The film leaves the impression of a good, not stamped picture, such a great reminder of good people. During the Great Patriotic War. I think that for teenagers and young people aged 22-25, this is the best movie to show. I think that Ursuliak has adequately shown the line between human and inhuman. There's a point of contradiction. between different nationalities and they catch consciousness well, the film does not reveal deeply the characters and this, It's probably the only thing I can pick on here. I will definitely show the film to my son. I recommend it. 🧒
The film is based on the feat of the Red Army officer Nikolai Kiselev, who in August-October 1942 saved 218 Soviet Jews, leading them out of the Dolginov ghetto beyond the front line. A detachment of five partisans led by Kiselev led nearly 1,500 km of hungry people pursued by the Germans. In 2005, the Israeli National Memorial of Catastrophe and Heroism Yad Vashem awarded Nikolai Kiselev the title Righteous Among the Nations. His name is inscribed on the wall of honor in the Garden of the Righteous, and the descendants of the people he saved gather annually in Tel Aviv to honor his memory.
It is strange that the film never says that it is based on real events.
The cast:
Famous actors such as Fedor Dobronravov, Sergey Makovetsky and Konstantin Khabensky play episodic or small roles here. I think that's great. The main character was played by an actor unknown to me - Alexander Yatsenko. In my opinion, coped perfectly, well, or against the background of the rest of the least stands out. I would also like to talk about another actor, Mark Eidelstein. Who is that? A parody of Timothy Chalaham? No, I have nothing against new young actors, but this is another case. Hair, clothes, and even face are very similar to Timothy Chalamet. Unfortunately, the game itself could not be repeated. Mark's game made me feel right. I didn’t like his character very much. There is also a veritable problem with voicing.
I thought it would be logical to write a review of the Russian military and a new film by February 23, so I went to the movies. To be honest, I was. This is a real story that has been reported not so long ago. And, of course, I consider such feats (which are still unknown) not a few. I was afraid of the unfortunate adaptation of this story. What if they ruin everything again? What if they do something wrong? To some extent I was right, but it is not for me to judge.
Special effects, I think normal. The music is too loud. Towards the end, the music is so loud that the ears lay. I also noticed a few blunders (I hope I was wrong and I thought I was wrong). A few other things just weren't clear. Why do you show it that way? The movie is 2.20 and the beginning is really long. While watching, I had an idea of how to improve this film. You can make an age limit of not 12+, but 18+ and add tins. I don’t know how much it would have been, but I missed it in some ways. I also want to highlight the diversity in the film. Nationalities, religions, languages, this diversity speaks of the unity of people in difficult situations. It doesn't matter who you are or who I am if we have the same goal. But then there was the problem:
Why do they speak in one voice? A 2023 film. What were you trying to show? It would be better to just subtitle.
I also don't really understand why inserting "real shots" is so inappropriate. We're also shown a nonlinear narrative here. What is now and what was then. But the narrative is slow, and sometimes they just put in some meaningless stuff. Or as uninformative as possible. In short, the film could be shortened by 40 minutes.
7.0 out of 10
A film based on real events. 1942. Politruk of the Red Army Nikolai Kiselyov is given the order to withdraw from the occupied Belarusian lands beyond the front line more than two hundred Jews - old people, women and children, miraculously escaped the massacre.
One of the advantages is that in the film, with the support of the Cinema Foundation, there is no anti-Soviet checkmark, but on the contrary, the main character loudly and clearly admits that he is a communist.
An excellent dramaturgy in terms of the relationship between the Jews and the communist ideology of the USSR was declared. The Jews repeatedly remind us that the Communists came and picked them up. Although it is far-fetched, as a dramaturgy it is. Heroes need to somehow find a common language to avoid death from their common enemy.
And then the disadvantages because of which the above either does not matter, or works poorly.
These are weak acting jobs. The main role is cardboard Alexanr Yatsenko. Supporting actor Eugene Tkachuk, much better suited for this role. Prominent Russian pillars such as Sergei Makovetsky, Fyodor Dobronravov, Konstantin Khabensky and Chulpan Khamatova either act as cameos or do not understand who they are playing. The director's joint.
Weak scenario. It could not fit, and the already large timekeeping of the film, in two and a half hours. Multiple storylines are poorly revealed. For this reason, drama doesn’t work. There are also many plot holes.
The situation is aggravated by dialogue. They themselves periodically cut the hearing, but often not in the topic. For example, there is a battle scene and then suddenly the writer decided that for the hero, who was not really revealed, it’s time to joke. In a few moments, the hero is killed. There are a lot of jokes like this.
There are many complaints about the battle scenes themselves. As far as I was not a specialist, I could see with my naked eye the absurdity of the battles demonstrated in the forest. For example, opponents of both sides appear from behind each other. How they got there can only know the editor.
As a result, bravo for the absence of bloody Soviet power and for the presence of a communist worldview with rational thinking. But that’s not enough for a good movie. First of all, it would be time for the state money to appoint smart specialists or start producing them.
Such films should open the eyes of liberal Democrats who have forgotten history.
Director Sergei Ursuliak is known in Russia for the hit “Liquidation” (2007). This film is dedicated to the Great Patriotic War, the atrocities of the German fascists. The film is amazing with its scale and psychological duels of heroes. Director Ursuliak puts many heroes in front of a difficult choice between the bad and the worst. There is a truth in the film that the West tries to erase from memory. Namely, a Soviet soldier is a defender, a decent military man, a savior. I liked the film for its strong psychologism, its frankness towards the Nazis. The psychological choice of the main characters makes the viewer remember the animal instinct to “live”. Life - what does it come from? Why did the Nazis decide to get rid of the Jews? We will do the answers ourselves by looking at the evacuation of two hundred Jews across the front line. The West has never loved the Jews, and the director Ursuliak shows how the fascists humiliate, destroy, and brutalize the Jews.
It's a very complicated drama. I cried almost the whole movie: heroes make too difficult choices. Such films should open the eyes of liberal Democrats who have forgotten history. “The West will destroy all who stand in their way” – and do not hide behind its liberal loyalty to Western elites. This film opens the eyes of all Russians: “The Soviet soldier is the defender of his homeland, and all disadvantaged Europe.” The German fascists are raising their heads again, and such films are needed. I loved the film with its dramatic line. 140 minutes fly by like 10 minutes. I didn’t expect the film to openly call fascists beasts and real villains. This is a film-discovery, this is a film-idea, this is a film-message to the liberal generations who forgot the Great Patriotic War.
This story, depicted by director Ursuliak, recalls: “World War II was started by beasts, German fascists, for the sake of power, for the sake of looting, for the sake of humiliating other peoples.” The actor who played Kiselev, Alexander Yatsenko is good.
Yatsenko showed an honest, decent Soviet partisan who defends not Jews with his weapons, but defenseless people who need to go to the rear. It's a great historical drama. I would love to see a lot of young people today.
A good film about the fate of the long-suffering Jewish people. And what you're willing to do to save your family. How many lives are you willing to exchange for them? The film is really complicated. But even here, amid all the horror of war, there is room for love. And this story is revealed through the characters of the Queen and the girl Tova. In the film, there is one truly terrible moment (about 55 minutes) when a father tries to drown his own daughter so that she does not give out with her cry the location of the people leaving the executioners. In the selection of actors a lot in common with the film "Operation Neman". And in the person of Alexander Yatsenko, who embodied the image of the Red Army commander Nikolai Kiselev on the screen, we get a new hero of Russian military cinema. Surprisingly, I can only recall “The Challenge” with “Agent 007” Daniel Craig. As a result, the film is worthwhile, but very difficult to perceive. And to review this, probably, is not given to everyone.
The picture that was missing for objective reality
Sergey Ursuliak made a great movie, which did not have pathos and excessive bias towards any idea. This movie could not be removed, because in the image of Nikolai Kiselev could appear any Soviet soldier.
A soldier who opened the barbed gates of a concentration camp and released the dispossessed. A soldier who sneaked with his comrades to the pediment of the Reichstag building to finally end the war. A soldier who liberated cities sometimes in hand-to-hand combat, although his family could be burned alive by the Nazis in his native village.
It is not that Nikolai Kiselev committed an act to get the title of Hero. In fact, he would have transferred people because he couldn't have done anything else. But this does not mean that the result would be necessarily positive with elements of a happy ending. His story could end as you like, and in real life was not without loss and pain, what the viewer will see on the screen with his own eyes and understand what is the pain of a soldier, even years later.
Still, this film could not be removed because almost biblical & #39; transition & #39; which happened in real life, in fact, repeats in our fates. Each of us goes through it in his own way, but the question is who we are on this dangerous transition & #39; leads. This movie is necessary for viewing, no matter where: at home, in the cinema, in the OGE film club (where premieres are often shown for free and filmmakers answer questions), at home with friends. The main thing is to look and draw the right conclusions.
Each viewer will get their own conclusions, but for me personally it was unexpected to understand that an ordinary person can become a leader, that even in strict prohibitions there are simple solutions. The story ' transition ' so clear that the viewer does not have questions about the characters. There is no condemnation or admiration. After all, ' Righteous' - adult cinema, it is shot in an adult and designed for those who want to find the answer to their question, and not watch another new movie.
As Sergey Ursuliak could not but make this film, so the entrepreneur God Nisanov and the Cinema Foundation could not but support this picture. You would, too. Even at the stage of an oral story about a simple soldier who did not tell his actions even to his children. For real heroes are always silent, and history sometimes remembers that it is necessary to remember and loudly tell others about it.
The film “Righteous” is a phenomenon not only in Russian cinema, but also in the World. It should be seen not only by every Jew (first of all), but also by Russian and people of any nationality. Hostility on a national basis is one of the most vile, unfortunately, common among the people of the world trouble. That’s why the movie “The Righteous One” is to the Place and to Time. But the great value of this kind, wise film is in its assertion of the Good in the conditions of the most difficult war with the beast, the vile fascist scum, who have lost their human form. With what care and respect, with a delightfully subtle understanding of Jewish identity, religious and national customs, the entire production of the film was carried out. How professionally and faithfully all actors perform their roles, even non-Jews! The role of the directors and Ursuliak himself is simply delightful here. How appropriate is the melody about Jewish happiness, performed timidly, at the beginning, by S. Makovetsky at the wedding ceremony, it sounds powerful in the finale of the film with photos penetrating into the heart. The film does not have the expected worthy reward of the main character Nikolai Kiselev, there is no promised award - the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. But there remains a burning desire to know how and what the grateful society noted this great act of the real “Righteous One”.
The producer and director set about a very important, difficult, necessary topic, a win-win version of the genocide of the Jewish people during the Second World War. Whatever it is, but with such trump cards, hype and payback are ensured. Cool director, popular and popular actors... And it would seem that what could have gone wrong? Yes, gentlemen, almost everything.
There is such a popular joke in the people that every year the actors in Soviet films play better and better, so the same is the case with films about the Second World War.
“Battalions ask for fire,” “Only old men go into battle,” “They fought for their homeland.” These and many other paintings are still loved and watched. But honestly, will you ever watch The Righteous? And I’m not talking about the hugely bloated timing of the film.
Now on the content. And the creators of this film cannot be attracted under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation? Why is it that almost all Jews are represented as incapacitated whiners, mumbles, crooks and (sorry) sometimes complete idiots? But all this does not defile the memory of people like Isai Kazinets, who headed the Minsk underground, was executed by the Nazis and was posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union? Sholoma Zorin and his famous guerrilla unit No. 106? Senior Lieutenant Polina Gelman, a bomber pilot? About the “king of tanks” Isaac Salzman, probably in the context of the film version of Ursuliak is better not to remember?
According to the script, the Jews are being chased by fascists, but the Jews urgently need to pray and blow the shofar through the forest. An astrolabe for a Jewish young man in a time of mortal danger is more precious than the life of a child of his tribe. According to the script, hungry and exhausted people Kiselev orders to eat pork stew. The squad is so "tired" on the road that finds time to play a wedding according to Jewish customs and discuss the rite of circumcision at the groom.
I wrote the script twice for a reason, because I believe it was, but it’s not in the movie. There's a bunch of self-righteous people out there who are saved almost by force by a bunch of other people, and they're being persuaded, and they're kind of doing a favor. Remember the powerful dialogue between privates Lopakhin and Nekrasov at the halt (“They fought for the Motherland”), from him tears are still coming. What can we remember from the Righteous? Terrifyingly overplaying actors you never believe? Is there an emphasis on Jewish people? And other nationalities in the USSR and Europe did not suffer from the fascist invaders?
Kiselev. Absolutely empty character, and this with the richest biography of a real person. It was still necessary to try so hard to so humiliate and depersonalize the hero. According to the director, Kiselev is just a fool Ivanushka, randomly assigned to Jews to periodically save them.
While to be commended, there are much more unpleasant things. Like Makovetsky. Hand-face. There's nothing more to add. Fima of the Liquidation got old and went into the forest with the partisans, and I always waited and feared that he would offer Kiselyov a loan from a well-known bank. The ungrateful and illogical behavior of the elderly Moshe Tal, which casts a bad shadow on the entire Jewish people, I do not even want to discuss.
And yes, people who are terribly tired after the transition look different, and not as the director and makeup artists imagine. In the film, many people immediately forget that they are in mortal danger. Strange, but Elem Klimov heroes behaved differently, so they empathized and believed. And how did you get cliché with the theme of rape, which then necessarily ends if not a wedding, then love to the grave.
Of the positive moments is Eugene Tkachuk, Mark Edelstein and sound designer.
I just saw it yesterday. Double impression. In general, the idea is excellent, good, in my opinion, the play of actors, but the directing, sometimes the script, the work of the operator, the costume designer - for three. It is thanks to the play of actors that the film touches to tears in places. Good as always, Jacenko. To be honest, I haven’t seen a movie where it’s not good. Many people did not like Makovetsky in the role of the second plan, and I on the contrary and very much! And in general sketches to their everyday life with jokes, funny phrases gave a flavor to the film. I think they are not superfluous, only reflect the other side of the lives of people in mortal danger. Do not pay attention to Khabensky and Khamatova. They're in episodes. And play in a fresh and clichéd way. Absolutely ' mannequin' Khamatova (it is good that she is not enough, spoils everything with her dead face).
Still, you can look to read about this feat of partisans and find out who Nikolai Kiselev is, because the film gives, in my opinion, a somewhat distorted picture of events. Unintentionally or intentionally?
There are big questions for the script. I re-read the materials about this event, and nowhere does it say as in the script that the guerrillas were hiding behind civilians as Dobronravov’s hero hints at it. Yes, it is clear that 300 refugees are a burden and a danger to the partisans, so they were taken to the rear, but cover up? Does the writer have a conscience? Now, when there are certainly no live participants in the events, it is simple to defame someone’s name. It’s better not to talk about something like that.
And that's not all speculation. The phrase: 'The Russians came and took everything from us!' Read the memories of the same Balts. People were not satisfied with the Soviet power. Yes! But the fact that people were deprived of the last piece of bread in the annexed territories is a sick fantasy of the writer.
Well, small things. Are German Jews coming to Belarus? It is very doubtful, since the Germans are extremely rational and concentration camps in Germany existed in the mid-30s of the 20th century.
My mother is a teacher of Russian in 'Jewish school'? Strange story from beginning to end. This is the first time I have heard of such schools.
And it is very doubtful that a rabbi would bless a marriage with a non-Jew (and they would circumcise him later, seriously?) ).
And this super-woman Lyuba, who instantly finds a partisan as a shepherd, a ' German fools' for some reason the whole film runs and can not find.
Why did the Germans bring her to the ghetto during the raid? Help us find Jews? The ghetto? Or does it have a dog’s nose for the Jews?
The film itself does not give an idea of how long the people walked, how difficult the transition was. It really seems like a few days, but actually 3 (!!!) months. It's a column of almost 300 people! They marched mainly at night, only in the territories controlled by the partisans, they could go during the day. The director does not pay attention to this important fact at all (a fantastic story about the astrolabe is much more important, the sex of the film on the suffering of the old man about her loss died). Neither the cameraman nor the costume designer noticed that people who have been wandering in the woods for 3 months at least look, walk and, in the end, dress differently.
In general, there is a feeling that the film was conceived seriously, and then ' something went wrong ' shot quickly without bothering especially and at the box office.
And a question to the Cinema Foundation: ': Can at least war movies be censored? These are movies about our history! You need to be careful and attentive to detail. '
I don’t like watching modern war movies. I don't believe in a filmmaker or actors in neat new gymnasts and overcoats. The last realistic film about the war, in my opinion - ' They fought for their homeland' But the Righteous One struck me. I was struck by the routine of the tragedy. This is commonplace in everything: combining, as it were, the documentation of the finding of prisoners of war in the rain, the shooting of Jews in the Minsk ghetto, leaving an elderly tired woman while fleeing from the punishers, etc. War is hard ungrateful work, and heroes in war are usually those who do not even know it. Because they're just doing their job. That's what Kiselev did. His character echoes the hero of the film A. German Lokotkov 'Checks on the roads'. These are two ' Brigadier' on a long endless ' construction '. And the fact that Kiselev wanted to evade the execution of the order at first, and then took up and brought the matter to the end, only confirms it ' Brigadier-pro-slave' essence. Let me turn to the actors: Dietmar Koenig - in my opinion, he is haunted by the fame of Christoph Waltz in 'Inglourious Bastards'. I don't think it's a very good parody. Alexander Yatsenko - revealed quite unexpectedly. It would seem to be the main role, but he absolutely does not pull the blanket on himself in any episode. This restraint in the game and in the voice makes him indispensable, but here, I think, the skill of the director, cameraman and sound engineer. All the other actors played because of their talent. I have no right to talk about their game. For some reason I did not find the strange association ' Righteous' Ursuliac with ' Titanic' Cameron. Is it possible to compare the past with the future? What a beautiful fairy tale Cameron with magnificent scenery and fantastic shooting and what gray and dirty shots Ursuliak. But this tragedy of Ursuliac’s mundaneness affected me much more than the beauty of Cameron’s tragedy. Ursuliac wants to believe. In our cinema for a long time there was no such penetrating picture, especially relevant in today's situation.
Interesting and even atmospheric film, with a spoiled ending.
As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to start with the positive parts of the film that you like. I really liked the play of the German actor Dietmar Koenig, his character turned out bright, memorable and natural. He was able to show not some buffoon or just a psychotic idiot, but a real monster, so and imagine officers 'SS' In general, most of the time, the film manages to keep in suspense and create the atmosphere of those events, the picture and sound at an excellent level, especially the shots and explosions, just liked the detail with the photos, it helped create a creepy atmosphere. Here the positive aspects end, I want to note the role of Konstantin Khabensky, who as always played well, but his character was given very little time. I'll move on to those moments that ruined everything. The main character Nikolai Kiselev performed by actor Alexander Yatsenko turned out to be extremely bland and boring, personally I did not even remember his name for the entire film. Although the actor played well, the character was not revealed at all. The skipping of actions into modernity negatively affected the atmosphere, too torn the chain of narrative because of what in the middle of the film ceased to understand at what point in time events occur, immediately after shown earlier or after some period of time. Most scenes with the character of Mark Eidelstein look completely stupid, the character of his character is not disclosed, it remains a mystery why he trusted the traitor whom he sees 3 times in his life more than people with whom he has been on the road for more than a dozen days. And for so long you can list all the shortcomings of the film, but the main disappointment is the ending. In the last 20 minutes or so, the film turns into a fantasy. It was also unpleasant to see historical inaccuracies, but these are trifles compared to all of the above.
The film tells about the truly heroic act of a Soviet officer, about the action of hundreds of people who managed to escape from the hellhounds in the form of an SS officer and his soldiers.
But what's wrong with the movie? Heroes like to believe, actors show exactly the emotions that you expect from their characters (unless an SS officer looks too fanatical). Feeling that the director could not reach the full potential of the film, the scene of a ridiculous joke goes immediately after a very touching and tragic moment that kills all mood. Some characters just appear in the frame, you expect that they will somehow be revealed and there is a hint, but in the end nothing happens (for example, a soldier from the Asian part of the country).
Separately, I do not understand the insert of newsreels after 3/4 of the film, which does not seem to have any meaning, separates the viewer from the narrative of the film.
The feeling that the director did not manage to work well with the actors, which is why you really sometimes wonder what is happening on the screen from the bad side.
I really liked the movie. There should be more movies like that. We, the older generation, were told about the war by fathers and grandfathers, and now much has been lost, and young people brought up on the products of Hollywood perceive the war as a victory for the United States and the Western coalition.
See and read about real events, not the other way around.
I just finished watching it.
They say that you should always praise first, and then say what leaves questions. I loved the main character's game! I remember Alexander Yatsenko after 'Arrhythmia' He's very natural, the kind you believe.
I won't say anything else. There were no memorable main roles or supporting roles for me in k/f & #39;The Righteous'.
The main impression is that the film is like a set of separate stories, which are conditionally connected by one common thread. But these stories are without beginning, end and development. I would call them 'Etudes'. The viewer himself can think out what happened to these heroes, why they do this, what happens to their inner world, etc.
A good script is almost fantastic today.
The plot of the film itself resembles not ' Schindler's List' but rather a 3-series film ' There is no Return Road' with Olyalin in the title role. Remember, there a partisan detachment sends a convoy with weapons to a concentration camp, where an uprising is being prepared. But it turns out that this train is not real, but distracting the Germans to get to the place without loss. The guerrillas go, and they are pursued by the Germans, the train then moves away from the enemy, then it is overtaken and has to fight back. Why did I remember that movie? Something similar happens in 'Righteousness'. But when I watch 'There is no way back' once again, I have no doubt about the logic and sequence of events and actions of the characters. And when viewing ' The Righteous' time and time again I asked myself ' and why?' ' and why' ' and how did she manage' ' and who is it' etc. I didn’t see any special story that was different from many others that had already been told in other films and books about that war. Yes, I cried a few times during the film, but that’s because I’ve had experience with other stories, thinking and remembering.
It seems to me that now, making a historical film, you need to help the viewer a little. Here’s what: to tell him what and how it was at that time in the territory about which the film is made. For example, in this film, not everyone who is rescued speaks Russian. The question now is: Why '? Also in the dialogues, Jews notice ' the Russians came and took everything'. Not every viewer today will understand what I mean. Ani’s mother worked at a Jewish school. Were they in the USSR? - I didn't know.
When the main character Kiselev receives an order to take the rescued Jews to the rear, he calculates that it will take 100 days! more than 3 months. We were shown a few days. This is not enough for me to appreciate the hellish complexity of this trip.
Love theme. Where without her. The love of the main characters is as usual. The central love pair is a Jewish girl and broken 'Sasha with Uralmash'. Love at first sight. Impressive. But everything hurts quickly, so it is unlikely, especially on the part of the girl.
Insert about post-war life - as a foreign body in the general outline of the film. In my opinion, it was needed only to illustrate the awarding by Israel to N. Kiselev the title Righteous Among the Nations. But here, somehow crumpled and incomprehensible to the viewer: what is this title, why and to whom it is assigned, etc.
But most importantly, I was not captured by the story, they could not tell it in such a way that I wanted to review, listen to, learn the details.
Khabensky, Khamatova, Dobronravov, Makovetsky played the role of wedding generals, without adding anything to the film. If someone else were in their place, we would not notice the substitution.
I can’t say anything about music, because I remember only one tune that was sung at a Jewish wedding.
But the type of review I have neutral, because I still did not want to turn off and leave, although I was distracted without regret, and those ' studies ' of which the film consists, it was curious to watch, although the adjective ' Curious' can hardly be flattering when assessing the film. I don’t want to change it, that’s for sure.
Russian cinema is particularly good at two genres: socialist realism and military drama, so I do not understand how it was possible to spoil the story of a Soviet soldier based on real events. There are no questions about Yatsenko’s game: simple, specific, untalking, brave, but what happened to Makovetsky? What is this strange, implausible accent?
The Jews in the film collected all the patterns and stereotypes from the Soviet Union and were presented to the viewer as an infantile, helpless mass. But the real unpleasant surprise was the appearance on the screen Chulpan Khamatova. I didn’t look at the list of actors before watching. Her name would be the defining one to pass by.
I rarely write reviews, but in this case I cannot remain silent, because the theme of the war, our sickest, most native theme, is shown so flatly that even scenes that were supposed to touch to the core of my soul caused only irony. I don’t believe a single tear or a single word.
A week before the viewing I read ' Volokolamsk highway' A.Beka. The book was written in 1941. It tells about the most terrible tragedy of the twentieth century and about our ancestors, on whose blood and bones modern Russia now exists. Young guys, yesterday did not hold weapons in their hands, lay the Nazis, terrify them under the whistle of bullets.
And on the tanks, and on the German, and a friend back - all this is about our heroes.
So I believe Kiselev, but not everyone else.
The film lacks depth. But most importantly, he is devoid of love and pain. It is quite suitable for the series on the TV channel Russia, but did not reach the big movie.
Harsh and commerce.
Righteous of the world, a Soviet officer who saved the lives of hundreds of Jews, Nikolai Kiselev had a completely civil profession as an accountant. In the eyes of the command, this is a big plus: the accountant, before making a decision, will calculate it many times. This quality is similar to the main character with the director of the picture. Sergey Ursuliak is also a master of calculation. All his paintings are always well calculated, everywhere a measure of artistic risk with a strong professional basis is observed. Only once the elements of the game and risk significantly outweighed the rigid directorial design - so in the end it turned out "Liquidation" - the picture is absolutely illogical, but incredibly vital and lively.
The “righteous man” begins with a large advance. For a long time in the opening credits of the film about the war was not the word “catastrophic” – this is how the events of the summer of 1941 are characterized. And then there are the figures, which also do not like to repeat - "the losses of the first months - 1 million people, of which 700 thousand - prisoners." Photographs of captured Soviet soldiers and officers in the summer of 1941. No, not authentic, not from German archives. They were striking an absolutely prohibitive level of suffering, both physical and moral. Photos are modern, with actors. But in the texture, the mood tends to authenticity with those rarely published pictures. The credit of trust in the authentic, not embellished truth is given to a huge and high percentage of the authority of the director and the entire film crew. But what matters in accounting is not so much borrowed funds as net assets - what artistic profit was created by the film. But with this big problems loom at the beginning of the film, and then grow like a snowball.
So, the commander of the partisan detachment was ordered to bring several hundred Jews to the Soviet side. Through the front line, along the enemy rear, through the Belarusian forests. Local Jews are mostly orthodox. For them not to trumpet into the horn as a sign of the joy of communion with God, not to sing synagogue chants - the collapse of the entire world order. But blowing the horn when enemies are around is a sure way to collective death. In addition, the guerrilla life is not very consistent with the rules of the koshrut. No problem - Commander Nikolai Kiselev (Alexander Yatsenko) will talk heartily with the main authority in matters of Talmudic interpretations - and here you are - around Saturday, and here - Friday. And the pork stew becomes quite kosher for a while. The Soviet accountant Kiselev does not flare with much love for the Jewish style and lifestyle, but here the problem is suffocated in the bud - "We are Soviet people, I did not know who was Russian and who was Jewish before the war." No contradictions. He fell in love with a partisan, a slightly intimate Russian boy from the Urals, a girl from a good Jewish family. As Tevye said, “A bird may love a fish, but where will they nest?” We can't just talk here. I need to talk, like, 4. Bride, commander, Talmudist. But this problem is solved - and now the Ural worker in a kippah presses a glass with his foot. I must say that the bride will soon be killed by the Germans after such happiness, or will you guess for yourself, based on the love for template fabulous constructions, which the author of the script begins to demonstrate from the first minutes? How do parents choose which of 6 children to give a chance of survival, and which to condemn to destruction during the action in the ghetto, because you can save only two? A sluggish dialogue with emotions at the level - that it is better to buy potatoes or cabbages - there is not enough money for all - and the choice of life and death is made. How did a good Jewish girl come to be a traitor? Can love for parents and fear for their lives justify the cost of the lives of others? What to do with a child who cries from hunger and fatigue, but you can not cry - the Germans are nearby? A desperate father is already ready to drown his native child, wrapped in a coat. But the commander will be nearby, he will stop such an atrocity attempt. And in the arms of a Russian officer, a Jewish girl will quiet down. It smells like a bloody operetta. Don’t you think all of this has happened and has happened? The author of the script, without any embarrassment, borrows fabulous constructions created by geniuses, meaningful talents, and he is content with scraps. Gennady Ostrovsky’s script is below all criticism. He's chaotic, sluggish, ill-conceived, secondary. And let’s be honest, borrowings from Sholom Aleichem, William Styron, Vasil Bykov only emphasize the ineptitude of the borrower. That is, on a large advance purchased for the implementation of a penny trinket. It is impossible to put the script into the asset.
What can a director do by doing this nonsense? Breathe life into cardboard characters through accurate selection of types and actors. It's kind of good. But there's no ensemble at all. Sergei Makovetsky masterfully tells Jewish jokes and parables. Aleksandr Yatsenko, in a weary voice, exhorts the Jews to forget all Jewish habits for a while and to survive at least elementary. Eugene Tkachuk is not afraid to look for notes of tenderness in the type of a yard hooligan. But everyone here is on their own. Everyone has their own aria. And in the choir, everyone votes in their own way. A separate story with Austrian actor Dietmar Koenig. His German officer Schmucker is an incarnate world evil without a clan or tribe, born directly from Satan. A refined and mannered connoisseur of beauty, a ruthless killer. Koenig builds a role as an homage to his compatriot Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Bastards. Instead of homage came a bad parody. The artistic nature of "Bastards" was extremely playful, conditional. The film was not so much about war as about war movies. The manner, mechanically translated into a painting that emphasizes the truth of life and characters, looks extremely inappropriate display of bad taste.
By the end, you cease to pay attention to such trifles as the poor, but clean clothes of the “guerrillas”, who live in the Belarusian forest for more than a day. Two pathetic directorial vignettes are cut in the eye - the editing of documentary footage for uplifting music - what Viktor Shklovsky aptly called "kapellmeister directorship". More and more new themes will cause heartburn, which are born without the slightest hope for their development. By the end, you realize with horror that they had no chance of this development. Any development of a sharp topic can cause unnecessary questions or uncomfortable connotations with modernity. Competitors and envious can interpret these questions as unpatriotic. And then: goodbye, clip, goodbye, new productions. As a result, we get an extremely cowardly film about real heroes. After all, Nikolai Kiselev is not a fictional hero. And those he saved lived, loved, feared, fought, overcoming fear. The filmmakers could not overcome their fear.
High expectations and serious loans were unsecured. Net assets are close to zero. The balance sheet of such an enterprise, as a rule, indicates a pre-bankruptcy state.
Nothing is perfect in this world. Everywhere, in any person, subject, situation, there are shortcomings. Plus, different perceptions of the same thing in different people, in principle, can not bring something to the ideal. I focus on my emotions and only my emotions while watching this movie. The first was that the film was kept all the time, and there was no desire to look at the watch for a second. That's very revealing. Second, this film is very competently presented the idea of tolerance, unobtrusively, but at the same time very clearly. Thirdly, scenes with clashes between refugees and Germans are very catchy, they are forced to project them on themselves, but at the same time they give an implausibility, you begin to think that if you were in the place of the Germans, you would have acted differently, and it is unlikely that a detachment with several fighters and a bunch of civilian ballast would have survived. In any case, this film is not a documentary but an artistic one, but it makes you think, and this is the main thing, that war, fascism, and complicity with it, bring suffering, pain and opposition. That, I think, is the main point in this film.
As I learned after the film, one of the Israeli institutions, citizens who saved Jews during the Holocaust, with documentary evidence, is awarded the honorary title ' Righteousness of the World'. The film ' The Righteous' is a story based on real events, a story about Russian partisans who are tasked with taking several hundred Jewish civilians from the front line to the rear.
I want to start with stunning camera work, especially impressed with large and distant plans, adding along with the appropriate musical accompaniment the already severe tragedy of what is happening.
In short, war without colors. There is nothing superfluous here, it shows only a fraction of the heartless cruelty that the USSR and the Jewish people experienced during the Great Patriotic War. And that little piece was enough to make you realize it and understand it. For those who have forgotten, remember.
In 'Righteous' no made-up lips, powdered noses and tuxedos. All actions take place in our forests, villages, mud, trenches and shelters. In the film, those events occur because of which a person is obliged to step over himself, his foundations and principles in order to save his life. There were other things that made people crazy. In a word, war...
I don’t want to single out anyone from the cast. There are stars and actors unknown to me. But the game is so coherent and true that you believe what is happening on the screen.
Thank you to the filmmakers for making inserts that unload the oppressive atmosphere. Without a sense of humor and sometimes limitless optimism in such conditions, people would not survive. Without these qualities, man would not be human.
Suddenly, on Tuesday, we found ourselves in a dark cinema room, among a mass of older people. On screen was the movie The Righteous One, whose advertising campaign clearly suffers from a misunderstanding of how the film is to sell. Judge for yourself: the poster of the film hints at some Orthodox revelations, and the trailer tries to pretend to be a comedy melodrama with a galaxy of wonderful artists. All this turns out to be a ruse, Makovetsky, Khamatova, Dobronravov and Khabensky appear here literally for a couple of episodes, and the film drags mostly one Yatsenko. Orthodoxy, and Christianity in general, is mentioned here only in the context of the fact that Russian atheists and communists. In general, there was a feeling that many people in the room would leave with their false hopes.
If you watch “The Righteous” as a simple movie, and do not know the background, then suddenly some long-extinct feeling of compassion stirs in the soul. The same thing that has not appeared for a long time either on the politicized Victory Day or when watching the next glamorous T-34 or Stalingrad. Screenwriter Gennady Ostrovsky wrote a completely atypical for the Russian film script, which, falling into other hands, could well become an Oscar story along with Schindler’s list.
Kiselev's story is itself a rough diamond for a screenwriter. The partisan in the rear of the Germans in 1942 had nowhere to go almost three hundred Jews who miraculously escaped from the Nazis. Turning to the command for help in the distribution of people, the partisan Kiselev receives a suicidal order to bring people to the Soviet side of the front in 1500 kilometers. An order is an order, and Kiselev (Yatsenko) takes a few partisans with him and leads, like Moses, this heterogeneous crowd of frightened women, old men and children through the forests in the rear of the embittered fascists (the fascists here are probably the most embittered in Russian cinema since the Soviet Union, Badkomidian should be pleased). Jews do not shake hands, they do not look in the eyes with love.
“The Righteous One” is based on a series of episodes from Kiselev’s heroic campaign, the story of the boy Moshe Tal and his old age in Israel. Everything about the campaign itself is almost perfect, here's the story of a mother and two sons who want revenge, here's a mathematician who knows ballistics very well but can't pull the trigger, here's a love story, here's an attitude to faith. And in the midst of these weeping, laughing and unhappy people, a former political leader Kiselev finds himself, who is allergic to nationality, skin color, and faith. We are all human beings, ordinary people.
Yatsenko’s detached manner of play came in handy here, the film could have fallen into an emotional abyss of hysteria and shouting if Kiselev had been played by someone else. An absolutely wild episode with a screaming girl, whom a desperate father tries to drown during a fascist offensive, is saved in every sense by Yatsenko's play. (The episode, by the way, is real, and is described in the memoirs of the Jews who survived.)
The same parts that are abstracted from the figure of Kiselev suffer from the usual domestic disease. For some reason it is customary for us to show history through the eyes of “Out There” (“Siberian Barber”, “Stalingrad”). Moshe Tal’s story is unmoved, and in general looks like a strange superstructure in the script, especially in the context of two and a half hours.
Also, the film ruins the unsuccessful editing, for example, the climax scene of crossing the bridge actually nullifies all the emotional sensation from the previous two hours. The relationship between Ferzia and the Jewish girl is crumpled and sent to the garbage can, the history of the fascist officer, the denouement of the campaign is generally given in the title. And it's incredibly depressing, because otherwise the film really turned out, and I'm not lying if I say that for me this is the best domestic film about the war in the last ten years.
People must remain human. And human life, the most precious thing in the world. Kiselev watches a Muslim and a Jew pray in the morning, the young laugh, and the children learn in the middle of the forest. And there is so much simple human happiness in it. It's been a long time since there was such a bright feeling. Too long.
It is based on a good story, a beautiful story, a heroic story. How could it have been so bad, I wonder. The accents are crooked. The emphasis on the pains of the Jewish people, and the people themselves are shown to be half-fools, unable to understand that a war is underway, that they are being exterminated. Similarly, the Germans go on a full-length attack without trying to hide behind trees. Now there is a war, a lot of videos of forest battles, well, is it really impossible to see how they occur, how they approach people who are not clear left in position. Okay, the director was just giving a picture to convey the general meaning, okay. But what prevented one of the heroes, the savior of Kiselev? They showed some kind of smear, which commands a detachment from something, unable to organize a crowd of Jews. Have you ever seen a wartime commander? What the hell is he with an army, normal civilian leader? They do not behave like this, their team will eat.
Russian cinema has long been famous for high-quality films about war and sports.
“The Righteous One” by Sergei Ursuliak – a film on military topics drags the viewer into the whirlpool of the narrative, forcing him to worry about the successful implementation of the task set before Nikolai Kiselev – “to bring more than two hundred Jews out of the occupied Belarusian lands beyond the front line.”
The story of the feat of a man who took responsibility for the lives of many people who do not understand nationalism. Stories about the dangers of xenophobia, about terrible atrocities created by the hands of soldiers of fascist Germany will never lose relevance.
However, drags down a film story of this scale poor-quality script, the main sin of which is its overload.
Nikolai Kiselev, his subordinates, fleeing Jews, German soldiers and many others – a significant range of characters who need to give individuality, show the viewer their inner world.
In my opinion, the writers did not succeed, most of the characters are caricatures, images that carry political thought or emotionally charged to challenge the emotional reaction of the viewer, achieved in a far from intricate way.
A soldier of Asian appearance is introduced into the film to show that absolutely all nationalities took an active part in the war.
Lyuba, being in the actual and psychological captivity of the main villain, is added to the film to awaken strong emotions in the viewer: whether it is hatred or pity.
These characters are not perceived as living people, we do not hear the details of their biography, their hopes and dreams. They only need to move the plot forward, nothing more.
This problem did not bypass the majority of actors. For example, the inner world of the protagonist is also not subject to special reflection on the screen. His relationship with his subordinates, with Anya, is put on the background.
In addition, the attempt of the writers to introduce the figure of a formidable “Jewish hunter” into the narrative, to scare the viewer, to make a reference to the work of Quentin Tarantino, who successfully revived the deadly, cunning fascist Hans Landu on the screen, was not crowned with success. Unfortunately, the character had potential. What a missed opportunity!
There are no claims only to Moshe Tal – the only truly real person in this film.
Nevertheless, the film turned out to be spectacular, emotional and informative. Russians need to know the names of great people, the history of the Motherland, which must be remembered and passed on from generation to generation.
5 out of 10
We went to the cinema with great skepticism, and as a result, the hall sat for three hours, not breathing. There is not an ounce of vulgarity, mat or savor of atrocities, but everything works on the atmosphere, immersing yourself in a living, breathing history, of which you immediately become a part.
Went out yesterday stunned. When you return home quiet, changed, you run to kiss the sleeping child in the crib, hug loved ones and say ' - for another day, for life, for the opportunity to feel it.
It’s almost three hours long, but you only notice its length closer to the finale when the screen gets dark and you go, “No, no, please no!” This can't be the end, can it? And frantically look at the clock in the hope that all the storylines will be revealed to the end.
A brilliant scenario without voids, based on documented evidence of officer Kiselev’s feat from surviving witnesses. That rare case, when ' based on real events' put not for red words.
I don’t think the film is for children. This is the history of our country, shown, on the one hand, extremely realistic, on the other hand - thanks to the talented use of film language - as delicately as possible. Here in the school are the poem Yesenin 'Song about the dog' - like the owner of puppies drowned. It is impossible to read without tears, but the scene of violence itself, ' savoring' there are no cruel details. The author was convinced that human cruelty is defeated not by black PR & #39; detailing atrocities, but by sympathy, the ability to empathize. So in ' Righteousness' there are scenes that make the blood chill in the veins, but precisely because of the general atmosphere, the understanding of what happened to people and sympathy for them, and not the horror of the senselessness of violence. Genius, win-win delivery of the most complex material. The perfect balance between fear and joy, pain and happiness, despair and faith, the confidence that we will stand, we will win!
The performance of the actors at the highest level, absolutely liked everything. Honest, kind and bright - despite - the film. The hope that everyone can remain a man even in Hell is not a matter of circumstances and time, but of personal choice and moral qualities.
10 out of 10
This is the film we and our children need. Thank you to the creators and everyone involved!
I don’t believe a single scene, a single smile, or a single tear. The whole movie was so bad that I wanted to leave the theater for the first time.
How? When watching the movie, there is only one question. How can you film so badly? How can you play so badly? I have not seen such bad work in a very, very long time. The whole picture can be described as a mess, a vinaigrette of words, awkward, implausible movements, artificial faces. It seems that the film was filmed not professional actors, and people who first day engaged in acting courses, and then they were immediately forced to play in a big project.
The spoonful of honey in this barrel of tar is Alexander Yatsenko, Evgeny Tkachuk and the antagonist Dietmar Koenig. Heroes and actors coincided, the game is wonderful, Kiselev turned out to be a real Soviet officer, Ferz - a bandit who now uses all his skills and courage in the war for his homeland, and an SS officer is a real devil in the flesh, a true product of fascist ideology, who sees only objects for his photos, not people.
Then there will be a description of the moment, it is not key, but if you have watched the film, and do not want spoilers, it is better to flip through this paragraph.
Big questions about the consistency and disclosure of the actions of the characters, which cause only bewilderment. Tell me why the girl (Tova) fell in love with the Queen? In one of the very first scenes of their acquaintance, he runs after her in the woods in attempts to rape, and saves her from this Kiselev, who was successfully near and threatened to shoot the Queen. Then there is a small, nothing narrating scene, as in the crowd running from the chase people in one shot are Ferz, who is fighting the Germans, and Tova. And now he wants to marry her... To what? Is that love? Or what's the hero's motive? Or is the director saying that attempted rape is a good reason to get married? Are you crazy out there? Where is the character unfolding, where is the relationship developing? How did he conquer her? Has the hero changed? None of these questions are answered.
The film is emotionally empty. Yes, there are some moments where you remember that what is happening on the screen is still about the horrors of war, but they are catastrophically few. Music is a separate upset, the compositions are not related to what is happening on the screen.
I am very sad to see this movie. This is not ' Schindler's List', not ' Pianist' not ' They fought for the Motherland' this is something next to the scandalously famous ' T-34'. It's just a spit in the face. Why take this theme, the war and genocide of the Jews, why take on such pain and suffering if you can’t talk about it in a way that evokes real emotions? Finally, understand that war is pain, fear, suffering, horror, death that follows people on their heels. Why do you take on real stories if you do not let reality affect your films?
Nikolai Kiselev is a man of amazing courage who committed a heroic act. Watch the documentary 'The Kiselev List. Rescued from Hell' which runs for 1 hour, not a movie ' The Righteous' which for 3 hours will plunge you into thinking about how bad a movie can be.
I am so used to anti-Soviet propaganda in Russian filmmaking that I waited until the very end for a bloody gabist to be shown shooting someone unfairly. Or a dialogue about Stalin, who killed all Jews. Or a human face pulled over a Nazi.
But none of that happened. The fascists in the film are exactly what they were - evil creatures. None of them try to portray a conscientious person or a wonderful family man. Once the Nazi bastard smiles at the victim, but as soon as he realizes that he is a Jew, he immediately loses his human form. The main villain is beautifully played by a non-Russian, apparently, actor - a real sadist and psychopath is shown (like the hero Javier Bardem in ' Old men have no place here' but adjusted for the circumstances of the Great Patriotic War).
The Soviet people are shown for who they were. Soviet heroes are ordinary people who during the war were transformed into heroes. From the naturalness and correctness of the images of Soviet officers and fighters, I want to kneel before the director. The main character is not a hero in general, but a man brought up by the Soviet system who does what he should and what he is ordered to do. He is noble, bold without unnecessary heroism and human, tries not to interfere in politics and is an obvious part of what was called the friendship of peoples for 70 years, and then was trampled.
Special thanks for the images of the two Chekists in the film. These are not lunatics, not some freaks, but Soviet officers who competently perform the task assigned to them. Adults, smart men who are used to taking responsibility for themselves and for other people, and acting within the framework of expediency, not because they want or do not want something.
The Jews in the movie are Jews, not some weird guy with a twist. Muslims are Muslims. The Orthodox also pray. Love is shown neatly - so that sometimes one well-played look is worth far more than 20 candid bed scenes. Clothing, scenery, shooting with a normal, not a twitching camera - everything is at its best.
I was watching, remembering an interview I took on Wednesday with an Azerbaijani who was born in the Soviet Union, grew up in Baku, and then moved to Chita, where he took place, and now goes home a couple of times a year, but the family is here. He reminded me in the context of the famous maxim, which you need to feel with your heart, as it may be inexplicable for a person who was born in modern Russia. In the Soviet Union, we were all Russian. Azerbaijanis, Tajiks, Jews, Buryats were all Russians. And I think about it, and at the same time all remained Azerbaijanis, Tajiks and Jews. That is, in the rural Azerbaijan SSR, training was conducted in Azerbaijani, and Russian was a separate subject.
This movie is about that.
And, of course, the horror of violence. The way in which the Nazis shoot Jews for no reason and easily is just somehow shown, and very, very, very scary. And through this fear, you understand why in modern Israel, so much attention is paid to the memory of this. And this memory in the film is shown no worse than the shootings in Belarus in the year 41.