Guerre

I think this movie is great. A few things upset it a bit, but overall it's very true to the realty of the situation in Chechnya and Russia, which is ultimately what matters to me. I especially like the style with which the movie was shot. It is as if it is made of little pieces each with it's own tagline. It's not philosophical in most aspects; it just shows the reality and well... that's it. If the viewer wants to think about something he/she can, if not just take it as it comes.

Plus at least it's honest with the viewer that in ANY war conflict civilians do die, unlike `Black hawk down'.

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)

I expected this movie to be simply rubbish, instead i was won over by the quality of the acting (no thanks to Ian Kelly)and the authenticity of the setting. The cinematography was great too. Scenes of beautiful landscape would be contrasted by the gory shootouts as well as great shot of the 4x4 flying off the cliff, which upon meeting the bottom of the ravine was not met by a fireball. It is true that the firefights seem dull and even anticlimactic, however that is the whole beauty behind them. They didn't need to be sugar coated by big explosions and slow-mo deaths instead opting for a more realistic approach. Were some of the weapons real? In all this is a decent movie worthwhile watching because it allows you to take a break from the latest teen slashers and high octane Vin Diesel movies : )

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.