Deanna
There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.
Theo Robertson
Without doubt the dirtiest war of the late 20th Century was the war in Chechnya . It was actually two wars from 1994to 1996 and flared up in to a second war that lasted from 1999 to 2007 and even today there's acts of sporadic violence . The wars have cost the Russians as much as 8,000 military while the Chechens themselves may have lost 250,000 people both combatants and civilian , a quarter of the population of Chechnya . The worst thing is neither can claim any moral high ground . The Chechens may claim to be victims of genocide but any resistance that involves massacring civilians at Russian schools , cinemas and hospitals has a hard time of claiming victim hood The most compelling account of the conflict comes from the pen of Arkady Babchenko in his book One Soldier's War In Chechnya . It tells of his time as a conscript in the Russian army in the first war and of his time as a regular volunteer in the second war . What quickly becomes apparent is what a brutal institution the Russian army is . Recruits spend the first year of their service under " the rule of the grandfathers " soldiers in their second year where recruits are subject to effective slavery at its most brutal and unrelenting which will shock anyone who has any military understanding PRISONER OF THE MOUNTAINS is set during the first Chechen war where two Russian soldiers , Sgt Kostylin and Private Zhilin , are captured by rebels . The film does allude to the structural gulf between an experienced soldier like Kostylin and a recruit like Zhilin , the older soldier doesn't believe the Chechens will trade the recruit because he's unimportant to the Russian army but this is quickly forgotten about as the film moves in to predictable and simplistic territory that states that no matter the conflict and the uniforms we wear we are all human beings caught up in situations made by others It's a well enough made film but by the same token there's nothing outstanding about it either . There's also the problem that if you've read Babchenko's book featuring the very real atrocities each side has committed against the other - in fact each side also commits atrocities on their own - then it does have a rather Walt Disney feel
Claudio Carvalho
In the war between Russia and Chechnya, the two Russian soldiers Sacha (Oleg Menshikov) and Vanya (Sergei Bodrov Jr.) are ambushed and made prisoners of war by a group of Chechens. The old man Abdul-Murat (Dzhemal Sikharulidze) wants to exchange them by his last son, who was arrested by the Russian troops. His other two sons were killed by the Russians, and his family is composed only by his teenager daughter Dina (Susanna Mekhraliyeva) and himself. The two soldiers are kept alive in his village, while Abdul tries to negotiate them with the Russian Commander Maslov (Aleksei Zharkov). Sacha and Vanya are very different persons and while together, they get closer. Sacha has the mentality of a soldier, intending to kill the Chechens from the village, while Vanya is a teacher and prefers to try to understand the locals behavior and culture, performing small jobs for them, like fixing clocks. Vanya falls in love with Dina. This beautiful movie is another magnificent anti-war movie. The touching story, supported by an excellent cast and the Caucasian locations, makes this movie a worthwhile entertainment. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): `Prisioneiros das Montanhas' (`Prisoners of the Mountains')
akrutul
Prisoner of the Mountains provides an inside look into the Russia/Chechnya conflict through the eyes of two captured Russian soldiers, Vania and Sacha. The unlikely duo forms a friendship out of their will to escape their imprisonment. Despite the serious basis for the story (the continuing war between the two countries), the film is very multifaceted in that it contains comedy, love, and suspense. In this respect, I greatly disagree with another user who described the film as `bleak, tedious, and uneventful.' The main reason this film succeeds is that it does not only focus on the war and battles between the two sides, but rather develops the underside of the conflict-the characters on both sides.This user likens this film to watching polar bears sleeping because violence only makes up ten per cent of the plot. I have seen movies that are as boring as this analogy. Prisoner of the Mountains does not qualify as this type of film. Bodrov incorporates many different types of scenes in the plot action that evoke a variety of emotions from the audience. There are serious scenes, such as when Sacha and Vania are captured, which elicit fear and apprehension in the viewer. In contrast, there are also more humorous scenes, as in when Vania continues to meddle with the gun he and Sacha stole, after Sacha warns him to be careful, and the gun fires, causing them to lose their only bullet. In this respect, Bodrov makes his film very well-rounded by incorporating various types of scenes that play to different emotions. While the central plot is serious in its portrayal of the war, Bodrov includes less intense scenes in order make the film more interesting and develop the personalities of the characters. The scenes in which Vania and Sacha are shown `getting drunk, whittling, chatting with passers-by, and making friends with their captors' serve to help the audience understand the backgrounds of all of the characters, as well as show character transformation. Through discussions between the two soldiers, the audience discovers that Sacha's at first exterior most likely results from the fact that he is an orphan. In time, we see how Sacha grows to respect Vania, despite his naive nature, and becomes a father-figure to the younger soldier, ultimately sacrificing his life for him. Moreover, we learn how Dina grows fond of Vania and ultimately defies her father to help him escape. In this respect, these scenes are the main point of the movie. In this viewer's desire to see violence, I think he missed the obvious. Bodrov wants the viewer to understand the feelings and motivations of characters on both sides of the conflict. Had the film shown one battle after another, the audience would not have been able to understand the characters because only fighting would have been shown. In this respect, the non-violent scenes are critical to character development as well as the overall impact of the film on the audience.While violence is the setting for the film, it is not meant to be the sole focus of the plot. Consequently, rating this film based on its lack of violence does not do it justice because violent scenes purposely comprise only a part of the action. This reaction would be similar to evaluating a straight play, which had a few musical numbers, as if it were a musical; you would obviously be let down and give it poor marks because your expectations would be too high. In this way, I do not feel that more violent scenes would have added anything to this film. Bodrov sought to illustrate the general tense atmosphere of the situation through the initial capture of the soldiers, the failed escape of the soldiers, the death of Abdoul's son and the expected shooting of Vania. These incidences of violence effectively convey the difficult environment to the audience. Additional killing would have been gratuitous in light of Bodrov's main emphasis of character development. Overall, I found this film to be incredibly engaging and interesting for its depiction of the bitter conflict between the two countries. As a westerner, I can say that the scenery was nice, but that it was not the only good aspect of the film as this viewer states. Perhaps the name and subject of this film is misleading. To a person who wants to see a lot of violence in films, Prisoner of the Mountains would not be my first recommendation. To this viewer, I would suggest The Betrayed, another film on the Russian/Chechnya conflict with significant violent footage. In forming impressions of films, it is important to take into consideration why the director made the film as he/she did. In this instance, it is clear that Bodrov did not only want to present the violent nature of the war, but that he desired to explore the individuals behind the conflict.
lgjones-2
Best, most moving anti-war movie I've ever seen. The scenery is breathtaking. The acting and direction superb, and the story is without equal. Highly recommended for anyone who likes great movies. This Russian movie is incredible in scope and production. Two thumbs up!
