StunnaKrypto
Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.
Philippa
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Brooklynn
There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.
killerpuppet666
I wasn't expecting much from this. The DVD cover (clearly made by someone who hasn't seen the movie or have a clue about Russian equipment) didn't fill me with confidence. The Story overall is pretty good. Its somewhere between genuine war film and cheesy Action film. But certainly worth a watch.I have a few points that I felt weren't right for me and Ill mention them here. I warn you now they do contain spoilers.The soundtrack - it seems very off. it doesn't fit the film, nor the settings and doesn't do well to set the atmosphere.Pointless/stupids scenes - These include the Girl being tied up in the water and the Commando style montage in the Army shop. Yhe first one as it seemed unnecessary (we know how ruthless the Chechen's are) and the second one as it was just so cheesy.Fade outs/ins - it honestly seemed that these were the only transitions after a while. they just keep happening and after awhile you can almost see them coming.Johns character - Its just awful. He acts it reasonably well but its a cringe worthy idea of an Englishmen. The camera on his head was beyond stupid and the story could have been done with a "Hidden" camera to far better effect.the raft scene - Its worthy of a chuck Norris movie. When its sailing down the river less than 20mtrs from a bus on the road. The huge exchange of fire and not a single person gets shot. You cant help but laugh.Pyro effects - The effects from the helicopter rockets and also the grenades are very dated and don't look convincing.As for the good points it does have some. Its was nice to see a war film that deals with Chechneya as well as the problems with Islamic terrorists in that region and the issue of kidnapping there. I liked it also showing the corrupt aspects of government officials and there lack of interest in helping those who were in captivity. The violence is brutal but not over the top and shows exactly enough of what is needed without being gratuitous. Some of the plot holes are a little big (If a pathetic wimp and an ex army Sgt can find the camp and free the hostages in less than a week where the hell are the Russian special forces?)But overall its was a good movie. Let down by some Minor things that could of easily been changed. Over all 7/10.
invinciblecannonfodder
I expected this movie to be simply rubbish, instead i was won over by the quality of the acting (no thanks to Ian Kelly)and the authenticity of the setting. The cinematography was great too. Scenes of beautiful landscape would be contrasted by the gory shootouts as well as great shot of the 4x4 flying off the cliff, which upon meeting the bottom of the ravine was not met by a fireball. It is true that the firefights seem dull and even anticlimactic, however that is the whole beauty behind them. They didn't need to be sugar coated by big explosions and slow-mo deaths instead opting for a more realistic approach. Were some of the weapons real? In all this is a decent movie worthwhile watching because it allows you to take a break from the latest teen slashers and high octane Vin Diesel movies : )
gut-6
This film is both very different and very superior to American war movies. The latter these days are marred by moral equivalence, sanitisation and excessively balletic theatricality, with battle scenes looking like firework displays filmed in slow motion as the orchestra swells to a cheesy crescendo. This film, by contrast, is infused with an industrial-strength dose of Russian cynicism. It's refreshing to see a lack of PC cant in its depiction of a genuinely evil enemy. For once it has a realistic portrayal of the religion of peace, with peace-loving Islamic terrorists peacefully beheading civilians for internet decapitation videos and leaving their victims in a particularly peaceful state. When they're not welshing on deals or slaughtering the infidel, they're settling scores with each other in inter-clan blood feuds. However unlike older American & British war movies which weren't made by leftists, the nominal good guys on the Russian side are incompetent, corrupt and unmotivated. The battle scenes are very realistic, neither sanitised and bloodless, nor baroque self-indulgent slow-motion Peckinpahesque spectacles. They are gory but not overly spectacular or thunderous, heroic in the abstract but sordid. Civilian casualties are inevitable, somewhat regrettable but unavoidable. It's particularly relevant to see the effete, whining, hypocritical Pilgeresque Englishman demanding human rights from those who spit at the concept, anguishing over the deaths of "civilians" travelling with the terrorists, then putting the whole party in danger with his wild shooting.In refreshing contrast to Hollywood, the acting is excellent and the plot is tight yet unpredictable. The denouement had me laughing out loud for the way it highlights the hypocrisy of everyone in dealing with the reality of war. The cinematography is magnificent, especially in the mountain tops and steep valleys. The jeep being rolled down the steep gorge was a particular highlight.
chicana
the really tricky thing and a very good question is why aleksei balabanov don't shoot movies in hollywood?i think that would be great thing both for this director and for hollywood.vojna is film of that kind that was filmed in america in the golden days of hollywood-late 60 till the end of 70 maybe early 80.but the thing is that film come from russia-does russians knows better what is a good action-war movie than anyone in america?YES i say, and i also say to give that man everything he needs to just keep shooting movies.by my humble opinion that was the best movie shown during fest-main belgrade film festival, recently ended.
