Very weak film. It is one of the advantages: the beautiful nature of Eastern Russia and costumes, for the historicity of which I can not vouch. But they look beautiful, authentic. In the picture, our filmmakers have learned, but in a slender, consistent plot can not. To shoot a multi-level tape with several flashbacks, you need to be Tarantino, or Guy Ritchie. It feels like they were guided by them, but they didn’t pull it out. About a minute from the 10th narrative sags and the next hour and a half nothing interesting happens. The denouement takes about five minutes of screen time. That is, everything interesting is 15-20 minutes of screen time, the rest is a transfusion from empty to empty. The film gives the impression of a blank for the series. The general atmosphere works on this, as if the streets of broken lanterns are watching how the camera looks, how the actors stand, several storylines in general are not necessary in the film, and only dissipating attention. I suspect that the series will be released in six months or a year, as usual we have.
5 out of 10
For beautiful nature and general surroundings. It was like watching a trailer for the series.
I watched with my family at the cinema. It looks like a movie on the big screen. It should be noted that Andrei Bogatyrev (director) ... I watched such interesting things as “Judas” (2013), “Red Ghost” (2020), the series “Vampires of the middle lane” (2021-), “The Legend of Sambo” (2022), “Baba Frost and the mystery of the New Year” (2023). It has its own style and atmosphere. Those who missed the films à la Guy Ritchie or Tarantino or a soulful good western – the film will like. The general background of the narrative suffers a bit due to nonlinearity and the stretched (as in medium-handed series) storyline with Sophia. For my taste, this line was superfluous. It would be much more tasty if there were mainly only a male community, so the degree of tension and dialogue component would shade. In my opinion, Artem Tkachenko (a very predatory look) and Alexey Shevchenkov coped best with acting. Shevchenkov generally looked and played extremely organically. Trust him. A real convict with his code of honor. The film did not have a more detailed picture of the indigenous peoples. If this line worked better, it would be much more interesting. But overall, we weren't bored. It's worth seeing once. And they filmed in picturesque places not only of the Khabarovsk Territory (Amur pillars, Bear Lake, Khektsir Ridge), but also in their favorite Karelia (Pitkyarant district). The landscape is small, I wanted more. Andrei Bogatyrev himself starred in a small cameo director of the film studio. I recommend waiting for quality in online cinemas and watching at home. In a cozy home environment. It's not bad. One careful time. 😎
1917, in the taiga slowly goes cart with 600 kg of gold washed at the local mine. It is clear that nothing good it can not end: unknown masked Tunguska shamans shoot security and take the gold in an unknown direction. The owner lives in the capital, is a fan of all American, maintains a small theater, tries to make movies, supplies weapons to Chinese smugglers, and owns a gold mine. The character is strong, the grip of the shark, the soul is rotten.
In the tumultuous times between the two revolutions, there were too many insurance cases and the bank where the gold was insured went bankrupt. And then the shark of capitalism, taking under the arm of the acting troupe, mistress and a couple of boxes of weapons, goes to the Khabarovsk Territory to look for stolen property.
The beginning of the film is great. The exposition is just delightful: all the characters are presented, the characters are marked, the conflict is declared. How does the owner of gold get up from a fat-bearing feast on a revolver, huh? You can immediately see - this one can not only feel actresses at rehearsals, this one will not be afraid to go to the taiga - catch some bandits with the help of others. It's gonna hurt everyone. He'll eat everyone.
And you start fidgeting on the chair: well, now it's going to get hot, now they're going to start to insert each other's pistons with fiction and light! And so that there were Khabarovsk beauty, shamans, fierce fire, chases and all other attributes of a good Eastern!
You are very disappointed.
After a good tie-up begins the dreary thrust of overdue conversational scenes and endless boring flashbacks. When the characters for the second half of the film finally get to the taiga, you are already exhausted to the limit by this rubbery backstory.
But in the taiga, too, nothing particularly interesting is happening. Yes, the adventures finally begin. Sluggishly accepted to fly arrows and bullets. But there is no tension, you do not worry about anyone. It seems tragic in places, but it doesn’t matter. Bandits die quietly, like extras in computer games. The final, however, is good - classic such, correct.
The actors play unevenly. In some places it is great, and in some places I want to ask you to say the lines again, the intonation is so strange. Well, the feeling of a certain purposefulness visited more than once. However, I will not say that everything is bad - so, average.
The film had all the makings to be good. It has a very clear plot and conflict. It has interesting characters, each with his own trouble and desire. It has rich backgrounds: here you and the Chinese opium smokehouse, here and the theater, here and the nascent cinema, and restaurants and taiga and hard labor and complex Tunguska affairs ... There is a place for thinking about why I live, how I am going to die, and am I not a creature in general? The dog is great, the whole movie was watched with attentive test eyes.
From this could come an excellent Eastern in the beauty of the Khabarovsk Territory. But alas. It's just a bad movie. The pace is terrible, flashbacks are excessive, there is no tension. The craft part is a failure.
It's amazing that the same director had done a great Red Ghost before, and I expected about the same ferocious vivacity. But no.
I'm sorry.
The project was shot with the support of the Government of the Khabarovsk Territory and is based on the idea of its governor Mikhail Degtyarev. The degree of support and elaboration of the idea are separate issues, they are not interesting to us. It is important that Andrei Bogatyrev shot an advertisement for the Khabarovsk Territory and, it turns out, this is not a verdict for the project. It is not necessary to order to remove for the state another, made with love, “Crimean bridge”.
First of all, it should be noted stunning field shootings, they, I confess, pleasantly surprised me - I did not expect such beauty from our feature film. It’s hard to say whether this will attract additional tourists, but I’m really sorry that the project is unlikely to be sold on Netflix. Probably, it was the visual side that interested the customer, because the scenario is associated with the Khabarovsk Territory exclusively with the place of the main action.
The plot organically intertwines the fates of many diverse characters, to some extent they are connected by the history of the robbery, but the real reason and background of events is the collapse of the Russian Empire. The main line of the plot is a typical western with freed convicts, a dishonest officer of a degraded army, quite a typical capitalist, albeit somewhat excessively bowing to the Americans, there are even our “Indians” – Tungus.
Sophia Ernst somewhat disappointed me, not so much as an actress – somewhere she clearly overplayed, but in other scenes she played perfectly, as a type, in my opinion, it was worth taking someone from Khabarovsk, Marusya Klimov comes to mind first. The story itself deserves both a positive assessment and your attention. Seriously, it is this film I strongly recommend to go to the movies, and I will add another point for the episodic history of the actor’s corpse, in the background passing through all the episodes of the picture – from the first attempts to shoot a movie “like in America” to the natural finale, it is incredibly touching.
8 out of 10
In the archives of the Khabarovsk Territory, documents have been preserved that in 1917 an attack was made on a train carrying gold, as a result of which as much as 40 poods of gold were lost. If you translate this into modern rubles, the amount is simply stunning – 4 billion rubles. Of course, it is impossible to say exactly who was behind such a daring robbery, but in the film “Gold of Umalta” we see one of the most interesting versions of what could have happened.
The plot takes place in 1917 near the river Umalta, where there is also a settlement of the same name. There is mining of precious gold ore and just from the village to St. Petersburg is sent a train with gold, which is intended for the industrialist Bulygin. But along the way, a gang wearing masks of Tunguska shamans attacks the cart and all the gold is lost. It seems that it literally disappeared in the air, and all those who could shed light on the situation were brutally shot.
Bulygin realizes that without gold, his business is over, because the insurance company cannot cover such a large loss. The only way out of the situation is to take everything into your own hands and go from St. Petersburg to Umalta to deal with everything on the spot. Recruiting mercenaries, Bulygin does not skimp on payment, and therefore with him in search of gold sent a real gang of dangerous villains, including even an American and a Chinese. But having entered the territory of the Tungus, Bulygin and the company understand that they will not be able to achieve their goals so easily. And here you should not discount those who shot the train and so simply their gold prize will not leave.
In the film there are several interesting characters who are interested in the gold they have, and first of all I want to mention Bulygin. He is a classic businessman who sits in the capital, and at this time dozens of workers work for him for pennies. And only after Bulygin can lose everything, he decides to act and he is ready to literally go over corpses to get his way. Alexander Samoilenko convincingly played this role, and although his character is far from heroic, it was interesting to follow him during his campaign in Siberia, which is constantly interrupted by skirmishes and clarification of relations between members of the detachment.
But who really shines and steals literally every scene with his participation is Artem Tkachenko. In the film, he played an officer Doletsky, who is frankly tired of serving in the army and it is generally unclear what will happen to the country next - the Bolsheviks are rushing to power, the royal family is losing influence and it is unclear what awaits everyone in the future. And since Doletsky is used to a beautiful life and knows his value, he cannot refuse the gold kush. However, to some extent, gold can be considered a cursed metal, and therefore Doletsky should be on guard throughout this story and it is far from certain that he will not make a mistake. Tkachenko plays Doletsky briskly, cute, easy and generally feels the adventurous style of his hero.
As for the action, it is tough and spectacular. Shooting here is really grinding and can surprise even the viewers. The influence of such films as The Hateful Eight and Django Freed is felt here, but I think the balance between entertainment and believability is much more accurate in Umalta’s Gold than in Hollywood works.
“Gold of Umalta” came out the film, which is worth watching both lovers of strong westerns and fans of films about the robbery. There are many undeniable merits in this film that are worth appreciating. I really liked it.
According to some viewers, an adventurous film about brutal men in jeans and on horses, chasing, without fail, money against the background of the sun-scorched earth is the prerogative, mainly, of Western, special, American cinema. But certain characteristics of Westerns, such as cheerful handsome men in saddles, dashing shootouts and a spirit of adventure, are quite transferable on any soil, and, moreover, such experiments, even forming a once separate genre of hysternic, are quite feasible. However, in the Russian modern cinema on hearing this was not long ago, so the choice of this genre for pretending to a certain audience interest film, definitely was fraught with risk. However, it is impossible not to admit that the idea to remove it is Eastern against the backdrop of the beauty of the Khabarovsk Territory is far from hopeless, and the final result, if successful, could claim cult status. Unfortunately, not everything is perfect.
As a rule, cinema, even pursuing entertaining, frivolous goals, seeks to start a dialogue with its viewer, something to convey to him, even if it is superficial nonsense or pathetic stupidity, or, on the contrary, a controversial innovative idea. In entering into such a conversation, the creators of Umalta’s Gold probably didn’t quite understand what they wanted to say, as its central message was contradictory and inconsistent. The film predictably and quite indisputably condemns the thirst for profit, however, he does not approve of the love opposed to this one willy-nilly, since he presents it, firstly, as a destructive, burning feeling, regardless of whether it is maternal or passionately vicious, and secondly, he does not believe in it too much, showing the characters who are entangled in it not worthy of the slightest trust. Thus, the picture does not support any strong emotions and feelings, cynically does not allow the existence of something good-good-eternal and real, but what then pleases its authors? We can assume that the main consideration of the picture is that for survival it is better not to light up and quietly do your job, but Gold does not quite agree with this, given the fate of actors embodying such a life philosophy. The path to life and happiness here is purely accidental, associated only with luck, and not the choice of a certain strategy of behavior. Hardly all this can be anything but the absence of any idea in principle.
The choice for the opening scene of the proposed reference point seems correct, it sets the necessary pace according to the rules of the genre and creates the expectation of adventure. However, due to numerous and, most often, having a very remote relation to the case, retreats, very slowly coming together, the picture does not hold the necessary dynamics, turning at its first hour into a rather boring and inappropriately dramatic spectacle. In addition, the intrigue proposed by the film looks too mundane, and therefore not particularly exciting, besides, contrary to expectations from the tape with such a sonorous name as “Umalta Gold”. Hypothetically, participation in the picture of indigenous peoples could contribute to the manifestation of its mystical component, in particular, taking into account the periodic monologues about the elements of their culture, however, the tribes living in the forests are like Russian Indians, which is said repeatedly and directly, and their real role in the plot is very insignificant.
The decision to postpone the action of the film in 1916-1917 could hardly have been accidental, however, the features of these years had only an indirect and purely technical impact on the developing events on the screen; it is easy to imagine such a plot any time. Perhaps the reason is in the characteristic era of changes in permissiveness and anarchy, giving rise to adventurers and dashing people, but this interpretation still seems an exaggeration. Nevertheless, in part, confirming this theory, the "Gold of Umalta" offers as a team of one of the opponents a very motley rabble, which in other years could not get together. However, the individuality of each of the bandits remains stated only in the business card scene, which makes one wonder about its appropriateness, if the characters are destined to play, at best, extras.
An important problem of the picture is the quality of the confrontation between the main characters. A normal adventure film about charming and crazy people should demonstrate their dexterity, cunning, intelligence. They cannot but have a multi-stage plan, in the implementation of which the “salt” of the picture would consist. Technically, the hero Artem Tkachenko had a plan, but in the process of his execution the hero was somewhere behind the scenes, which did not allow him to see him in the case, admire his advantages, be outraged by his shortcomings. In the end, all the main things happened too quickly, quickly, unaccented, especially against the background of a slow and stretched for many minutes of history. Perhaps it was worth going the traditional way with the search for mysterious gold by various adventurers, with a battle for the heart of a beautiful, but treacherous woman - frivolously, but cheerfully and dynamically, which is definitely better than unreasonable claims to depth and pathos.
The fact that the picture was shot in glory and for the sake of advertising the Khabarovsk Territory is not hidden and even emphasized, which in itself is not bad, not good. However, in the "Gold of Umalta" there is no regional individuality, even despite the obsessive participation of its indigenous inhabitants, and truly beautiful species of unusual nature - only a couple of frames. Snow, forest, rivers – all this is universal and unrecognizable, the city of Khabarovsk is also somewhat averaged, without trying to focus on possible attractions. If the goal was to weave the Khabarovsk Territory into the plot, to make it a kind of hero of the film, it has not been achieved.
The only indisputable advantage, in addition to, in fact, courage in choosing a genre, I would call the cast, especially Artem Tkachenko – hardly anyone would be better suited to the role of a desperate adventurer than he, and it is a pity that screen time for the key character is not so much. Alexander Samoilenko in the role of his opponent – contradictory, perhaps it was worth looking for someone not monumental, but also uncouth – would be more gambling. But Sophia Ernst is not bad, but too serious for such a movie.
Honestly, the “Gold of Umalta” seemed something unusual and therefore attractive, even provocative, but turned out to be mediocre. Problems of the plot, lack of dynamics is not able to compensate for a good acting and a few beautiful pictures. I think the mistake of the creators was in too everyday approach to the picture of the adventure genre. It could have been much better.
Suddenly a very good Eastern (that is, a Russian Western, an adventure film about Siberian affairs). A rare beast in the woods of our current cinema.
You look - and from the very beginning of the picture you feel almost unearthly in awe. A convoy carrying gold from the mine. Attack. Shootout. Then there is the search for the guilty.
Ommage to both the classic Hollywood Western and the Soviet Western. All those beautiful films that are about the development of Siberia by Russian pioneers, merchants and Cossacks, that Soviet paintings, where the political display of the establishment of Soviet power in Siberia is usually measured against the background of the actions of strong and valiant (as well as strong, but evil) heroes. All these nude criminal investigation officers, Chekists, military, just simple brave people – and all sorts of Leshie (remembering one excellent hystern about the civil war in Khakassia) and also very strong, but infected with hatred and love for gold – against them.
And here it is. And even beautiful flights of birds in the taiga - rather than a reminder of the famous song from the classic western, the song about the fact that "Gold always attracts us." Beckons - but the old vulture neck is always ready, too.
The film was directed by a young, but very talented and already famous Andrei Bogatyrev (“Red Ghost”). And the main roles were performed by Alexander Samoilenko, Artem Tkachenko, Alexey Shevchenko and Sofia Ernst with Pavel Derevyanko and Wolfgang Cherni. It turned out very well!
In fact, we are witnessing a classic story, a history of Western and Eastern, as if it were from the books of Jack London. And it rises almost to the level of a biblical parable. At the same time, in some places like an old good Soviet film about a civil one in Siberia, you watch, or, say, the Sixth (about the new police chief who came to lime the brutal gang), then like the Demidovs with the Golden Woman.
This movie is almost perfect. Beautiful views of Siberian nature. Colorful character types. Gold! Skins! Revolvers and Mausers!! Aborigines and even Hunkhuz!
Samoilenko and Shevchenko played just great. And red bitch Ernst was really good, too. They're all good. The same whale is just a song of songs just!
The only thing is that somewhere in the middle of the picture it seemed to me that there was a clear overload on the part of the dramatic lines. There's too much going on. But the talent of the director was able to unravel and bring together the whole Gordian knot. And it was right and good. On their business. On merit. Each has his own. To whom is life and to whom is death?
This film was shot with the active participation of the administration of the Khabarovsk Territory. And thank them for that! It's a very beautiful land.
Summary: Adventures and the Struggle for Gold White people with guns and Aborigines. Everything is as it should be in the classic westerns and Easterns. Very good movie. I recommend it!
After “Red Ghost”, very worthy of one of the previous films of the director, there was an expectation that the new film will be shot in a similar vein – a kind of bungled action-thriller western with a slight touch of Tarantinovshchina / Richie.
And the trailer was there.
Let’s talk about the good first.
The film is beautiful, enchanting shooting in nature.
The film has very decent costumes and scenery.
In the film, good actors - personally I have nothing to complain about.
But there is a big problem.
The movie doesn't work like a movie. The dynamics of the narrative is so ragged and uneven, sometimes just yawning, that watching it is simply not very interesting. The dramatic lines of the characters do not cause sympathy, because, by and large, the characters do not have charisma (and the actors here, I emphasize once again, have nothing to do with it!). As we know from world cinema, even scoundrels and scoundrels can be shown interesting enough that they are not boring to watch. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Oh, it seems that the sound in this film is not all right either. Maybe the cinema was flawed, but often the dialogue somehow merged with the background sounds.
The film aligns slightly in the last 30 minutes, alas, it does not save him.
As one of my wizard acquaintances once said, “A good story is not a sin.” Why the authors did not embellish this story (and it is supposedly on real events) is a mystery to me. To shoot a bungled criminal western (sorry, Eastern) in the setting of the incipient revolution is just a great idea.
We got what we got.
Russian cinema has finally pleased us with a historical western based on real events. Andrei Bogatyrev decided to acquaint us with the history of the Russian Empire, which occurred in the early twentieth century. He managed to transport us to those distant events.
The plot of this film takes us to 1917 and tells us about the events that occurred in the Khabarovsk Territory on the banks of the Ulmi River, on the eve of the revolution. The train carries 40 poods of gold to St. Petersburg, the train is attacked by raiders in shamanistic masks and steal expensive cargo. St. Petersburg gold miner, metropolitan magnate Leonty Bulygin - the owner of the gold mine and a very cruel person, to whom this gold carriage was sent, goes in search of gold and goes to Khabarovsk, where he recruits a detachment of the best hunters and hunters, as this is his only chance to return his gold and avoid ruin. Bulygin plans to return the last profit and leave the country, as the government and his business are under threat. The gold miner believes that his gold was stolen by a tribe of nomadic Tungus, and he wants to punish them at all costs. But it turned out that he is not the only one who wants gold.
Events in the film develop lightning fast, the situation can get out of control, resulting in new characters. Dynamic action scenes and unpredictable and intriguing events, shooting, chase, race for gold, locomotives, showdowns and even cowboys, all this constantly keeps in suspense throughout the film. Not without erotic scenes, as well as girls of easy behavior. The intrigue of the film is sustained from the beginning of the film and persists until the very end. Due to all this unpredictability, the film looks in one breath.
The main characters of this story are Leonty Bulygin, a metropolitan tycoon played by Alexander Samoilenko. Doletsky, a former aristocrat, plays the main scoundrel and wants to take possession of gold, played by Artem Tkachenko. Who, if not Tkachenko will play a better role as an aristocrat? Doletsky, though possesses aristocratic manners, is not devoid of robber manners and very much wants to get gold at any cost. Beauty Sophia Ernst as an actress of a small theater Sonya, a skilled adventurer. It turns out that Sonya is in collusion with Doletsky. Play actors at a height, and the cast is selected perfectly.
The filming takes place in very beautiful places, striking the luxurious Siberian landscapes of the Khabarovsk Territory, snow-capped peaks of centenary fir trees. Impressive gold mine, a wide river with high rocky banks. I would like to note a very pleasant musical accompaniment, which creates a unique atmosphere, and of course the costumes of the actors, which are thought out to the smallest detail.
“Gold of Umalta” is a film that can pleasantly surprise the widest audience, especially those who are interested in history. The film describes a unique story, I believe that this film should be seen by everyone who is a connoisseur of history, and those who are not. The film has an attractive atmosphere. It was shot in real historical places and most importantly, the director was able to accurately convey the mood, spirit and life of that time.
9 out of 10
The place of action of the Khabarovsk Territory and the city of Khabarovsk. 1917 with flashbacks. The most famous film in the world about the Russian Far East (and it is not Siberia at all) is certainly Dersu Uzala Akira Kurosawa. In the same film, they tried to combine the meditativeness of landscapes and the wisdom of indigenous peoples (Tungus, Udege and others) with action in the style of Guy Ritchie. And then there was added a girl Sonya, played by Ernst's wife and turned out like a herring under a fur coat with milk.
Let's start with the minuses.
The target audience and genre of this film are unclear. For lovers of meditative narrative films, there are too many pointless shootouts. For gunfighters and chasers, too much sentimentality. At the end of the film, we don’t even know what happened or why we were shown it.
There is almost nothing historical in the film except mention of the provisional government, bank failures, etc. Of the real Far Eastern objects, only the Nadge Rocks (they are also the Anyu Pillars) are shown. They could show the bridge over the Amur, which was opened in 1916, that is, in 1917 passenger trains already passed on it. Could show unique in style pre-revolutionary Khabarovsk houses of red and gray brick. In the film there is an orphanage, which somehow looks like a Soviet building of the 50s. Look for “Children’s house No. 1 in Khabarovsk” – the building, although built on one floor, but the historical style is preserved and it was possible to shoot there (the Children’s home there was opened in 1895 and still works). And finally, one of the scenes takes place at the Illusion cinema. This building has also been preserved and is now a Sovkino cinema. It is located at a distance of 1 km from the Amur, but in the film the characters run out of the building and board a boat 50 meters from the entrance. Nuance - in Khabarovsk, the buildings closest to the Amur were on a cliff and you need to run from there to the river embankment 200 m down a steep staircase - the scene should be like the one at Eisensten. Until the 1980s, small rivers were surrounded only by barracks and ravines, not houses of culture. Therefore, such a scene with a boat in Khabarovsk then could not be under any circumstances.
Now on the pluses (with reservations).
Most of the actors play very well, but they show us very little, so their names can not be remembered. Instead of expanding, for example, the really interesting character Derevyanko, we are shown how Sonya 5 min (this is not an exaggeration) walks through some murky basements and looks for some Chinese. Tkachenko played the vile officer perfectly - his character wants to spit in the face. Samoilenko also coped perfectly with the role of a merchant-owner of life.
Of the game scenes, only 2 scenes really turned out well (without spoilers: in a restaurant in Moscow and in a cinema in Khabarovsk). The rest look like they did in a Turkish TV series. The action seems to be well shot, but it is constantly interrupted by sentimental emotions of different characters.
Cinematography and costumes are decent. That’s basically what the movie is about.
Conclusion - the filmmakers did not have enough money for the Amur Bridge and shooting in the historical buildings of Khabarovsk (although the governor of the region had to help). As well as a good intelligible script that would give the audience an answer to the question “well, what is the morality?”.
I hope that in the future, the creators of films about the Far East and Siberia will go a more reliable way and start filming literary sources, rather than a hodgepodge from their own unfinished projects. That’s the impression of the film – incompleteness. There is a Sony line, which in itself could become a separate film about the heavy female share, there are adventures of thieves and gold miners in the taiga, it would be worth doing a full-fledged dashing action, there is a line about the fate of actors during the change of power - it would be an excellent tragicomedy.
For Russian cinema, Western is a rare, exotic, if not alien genre. I will remember only “My Among Strangers,” “The Man from the Boulevard of Capuchins,” and from the fresh, under some assumptions, “Earth.” When I found out that the director of the excellent military action movie “Red Ghost” Andrei Bogatyrev is taking on a western, I immediately decided – I will watch.
“Gold of Umalta” is equal to the classics of the genre. There is a spectacular robbery loaded with gold cart, robbers in intimidating wooden masks, an Indian and a cowboy (true, fake), a femme fatale with a difficult fate, villains in rampant numbers and even... an American whaler.
The film is beautiful and tough – the age rating of 16+ is justified by bloody shootouts and severe fights. Of the minuses: embarrass and tear the integrity of the narrative numerous flashbacks, but so that the viewer does not get lost among the excursions into the past of the characters, each episode signed the time of action.
Bogatyrev knows how to make genre films, and it is clear that he enjoys the process, building a composition, selecting a charismatic actor's ensemble and placing it in picturesque landscapes, from which breathtaking.
The story, where there are ready-to-do scoundrels of different kinds, who are driven only by a thirst for profit, for most gold hunters will end tragically. The more interesting it is to bet on who will survive in the race for the treasures of the gold miner Bulygin.
I can recommend the film to fans of westerns and harsh adventure movies, which do not claim any deep subtext. Then there is every chance to enjoy chases and shootings against the backdrop of the luxurious nature of the Khabarovsk Territory.
Everyone is well aware that in the Yukon and Klondike at one time found huge deposits of gold and there rushed seekers of luck from all over the world to try to catch their luck by the tail. However, our country boasts no less famous places with gold deposits, and they are located in the Khabarovsk Territory. It was here that the Upper Amur gold mining company, the largest in all Siberia, was located, producing 150 poods of gold per year. And it is not surprising that near the places where gold was mined, there were also people willing to do anything to illegally seize it, which we see in the “Gold of Umalta”, the authors of which tried to assume and imagine what exactly happened in Siberia more than a hundred years ago.
The film was directed by Andrei Bogatyrev, who recently released the film “Red Ghost”, which was very warmly received by both critics and audiences. Bogatyrev showed that he is able to competently combine historical storylines, brisk action and dialogue, which can be disassembled by quotes. All these moments the director confidently transferred to the “Gold of Umalta”, thanks to which the film boasts bright episodes, filigree staged action and characters that seem to come from the film Tarantino, but at the same time original and really interesting. What only worth one Wolfgang Cherny in the image of an American mercenary.
The film takes place in 1917 and takes us to Siberia. Gold mining here does not stop for a day and carts filled with precious metal are steadily sent to the capital St. Petersburg. As usual, such flights are well guarded by people with guns and dogs, but this does not stop the criminals who decided to steal as much as 40 poods of gold. And this, for a moment, about 655 kilograms. To forgive the robbers such a daring attitude to his property, the famous gold miner Leonty Petrovich Bulygin (Alexander Samoilenko) can not, and therefore collects a detachment of mercenaries who go on the trail to find the missing and punish those who are behind it. However, when such a large jackpot is at stake, no one is going to give up so easily here for sure. So it is not surprising that here often shoot first, and questions are asked later.
Interestingly, we still don’t know exactly what happened in 1917. There are certain documents in the archives that indicate that the gold was actually stolen, but who did it and where the treasure is located, history is silent about this and, most likely, the truth we will never know. However, the authors of the film took the liberty to present their version of events, and it really deserves respect, because “Gold of Umalta” is a dashing western with a unique Siberian flavor and charming historical sketches.
It is also worth noting that sometimes the narrative in the film is nonlinear. That is, we are periodically thrown into the past and show what the characters did before their daring robbery. This brings Bogatyrev’s film even closer to the works of Richie and Tarantino, but I won’t say that this is some overly brazen borrowing. Rather, it is a very interesting artistic move that makes both the characters and the film deeper.
From the characters, I want to highlight Sonya, a film actress who is gaining popularity, who is close to Bulygin and who has a very difficult, tragic fate. The heroine is not as simple as it may seem and she has her own special plans for the whole situation with gold. So you have to keep an eye on her, that's for sure. Sonya has her own personal drama that involves the child, and the opportunity to get her share of the gold becomes a goal for her, which she will never give up.
I will also mention Artem Tkachenko in the role of disgraced officer Doletsky, who is also hunting for gold, and he is ready to literally go over corpses to get what he wants and hide before Bulygin’s people find him. The hero of Tkachenko has good manners, remarkable appearance and absolute character.
I'm a big fan of westerns. Watched in the area of 15 films and TV series in this genre – from ageless classics like “The Magnificent Seven” to revisionist works such as “Jossie Wells Outlaw” and “Wild Gang”.
So when I saw a rather tempting trailer, I immediately rushed to the cinemas, because what I saw hooked me. I am skeptical of Russian cinema, but I decided to give it another chance. After all, there was nothing complicated from the directors. Western as a genre is quite simple, its formula looks approximately as follows:
Minimum drama or a primitive version of it (revenge for loved ones, protection of property, etc., etc.) + faceless, silent controversial, but extremely brutal characters who speak little and shoot a lot + measured narrative + beautiful landscapes.
Well, that's all. Take it off and enjoy it. But no. The Ministry of Culture sat in a puddle and in such a simple field. Of the whole formula, only beautiful species are taken into account. For that, like. The rest is a nightmare.
1) There's a drama car and a little cart. And the problem is that there's too much of it for a Western, and too little for another genre, and it's just nothing, sucked out of the finger and spoiled by disgusting acting.
2) Very little action. For 2 hours of timekeeping - only two full-fledged interesting shootouts. Well, Kamon, that's all. . .
(3) Characters are like drama. For another genre is not written enough. For Western, they are too revealed, devoid of mystery and attraction. Think of the Man Without the Name of Eastwood, his Joe Kidda, the Preacher of the Pale Rider, or the Stranger of the High Plains Rider. The last two films generally teeter on the verge of realism and mysticism. And Chris from The Magnificent Seven? Who is he? Why did you become a shooter? Incomprehensible, but intriguing. There is no intrigue here, except for the character of Alexei Shevchenkov. Here, in general, there is an interesting type of penitent sinner who hates when they climb into his past.
(4) Mounting. He's just disgusting. The classic western runs smoothly from start to finish. We have a group of characters around which everything is built. The action doesn't jump, it's not Guy Ricci's action movie. It's all mixed up. Flashbacks, transfer action from one location to another. Dimension and single line? Nah, let's just glue the different stories together so that some of them don't overlap at all. A brilliant move, Mr. Bogatyrev, just brilliant.
(5) Acting is a quiet horror. Male characters have no hint of the brutality inherent in Hollywood shooters or the charm of scammers. Everyone either hysterics, clowns, or just doesn’t play where they need to. Even Clint Eastwood could show different sides of his character with his eyes and body language. There is a complete lack of acting talent. This is especially true of Sophia Ernst. There is no difference in emotions.
(6) Costumes and decorations. How do you like the cleanest shirts of prospectors, plywood blades of a mill wheel and models of weapons from the company Denix? Yes, Derringer Sophia and Smith & Wesson American is in fact toys in which they did not even bother to insert ammunition, which is clearly visible in close-up plans. The heroine’s gun is in my closet, so I know what I’m talking about.
2 out of 10
1 point for landscapes, 2 point for addressing the topic of relations between Russia and local peoples. The rest is a complete disappointment. And doubly insulting for the fact that in the USSR removed chic, colorful analogues of Westerns. "The white sun of the desert" and "His own among strangers is a stranger among his own." I mean, we can when we want to. And now, it seems, we don't really want to. . .
In the spring of April 4, 2024, the premiere of the film “Gold of Umalta” took place, telling about one of the largest robberies. Having won, so to speak, in pitching in 2022 at the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, shooting began in 2023. The most active support was provided by the Government of the Khabarovsk Territory and personally by Governor Mikhail Degtyarev, who was the author of the idea.
Before proceeding to the plot (of course, without spoilers), it is worth assessing the acting and technical components. The main cast: Alexander Samoilenko (Leonty Bulygin in the film), Artem Tkachenko (Doletsky), Alexander Shevchenkov (Egor Chagin), Sofia Ernst (Sofia), Pavel Derevyanko (Kuzma), Eugene Antropov (Timosha), Wolfgang Cherni (Jack Kitoboy) and others. The acting is generally satisfactory. Especially can be noted Samoilenko, Tkachenko, Shevchenkov and Cherni. They're good. The rest are simply involved in the cause. Many people only change their facial expression a couple of times throughout the film. Also quite often there is a pronounced slurred speech. Separately, Sofia Ernst stands out, as if she got out of the usual melodramas from Russian TV channels, taking with her standard nasty squeals. Because of this, many characters, their actions, look rather dull. The responsibility lies with the director.
The production and operator work was performed at the highest level. The general surroundings of the locations, their shooting, scenery and costumes look good. Especially stands out shooting natural beauties. This is the undoubted advantage of the film “Umalta Gold”. Working on the soundtrack is more or less satisfactory. The music isn't repulsive, but mostly doesn't work. Not at all. I only remember the track a la western from the finale. This problem greatly damages the overall production and atmosphere of the film.
Before discussing the plot itself (without spoilers!), you need to make a brief historical background. Immediately I want to note that from the real events on which the film is based, only a couple of strokes remained. If you want to learn a story with a movie, it’s highly discouraged, and here’s why. The events of the real theft unfolded not in 1917, but in the first half of the 1890s near the village of Umalt. This went down in history as the Nieman affair. It was named after the Nieman mines, where the stolen gold was mined. According to the plot, which was mentioned in many materials and PR campaigns before the release, 40 poods of gold (about 600 kilograms) were stolen. In reality, only 16 poods (about 256 kilograms) were stolen. The small similarities with the real history, except for the locations, ended. For the rest of its mass, the film “Gold of Umalta” represents a completely different episode from the life of the Far East. The characters have nothing to do with actual prototypes. They even changed names. The gold has not been found to this day. So any phrase that “everything definitely happened in 1917” is nothing more than an advertising slogan.
And now the story itself. Unfortunately, briefly. That's the most problematic part of the movie. If there are no spoilers, then the plot plot is clear and boils down to gold, which is obvious. The representation of the characters, their background, is made aba how. Secondary characters, and even some of the main ones, are not really revealed to the viewer. A couple of phrases about each in the film are not enough. The effect is not very large timekeeping and overabundance of persons involved in the plot. Banal is not enough for all time, as a result of which the characters look like dummies who cannot be empathized with. Those who were more fortunate were given flashbacks, which were used very strangely. There are quite a few of them and are inserted into the plot so crudely and chaoticly that they just break the narrative in some places very seriously. The story itself seems clear, but metamorphosis occurs with time itself. Often, how long does a new event take? Day? A week? A month? The time of day is determined by the sun in the sky. There are also problems in the denouement of all that is happening, but spoilers will be required, so I will note another important part of the entire film work - the ideological load. Ideologically. From beginning to end, the spectator will be hammered into his head that communism and socialism are awfully bad, and capitalism with the British and Americans is the salvation of the whole planet. Personally, I had a question several times during watching in the cinema - how was this allowed to rent? This is all in modern conditions, when the information war against our state is being waged by those very beautiful British and Americans. That wouldn’t be a problem if it were one character’s point of view. This idea persists constantly and is broadcast through several characters with the help of, of course (and where without them), “freaks-cattle-idiot-demon-godless-terrorist-cannibals” of the Bolsheviks and ordinary people who just got tired of rotten tsarism. The ideological load was worked on better than the plot itself. Among all this stands out a barely noticeable plus - gray morality. Almost all the main and secondary characters are nefarious cattle in their own way, which only makes them livelier and more interesting. But the film fits into the framework of the genres of Drama, Adventure and Western. However, in general, the plot looks very raw, and the performance of the picture itself is also unsatisfactory.
As a resident of the Khabarovsk Territory, I really hoped to see not a perfect creation of cinema, but just an ordinary pleasant film that you can safely remember. This is a large-scale project of the region, which will launch other projects. But I don’t want to see it a second time.
In conclusion, I want to say that the film “Gold of Umalta” is a very mediocre work. The plot is raw and mediocre, the actors and the technical component are good, but the first one matters most. Historical accuracy is lacking. Watch it only at your own risk and fear of lost time.