Prisioneiro das Montanhas

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')

Prisoner of the Mountains is an excellent movie. Vanya a young recruit , and Sasha a veteran soldier in the Russian army are captured after an ambush by the Chechens. The Chechen leader keeps them to trade for his son who is captured by the Russians. Then a friendship develops between the Chechens, and the two Russians. I study Russian in college, and even though the subtitles aren't very accurate at times it still helps. The whole plot is just amazing. It shows the human side of soldiers. I definitly recommend this movie to anyone who hasn't seen it.

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.

It's funny how several simple characters can be combined to create a complex storyline. While each character is unique, none of them are particularly interesting on their own. It's only when they interact that the story and the underlying array of emotions come to life.

As with many "war movies," you get the hardened veteran, the raw recruit, the inert, somewhat indifferent commander, and the worried mother. Each are truly one-dimensional and could not stand on their own to carry the film. But when combined, their synergy creates an absolutely engrossing story. They all draw the viewers into their world and don't let go. I couldn't have looked away even if I had wanted to.

Further, this film allows westerners a glimpse into a world they will likely never see firsthand. While the shots of the Dagestan mountains are impressive, the stark poverty found in what one assumes to be actual villages and dwellings in those mountains are both captivating and horrifying to the average western sensibilities. Not everyone in this world lives for the latest fad or gadget or is as pampered as the ones who need to watch this film the most. Even the Russian military base, a very realistic depiction, was hardly fit for western barnyard animals. Welcome, viewers, to how most of the world lives.

Now I must take exception to some of the other reviewers who try to explain Vanya's inability to fire on the enemy as a reflection of his" pacifism." It is obvious that those reviewers have never experienced the confusion of a combat situation - especially that of a poorly trained recruit in an ambush in unfamiliar terrain. If one doesn't know from where the fire is coming, one doesn't just start launching rounds indiscriminately in all directions. Additionally, these reviewers have never felt the fear of being on the receiving end of live rounds which can temporarily shutdown one's capacity to think clearly. Ignore their comments.

Overall, I must say this movie is well done and the actors fit perfectly into their roles. I definitely recommend this movie, and also, don't be off-put by some of the other comments about the slow moving story or the lack of action in what's supposed to be a war movie. This is a real story. If you want nonstop action, explosions, and shooting, rent a Schwarzenegger war picture.

I liked this movie very much. It showed the human side of war. It is a compelling view of life during wartime, as seen through the eyes of a handful of individuals, each with his own perspective and agenda. The story is a warm, sometimes depressing, but ultimately hopeful look at human nature at it's best, and worst.