vikpk
This is an interesting story, based on true events. I must say the movie fails the typical standards of the trade: there are intense moments but without the classical build up, climax and conclusion.It is truthful to the Russian/Soviet/Communist way of doing things although the time is 1985 when the "perestroika" was happening. The harshness of the system is clearly seen in the replacement captain. The unyielding nature of good people even in the face of the regime is shown by the younger captain.However, I think there was a message in the movie that was hidden even from the actual authors, actors and directors. What you can see in the story is that Russians have this respect for authority beyond human reason. In other words the moral character of the man in authority is beyond question. Yes, there is some rebellion going on, but in the end it becomes clear that one is worthy not because they are morally good, but because they have power. This is a cultural and spiritual reality for other Slavic peoples and those where Eastern Orthodoxy and communism have been in place for centuries. I personally have little tolerance for such values. I cannot accept that there is inherent goodness in power over people, especially when used to assert power for the sake of power. As it will be seen in this movie, such assertion are rather brainless, as they serve no clear purpose, be it moral or utilitarian, but just the assertion of power over the "lower classes." This aspect may be too subtle for some viewers to appreciate, but for me this was the most important message of this film. It delivers in this regard, maybe even unbeknownst to the actual movie makers. That's why I gave it 5, otherwise it is a 4.In a typical Eastern and European fashion there are moments where the viewer is left scratching his head wondering, and where did this come from? Or what is this sequence trying to tell me?Cinematography is good, great pictures. If you watch the movie you won't be left feeling like you wasted your time. There is no disgusting language and profanity as in 80% of the Hollywood flicks. But this film is in no way a masterpiece.
jarth_5
As far as the visual spectacle is concerned, the film delivers solidly. The sense of fragility and danger is constantly maintained by the spectacle of an original natural and utterly inhuman villain in the form of a monolithic iceberg seemingly bent on crushing the ship and her 70 souls. Any scene that involves special effects reflecting this danger are at the least competent and generally effective. It is in relation to story- telling and human drama, in which the film begins to fail.To qualify my review, i must inform the reader that i was unlucky enough to see this film dubbed in English; typically, i am opposed to seeing a film in anything other than the original language, however i am presently in a foreign country where that option was simply not available. I implore you: AVOID THE DUBBED VERSION AT ALL COSTS! In addition to the emotional content lost with the actors' original voices, some of the choices made in voice direction WERE APPALLING! Example: for no explicable reason, the character of Bannik is endowed with an accent that sounds like a bad combination of Hungarian and Scottish. It grates enough to make you wince! I can't be certain how much of the film is lost in translation until i am able to see this film in the original Russian, but it did hurt the experience somewhat.We're pretty rapidly introduced to the Mikhail Gromov, a Soviet icebreaker underway off the Antarctic. No clear explanation is ever proffered as to what the ship's mission actually is. The suggestion is that the objective is exploration, however none of the crew are identified as having any clear scientific or exploratory function and no exploration is ever undertaken. In point of fact, it is never discussed in any substance. This exacerbates the confusion of the observer at trying to understand the behaviour of the crew as well as the performance of their captain. This vessel certainly is not ship-shape and Bristol fashion! Clearly, we as an audience are meant to find the crew sympathetic, but their presentation does not make much sense in context. Daily routine seems haphazard, discipline is lax, and the crew appear openly critical of the captain, who for his part, seems an exceptional and illogical choice to his appointment. This is not so much a crew of a ship as it is apparently an assortment of individuals who happen to be aboard a ship.they appear amiable enough to one another, yet when confronted with a threatening predicament, their response is nothing like one might expect from what we are led to believe is a highly experienced crew of a ship designed for operating in the extreme polar conditions. This leads to the most confusing aspect of the film: the portrayal of the captain. Given the sparsity of information on the actual incident that can be obtained (in English), I have to assume that the representation of events in the film at least roughly reflect the reality; if this assumption is correct, then my sympathy for the character of the captain is particularly limited.Without giving too much of the story away, the initial incident leads to circumstances which call the leadership of the captain into question; when the incident is reported to Leningrad, the Soviet leadership relieves the standing captain of command, and dispatches a replacement (this alone implies that the mission is valuable, yet again no clear explanation is ever provided). Predictably, the incoming captain is a stern disciplinarian bordering on martinet; this sets the scene for a formulaic struggle of wills between the popular, youthful and relate-able first captain, and the acerbic, unapproachable new one. It's a familiar plot device that, while not executed entirely unsuccessfully, still feels uninspired and expected.It's clear that the intention of the film is to direct the sympathy of the audience towards the younger, original captain; yet his behaviour at times verges from the unpredictable to the utterly irresponsible; his motivation in attempting to selflessly help his ship is obvious in a juvenile way, but any observer must conclude that his actions are ultimately ill-advised and immature. In the meantime, the relieving captain is, at least initially, seemingly preoccupied with alienating everyone around him. Neither man,apparently, has any control over the crew, who at times seem to display no sense of discipline or command integrity, especially for a soviet crew of a ship undertaking what is implied to be a mission of certain underscoring political significance to the soviet leadership. In short: the ship appears immersed in chaos. While it is conceivable that the circumstances of the ship's predicament would lend themselves to issues of discipline and confusion, it also seems apparent that the filmmakers are simply trying to heighten the tension. To my mind, this is to the detriment of the story. The overall behaviour of both the crew and the two captains is at various times confusing and illogical. More effort has been made, in the case of the first captain, for example, to present him as likable and appealing, than to credibly present him within the parameters of his responsibilities. Furthermore, his haphazard character development is not unique. Other characters, without giving too much away, are even more erratic in places. There are points in the story in which the actions of certain characters simply make no sense whatsoever (remember: captain's cabin, helicopter pilot, flare gun, knock on the door; you'll see what i mean). It is a pity because i was genuinely engaged by overall story and sufficiently intrigued that i hope to be able to find more information about this ship and its incredible story. If only a little more time and effort had been expended on developing the characters, perhaps almost as much as was expended on animating that iceberg, impressive though it is. This is not what i would call a bad film; it could have been so much better though...
