CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.9/10
4.3 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaSet in 1930s Ukraine, as Stalin advances the ambitions of communists in the Kremlin, young artist Yuri battles to save his lover Natalka from the Holodomor, the death-by-starvation program t... Leer todoSet in 1930s Ukraine, as Stalin advances the ambitions of communists in the Kremlin, young artist Yuri battles to save his lover Natalka from the Holodomor, the death-by-starvation program that ultimately killed millions of Ukrainians.Set in 1930s Ukraine, as Stalin advances the ambitions of communists in the Kremlin, young artist Yuri battles to save his lover Natalka from the Holodomor, the death-by-starvation program that ultimately killed millions of Ukrainians.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 5 nominaciones en total
Anastasiya Karpenko
- Irena
- (as Anastasia Karpenko)
Opiniones destacadas
We looked forward to viewing this movie at the Ukrainian festival at our local theatre.
One big mistake though, didn't properly check the movie background - it is pretty much an English movie, not Ukrainian.
The main publicity focus in advance was on the Russian government induced famine in the Ukraine against the background of a love story.
In reality the movie tries to cover too many of the parallel social and political changes in the Soviet state of the 1920's and 30's, such that almost none would be clear to the average viewer. Including the internal power struggles within the communist regime.
This broad spectrum tips over in to the relationship between the two young lovers who appear almost wooden at times as they flit in and out of the narrative.
A serious and little known subject doesn't get its dues here regrettably. The film tries hard but lacks the focus and cultural nuances that may come from a locally made film.
One big mistake though, didn't properly check the movie background - it is pretty much an English movie, not Ukrainian.
The main publicity focus in advance was on the Russian government induced famine in the Ukraine against the background of a love story.
In reality the movie tries to cover too many of the parallel social and political changes in the Soviet state of the 1920's and 30's, such that almost none would be clear to the average viewer. Including the internal power struggles within the communist regime.
This broad spectrum tips over in to the relationship between the two young lovers who appear almost wooden at times as they flit in and out of the narrative.
A serious and little known subject doesn't get its dues here regrettably. The film tries hard but lacks the focus and cultural nuances that may come from a locally made film.
1930's Ukraine. Genocide through starvation. It was never going to be a pleasant story. It's tough to make a film out of something so one sided and something so horrific. And at times its difficult to sit through. Yes it's violent but we don't see a lot of it up close. It's not gratuitous. It's already dire enough. Yet there's plenty to be depressed about.
The story itself is quite good. Following the journey of one character so we get an overview of what happened in varying parts of Ukraine during this time. And yet it's a stretch. Certain scenarios are just asking us to suspend belief a little too far. Our central figures should have been killed several times over. Knowing this is set within real events (though not of these characters) keeps us involved. But only just.
The problem is with the director. The early scenes are so over-lit it makes you feel like you're watching a Disney TV play. The clichés come thick and fast through the staging and unfortunately some of the dialog too. The direction is heavy handed, falling back on triteness such as blood dripping from a sword stuck in the ground and other lame symbolism.
It's all a bit overblown. The cinematography, the music. They wanted to make a real epic here but even at 100 minutes, it feels overlong and over-baked.
It's horrific to be certain and I wanted to care more but the central story just doesn't grab us the way it should. Terence Stamp adds an element of acting class. Shame that it can't be said for the rest of the cast. For example, Stalin is a caricature. Hours after seeing it, I'm already beginning to forget it. And that's not a bad thing.
An event this huge deserves so much more.
The story itself is quite good. Following the journey of one character so we get an overview of what happened in varying parts of Ukraine during this time. And yet it's a stretch. Certain scenarios are just asking us to suspend belief a little too far. Our central figures should have been killed several times over. Knowing this is set within real events (though not of these characters) keeps us involved. But only just.
The problem is with the director. The early scenes are so over-lit it makes you feel like you're watching a Disney TV play. The clichés come thick and fast through the staging and unfortunately some of the dialog too. The direction is heavy handed, falling back on triteness such as blood dripping from a sword stuck in the ground and other lame symbolism.
It's all a bit overblown. The cinematography, the music. They wanted to make a real epic here but even at 100 minutes, it feels overlong and over-baked.
It's horrific to be certain and I wanted to care more but the central story just doesn't grab us the way it should. Terence Stamp adds an element of acting class. Shame that it can't be said for the rest of the cast. For example, Stalin is a caricature. Hours after seeing it, I'm already beginning to forget it. And that's not a bad thing.
An event this huge deserves so much more.
Everyone knows about the Holocaust but few have even heard the word Holodomor. It means 'death by starvation' and it refers to the Ukrainian mass famine deliberately engineered by Joseph Stalin during 1932-33. Scholars label it as genocide and estimate between 7 and 10 million deaths were directly linked to Stalin's policy of de-populating the Ukraine. More accurate numbers are not available because long-standing Russian secrecy has only recently eased enough for the story to be told. The film Bitter Harvest (2017) is the first feature movie to tell this story using a dramatized romance that attempts to humanise a story of inhumanity.
Set in 1930s Ukraine, the story commences with two young childhood sweethearts in the film's only joyful moments. It quickly moves to Joseph Stalin ordering a mass collectivisation program to confiscate the Ukrainian harvests so he could feed his armies. Most chillingly, he commandeers the grain seeds so famine was not only unavoidable but planned. As their village faces an impending catastrophe, the now grown-up young lovers, aspiring artist Yuri (Max Irons) and his betrothed Natalka (Samantha Barks), must separate as he goes off to join the anti-Bolsheviks in Kiev while she remains to care for her ailing mother. Yuri believes in the power of painting and music to tell the world what is happening but his art teachers in Kiev force him to use art for revolutionary propaganda. As Stalin's forces deplete Ukraine's rural food-stock, villagers are accused of hiding grain and seed and failing to support the revolution. Wherever food is not surrendered there are mass executions in front of mass graves, while others starve to death in their homes and on the streets. Yuri is captured and tortured, but escapes to be re-united with Natalka and they eventually flee to Poland.
The detail of this love story pales against the bigger narrative of Stalinist atrocities. While it is a conventional cinematic device to convey a big story through a small lens, the relationship between the two is critical. The two stories of this film are out of balance and unevenly directed. The attempt to create an epic love story diminishes the magnitude of the Holodomor and almost glosses over the scale of its horrors. While the cinematography is excellent throughout, the acting is wooden, melodramatic, and lacks authenticity. The clean-faced good looks of the dual protagonists form a jarring contrast with the caricatures of the Stalinist scar-faced ogres who are depicted as pure evil. Turning archival images of starved bodies on streets and decimated corpses in mass graves into background props to tell a love story feels disrespectful. The film's lack of nuance and simplicity of narrative is a lost opportunity for insight into this dark episode of history.
It is difficult to be critical of a film that deals with such important subject matter. In terms of the need for the bigger story to be told, this film should be rated highly but as cinema it is seriously flawed. On balance, the one and three-quarter hour investment to see this film is worth the time as it is the only available narrative film of life at the time of the Holodomor. As such, it is educational cinema that helps us understand contemporary Russian-Ukraine politics. However, the shelf-life of this film will be determined only by the time it takes for a better film to be produced.
Set in 1930s Ukraine, the story commences with two young childhood sweethearts in the film's only joyful moments. It quickly moves to Joseph Stalin ordering a mass collectivisation program to confiscate the Ukrainian harvests so he could feed his armies. Most chillingly, he commandeers the grain seeds so famine was not only unavoidable but planned. As their village faces an impending catastrophe, the now grown-up young lovers, aspiring artist Yuri (Max Irons) and his betrothed Natalka (Samantha Barks), must separate as he goes off to join the anti-Bolsheviks in Kiev while she remains to care for her ailing mother. Yuri believes in the power of painting and music to tell the world what is happening but his art teachers in Kiev force him to use art for revolutionary propaganda. As Stalin's forces deplete Ukraine's rural food-stock, villagers are accused of hiding grain and seed and failing to support the revolution. Wherever food is not surrendered there are mass executions in front of mass graves, while others starve to death in their homes and on the streets. Yuri is captured and tortured, but escapes to be re-united with Natalka and they eventually flee to Poland.
The detail of this love story pales against the bigger narrative of Stalinist atrocities. While it is a conventional cinematic device to convey a big story through a small lens, the relationship between the two is critical. The two stories of this film are out of balance and unevenly directed. The attempt to create an epic love story diminishes the magnitude of the Holodomor and almost glosses over the scale of its horrors. While the cinematography is excellent throughout, the acting is wooden, melodramatic, and lacks authenticity. The clean-faced good looks of the dual protagonists form a jarring contrast with the caricatures of the Stalinist scar-faced ogres who are depicted as pure evil. Turning archival images of starved bodies on streets and decimated corpses in mass graves into background props to tell a love story feels disrespectful. The film's lack of nuance and simplicity of narrative is a lost opportunity for insight into this dark episode of history.
It is difficult to be critical of a film that deals with such important subject matter. In terms of the need for the bigger story to be told, this film should be rated highly but as cinema it is seriously flawed. On balance, the one and three-quarter hour investment to see this film is worth the time as it is the only available narrative film of life at the time of the Holodomor. As such, it is educational cinema that helps us understand contemporary Russian-Ukraine politics. However, the shelf-life of this film will be determined only by the time it takes for a better film to be produced.
The Holodomor killed more people than the Nazi Holocaust or the Young Turks murder of millions of their Christian citizens through the Armenian Genocide.
Bitter Harvest explores the history of this tragic event through the eyes of different villagers. A challenging movie with many well done vignettes, it anticipates the creation of more films about this event.
An important difference between the Holodomor versus the Young Turks murder of millions of Armenians citizens is that the Russians have the courage to admit the painful past, thus opening the door to healing. Perhaps this is one of the universal strengths of the Slavic Soul, to be able to look in the mirror of history and through the pain of introspection create great art.
Sadly, thus far, other than a handful of intellectuals, Turkish government remains trapped within the hell of self-deception denying the crimes committed by its forefathers. This ongoing dance of denial which some call "Erdonial" prevents progress and perhaps is one of the constraints against the creation of great art.
Bitter Harvest is a good film with a strong cast turning in strong performances. It will make a good supplement for history classes, and for those times when one is in the mood for lesser known truths that need to be remembered.
Bitter Harvest explores the history of this tragic event through the eyes of different villagers. A challenging movie with many well done vignettes, it anticipates the creation of more films about this event.
An important difference between the Holodomor versus the Young Turks murder of millions of Armenians citizens is that the Russians have the courage to admit the painful past, thus opening the door to healing. Perhaps this is one of the universal strengths of the Slavic Soul, to be able to look in the mirror of history and through the pain of introspection create great art.
Sadly, thus far, other than a handful of intellectuals, Turkish government remains trapped within the hell of self-deception denying the crimes committed by its forefathers. This ongoing dance of denial which some call "Erdonial" prevents progress and perhaps is one of the constraints against the creation of great art.
Bitter Harvest is a good film with a strong cast turning in strong performances. It will make a good supplement for history classes, and for those times when one is in the mood for lesser known truths that need to be remembered.
...is the first word about it from me, a man from East, with Ukraine roots. but, scene by scene, you discover its virtue. not so insignificant. because it is an introduction, with form of lesson, to the Holodomor. so, it represents a sketch, with decent performances, not the most inspired dialogues, so simple than it coulb seem be pathetic and fake. but, after its end, you discover it as a nice try. not convincing, too American, using classic ingredients and tricks for a storyy more complex and profound for have need of them but, maybe, a reasonable start point for discover one of most terrible crimes from XX century. sure, it is not perfect and for a viewer like me seems a sort of blasphemy. but, it is a try. or a small hommage. in fact, a first step for propose to West a story about a land and its sufference. and that saves a part from huge mistakes of film.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaMax Irons and Aneurrin Barnard played brothers Edward IV and Richard III, respectively in The White Queen (2013)
- Bandas sonorasWedding March
Music by Anatoliy Mamalyga and Iryna Orlova
Performed by Olha Chornokondratenko (Violin); Vadym Chornokondratenko (Tambourine)
Courtesy of Andamar Entertainment Inc.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Bitter Harvest?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 30,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 557,241
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 219,357
- 26 feb 2017
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 904,399
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 43 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Spanish language plot outline for Bitter Harvest (2017)?
Responda