La Bête de guerre

There aren't too many films that completely slip through the cracks when it comes to my knowledge thanks to year's of movie consumption (and some early life work at video rental stores, remember those?) but Kevin Reynolds little spoken about 1988 film The Beast of War (also commonly known as The Beast) is a film that I can honestly say I had never heard of until recently but thanks to a recommendation, I made the time to check this nightmarish war film out and I am very glad that I did.

Victim of a studio dumping it into an initial release with little to no fanfare or backing, Beast is a film that was worth more attention as Reynolds and his screenwriter William Mastrosimone (adapting his own play) create a boiling pot of tension and drama as they follow Russian tank officer Daskal and his crew across the sand swept surrounds of Afghanistan as they are pursed by a justice seeking group of Afghani locals in a secluded valley after they wreck havoc on their small village.

Getting stuck straight into the action, we as viewers are thrust into the sweat covered lives of the unstable Daskal and his skeleton crew that includes Jason Patric's Konstantin Koverchenko, Stephen Baldwin's wide-eyed Anthony Golikov and Don Harvey's unbalanced Kaminski, as they traverse the foreign landscape of the country they have invaded while Steven Bauer's village chief Khan Taj and his men pursue them deeper and deeper into a hellish valley that seems likely to lead to a conflict where only one side will come away victorious.

There's barely a moment where Reynolds film lets up, Beast moves along at a rapid pace, much like its barely functioning tank that is both a savior and a curse to the men inside, and when it comes to films set in the Afghanistan region there's a real case to suggest that this 1988 effort is one of the best set in the time and period where the Soviet's went toe to toe with the local militia in the country.

Something else that is evidently apparent in the film is the string of quality performances.

Leading from the front is the almost never better George Dzundza who goes all out as Daskal who is looking back to past glories as he dictates his men's movements into a seemingly losing battle and Patric, who brings great intensity to his role as the voice of reason Konstantin, a man who has been put into a hopeless position where he is torn between self preservation and doing what's right for the country his committed to serve.

Overall this is a white knuckle affair, one with brilliantly staged battles, great delivery and one of composer Mark Isham's most effective scores and while its unlikely you've heard of this war film, it's one you should find and check out as one of the 80's most undervalued efforts.

Final Say -

One of the hidden gems of the war film genre and one of the most effective tank based sub-genre efforts, The Beast of War is a thrilling piece of filmmaking that deserves to find an audience it was cruelly denied upon release.

4 RPG's out of 5.

Well, I think I got the point what was meant, but it shall be clear that it has nothing to do with portraying Afgan-Soviet conflict. This movie try to deal with a nature of war as it self and does it to my mind pretty good.

Well, these guys in a tank were not Russians in any manner. Maybe it is possible that some smarts is questioning his comrades towards enemies, but it's hard to consider it in USSR troops. Comradeship is a holy thing for them, holier then bible, so there is no way they could abandon one of them even when it would be an order (even if commander would gone insane to order such an action, crew would probably beat the sheet out of him rather then obey). My uncle served in action in Afganistan for soviets as commando. Although he isn't Russian and had little respect (as most Latvians) to soviets, he's never disrespected his army fellows or combating officers.

Starting action was pretty made up as well, as for village blowing purposes soviets would use choppers not tanks. Tanks was used in protecting roads and securing routes. Operatons was mainly carried out by solders and armored vehicles - BTR's. Tanks could be used as support, but there is no way massive tank attack would be enforced without commandos on foot or vehicles guarding them as it was shown (well, armament has always been a virtue for soviet commanders not soldiers).

But as I already said, in general this movie is totally worth to see.

The review of this film by whpratt1 is completely wrong. This film is not critical of the Mujahadeen, but rather shows them struggling to fight for their freedom. The Soviet army is the oppressive evil presence. This film was made during the Cold War, when Americans saw a line drawn in the sand between communism and capitalist democracy. In the film, the Soviets are clearly the bad guys, and the Mujahadeen are fighting the good fight. The main character comes to understand this during the film, finally telling his Soviet commanding officer that "we're the Nazis this time."

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States funded, supplied, and trained Mujahadeen forces. American stinger missiles were used to shoot down Soviet helicopters. The most famous Mujahadeen fighter trained by the United States would come to be Osama bin Laden. He would participate in the fight against the Soviet army, much to the approval of the United States. This film pays tribute to the Mujahadeen for valiantly defending themselves against America's enemy. The fact that the United States has invaded Afghanistan makes the film much more interesting to watch. It is ironic that these militants once praised by Hollywood are now our enemies. The lesson this film should teach us now, albeit inadvertently, is that we should be careful who we glorify and who we vilify. Humans will be humans, and will fight for what they *believe* is right, sometimes whether it actually is right or not.

Allegedly came out during a change of administration at COLUMBIA, and they knew not what to do with it, and at a time when the 'blockbuster' mentality was starting to become the norm, THE BEAST may have played in what, five cities for a week or two.....they say the most valuable gems can be the hardest to find...and THE BEAST is no exception to that maxim...

This is as close to a 'foreign film' out of Hollywood as you are going to get...the story brings the conflict between people forward, and makes the action incidental-virtual guaranteed bankruptcy for a US film today.

And as for the actors speaking English-I think the producers realised they were close enough to no profit by having one language being subtitled as it was-the whole film being subtitled would have seen no financing at all, probably.-That just doesnt fly in H-town....'art-house' kiss of death... However...

The acting is first rate. The story is lean, and to the point. The scenery is stark and beautiful-well, IMHO.... There is little pandering to the audience, and little Cultural Condescension that I can see-

The viewer soon becomes loyal to the Mujahadeem Rebels, not because they are against the Ruskies, but because they have the will and the right to exist as they are, not to be dictated to by a 'higher' invading power...

Thought it suffers a bit from low budget, I would rate THE BEAST up with FULL METAL JACKET, PLATOON, DAS BOOT, and APOCALYPSE NOW... an EIGHT out of TEN stars... dont rent this-OWN it!

The Beast of War is not the best war film I've seen. But the fact that it's set during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan and its David vs Goliath battle is what pleased me. The only other movie I know set during the Afghan conflict is the far more jingoistic Rambo III. The story as it goes on is rather predictable. Predictability in films or books is not what displeases audience anyway. What I enjoyed was that battle between a tank and a handful of fighters.

The verdict: 3 of 5 stars.