How could they so thoroughly ruin such a beautiful, powerful subject-the defense of Kozelsk! If you study the history or even just look at a map of the Oka River and its tributaries, you realize how cleverly and strategically our ancestors picked fortress sites-always at river confluences, using the natural terrain as a defense. Kozelsk is the perfect example: a town tucked into a bend formed by the Zhizdra and the Druguska! All they'd have needed was to dig a moat-and you'd have yourself an almost impregnable stronghold, ringed by water.
So what do we see in this film? A fortress lonely planted in an open field! Where are the rivers?! Where is that unique, stunningly beautiful, strategically vital landscape? They didn't even try to recreate it-or at least hint at it with some graphics, which they probably weren't skilled enough to pull off anyway. It shows a total lack of understanding of the basics of Old Rus' fortifications and complete disregard for the real history of the place.
And then there's the town itself. They show us some haphazard palisade, like it was slapped together yesterday. But Kozelsk back then wasn't just a stockade! It was a full-fledged fortress with a settlement around it. Inside, there ought to have been houses-homes, workshops, barns. Life was supposed to be buzzing; every man, woman, and child part of that world. In this movie? Five oddly dressed, disheveled "heroes" who look like lost extras from The Lord of the Rings wander through empty sets, clueless about what to do with themselves! Does that look remotely like an Old Rus' town on the eve of a terrible siege? Is it patriotic to portray our ancestors like this?!
And the costumes? It's a joke! A wild mishmash that mixes medieval times with the Stone Age. If the filmmakers don't care about authenticity, why not set Ancient Moscow in the Amazon jungle and make the Kremlin out of straw huts? By their logic, what's the difference?
The actors... I don't think they even know who they're supposed to be or what era they're in. They're not immersed in their roles; their behavior doesn't match the spirit of the time at all. They don't even know how to act within the circumstances. You watch them, and all you see are modern people in weird outfits. As for the director's work-there isn't any visible.
And on top of all this inaccuracy and shoddiness, they try to tug at our heartstrings with the tragic story of the city's fall. But you can't carry a historical film simply by saying "They'll all die, it's sad!" That's disrespectful to both history and the audience. It's downright unprofessional.
It stings even more after the trailers, which promised a serious, moving movie. Another bait-and-switch. I no longer believe a word of that advertising.
And when they say, "If you didn't like this garbage, you're not a patriot..." Exactly the opposite! True patriotism isn't about excusing amateurish work or disrespecting our past. Turning a blind eye to this-now that's not patriotism.
It's heartbreaking. For our great, tragic, and heroic history. For the expectations of the audience. For our cinema, which is capable of so much more but often delivers garbage like this. Why don't they give emerging talents a shot? Is it that they can't? Or won't? Let them pick whichever answer fits.
