Voyna

I've just watched the movie and i liked it a lot. 1st thing i liked about it is that it gives an info about war in Chechnya, stuff i never knew much about, so that was the reason why i started to watch it. but, as the movie went on more and more good things about it started appearing. its pretty realistic, so different for regular USA action BSing (great explosions make great movie...LOL). i don't think that Muslim fighters were "bad guys" in this movie, at least they r not shown that way. yes, their prisoners work as slaves, they kill prisoners, starve them and stuff...but its shown just as a things that do happen in war. and, lets face it, they do. also, enemies (chechens) r not some people that we know nothing about, aslan in his conversation with Ivan clearly states why is he fighting and which side is "the right side" in that conflict. basically, all sides involved have their good and bad sides. fighting scenes r made just the way i like it: keeping it real, no cheap explosions to make stupid viewers say "aaahhh, thats great", no exaggeration of any kind. scenes of countryside r beautiful. the best part of the movie, IMO, is the ending. i could say that thats the point where only "bad guy" is revealed: john goes back and becomes famous and he doesn't give a f... about whats going on with his comrades back in Russia, he just lets those poor Russians and chechens rot, he himself not having any worry in the world. he just showed everything what he filmed without asking himself what would that cause to Ivan in Russia. Ivan, on the other side, showed himself to be man of principles, honest, brave, fair and firm. really nice movie, realistic, not idolizing anyone, not praising anyone, just showing the war as it is (nothing more and nothing less)

The story: Two British actors are kidnapped somewhere in Georgia and are delivered to Chechnya. The kidnappers demand a ransom, while victims are sitting in a hole in the ground. That's where they meet captain Medvedev (Sergey Bodrov Jr) and Ivan Ermakov (Aleksey Chadov). Medvedev is wounded and very strict, but Ermakov seems to have adjusted and is even helping out the Chechen gang (tribe?) leader with computers.

When Chechen leader - Aslan - learns that he can't get any money he let's the British man go home and get two million pounds to buy out his fiancée. As a gesture of generosity he lets go Ermakov.

The Brit - John - is trying to get the money, and Ivan experiences a post-war life for a Chechnya veteran in his town - no money, no work, ill father. Somehow, John, who was kicked out by every Russian official, finds Ivan and begs him to help him get his fiancée out. Ivan has nothing to lose and he agrees to back to Chechnya...

The movie: This is certainly one of the, if not THE, best movies of Aleksey Balaganov. The story that intertwines lives of Russian soldier, Chechen barbarian bandit and totally not ready for the war as it is British civilian. As always, there is a very deep meaning in every dialogue, every scene and even every look of every character. The music like in many other Balaganov's movies is mostly popular Russian and some Ukranian songs, that emphasize each act and add more emotional content to it.

Perhaps, the movie will shed some light on the situation in Chechnya, and the West will finally understand that you can't negotiate with these people and you can't let them have what they want, because it's never enough for them because they are different. If you're polite with them, they think you're weak - that's the main idea of Balaganov.

John: - Ivan, why do you keep beating this man?

Ivan: - Because this is the only way he will understand. (kicks the prisoner) Faster!

Enjoy the movie. It's a rear quality movie about war.

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.

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.

Some people complain of the "boring" action scenes, but this is not true. The scenes that occur in villages or other close-quarters situations really are interesting. Many people expect something out of Commando or Total Recall, but that is not how these battles happen. Even at relatively close range, there isn't much that a pinned down, wounded soldier can do. He can shoot back, hoping to hit something, but he is more or less immobile and probably less aware of his surroundings. The battles that occur at range are slow because, well, they are. When soldiers are closing in on a location from, coming over a mountain and moving around, there isn't much you can do, even with a relatively accurate machine gun. You can fire off rounds here and there, but mostly it is about killing at least one or two of them, while conserving ammo for the time when the enemies are closer. You are even worse off with an AK-47 when are long ranges. That's why it isn't so exciting. It is, nonetheless, an interesting and realistic plot. No, the cars don't explode because the hero fired a few rifle rounds from a huge distance.