Ak-47: A Arma Que Mudou o Mundo

Truth is that I imagined finding myself in front of the thousand times seen pro-Russian propaganda film, full of unrealistic scenes and horrible CGIs. But quite the opposite, it is a solid biopic, without great pretenses, well acted, with costumes and vehicles faithful to the time and with little or no propaganda on it (It is striking that the only negative character in the film is an NKVD soldier). I hope that as it becomes known, its rating will rise.

I'm going to start by addressing some of the comments from reviewers who claim Hugo Schmeiser, a German weapons expert, designed the AK47. A few facts. Schmeiser was not overly co-operative with the Soviets. Moreover, they did not appear to think a great deal of his work. He received a pay cut and was effectively demoted to lesser roles. Functionally, the weapons he designed and the AK-47 designed by Kalashnikov are vastly different, too.

Comments also seem to suggest Kalashnikov had no talent. If so how did he rise through the ranks from obscurity with little education, in an empire as vast as the Soviet Union? Why are not one but many of his weapons designs so famous? If he had no inherent talent how is it his son Victor also designed well known military weapons, most notably the PP-19 Bizon, also still in use today? Hardly likely, if there was no talent to be inherited. Surely?

So lets move on to the film. Its a fascinating insight into the world of weapons design through the life of Soviet weapons designer Mikhail Kalashnikov. Its well acted, directed and has a certain passion I had not expected to find in a film about arms manufacture.

Its clear the reasons Kalashnikov strove to develop weapons were driven by a need to protect his country, not profit from death. A point much emphasised in this film. Indeed, Kalashnikov himself wrote of his "spiritual pain" in latter life when he saw how his famous creation, the AK-47, was used around the world.

What's particularly remarkable about Kalashnikov is the fact this inventor, in his early years, started off with a very basic education. He rose to prominence through hard work and the merit of his designs. A fact that is made clear in the film as he competed, with often better educated, weapons designers.

In terms of the story, some creative license has been taken. Especially in terms of his private life. He married in 1921 but this film suggests he was married a lot later.

Putting this aside, this film is well crafted, engrossing and utterly fascinating. This coming from a reviewer who is, by nature, a pacifist and opposed to war.

8/10 from me.

On one hand, this is a technically good piece of filming. Costumes, vehicles, decorations, sounds, small details of the everyday life look very true. The overall picture is simple, but beautiful. A pleasure for an eye.

On the other hand, the story is very shallow, flat and non-engaging: just 5 years of Mikhail Kalashnikov's life condensed into an hour and a half. And also, quite... let's call it 'pleasant'. Saying that, I mean there's no conflict in the story, no struggle, no tension, no unexpected turn. The road to AK-47 just unwinds before us, smooth and wide, and dotted with signposts. Just like Mikhail Kalashnikov himself! Who as a character looks just an-all-round-good guy. Quite pleasant to glance at, but there's nothing much to examine and explore.

You can't really call this a biopic, because there's no real biography in it, no personality - only large milestones. Instead of diving deep into the tangled thicket of man's life the story just flies by at speed, barely touching treetops. And it is not the story of Kalashnikov's invention, too, because you can't really trace the path of the thought on its way from the idea to the final triumph. Not a drama, certainly, because there's no drama. And not a struggle, again; rather a chain of fortunate events. If Bilbo's journey of "There and Back" was of this kind, I think the book would start right at the Lonely Mountain. And the dragon would give up.

The most fitting words would probably be "a formality". A well-built panegyric formality. A layer of gilding upon the relic, that makes it glittery, but smoothes out its real features.

Watching this you will lose nothing, I think, except 90 minutes of your life. On the other hand, you will probably gain nothing, too (except maybe picking up some names).

In "Kalashnikov (2020)," the intriguing tale of the iconic assault rifle AK-47 and its journey through the Soviet Union unfolds. The film delves into the intricate backstory and technological advancement of this renowned firearm.

However, the portrayal of the AK-47's character feels somewhat one-dimensional, lacking depth. The film occasionally exhibits overt displays of Soviet pride, veering into propagandistic territory and diminishing its overall credibility.

Nevertheless, the scenes depicting the AK-47's testing are undeniably impressive, showcasing the weapon's formidable power and enduring impact.

"Kalashnikov (2020)" offers a captivating perspective on the genesis of a weapon that has left an indelible mark on history, despite some shortcomings in character development and narrative authenticity.

I was really looking forward to watching this but every time a character spoke in that cheesy Americanized dialect, it just sucked the life out of it. The production value is amazing and casting is very good and of course the true epic journey of creating the AK 47 is pretty epic. Not sure why they didn't at least use Russian accented English voice actors and keep to the original as-written dialog. I would suggest watching the original Russian language version.