MovieChat Forums > Brestskaya krepost (2010) Discussion > Americanized Russian War Movie - A Shame

Americanized Russian War Movie - A Shame

posted 9 years ago by Filler_Killer
8 replies | jump to latest

I was driven to watch this movie by the rave reviews it has got on IMBb. Unfortunately, the movie didn't live up to the expectations. Obviously, the movie is great, visually and technically, thanks to its fat budget, but the clichés, lack of dramatic depth, contrived narrative elements and other details, overshadow the technical prowesses achieved.

Personally I think it's a shame to see Russian war movies going down the drain (Stalingrad is just another, even worse, example), when they have such great film legacy. The reason strikes me as obvious, as Russian productions companies are shamelessly trying to copy their US counterparts, without noticing that at the same time, they're stripping away the spirit imbued in their old masterpieces. Movies like Come and See, Destiny of a Man, Ivan's Childhood, Ballad of a Soldier, The Cranes are Flying, Father of a Soldier, The Ascent and Twenty Days Without War worked because, although some were plagued by the mandatory propaganda of the time, they were free from Western and more specifically, US influence, which lend them with the unique Russian spirit. This is markedly missing from most recent outputs from Rusland (with the exception of "In the Fog", from Sergei Loznitsa), resulting in mediocre attempts that might work at the box office, but are forgotten as soon as one steps out of the theatre.

Well, at least there's still The Forty First, No Path Through the Fire, Trial on the Road, They Fought for their Motherland, The Dawns Here are Quiet and some other Russian movies based on WWII, untainted by American tendencies.

If you're looking for run-of-the-mill, typical modern war movie, then this is for you. However, if you seek to find one that speaks to you with subtlety and actually has something unique to it, you should try one of the above mentioned.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

... the clichés, lack of dramatic depth, contrived narrative elements and other details ...

You give no examples at all except to say the film is "Americanized". LOL!

You won't forget me now?

I've forgotten you already.🐭

[–] Filler_Killer 9 years ago

You give no examples at all except to say the film is "Americanized". LOL!

You saw the movie, so I suppose you know what I'm talking about. If not, then try watching it again, with a conscious critical approach.

I've forgotten you already 🐭

And I couldn't care less about it. 🐸

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

You saw the movie, so I suppose you know what I'm talking about.

LOL! No I don't.

If not, then try watching it again, with a conscious critical approach.

You mean just like you ... so I can arrive at the breathtakingly, all - in - one - encompassing conclusion that ... wait for it ... it's Americanized!

And you're the one whining about supposed clichés.🐭

[–] Filler_Killer 9 years ago

Either you don't know the characteristics of Hollywood cinema blockbusters or you don't know the characteristics of the films released by Mosfilm and Lenfilm, or others, before, but especially during and after Krutschev's Thaw. Nothing wrong with that, in the world of today, knowledge is available through the internet, books, even the films themselves, so go ahead and spend some time learning a bit about the subject.

In theory you don't need that approach, if the elements of the film are identified naturally for you. Since it doesn't happen to you, hence my suggestion. While the definition of "Americanized" might not be totally clear for you, I identified the problems of this film on the initial post, which should make you hint about what I meant with that expression. You either know what I'm talking about or you don't (which to be honest, is everyday vernacular, at least in term of Film), as simple as that.

You can try to defend the film all you want, but the truth is this film is standard, conventional, nothing particularly special about it, just deal with it. For some reason it didn't fare significantly at the box office, neither the critics or the audience ever felt compelled to praise this film particularly. I like The Room too, quite a lot indeed, but that doesn't keep me from acknowledge its (huge) flaws.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

Either you don't know the characteristics of Hollywood cinema blockbusters ...

You just love making non-specific generalised statements and hope that we should believe you.

... you don't know the characteristics of the films released by Mosfilm and Lenfilm, or others, before, but especially during and after Krutschev's Thaw.

How would you know that? Are you some kind of mind reader? Let me remind you that it is 2015, not the 1950's and film makers in a global community have moved on, which you seem to have problems dealing with. May be you need to take your own advice ...

and spend some time learning a bit about the subject.

I identified the problems of this film on the initial post ...

No you didn't. You made a set of broad, generalised statements, entirely unsupported, then concluded the film was "Americanized" (inferring that it was poor) clearly expecting everyone, like me, to go along with your deficient analysis and jingoistic criticism.

And your attempted rebuttal of my reply essentially ... "Go read a book". Wow! Awesome. You really stopped me in my tracks with that one.

You can try to defend the film all you want ...

I haven't defended it anywhere in my posts to you. You're punching at shadows.🐭

[–] Filler_Killer 9 years ago

"I don't know what you meant by that and I refuse to make the minimal effort in order to disclose it, therefore I shall regard what you said as a non-specific, generalised, jingoistic and deficient analysis. Also I like the film therefore you can't criticise it, wah wah".

I think we're done here. You can reply all you want, but I won't continue a discussion with someone who has to defend his lack of knowledge through attacking different opinions, without actually focusing on any of the points mentioned. Also I didn't tell just to read a book, I suggested you to read on the internet as well or watch some movies, did you forget that? Perhaps if you had done that, we could have actually discussed the differences on the films (technically and content-wise) and implications that this modern take on a classic subject has, on its various levels. I'm not your teacher or lecturer, I'm not here to educate or illuminate you. Go and do it yourself, you lazy bum.

And yes, "Americanized" obviously has a negative conotation within this context only, something you clearly cannot grasp, although I've expressed myself quite clearly on the meaning of that on the first post that you insist to misread. The same works for any other country with a legacy and unique spirit that has pervaded through his films in the Past and for some reason decides to ignore that, using external, and rather debatable methods, so that it can earn more money at the box office. But hey, let me use the word jingoistic, it'll make me look smarter and earn internet cred.

That being said, auf wiedersehen!

PS: Seriously, I won't read or reply back to any response, but since this is a free site in a free world, you are free to do what you want, even if it makes you look like a loony.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

... you lazy bum.

... you look like a loony.

You've sadly reduced yourself to levelling personal insults. It does say a bit about your character or lack thereof.

"I don't know what you meant by that and I refuse to make the minimal effort in order to disclose it, therefore I shall regard what you said as a non-specific, generalised, jingoistic and deficient analysis. Also I like the film therefore you can't criticise it, wah wah".

Why are you making up your own quotations and vainly trying to argue to them. And you're trying to label me a loony?? Buddy you clearly have issues.

... without actually focusing on any of the points mentioned.

Well what have you mentioned. Virtually nothing! It's Americanized, it's clichéd and something else. That's it! When asked to supply some evidence of these generalised charges from the film itself ... your response is DIY.

Seriously, I won't read or reply back to any response ...

That's OK buddy. No skin off my nose. But next time you decide to set out to jerk people around by playing OP, best to remember to stay out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

Have a nice day!🐭

[–] Filler_Killer 8 years ago

I know I said I wasn't going to read or reply to any further posts from you, but I recently saw The Cranes Are Flying again and this movie popped back to my mind, unfortunately. I seemed to have offended you for some reason so allow me to reply and explain:

When I said "lazy bum", I meant it in a friendly way, much like you would call a buddy of yours "you silly old bugger". Don't take it personally as I didn't mean to offend you, with so many rude remarks floating on IMDb, never thought you'd take these that way. Also, wouldn't you call a loony to someone speaking to someone who isn't there? It was simply in that sense and again I do't see what's so offensive about it.

Allow me to compensate you, by further developing my thoughts, so I'll make an exception and be a bit more specific: This is the reason why I didn't want to discourse over the subject on this thread, as the info is available through many ways to whoever looks for it, I would advise you to read this book, perhaps it might come in handy if you want to understand why this movie is so bad: "The Most Important Art: Soviet and East European Film After 1945" by Mira Liehm. And like I suggested earlier, take a look at the films I mentioned previously and you'll end up with the same conclusion I'm sure, at least that's where the body of my criticism is based on.

If you still can't understand why you seem to be the only one defending this movie, when its box office results and reviews were completely unremarkable, here's a list of things that might hint at that and will answer your questions (though some have been mentioned by me before):

-Sub-par acting
-Shallow dramatic depth
-Generic, overbearing musical score
-Ripped-off scenes/sequences from other war films (Saving Private Ryan/Pearl Harbour/Enemy at the Gates/etc.)
-Many clichés
-Nationalistic/Propagandistic tone

This are all common features on American war films, hence my "Americanised"expression, hope that got clarified. If this movie is a guilty pleasure for you, nothing wrong with that, I too have embarassing films that hold a special place in my heart. If you're a die-hard Russia fan or simply Russian, well "Slava Rus' brat" and "Ura! Pobieda!!" for you too, as my first post will attest. However, if none of this applies to you, then the only reason I see for you to defend this film is because you haven't been exposed to better renditions of WWII, particularly from the USSR.

Have a wonderful day, mate!

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.