The Beast

A very enjoyable film! Reynolds captures the essence of man's struggle with right & wrong, good & evil, on several levels in this realistic depiction of the Soviet-Afghan conflict. It was both meaningful and entertaining. I gave it an 8.

The internal conflicts of the characters reflect the many ways that people reconcile and deal with their emotions and beliefs vis-à-vis the roles thrust upon them by war and duty- the soldier, the faithful, the victim, the oppressor, the revenge-seeker and the order-follower. Each main character struggles at some point with his or her decisions in the face of right and wrong, duty and morality. It is the results of these choices that guide the film to transcend the events of war, and delve into the universal questions of how and why man struggles with real and painful choices.

Although the film does prove to be quite predictable, the underlying messages are timeless and well depicted. A moving story with good character development artistically filmed and approached realistically. The brutality and violence of war is not gratuitous, and the anti-war message is delivered superbly.

I highly recommend this film to all audiences... not just war-film buffs. With the US presence in Afghanistan today, the film should serve to help understand that conflict and this one in regards to the human components that are so often overlooked.

A note regarding other user's comments: The film was subtitled. It seems that some saw it without the subtitles for some reason. If you are one of those people, you really must view it with them. Rent it. I cannot imagine truly understanding the full scope of the film without the benefit of the Afghan dialog. Also, the "Americanization" of the soviet dialog not only serves to draw parallels between that conflict and the Vietnam War, but it universalizes the struggles of war and allows the viewer to empathize on a human level- not just a political one. In our long human history, how often have these basic human conflicts occurred... particularly in times of war and oppression and injustice?

The review of this film by whpratt1 is completely wrong. This film is not critical of the Mujahadeen, but rather shows them struggling to fight for their freedom. The Soviet army is the oppressive evil presence. This film was made during the Cold War, when Americans saw a line drawn in the sand between communism and capitalist democracy. In the film, the Soviets are clearly the bad guys, and the Mujahadeen are fighting the good fight. The main character comes to understand this during the film, finally telling his Soviet commanding officer that "we're the Nazis this time."

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States funded, supplied, and trained Mujahadeen forces. American stinger missiles were used to shoot down Soviet helicopters. The most famous Mujahadeen fighter trained by the United States would come to be Osama bin Laden. He would participate in the fight against the Soviet army, much to the approval of the United States. This film pays tribute to the Mujahadeen for valiantly defending themselves against America's enemy. The fact that the United States has invaded Afghanistan makes the film much more interesting to watch. It is ironic that these militants once praised by Hollywood are now our enemies. The lesson this film should teach us now, albeit inadvertently, is that we should be careful who we glorify and who we vilify. Humans will be humans, and will fight for what they *believe* is right, sometimes whether it actually is right or not.

Allegedly came out during a change of administration at COLUMBIA, and they knew not what to do with it, and at a time when the 'blockbuster' mentality was starting to become the norm, THE BEAST may have played in what, five cities for a week or two.....they say the most valuable gems can be the hardest to find...and THE BEAST is no exception to that maxim...

This is as close to a 'foreign film' out of Hollywood as you are going to get...the story brings the conflict between people forward, and makes the action incidental-virtual guaranteed bankruptcy for a US film today.

And as for the actors speaking English-I think the producers realised they were close enough to no profit by having one language being subtitled as it was-the whole film being subtitled would have seen no financing at all, probably.-That just doesnt fly in H-town....'art-house' kiss of death... However...

The acting is first rate. The story is lean, and to the point. The scenery is stark and beautiful-well, IMHO.... There is little pandering to the audience, and little Cultural Condescension that I can see-

The viewer soon becomes loyal to the Mujahadeem Rebels, not because they are against the Ruskies, but because they have the will and the right to exist as they are, not to be dictated to by a 'higher' invading power...

Thought it suffers a bit from low budget, I would rate THE BEAST up with FULL METAL JACKET, PLATOON, DAS BOOT, and APOCALYPSE NOW... an EIGHT out of TEN stars... dont rent this-OWN it!

This neglected and largely unknown anti-war film, ranks as one of the best of the genre. Since other posters have commented extensively on this movie, I'll limit myself to a few comments about those elements others have not addressed.

In it my understanding from material I read at the time the movie was in release (I saw it in Los Angeles when I was living there in the late 80s) that the actors who portrayed Afghanis learned and delivered their lines phonetically. The fact that the "Russians" sound like Americans, and the Afghans are speaking the language without subtitles is a brilliant dramatic device. Virtually no one is going to understand what the Afghanis are actually saying, but it is possible to get the gist from the context and from body language. This has the effect of alienating the viewer from the freedom fighters and making them tend to identify with the Russian tank crew. The movie then operates subversively against this natural tendency throughout the remainder of the story.

The hunting of the tank by the Mujahadeen has an almost mythic quality, except for the fact that the T-62 is real and it has a human crew. And leading that crew is the tank commander whose entire life was shaped by his experiences in "The Great Patriotic War" against the Nazis when, as an 8-year-old, he was used by Russian troops in Stalingrad to help kill German tanks. The commander is as monomaniacal as Ahab, but instead of pursuing the whale, he is it's animating spirit.

There are a lot of layers to this movie -- it will definitely repay repeat viewings.

Well, I think I got the point what was meant, but it shall be clear that it has nothing to do with portraying Afgan-Soviet conflict. This movie try to deal with a nature of war as it self and does it to my mind pretty good.

Well, these guys in a tank were not Russians in any manner. Maybe it is possible that some smarts is questioning his comrades towards enemies, but it's hard to consider it in USSR troops. Comradeship is a holy thing for them, holier then bible, so there is no way they could abandon one of them even when it would be an order (even if commander would gone insane to order such an action, crew would probably beat the sheet out of him rather then obey). My uncle served in action in Afganistan for soviets as commando. Although he isn't Russian and had little respect (as most Latvians) to soviets, he's never disrespected his army fellows or combating officers.

Starting action was pretty made up as well, as for village blowing purposes soviets would use choppers not tanks. Tanks was used in protecting roads and securing routes. Operatons was mainly carried out by solders and armored vehicles - BTR's. Tanks could be used as support, but there is no way massive tank attack would be enforced without commandos on foot or vehicles guarding them as it was shown (well, armament has always been a virtue for soviet commanders not soldiers).

But as I already said, in general this movie is totally worth to see.