindon
            3. The Soviet Union does not exist for 25 years,


            The poor victim of the exam and Fursenko. Found something to rejoice - all that 22 of the year has passed. I understand you for so few years that you don’t even know exactly how long it was.
            1. Zhenya
              Zhenya 16 October 2013 10: 25 New
              +1
              Lindon You will poke your mom, is it clear to you? Victim of anti-Russian propaganda. I am a complete opponent of the USE and consider this an idiocy, but these are our problems and we will solve them, we do not need advisers. Thank God that he has not been there for 22 years, but perestroika began earlier and the end of the union was obvious, so that 1988 can be called the culmination of the union (25 years).
              1. Lindon
                Lindon 16 October 2013 10: 39 New
                +5
                1988 is the year of your birth? Or your owners told you so?
                Quote: Marrying
                Thank God that he is no longer 22 years

                Work further for your lousy green candy wrappers.
                1. kavkaz8888
                  kavkaz8888 16 October 2013 11: 57 New
                  +5
                  Lindon
                  Judging by the texts, Zhenya is very young. If not by age, then by reason. I would not argue with him. He did NOT live THERE.
              2. Makk
                Makk 16 October 2013 17: 49 New
                +1
                And now in 2013, is something obvious to you?
      2. kavkaz8888
        kavkaz8888 16 October 2013 11: 51 New
        +3
        Zhenya,
        Lindon is unfortunately right. This is Hollywood.
        I WRITE ONCE AGAIN:
        FEDYA DO NOT BE SHAME FOR DAD.
        1. tomket
          tomket 16 October 2013 21: 36 New
          +3
          do not confuse, this is not Hollywood, this is a cheap parody. And such a vivid desire to put it under Hollywood speaks of bright mediocrity. Hollywood can make films about the war, unlike the Fed. Riena Fede never surpass.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 October 2013 22: 36 New
            +1
            Is Ryan the perfect war movie for you?
            1. tomket
              tomket 16 October 2013 22: 44 New
              0
              among post-Soviet modern ones, yes, a thin red line can still argue with him. strong movie too
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 16 October 2013 22: 52 New
                0
                "Thin Red Line"?

                Have you watched Bondarchuk's Inhabited Island? Well, what he did with the original work of the Strugatskys is still a little flower.

                With his film, Malik simply raped the work of the same name by Jones, completely altering its meaning. Do you know that the book was published by Voyenizdat in Soviet times, because it "showed the beastly grin of the American military clique"?
                1. tomket
                  tomket 16 October 2013 23: 17 New
                  0
                  I haven’t read the book, but I consider that similar films of the same federation still have to study and learn to make.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 16 October 2013 23: 29 New
                    0
                    The only thing he needs to learn is to get money.
                    His film cost $ 30 million. "Thin Red" in 1998 - 52 million; "Save" in the same year - 70 million.

                    More money, higher quality.
                    1. tomket
                      tomket 16 October 2013 23: 45 New
                      0
                      Tell Mikhalkov.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 16 October 2013 23: 53 New
                        0
                        His films are not expensive by Hollywood standards either. His previous incorruptible about the war cost 45 million.
                    2. Pimply
                      Pimply 17 October 2013 01: 07 New
                      +1
                      In "Rheine", by the way, the book "D-Day" is very actively used. Some moments, especially at the beginning, are literally conveyed - for example, the theme with the glider. And the story itself about a soldier who lost all his brothers is from there. True, as it turned out, one brother, who was a pilot, survived, swam out. Well, Tom Hanks was dying for nothing too.
                      1. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 17 October 2013 01: 12 New
                        0
                        Zhen, just like Mikhakov's barber, is "lapped" from the novel by Kuprin-Juncker.
                      2. Pimply
                        Pimply 17 October 2013 01: 23 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Zhen, just like Mikhakov's barber, is "lapped" from the novel by Kuprin-Juncker.

                        Mikhalkov as a director ended a very long time ago. In 12, a glimpse of his former magnitude plays. Sorry. There was a very good director. It was.
                      3. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 17 October 2013 01: 26 New
                        0
                        Zhen but also a 12 remake of the American film.
                      4. Pimply
                        Pimply 17 October 2013 02: 31 New
                        +1
                        A remake, Sasha, is not always bad. They put it from Shakespeare’s times. 12 of Angry Men is a play by Reginald Rose. The question is how to pose. In 12 Mikhalkov woke up the remnants of skill. If he had not become bronzed during the course of the film, a good movie would have come out.
                  2. Pimply
                    Pimply 17 October 2013 01: 24 New
                    +1
                    It is worth noting here that D Day is a documentary book. It's just a very detailed analysis of situations.
  • Makk
    Makk 16 October 2013 17: 47 New
    +2
    Lindon This is a Russian movie, understand? No?! We need to educate our youth, not yours, of such a plan, I think films are very suitable for raising the younger generation, do not like it, make your own films. Are free

    This is an attempt to compete with Hollywood.
    Box office is the only criterion for evaluating this film.
  • T80UM1
    T80UM1 16 October 2013 12: 21 New
    +4
    If we talk about modern Russian cinema, good films about the war: "We are from the Future", a little old "Star". And the last one is not about war: "What Men Talk About" "Legend 17" From the 90s, good films by Sergei Bodrov Jr., "Brother", "War". Look like that's it. And as for Hollywood, there is nothing to lower it there by orders of magnitude of cinema of higher quality and higher spiritually than modern Russian. You just need to know what to watch.
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 16 October 2013 14: 37 New
      +1
      T80UM1 I agree with you.
    2. Dima67
      Dima67 16 October 2013 15: 52 New
      0
      Quote: T80UM1
      And about Hollywood, there’s nothing to lower it there by orders of magnitude of cinema better and higher spiritually than modern Russian. You just need to know what to watch.
      Sorry, but I saw entertainment in Hollywood movies but not spirituality. It has water, but against the general background it is so blurry that it is not visible. Here is Santa Barbara an example of spirituality. And there are very few good films, as mentioned above, in truth, but there are.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 16 October 2013 16: 05 New
        0
        So you have watched few good films.
        1. Dima67
          Dima67 16 October 2013 16: 59 New
          +1
          I watched quite a few. Maybe it's just not that, or good ones have not come across. By the way, they also shot good films about the USSR until they included their city but metal.
    3. edmed
      edmed 16 October 2013 16: 08 New
      +3
      hi I would also add "Brest Fortress", although it could not do without "blunders", I completely agree with you about Hollywood, but we will not be shown "The flags of our fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima", at least for comparison With the "masterpieces" of modern Russian "kin".
      1. T80UM1
        T80UM1 16 October 2013 18: 21 New
        +1
        The only thing I didn’t like was that the film Brest Fortress was too tragic for all of them, and after all, part of the defenders escaped to their own, moreover, the bomber aviation supported the fortress (24BAP), everything was too pessimistic, but there were moments that on the contrary inspired the defenders ...
      2. BBM
        BBM 16 October 2013 21: 07 New
        0
        But the Brest Fortress is in my opinion a very strong film. The best film about the war made in the last 20 years on this side of the barricades (we are not considering the west)
        1. tomket
          tomket 16 October 2013 23: 48 New
          +2
          I know how much the fortress was removed from Belarus, so it differs from the slag that is removed from us. if you don’t agree, watch a film with a sleeveless man, sorry he didn’t attach a scarlet cloak.
  • Parabelum
    Parabelum 16 October 2013 09: 29 New
    +3
    And I liked the film, it is on the head, but what is there "on the head", Everest is higher than Mikhalkov's forthcoming citadels, but does not reach the "Brest Fortress". Something is missing in it. And so the movie is good.
    1. saag
      saag 16 October 2013 09: 35 New
      +6
      a film about the Brest Fortress is a film about the feat of the people, you can see this is not enough
  • Sonik
    Sonik 16 October 2013 09: 37 New
    +2
    But recently, such demagogy has been very close: sticking out for a couple of seconds, shouting something absurd and right there in the bushes - they say, the mission is completed, moral satisfaction is received.
    and most likely a material reward.
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent 16 October 2013 09: 37 New
    17
    What I read about the film, and knowing the habits of the chief director of the stage and his unwillingness to cooperate with military consultants and historians during the filming and who shoots on the principle of "and so it goes" on the film, I definitely will not go.
    My son was on this movie. Tried to leave from the middle. The wife did not let me in. He says it's a pity for money. He was most outraged by the love of a Russian girl for a German. And this is the time when they were torn and gnawed with teeth to stop them, regardless of any losses. When they razed the city and its inhabitants to the ground. And then "love" surfaced!
    The son was so outraged, and he is just modern youth brought up on new traditions that he said that he would never go to watch Russian films on the big screen.
  • saag
    saag 16 October 2013 09: 38 New
    +8
    If Bondarchuk suddenly decides to make a film about the Brest Fortress, then the plot will be obvious like this - before the start of the war, a young soldier gets acquainted with a blonde local girl, the war begins and they are side by side in the casemates of the fortress, love is there under the bombs, then this girl is miraculously saved and tells his children and grandchildren how everything was ...
    1. edmed
      edmed 16 October 2013 20: 03 New
      0
      yes Sorry, but I couldn't resist, but this is a paraphrase from the Titanic.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • USNik
    USNik 16 October 2013 09: 41 New
    +5
    Great movie, much worse expected! The Junkers assault on the crossings and the volleys of the tanks really pressed them into a chair and made them feel like they were on the other side of the screen ... I advise all critics and other dissatisfied people to proceed on an easy erotic journey, because the film was really a success, unlike the last "masterpieces" of Mikhalkov, the halls for all evening sessions were packed, and there were equal numbers of young people and people of age.
  • Nix13
    Nix13 16 October 2013 09: 50 New
    +3
    I went to look with some apprehension, but decided to give Bondarchuk one more chance (after "Inhabited Island" as a fan of the Strugatskys, I was somewhat ... dissatisfied). I liked the film, although a few moments, how to say it, are strange. But these are trifles. The rest of the film was shot soundly. On the question of authenticity: maybe there is something wrong with the tanks, I'm not an expert, but for some reason one moment attracted attention: in one shot they showed a close-up of German boots trampling the ruins - the boots are correct with the pile on the nose outward. Maybe Bondarchuk put it in on purpose?))))
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 16 October 2013 12: 31 New
      +2
      no, it’s just soldiers, especially the German ones, who are dressed there correctly — these are for the most part reenactors
  • bddrus
    bddrus 16 October 2013 10: 01 New
    +2
    I was amazed by the abundance of reviews in the early days, not even in style, but in exactly the phrases - "I myself have not watched the film, but my friend went ..." and then the slops were pots.
  • perun
    perun 16 October 2013 10: 02 New
    +6
    film for the modern, not knowing history and not reading viewer
    1. DNX1970
      DNX1970 16 October 2013 13: 11 New
      0
      precisely noticed
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 16 October 2013 10: 03 New
    +2
    1. Initially, he knew that the film touched the war itself a little.
    2. Leaving the hall everyone was silent, even there was no talk, the ending was strong.
    3. The film plot in the plot, interesting.
    4. After 3D, eyes usually hurt, they didn’t hurt, the film went for 2 copecks for an hour, flew by very quickly.
    5. I can put the film on a par with the film in August 44 and Star, that is, in my opinion over the past 30 years, one of the best films.
    6. I did not regret it, I advise you to go with children, friends, wives. I studied the history of the Pavlov House, of course there are a lot of inaccuracies, BUT I think the calculation was for the viewer, so that it was more understandable.
    7. Score 9 out of 10.
    1. kavkaz8888
      kavkaz8888 16 October 2013 11: 58 New
      +5
      At Pavlov’s House it’s only that there are four walls.
  • Lindon
    Lindon 16 October 2013 10: 07 New
    +2
    Quote: Marrying
    Lindon This is Russian cinema, understand? Not?! We need to educate our youth, not yours, of such a plan, I think films are very suitable for raising the younger generation, do not like it, make your own films. Are free hi


    Here is the opinion of other people: "Spoil the war ..." - I heard the opinion of an old woman after the premiere. This assessment of Bondarchuk's film was shared by younger viewers. Let him do what he wants, 3D, 5D, let him turn the soldier into a burning "hell of the living dead", and the final duel of the two captains into the "Matrix", let him broadcast behind the scenes, entering into confrontation with Mikhalkov, just not to show his brainchild ( literally and figuratively) veterans. However, it has already shown. The veterans survived, they could not stand it. For them, three-dimensional pictures from hell in comparison with what they experienced, like the husk of seeds. http://tengrinews.kz/opinion/434/

    This is Hollywood - pure water.
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 16 October 2013 10: 20 New
      +2
      For example, the wonderful film "They Fought for the Motherland", the film is just wonderful. BUT
      1. Ranks are not comparable form (German).
      2. The weapon is not comparable to soldiers (example Mp-40)
      3. Anti-tank weapons do not knock out the medium tank and above.
      4. Tanks do not match.
      5. Russian helmets are not correct.
      6. The advance of the German infantry is not correct
      7. Roughly speaking, the Germans are shown by idiots
      8. There will be no bombers plowing 100 people for 10 minutes
      Here's a snap.
      Do you need to continue? The same Hollywood / fairy tale, just the father took with life situations, the son took pictures based on another.
      All of you do not understand the essence, useless conversation.
  • ando_bor
    ando_bor 16 October 2013 10: 11 New
    +2
    On the net, a powerful clearly custom-made hit over movie rolls,
    so you have to go watch.
    1. Kushadasov
      Kushadasov 16 October 2013 10: 23 New
      -2
      yes go and see who does not give? And the order is just from the back. And the article itself does not smell like a customized one? One such commentator jumps here. Painfully he praises this "creation" ... and his wife cries there for half a movie, and everyone leaves the hall in mournful silence with buckets of popcorn ... It's touching to tears ...
      1. erg
        erg 16 October 2013 15: 05 New
        0
        In the novel "Hour of the Bull" by Efremova, one of the heroines says the phrase: "The opinion about my act was divided equally, is this evidence of its correctness ...." To paraphrase, this statement in relation to the film - the opinion about the film was divided, almost equally is not this recognition of his magnificent. Let me explain for those who did not understand: if the film is really bad, they would not argue about it so much and so hotly, they just said so at once. In general, like this.
        1. Makk
          Makk 16 October 2013 17: 56 New
          +2
          They would not argue so much and hotly about him if he had not been promoted like that.
    2. Xunta
      Xunta 16 October 2013 10: 24 New
      0
      Yes, this is not an order ... these are stereotypes of thinking ... some kind of eccentric with the letter M said that Bondarchuk is shit .. suddenly this fact made him fashionable and his views are very progressive, and the children read, heard, saw ... and started talk (read copy-paste) on this topic to become the same "advanced" ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. ando_bor
        ando_bor 16 October 2013 10: 39 New
        +1
        There is real criticism, and PR paid,
        but you can clearly see the mercenary zaats - they go in formation.
        I'm talking about the whole network, especially LJ.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 16 October 2013 10: 11 New
    +3
    And what is actually breaking the spears and proving to exhaustion, who likes and who doesn't. Let eminent film critics criticize themselves hoarse and snot.
    How many people, so many opinions.
    And to impose "opinion" and "objective assessment" on the film by one of these flimsy critics, with a scarf around his neck, glasses and a thin beard - thank you.
    Respect yourself and your opinion.
  • Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 16 October 2013 10: 14 New
    +4
    The film is slurred cotton wool, Fedor was too carried away by the patterns of Hollywood, special effects are on top, but the content ...
  • kirgudu
    kirgudu 16 October 2013 10: 23 New
    +6
    Soundly shot, but the script is shit, frank.
  • Klibanophoros
    Klibanophoros 16 October 2013 10: 27 New
    +2
    I, too, could write my review of this film here on the forum, but I’m afraid I won’t succeed without a mat.
    1. Letnab
      Letnab 16 October 2013 11: 13 New
      0
      I also selected words for a long time before leaving my review ..
  • George
    George 16 October 2013 10: 28 New
    +9
    Hello all.
    I watched the film right away (I work in a cinema center).
    I did not like it right away that the screensavers of American studios on the screen about the most (in my opinion) Russian film went. Is this what happens - do the Yankees help us make films about us?
    I understand that joint films did not go from Stalingrad, but then the question arises:
    - Guys ! And should you get together to make a non-documentary movie? Especially with that name?
    I expected more documentary from the film. IMHO.
    1. Lindon
      Lindon 16 October 2013 11: 21 New
      +8
      Now go and prove to the youth that it could not have done without Hollywood.
      They will say that this is primordially TRUE Russian cinema.
      Hollywood always shot fairy tales, in the USSR they shot the most documentary films - to convey the true story. We are being pushed here with a beautiful fairy tale about love.

      The battle of Stalingrad is one of the most important (epic) victories over the Nazis. There was no need to mix FEAT and melodrama.
      1. Starfish
        Starfish 16 October 2013 14: 51 New
        +2
        The battle of Stalingrad is one of the most important (epic) victories over the Nazis. There was no need to mix FEAT and melodrama.

        well, why was love present in many old Soviet war films, but now there is war in war films laughing
  • Nitarius
    Nitarius 16 October 2013 10: 31 New
    21
    I don’t know what to WRITE just lay out the picture! I hope they will understand ME!
    I didn’t see the film - I’ll wait in the Internet for a good COPY. I would go to the CINEMA but ......
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 16 October 2013 11: 21 New
      +1
      An old story about an old man, a donkey and a child in a new way, yes.

      By the way, about the controversy over the "Pepsi generation" - here's a lacquer comic instead of a long parable.
  • soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 16 October 2013 10: 41 New
    11
    lately it has become noticeable in new films about the war how many occupiers love our women and they become so good in films that they can pierce someone’s pity, and our soldiers kill them and it feels like nothing, why only write such scripts?
    1. Starfish
      Starfish 16 October 2013 15: 00 New
      +3
      lately it has become noticeable in new films about the war how many occupiers love our women and they become so good in films that they can pierce someone’s pity, and our soldiers kill them and it feels like nothing, why only write such scripts?

      What do you think, why? maybe those who give it to such scenarios give money. and who has them? people of a certain nationality, our oligarchs thief. our ministry of culture, the policy of which, together with the Ministry of Education, is aimed at the destruction of all that is bright in our history, in our souls.
      and Mikhalkov is generally a different story. that’s why the Gulag is crying
    2. kavkaz8888
      kavkaz8888 16 October 2013 15: 49 New
      +5
      And then they write.
      Our soldiers drink water and attack only with machine-gun detachments. Women, instead of dragging the wounded to the hospital with the front line, admiring everyone in a row. The Germans will not go. And at this time, rank and file Rainy with comrades, heroically fighting with fascism. Save the world.
      Remove special effects from "Stalingrad", what will remain?
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 16 October 2013 10: 49 New
    +7
    We are unlikely to show this film ...
    I will share my feelings.
    After "9th Company" and "Spy" (although Bondarchuk did not shoot this film, he starred in this crap) to Bondarchuk Jr. the attitude is negative.
    After the vomit under the slogan "a great film about a great war", the attitude towards modern domestic cinema, especially in the part of films about the Second World War, is sharply negative.
    I do not expect anything good from liberalism and the "artists" who have sold it.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 16 October 2013 13: 32 New
      0
      Hi Andrew I’ll throw off a link on the Internet. And the words of the reconnaissance group commander were very memorable: There are no morons in the USSR, there are mentally ill, but no morons. Go and see, and comprehend.
      1. Peaceful military
        Peaceful military 16 October 2013 14: 27 New
        +1
        Hi Sanya!
        Thank you!
        So you looked. What is your impression?
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 16 October 2013 14: 41 New
          +1
          Andryukh, I’m sitting there myself and I’ll think you can’t tell the hell right away. There are tougher films about the war, but there’s something to say in words, and the war is yes, and the melodrama is yes. In short, Andryukh needs to be watched.
          1. Peaceful military
            Peaceful military 16 October 2013 14: 43 New
            +1
            Well, since you are not sick, it means that not everything is as bad as expected.smile
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 16 October 2013 14: 49 New
              +1
              At least there is no such rejection as from Mikhalkov’s films.
  • DAGESTAN333
    DAGESTAN333 16 October 2013 10: 52 New
    +5
    Let the author of the article forgive me, but I can’t stand it when the chassis of the Soviet T-54 goes out from under the German tanks of World War II. Is it really difficult to assemble several self-propelled models of armored vehicles with historical parameters for visualization? Save money on idiotic things ...
    But Bondarchuk will love the respect. The topic is very important.
    And yet, I would not want to steal a movie from a torrent as always. Too bad the cinema is not nearby, this time I would go.
    If filmmakers hadn’t been kidding, and sold their films at 10-50r. on the Internet, then I, and the rest of the torrent torrent army, would love to pay money for the movie, and producers would get at least something instead of nothing.
    1. bddrus
      bddrus 16 October 2013 13: 58 New
      +2
      I remember as a child I watched a film about the war, still Soviet, there without any plywood, the Urals were dragging guns in a column. Just now I remembered a film - "a stone's throw from paradise", about scouts, the Germans went to Kraz-laptezhnik there - I think only children paid attention to this - it was funny for us. I read on this topic from one comrade in LJ - what is the point of criticizing a 42-year-old sapper in a film about 41 for a scapula, or looking out for buttons.
      I also remembered a funnier movie (the name doesn’t lie) - there Stalin, after taking the Reichstag by plane, flew to Berlin directly to the Reichstag, the movie is very Soviet, still probably black and white. So mistakes and mistakes are another story
    2. 12061973
      12061973 16 October 2013 18: 13 New
      +4
      Quote: DAGESTANETS333
      but I can’t stand it when the chassis of the Soviet T-54 goes out from under the German tanks of World War II.

      but I didn’t like the love hexagon, Katya and five soldiers.
  • btsypulin
    btsypulin 16 October 2013 10: 52 New
    +6
    Good afternoon!
    I watched the film on 11.10.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX in Moscow at the Oktyabr cinema. I will say the following, films on this topic, of course, need to be shot and more, even in the form in which Bondarchuk shoots them, no matter what! This is in any case more useful than filming serials about cops, bandits, etc. But ... after watching this movie, the very next day and there is nothing to remember. This is not a film that, for example, you could have in your collection (and I have a lot of them), and after a couple of months no one will remember about it at all, as if it never existed. The same cannot be said about Soviet and other Russian war films. And if we talk about Stalingrad in a different Russian version, then personally I liked the film "Life and Fate" much more, which is often remembered, although I probably watched it a year ago. And in my opinion, that Nikita Mikhalkov, that the younger Bondarchuk are people turned to Hollywood ............
    1. w.ebdo.g
      w.ebdo.g 16 October 2013 11: 21 New
      +3
      Great movie.
      I looked last night with a girl who was not interested in the topic of war in principle ...
      After watching the movie, they sat silently in the hall and did not leave. Everyone dispersed in complete silence. There were no idiotic chuckles and loud conversations ...
      When I went outside I noticed teenagers who were hotly discussing the film and the behavior of the characters at the bus stop. I haven’t seen this for a long time.
      I did not expect such a good film from Bondarchuk ... But he was able to shoot it.
  • Kiliny
    Kiliny 16 October 2013 10: 56 New
    +6
    Why did he take it off ??? In fact, the main character of the film is a German officer who is shown as an intelligent, noble person (which is the undisguised glorification of Nazism, which Russia is seeking to ban from the UN!). The picture forms a negative image of both Soviet soldiers and the civilian population of the city, both among Russian viewers, and it will form it among film viewers from abroad
    1. Xunta
      Xunta 16 October 2013 11: 04 New
      -4
      All my life I hated stupidity most of all! I don’t understand. Do you hate all of our Russian or just cockroaches in your head ran the wrong way?
    2. USNik
      USNik 16 October 2013 13: 26 New
      +2
      Sorry, but have you watched the movie at all? If yes, then you did not understand it. How could a German officer raping women and creeping before a dim-witted boss become your main character !? And where did you find the negative image of the soldier ?? The fighters who completed the task to the end, fought to the last drop of blood for the house, went into a suicidal attack because of the monsters who burned the mother and child, for you all this is a "negative image"? ... No.
      1. Kiliny
        Kiliny 17 October 2013 23: 00 New
        +2
        The patriotism of Soviet soldiers is shown as low: despite the fact that control of this house is the only opportunity for the Soviet army to cross and recapture the city, the commander of the soldiers aloud expresses doubt that the scouts will try to maintain control of the house in the event of the death of Katya. This moment shows the Soviet soldiers from an extremely negative side (do they not understand the importance of control over the house, or are they not going to carry out the order?).
        The attitude of local residents towards the Germans is shown as neutral or positive. At each visit of the German officer Peter and his colleagues to the basement, a boy from the locals appears in the frame, giving Hitler's greeting to the German soldier. There are already three such scenes in the film. The presence of this boy does not support the storyline at all, it seems that he was introduced specifically to demonstrate the positive attitude of the civilian population towards the Germans.
        The attitude of Soviet soldiers in the film to each other is shown as sharply negative. At the very beginning of the film, immediately after the capture of the house, Commander Gromov makes an audit of people (who survived, who was wounded, etc.). Among ours there is a seaman who declares that since he is a seaman, he therefore obeys the naval headquarters, and not the orders of the headquarters of the land division, like commander Gromov. Commander Gromov kills him immediately after this phrase, in less than a second! Without any dialogue! That is, here is the Gromov House, there are 6 soldiers and a sailor in it, there are NO others of ours in the city AT ALL (all our troops are on the other bank of the Volga!), Every cartridge and every person is valuable, but the sailor is killed immediately, without any attempt convince! They don't say a single word to him, they just kill him immediately with a shot. Among the 6 soldiers present, only 1 after that says "you shouldn't be so, we don't have enough people." No one else expresses a single drop of condemnation, does not even show it in appearance. The attitude of German soldiers towards the population is shown as good:
        In the film, the Germans burn in a bus standing in the square, a young Jewess with a child. This is motivated by the fact that the ancient Germans made a sacrifice before the battle, so that the battle was successful. They do not show any hatred and contempt for the burned Jewess - it just happened and the Jewess was unlucky (supposedly, if we had a German in the battalion, we might have burned her, not the Jewess). In addition to this scene in general (!) No violence by the Germans is shown. Not during the burning - they beat no one, or later, when they drive the population to the station, to send him in the cars - not a single blow (to speed up the crowd to the station, among which there are many hungry and exhausted people), nothing !!
  • Corrint_25
    Corrint_25 16 October 2013 11: 03 New
    +4
    Quote: Borz
    My father said that during the occupation of Odessa, the Germans behaved much more dignified towards the local population than the Romanians. They did black.

    In the Vinnitsa region (Barsky district) there were Romanians, they didn’t touch anyone, they just drove them to work, and the Germans came from the district center and shot and took them to Germany
  • nemec55
    nemec55 16 October 2013 11: 05 New
    +5
    THIS IS MY OPINION — The film is normal, but its attachment to veterans and the heroic deeds of the soldiers spoils everything when they showed on the news that the veterans had gathered in the cinema to watch the movie, more than sure the veterans were not thrilled. This movie has NOTHING to do with the war. Is it just a militant, a blockbuster, or some other word about a war movie?
  • btsypulin
    btsypulin 16 October 2013 11: 25 New
    +3
    Quote: nemec55
    THIS IS MY OPINION — The film is normal, but its attachment to veterans and the heroic deeds of the soldiers spoils everything when they showed on the news that the veterans had gathered in the cinema to watch the movie, more than sure the veterans were not thrilled. This movie has NOTHING to do with the war. Is it just a militant, a blockbuster, or some other word about a war movie?


    So they said in the press that after the film was shown to the veterans in Volgograd, they put the film 4-ku (most likely so as not to offend Bondarchuk, and the film itself draws three, respectively +1 point for patriotism = 4).
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 16 October 2013 11: 42 New
    +8
    So to speak. This is not a masterpiece, this is a kind of "Pearl Harbor" in Russian performance. From a technical point of view, this is the best thing in Russian cinema. The script is not a failure, it's interesting to watch. Strong kinokomiks on which you go and do not regret the money spent on the film.
    1. Lindon
      Lindon 16 October 2013 11: 56 New
      +8
      The script may have been written by the same people as Pearl Harbor. Special effects were done in the same way as in the Matrix. You can watch a movie like any Hollywood movie - once.
      But to teach children the history of this film is no longer possible. Buy and put his favorite collection on a par with the masterpieces of Soviet cinema no longer work. There is no educational ideological content for the younger generation. In a word REFINADE.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 16 October 2013 13: 41 New
        +4
        Quote: Lindon
        But to teach children the history of this film is no longer possible. Buy and put his favorite collection on a par with the masterpieces of Soviet cinema no longer work. There is no educational ideological content for the younger generation. In a word REFINADE.

        Among Soviet films were there many masterpieces about the war? I personally recall with difficulty a dozen.
        Klimov "Come and See", Kalatozov "The Ballad of the Soldier", Shepitko "Ascent", "Twenty Days Without War" by Herman and his "Check on the Roads". "Cranes are Flying". "Only old men go to battle",. "Two Soldiers" and "Heavenly Slow Mover" are, rather, not as masterpieces, but as the best examples of cinema of their time. "Chronicle of a dive bomber". Of the strong ones - "Zhenya, Zhenechka and" Katyusha "," Shield and Sword "," Belorussky Station "," The Dawns Here Are Quiet "," They Fought for the Motherland "," In War As in War "and a few others. They can and should be brought up. Not every film about the war should be a masterpiece. Bondarchuk made a good, strong film. It's just that everyone expected a Great film from him. Why would?
  • Koliabu
    Koliabu 16 October 2013 11: 47 New
    0
    Great movie. It is definitely worth a look for the younger generation who do not know what the Battle of Stalingrad is.
  • Suvorov000
    Suvorov000 16 October 2013 11: 51 New
    +8
    The film was a little disappointing, if honestly, such a title and such a plot are not comparable, but about love and special effects, but everything is so attracted to Hollywood that it’s too cloying, no movie is not bad, but you don’t want to watch it a second time. So Fedya, watch daddy's films carefully))), I'm afraid that you will never master such a masterpiece as "They Fought for the Motherland" ((
  • onegin61
    onegin61 16 October 2013 12: 06 New
    +3
    I read what they wrote here, a complete mess. I will not give any ratings. My opinion is that this film is a good action, not Stalingrad. My father fought the whole war, talked a lot about it. Films such as "Liberation" and the like were called good fairy tales. to reality he called "War as in War", somewhere "Hot Snow" according to his stories is comparable to "At an unnamed height". His words "war is a tedious, dangerous, difficult job and not at all like in a movie, in which no one has a second life. My father died in 1998, fought in the reconnaissance, and awards still come."
  • Averias
    Averias 16 October 2013 12: 06 New
    +7
    Bondarchuk, when talking about this film, explained: This is not something that was shot in the USSR. I can’t shoot such a thing ever, this is a different format, this film is adapted for the modern viewer. After all, people now want, first spectacles and only then the semantic component. I did not rely on absolute certainty, since what happened there was known only to soldiers (veterans), participants in those terrible events.

    From myself, I went and looked. The film was impressive (IMAX 3D), a friend living in Volgograd, talked with veterans attending the premiere. The reviews are positive, albeit with tears.

    Yes, the epic tapes of the times of the USSR fall short. Yes, there isn’t that game of actors, as in old films. But this is another movie, because, whether we want it or not, the world has changed.

    I went to see a movie with my friend's son (grade 6), before that he knew about Stalingrad only that it was such a city. After watching, he was silent for a very long time. Arriving home, he climbed head over heels on the Internet and began to shovel information about the Second World War. I got into the story and started asking questions. He says that at school, during recess, the most pressing topic of discussion is "Stalingrad". And those who ask what the conversation is about (they don't know) are immediately called loshars (well, children, what to take from them).
    Let even this generation know about the exploits of our fathers and grandfathers.

    I read comments to the film on "venerable" portals. One bile, sarcasm and insults. There is a manipulation on the topic of the elder Bondarchuk and the younger. Out of 200 reviews, not a single normal one, this does not happen. This is an explicit order of our liberals.

    We are again forced to believe that everything Russian is bad. And they (the West) have some geniuses and the apogee of culture.

    I don't give a damn about the cons, I support Bondarchuk and say thank you for the good, Russian film.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Teacher
    Teacher 16 October 2013 12: 12 New
    +9
    Personally, I will not watch the film, the preview frames were enough. A burning man should scream in pain, and not run to attack the enemy with a spiritual gaze. It's like in Svejk, when the severed head of a soldier continues to glorify the emperor. The father of our "genius" Bondarchuk, while filming "They Fought for the Motherland", he did not use any special effects, only one battle scene, and turns his soul over. Remember how the wounded man was brought to the infirmary for a test, he says something about the boots so that they are not cut, because they are new, and then he bursts out "how it hurts me, you would give me at least some pill!", and the nurse just takes his hand, because she has nothing. And no 3D fountains of blood for you, and tears are welling up. Although I taste my own I do not impose, perhaps, on a new time, a new cinema?
    1. Kushadasov
      Kushadasov 16 October 2013 12: 21 New
      +4
      Yes, it’s not even a matter of how a burning person should behave ... The meaning is different. Bondarchuk Sr. created a real picture to show the feat of the Soviet people and educate the younger generation on it, the same one, the younger, who is a powerful snore of nature, making money. There is no question of any educational moment. It's a shame that it exploits a holy theme for the people to clog their pockets with greenery.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 16 October 2013 15: 16 New
      +3
      Bondarchuk has an almost literal quote from Zaitsev, from memoirs about burning people who went on the attack.