Battalion, or why Kommersant is a sign of bad cinema.
I don’t know who makes these films or why. I don’t understand why they can’t make a good movie on the theme of the heroic, full of exploits of the First World War. Why do they shoot such Battalions, necessarily with Kommersant, so that everyone can see - the film is bad, stay away, we sawed money on the set. What is absolutely bad and deceitful Admiral, that the Battalion, as soon as Kommersant (a firm sign), immediately understandable - the movie did not bring you, call you a movie helper, eat served.
The fact that the film is bad, says literally everything. Beginning in the third minute of the film to claim that in the bad course of the war to blame the men-s who eat German schnapps, and dance from the bar blue oyster, or what is it? And so, in a blue eye, the brave military offers to hang and shoot soldiers who do not understand the meaning and necessity of the ongoing war. From such a performance, even the cinematic Kerensky fell into horror.
Then the game begins that the battalion of soldiers assembled by Bochkareva (who it is, the film is not told) will save the situation, that is, they will create the right PR, like women are forced to fight, and the peasants mean they do not want, all the soldiers are inflamed with spirit and rush to win. Well, in the minds of the filmmakers, everything is logical, the peasant cattle-peasants have listened to the cattle-communyan and are bullish, and then they will be ashamed.
The very creation of the battalion looks crazy, because they offer and need to believe even in the mega-technocratic Russian Empire, where there are cars, electric cars in the army (I served in 2000, and then found mechanical cars in the army, there were no electric ones).
Relationships within the women's battalion are delusional, bashing is kind of blooming, nationalism is flourishing, such stupid dialogues are said and behave like this - for example, peasant women and whores are yelling at an aristocrat, general nonsense and nonsense that you want to shout - I DON'T BELIEVE! Bochkareva performed by Aronova looks more like a pregnant fat girl than a brave commander (well, what the hell is the commander of a non-commissioned officer, why do officers obey her?!). To create a soldier's council want, of course, it is some burnt-out whores who itch one place and are expelled from the battalion for snitching. How else is that? Can't the right people want soldiers' advice? But the council is created under the guidance of the right aristocrat to save Bochkareva. Why is it so loved by soldiers that it is not explained by the filmmakers. Eat what's served.
On stage, when the petty-concerned soldiers rushed to the women’s battalion to comfort nature, I stopped watching this film. It took forty minutes of the film, and other than hatred of the common people, I did not see anything in this film.
The message is clear: the people are stupid cattle, and only the elected aristocrats must rule them, otherwise the cattle will become brutal again. The film is categorically NOT recommended for viewing, it is a spit and sour on the Russian people and its history.
1917. There is a revolution in Russia. The Provisional Government stands for the continuation of the war, but there is no one to fight, in fact - the army has decayed and is gradually withdrawing from the front. And then non-commissioned officer Maria Bochkareva, making sure that you can not cook porridge with men, decides to form a women's battalion. . .
An inexpressibly sad film that tells the real tragic story of ordinary Russian women, peasant women and townspeople who decided to take up arms at the moment when everyone began to abandon them. One can talk for a long time about the fact that war is evil, but in practice the choice was not between war and peace, but between war and peace on foreign terms, between war and submission to the aggressor, hoping at the expense of Russia ' to drag out the Western Front. The brave Russian women were almost the only ones (there were also shock troops and some other units) who stood up for Russia at the moment when everyone turned away from her, imagining that someone would allow them to enjoy the land & #39; and other benefits for nothing.
If you call things by their proper names, the heroines of the film went to the front not to fight, but to die - in fact, the whole film we see how they are killed one after another, often by some carelessness, misunderstanding, accident, while constantly feeling that they were still not ready, despite any training. And by the end, there is a feeling that all this was a sacrifice - the country from which they hoped to get a response, those people who were ready to brutally beat a woman, but are not ready to stand next to her. They did not just set an example of how to fight, they died instead of those who were supposed to be in their place, sacrificed themselves, carried this cross, which the others threw off as a burden. It wasn’t their war, but since it was supposed to be someone else’s, they decided to do what no one wanted to do.
So I don’t believe in the finals at all. If these people were untouched by the deaths of young girls who were put under bullets in their place, if it was their personal whim that no one cared about, this is the finish line. Perhaps, the history of the battalion Bochkareva, albeit changed for cinematic reasons, is the best illustration of why everything turned out so in the history of our country. If you read about the battalion on Wikipedia, it becomes even clearer.
As for purely cinematic issues, everything was filmed with great dignity. Special effects were measured exactly as much as necessary, the storyline also does not raise special questions - those terribly illogical things that sometimes heroines do can be attributed to the frequent in Russian cinema tendency to show women frivolous creatures who live in momentary impulses. Of the historical shoals, I noticed only that Russian officers, for some reason, pay homage with the whole palm, as in the Soviet army, and not with two fingers (though, perhaps, it seemed to me). From the acting works I want to note Maria Aronov (Bochkareva she turned out to be a Russian woman of the type that so spread after all the wars and other troubles - the one about which they talked ' I and the horse, I and the bull, I and the woman, and the man'), Mats Reinhard (a German spy - terribly cunning and bastard, therefore colorful), Vitaly Kovalenko (the staff of Colonel Borozdin, tough with officers and volunteers, but amazingly accomplice and humble with the truth, he can only speak God, and straight, because he can not speak God, but God).
In general, the movie is very sad, but very worthwhile. These are the people we need to remember.
The film ' Battalion' is a military drama that will melt the hearts of even the most indifferent people, so it is undoubtedly worth watching! I’ve watched this movie many times, and after each experience, it’s like the first time. The film is so deep and sensual that it is simply impossible not to let tears go. You are looking at this work with a faint heart.
'The second fight is worse than the first' – said Bochkareva. But despite everything, these women are real heroes. They defended the honor of their homeland to the last.
I consider it one of the best Russian military films that showed that women are capable of anything. Men are shameful. The worst part is that this is what happened in history. Instead of men, women went to war. The male sex showed weakness and cowardice when their courage and courage was so needed by the people! Women have infinite respect!
The film reflects the horror and situation of the country at that time. Fear, anxiety and pain for my people - that's what I felt while watching the film. I am proud of my people, despite everything they defended their native land. Women voluntarily gave their lives for the sake of the Fatherland!
A low bow and respect to the directors, directors, actors and all those who took part in this work!
10 out of 10
“Battalion” is one of those films, after watching which you immediately want to write and express what you feel. Personally, I was emotionally captured more than once, my eyes were wet throughout the film.
Another proof that the national cinema can, when he wants.
I don’t know the history of war very well. But you know, after watching this movie, I wanted to study this in more detail. The film really shows the heroism and courage of ordinary Russian women.
At that, women from different classes went to the battalion. But in war, everyone is equal!
It is interesting that in the film everything revolves around the female battalion.
We are used to assigning feats only to the stronger sex. This story comes from the other side.
The cast is perfectly matched. Maria Kozhevnikova I knew on the TV series “Univer” and honestly, at first, was skeptical of her role in such a serious film.
But I was wrong. She was amazingly used to the role and reflected the character of the heroine.
This is a story about how women bravely fought for their homeland.
It was painful to watch the weaker sex die under bullets or from a knife wound from the enemy.
We all know that women can lift a man’s spirit. Strong women especially. The creation of a female battalion served as a motivation for the men. This was the idea of creating such a battalion.
A film about values, courage and heroism. I definitely recommend watching, especially for men! Sometimes they underestimate the power of women and in vain!
Contemporary national cinematographer not so often spoils us with pictures, after which there is an impression, which can compare with the Mariana hollow: it is deep and not entirely clear that there, in the depths, the spirit is still captured. Movie 'Batalion' - as a time of such. The reason is not so difficult: most films about the war, whether it is the First or Second World, Vietnam or Afghanistan, little go beyond the limits of drama or tragedy and more often than not require not understanding, but taking heart.
Although there are exceptions (although I would remember ' Tiny Nut' with Vitaly Solomin and Nadezhda Rumyantseva), but they only confirm the rule.
War can be described differently. You can use tank brigades and planes, collect a thousandth of the mass and try to paint the picture of war with sweeping strokes. But this mass and shear during the war is visible only to the commanders. In us, the simple mortals, such a massiveness causes very different emotions and much less interest than the fate and tragedy of a bloody man.
That is why the film, which caused the most strong emotions for my whole life not so long, became the film of 1985 & #39; Go and watch' Director Elem Klimov, where there are practically no battle scenes. I remember very well how deeply this film touched me. Today in the review 'Batalion' I experienced similar feelings. . .
It was a bit of an irritation, though. The titles with the surnames of the persons involved in the creation of the film turned out to be too much, unpretentiously long. However, the design in the form of sparks flying on their background and red petals was still pointed at a certain ice.
The first scenes caused some bewilderment, since it was more like the presentation of a provincial theater, a production of a play written by a kolkhoz accountant. Phrases of heroes and their actions are absolutely wrong, and the couple Irina Rakhmanova (Frosi) and completely covered everything from the fire. In general, it is fair to say, almost to half the film does not cause particularly strong emotions: a large collection of women of different classes, with all the circumstances and situations that follow from here, rather standard, must be said. Everything is pretty flat, not atmospheric and not very interesting, although it is sometimes quite funny. Yes, there are quite interesting photos, but to reveal their character could be more full, even in the same temporary frames.
Also, a certain degree of non-precision was caused by a clear, even categorical gender reconstruction of pearls. The group of military in the head with Kerensky is more like the pionate - weak, insecure teenagers, like 'warriors' refusing to fight. Female Battalion is a very different matter: gradually even intelligent ladies will become real Russian women - those who are on horseback, and in the house burning, and in the face of other friends ... Only the footage of their training again, as in many other films, caused me a strong sense of deja vu: well, I have already seen this, not once seen, only with other actors and on a different background.
The second half of the film more than compensated for the lack of the first. For most of the time, I sat, snuck into the druppers before the whitening of my fingers, holding my breath and unable to take my eyes off the screen. It's not about action or special effects. The reason is a little different.
Yes, to be honest, a few times during the film, my eyes were actually in the wet spot. And I don't seem to have one. Dramatic in itself, the plot turned out to be multi-enhanced by the shaking game of all actors, without exception, playing central roles. Especially, of course, just the genius Maria Aronova.
In my opinion, she almost alone made this film. Just today, I realized she's a gorgeous actress! The training, the vocal voice, even the gaze of the person who has received the brain agitation - everything in its execution is absolutely real, you can believe me.
Traditionally, works of art about the First World War are positioned as anti-war. Therefore, when watching the film, it seems that this is either a pro-war agitation, or a near but sincere desire of the creators to see the world on fire.
And that's his problem. At first, when watching the film, it seems that the conflict is unpretentious: romantic girls, having read Conan Doyle, want to contribute to the war. No one is against it and they are allowed. But it turns out that war is something bad and unpleasant. Here the film had to end and the audience would have received the expected lesson that it is not necessary to fight. But the authors thought they were the smartest. Therefore, in the second half of the film, a real conflict was rolled out: it turns out that men for some reason do not want to fight and women must force them to.
Naturally, it nullifies all emotions from the brightest scenes of the film. After all, it turns out, according to the authors, that a German strangles a poor girl with a boot not because there is a war, but because a Russian man does not want to help this girl. After all, if the Russian peasant just wants, he will reflect the bullet, and the shell will close, and the war will end without incident. These are the conclusions that suggest making this film.
The film tells about the first female battalion, created during the First World War. In that period of our history, against the backdrop of political events in the country and on the battlefield, God knows what was happening - soldiers did not want to defend their country from invaders, tried to fraternize with the enemy or simply left the battlefield, ignoring orders. The military leadership made an extraordinary decision - to create women's battalions, where women volunteers were enrolled, who wanted to defend the Motherland while men were inactive. This is an attempt to shame them and set the right example.
Looking at all this is really scary, because the poor preparations that preceded the advance landings were clearly not enough to turn these women into soldiers, into combat vehicles. Almost all of them remain primarily women, not particularly aware of where they have gone. Someone gathers flowers on the battlefield, because “the Germans are not yet”; someone whistles the song, being in an ambush. Many are horrified by the fact that they killed someone, and most do not cope with it emotionally.
The authors constantly emphasize that there is no place for a woman in war, “go home, ladies” is a thought that runs through the film. And that's probably right. Despite feminism, women still look alien in war if they are not in the ranks of health workers. Units could become snipers or infantry, for a woman is a symbol of life, not death. She is the muse for which a man goes to protect his family, his home, his country and the future of his descendants.
Even their commander, at the beginning of the film, pretending to be a man in a skirt, in fact turns out to be a woman unable to overcome her weakness, and even unable to fight back her husband, although she is physically much stronger than him. With the commander, by the way, the battalion was not very lucky - on the battlefield she behaves more like a mother than a commander, and therefore it is difficult for the girls to gather, realize what is happening in full force and cope with themselves. And without this and proper preparation to go on the offensive is actually suicide.
And precisely because you understand all of the above, and you see that despite all this, the girls have such courage, such love for the Motherland that they find the strength in themselves in moments of X not to run away into a loose room, but to repel German attacks and even go on the offensive (!) - emotions when watching just skyrocket.
The place of a woman on this time is not on the kitchen
Opponents of the victorious revolution in the tenth years of the XX century indignantly stated that ' to power came cooks' (by the way, the reality was not far from such an ironic political joke: Stalin, for example, was the son of a shoemaker). But when it happened that our long-suffering country was beset by two endless bloody madnesses at once: participation in the First World War, and the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks; and when (at that time) the Russian Empire was between Scylla and Charybda, claiming millions of lives; a unique military situation arose, which for some reason until recently was not filmed by anyone - though not to power, but to war, those who, perhaps, also spent a considerable part of their lives cooking food were sent. Unlike the events of the film ' Bastards' where we saw how children were sent to the war, considered to be biojunk, capable only of harming; because of which the film was hit by a flurry of negative criticism, since the more tolerant viewers either seriously appreciated their high, or condescendingly called ' in real life, it was not happening, but was an artistic fiction of the screenwriter; in ' they showed what is a recognized historical fact, waiting for the deployment of the German troops, who were uniquely trained in their fighting forces in their own country, since they were not in the best of their own name (#39); As in 'Scoundrels', only there are children, and here women; of course, did not take all the women and girls in a row (this is not a comedy ' Police Academy', according to the plot of which, for the sake of humor, it was invented to take to the police even full of fools and scoundrels): we will see a scene with selection in the regiment, which I will describe below, after which suitable for service representatives of the fair sex, ready to perfectly defeat uninvited guests, had in a short time to teach what, traditionally, in the army. Thus, skillfully spending a solid budget of $ 10 million, the filmmakers showed, albeit not a super-blockbuster on the military theme, but just a very high-quality military production.
So, World War I and Civil War. Criminals of all stripes have been released from prisons, the troops have been demoralized, disorder is happening at the front and in the rear. Authorities are recruiting a women's death battalion to quell these riots and fight the Germans. The first girl, shown going to the battalion, received news of the fiancé's death and had nothing to lose. When recruiting a strict age and medical qualification. Dialogues between recruits are not without humor: phrases like ' I'm not fat - I'm healthyA!' or ' line us up in tits!' will go to the people in any way. In the new regiment, friction and division of seats immediately begin, which will quickly be stopped by the heroine Maria Aronova. The heroine Maria Kozhevnikova Natalia Tatishcheva will show courageous, freedom-loving and fair character. From the battalion will be expelled all who do not meet the requirements, not fit for health (including if ' sick days ' pass painfully), and all who are dissatisfied with something. The one that is ' not fat, but healthy' will show its remarkable strength in military training, which can also cause laughter, and the scene with training to fight looks cruel, because recruits had to beat each other to learn this simple art, which will be useful in the war with the Germans, who, according to Bochkareva, ' will not wait for women to climb over the obstacle' One of the girls tries to ask permission to meet with the guy, as a result ' will fly out' from the battalion for denunciation. Bochkareva will be arrested for excessively harsh educational measures, but the entire battalion, despite its severity, will show loyalty to the boss. Natalia is pregnant and goes home. ' Fight-Babs' face a squad of ordinary male soldiers who behave like cattle, but one of them protects the women, saying that they are ' his ' The first detection of German spies will turn into the first tragedy in the regiment.
Those who watched this film in the cinema, despite the pleasure of watching a military action movie on the big screen, without knowing it themselves, lost about a third of the information of the picture, which the authors saved for the subsequent broadcast of the expanded three-hour, divided into 4 episodes, version on TV, which can also be seen on the Internet. I will not say exactly which scenes were not included in the film version, but the fact is that after the revision in the full version, my score increased by another point. Considering that a lot of screen time was spent on episodes with 'hard casting', disassembly in the shelf and ' weedout' all who are not ready for combat conditions, it is not surprising that the first significant battle scene takes place only in the third series, but it is quite a spectacular battle consisting of a gas attack, a shootout and a bayonet attack. As for the pathos, in which it has become fashionable for us to accuse war films, I hasten to assure you that there are not so many high-flown expressions here as in the especially accused in this part & #39; Of course, no modern military film is complete without loud speeches and slogans, as well as belligerent screams - it's time to get used to it, but here I can remember only one phrase of the main character, who saw how negligent ' Soldier disdaines meague of food ' Does not care? And in war you will eat the earth! Get out of the battalion!' - but agree, so ' say' maybe any strict warrant officer or major - it's a war, after all. In fact, a strong movie, which was recognized, perhaps, by everyone, except for vulnerable pensioners, who do not like even the slightest scenes of violence, without which they did in Soviet military cinema. Movies like this prove that our war movies are alive, and I'm glad that ' Battalion' got its deserved high rating. And even participation 'Allochka from Univer' did not affect the criticism of the viewer, and it should not have, because Kozhevnikova tries, although for many she will surely remain the fool chasing the rich ' Daddy' in the youth series. Serious roles went to many actresses from glamorous sitcoms, which means their growth and advancement in cinema. Which takes pride in seeing powerful movies like this.
9 out of 10
1917. While there are revolutions, the Russian-German front is bending and cracking in connection with mass fraternization and unwillingness to fight.
To restore morale, a women's battalion is created, recognized to show that even women are ready to fight, and you are here ... 39; This is a story about soldiers and officers, about women and men. 7\10
Pros of the film:
- I was pulled from the electric shavers in 1917, but, in general, everything looks colorful and accurate.
- Cool lieutenant Bochkarev and in general the actors are good as hell!
Cons of the film:
- All men are bitches. - That is, I understand that you have the idea of the film, they say 'babs raise men to war' but you have 0 (Zero) honest and positive men in the frame. Who is not a coward is a fool, who is not a fool, an alcoholic or secretly sleeping with a soldier. Okay, lie, at the end (9 minutes before the end) there will be a couple 'good' but against the background of all this obscurantism just a thorn in the eye.
- Some scenes are incredibly dumb. The enemy's infantry company is running into your trenches, you have rifles and machine guns. What are we going to do? – Of course, we will jump out and run on them in the bayonet!!! If they wanted to show, they say ' they were smoked out of the trenches with gas' then this is not clear, because everyone runs in gas masks.
They wanted to colorfully that in each battle beautifully killed the crowd, but you have about two hundred women of the battalion, and in each battle they die as if a hundred.
In general, the movie is suitable for viewing. Not a masterpiece, but without the Anger and P*c inherent in Eugene's reviews.
I seem to understand the reason for the appearance of two dozen ' red' reviews, mostly from men who generously gave ' Battalion' bile.
The critics did not like the way their male family is shown in the picture. I didn't like it either. I didn’t like the fact that yes, it was. Where men sang 'No matter what, I'm tired of fighting, I don't know anything, my hut with the edge' - women took up arms there. And fought like real heroines, showing an example ' strong ' sex, how to protect the Motherland.
What does it have to do with petty nagging about nightgowns and the pregnancy of one of the heroines? The movie is very strong. I’m not talking about all the promoted blockbusters that way, most often I speak critically when the next promised ' sensation' in fact turns out to be a blank. I do not give in to loud advertising, preferring to always have my own opinion about new products. But sometimes it made me cry. When the heroines stand at night in the rain, as a sign of support for the commander, when they show these fragile beautiful girls in rough soldier's uniform, shaved in a man's way - how can you remember ' And the dawns here are quiet' (the first film adaptation!), because they also wanted to convey to us how terrible and unfair it is when women - future mothers are forced into battle. But in 'Zoryakh' they showed that the whole people rose to the defense of the Motherland from small to great, and then the girls had to go to war because men, such as they are in the film, do not have to wait for protection.
It was very unpleasant to read the review of one young man who proudly tells how soundly laughed the whole film, ignoring the remarks of the neighbors. I understand that male viewers are mostly annoyed by the spectacle of strong female warriors, they prefer some ' Blonde in law' or the heroine from ' Once, 20 years later'. But to laugh at the tragedy, at the open bloody wound of our history is already blasphemy.
It’s a beautiful, truthful and truthful story!
I've seen the movie myself and recommend it to others!
Finally, the hands of the filmmakers of our Fatherland reached and so ' graceful topic' as the First World War. Here you and tragedy (the heroes of the First world died), and melodrama (a battalion of women), and war movies and much more. Finally, the fashionable theme of the betrayal of the country is revolution like a knife in the back against the background of patriotic pathos. It draws parallels with modernity... In general, the field is unplowed, because almost the only work on the topic was Alexander Muratov’s Monzund, shot for 30 years. And then the producers (specialists in the military theme - Ugolnikov and Bondarchuk) had a good laugh, taking the story of the first female battalion of death as the basis of the plot of the film. Yes, and the director was put not a throwaway - Dmitry Meskhiev, who once mastered the theme of betrayal on ' His '.
And the beginning turned out to be even encouraging - without the invention of a creative bicycle, Meskhiev tried to implement on the material of a hundred years ago (okay, fifty years old) the method of Stanislav Rostotsky from A the dawns here are quiet - very good (although there are some flaws here) the paraphrase of the scene in the bath, turned into a haircut ... The incompatibility of women and war would be much more promising as a method than what followed.
The creators seriously went crazy, trying to cram the non-pushed into the timing of the film. The picture has completely turned into a panopticum: can a woman be pregnant? Here we go! Women's boxing? Here we go! Nobles and peasants in the same trench? Here we go! Homemade at war? Great! Spies? Why not? Madness in war? You should too. And so on and so forth. The result is an incomprehensible quarrel, in which the psychology of man in war has turned into a set of modern ideological stereotypes (such as a revolutionary knife in the back), presented very crudely and one-line. Therefore, Soviet slanderous statements are still more convincing, which much more logically reveal opposing ideologies. The same Bumbarash with its famous ' Spit - tired of fighting'.
The strokes-episodes are painfully deliberate - peasants - bastards, alcoholics, libertines, lazy, unpatriots and complacency, and in general resemble the opposite of the poster ' You signed up as a volunteer!' like ' Have you not yet escaped from the front?' At the same time, the authors ignore the real conditions, preferring simplifications from historical journalism.
Not to say that women look perfect, but the poster here is more correct (though not always pretty) - patriotic pathos should not be interfered with by anyone, not even the council created in the women's battalion. Probably, the authors were inspired by the sculpture Motherland, forgetting that cinema differs from monumentalism.
Not only are the characters poster (including the very caricature of Kerensky performed by Basharov), so the episodes are built not only unnaturally, but frankly absurd from the point of view of elementary realism. It boils weakly, for example, in the episode of Bochkareva’s meeting with her husband, and even with muzzle... Even more absurd is the search for German spies, who are caught almost by a battalion, and escorted by single, and not the most textured ladies. No less fun is the scene of a chemical attack, during which the girls remove gas masks whenever they please. Hopeless ' kolkhoz' occurs during the scenes of the attack, when the people simply get into heaps, and to our trench gets suspiciously many Germans, while the victory for the Russians, of course. . .
In short, the film simply lacks professionalism - everything is seen as a seal of momentary, ill-considered and an eye not for reliability (God would be with her with historical, but at least artistic), but for the line of curators of the project from the Ministry of Culture (you can see the desire to please specifically Medinsky). I do not know whether the authors were praised for such a desire, and it does not matter whether it was or not, but the film will remain in history except that the Novorossiysk firstborn about the First World War. Let's hope he doesn't scare off the topic at all.
The theme of the First World War is not too “quoted”. Even now. If at first it was connected with the Soviet power, then later this war was in the shadow of the Second World War. But the tragedy was no less. And the fact that it took place at such a turning point, when everything was going downhill, when the soldiers could not fully understand what they were fighting for - in many ways the tragedy reinforces. There are many heroic and tragic episodes that are not covered in cinema.
The Women's Death Battalion was not a key moment in that period. But he deserves to be reminded of him, so that we may know of his existence. If only because it was these women, along with the Cadets, who remained faithful to their cause (they were the last to guard the Winter), even realizing how everything would end.
One of the commentators said that the idea of the authors about the attempts to rape these girls at the front by our own soldiers looks extremely unconvincing. But the fact is that after the capture of Winter, there were 3 rapes (and in fact there were probably many more) – so the above scene could well have been.
To some, the beating of Bochkareva seemed something absurd. It would seem that such a boy-baba could not answer such a frail man. But I think we should not forget that in fact, when they were living as husband and wife, he was beating her up; the Jew she went to was doing it at a certain point. It's not just about body size, it's about psychology. Domestic violence perverts the psyche of a woman to horror, she becomes a victim. And already knowing this, it is necessary to evaluate all its further actions. Domestic violence, unfortunately, is not a relic of the past, but quite present for many families.
Why do so many people look so indifferently? Yes, because this is his wife, this is a matter of life and will sort it out themselves (by the way, now there are about as many). In addition, do not forget that this is the beginning of the 20th century and the position of women in society and in the family was somewhat different than it is now.
These women, despite great losses, fought heroically. This qualitatively distinguished them against the background of a decaying army, fraternization with enemies, etc.
It was foolish to believe on the part of the Provisional Government that a battalion of women would qualitatively change something in the minds of soldiers, too long ago and abundantly the Bolshevik heresy about freedom and all that kind of stuff was poured into their ears.
Many people liked this film, probably because there is a good acting (you believe them that they do not know how to do all this, but they really want to learn, they really want to help), and there is nothing to say about Aronov; there is an attempt to shoot something patriotic, with a historical background.
There is no denying the presence of blunders in this picture (as in many others, especially if you sit and look at them with a magnifying glass). It seems that many have their own preconceived attitude to modern Russian cinema, which leaves its imprint on their assessments.
P.S. Especially commentators humored on the theme of the series “Battalion”. But there are only 4 episodes of 50 minutes. So they were joking in vain.
Awesome movie! And yes, I agree that a lot of stamps and a lot of overlaps. My husband and I watched him in one breath. And I was just mentally noticing that it's implausible here, and it's tense. But it is impossible to break away.
First of all, Aronovaa is incomparable.
Secondly, it was only through this film that I learned that there was a female battalion at all. Who has heard of this before the movie?
Third, thank you for reminding us of the unfortunate fate of our country. And how often those who were ready to give their lives for the service of the fatherland were eaten by their own during the civil war and all the horror that followed.
And the attitude of men towards women? Although the scene with Bochkareva beating her ex-husband in front of indifferent, let me say, the men, frankly, ridiculous. That boy-baba couldn't fight back? But the fact is... It is known to many to the pain.
'Battalion' A film about the heroism of Russian women. A film about the First World War. But for some reason I did not like it at all.
Here's why. First of all, it’s a childish scenario. One of the seemingly main characters in the middle of the film turns out to be pregnant, the other unexpectedly finds her deceased fiancé before leaving (but he opens his eyes as soon as she runs away from him), plus some moments - the girl collects flowers and suddenly sees the Germans, runs away from them and, of course, stumbles (by the way, they stumble too often at inappropriate moments). It was also surprising that girls do not know how to run from a mountain, for them it was a difficult test, and nothing that they are not going to war at all.
It smelled like some kind of pseudo-heroism. The Russian woman bent the iron, and the battalion stood all night without shook, and even in the rain managed not to get wet, just fantastic! Everything is presented in a way pathetic, a lot of pompous speeches, well, not us Russians, people! We are simple, we do not need long glances into the distance and wise speeches, and if necessary, then in moderation, please!
Men are shown and completely uncouth assholes, even to look disgusting, probably our Motherland was always defended by only women? In general, from extreme to extreme - if women are heroines, then men are generally unnecessary material.
I didn’t like the movie, but I recommend watching it anyway.
3 out of 10
“The Battalion” in character is largely similar to films about the Great Patriotic War. It is not difficult to notice a number of clichés migrating from there. It seems that only other weapons and (somewhat one-sidedly shown) the decomposition of the front remind us that in the film we have a different era.
However, the conflicts differ much more dramatically. In the Great Patriotic War, our people were put up against the wall and were forced to rebel, to rise to the death battle; it was about the direct existence of the Russian (and the relative majority of related nationalities that were then part of the USSR) people, who fought no longer to protect the so-called national interests, but began to fight for their homes, for the right to exist, in general, for the preservation of their culture and traditions – that there are rare manifestations of patriotism, and not a politicized term, which is customary to denote “brainwashing”, after which people are ready to take weapons and kill strangers.
The First World War no longer had such a defensive-national character. Moreover, the First World War is generally a unique, very contradictory and, apparently, the psychological most-heaviest for an ordinary soldier in the history of wars in the world as a whole: it was positional, passed in endless trenches, and the troops advanced extremely slowly: after one chain of trenches, there was the next ... there was attack after attack, line of trenches after line, the advance cost blood, and went for some pitiful kilometers. All this despite the fact that diseases were actively spreading in the trenches themselves, epidemics, in particular, typhus, arose. Add to this unprecedented weapons to ordinary people: gas weapons, significantly strengthened artillery, machine guns, etc. War is always a terrible and tragic affair, but the First World War could be equal to many circles of Dante’s Hell. About the First World War, Remarque has, I think, a book known to many and partially read, "On the Western Front Without Change." No work on the war has been read so hard for me.
And now, when you have this realistic image of the First World War from Remarque forever in your memory, watch the Battalion. What is it? And here, after all, this terrible atmosphere of the First World War is absent: we are shown peasants who do not want to fight at all, as the authors try to tell us, apparently, only because of the propaganda of the Communists and the complete destruction of the army under the Provisional Government.
Hmm. Yes, of course, the morale of the Bolshevik agitation and soldiers' committees strongly influenced, but the fact that the First World War itself was extremely psychologically heavy in the film is not particularly depicted, and this is important. But we are shown how a women’s battalion comes to the front and begins to simply rush into battle, showing that since peasants cannot fight successfully, then they, women, will be used as an example to shoot. The authors clearly do not take into account the historical ambiguous role of women’s battalions, which is too idealized in the film.
At the same time, please note once again, the film hardly touches on the fact that at the time of the film, the war has been going on for three years, that the soldiers were mentally wounded by it. Meanwhile, we must also remember that in the First World War, our troops often had problems with ammunition and equipment, that the war was fought for the most part, in relatively distant territories (this is compared to the same Great Patriotic War), so it is not surprising when, without such problems, in a psychologically difficult war, an ordinary soldier already loses the desire to fight zealously.
And then there is the internal crisis in the country, completely disorganizing the army. In the film, fortunately, the latter is shown, but, as I have already said, very one-sidedly: as if they were only communists, and soldiers' committees discouraged the desire to fight. Yes, they did. But this was the last blow to the already suffering army. By 1917, the war in general, the majority of the population and the army wanted to stop, in many respects because the Provisional Government had fallen, because it sought to "lead the war to a victorious end."
The film shows the situation too one-sidedly, a lot of understatement, instead of realism, making room for artistic fiction of a “patriotic” orientation (in this case, I am afraid, you can even use a nationalist / militaristic orientation). They say that it is necessary to continue the war to a victorious end, or quite to the peasants the communists of propaganda have uttered ideas about peace, they say, women should fight. Humane values clearly show in the film or failed, or not planned at all.
Speaking of the cast, I will say that not all the roles of the girls were convincing, but, in general, I personally did not think the acting was bad, unlike the idea of the film. I will highlight especially Maria Aronov, who played her role very convincingly.
Regarding the production, I will say that I really liked Petrograd, but the fighting was already mediocre, the same “Battle for Sevastopol” in this regard looked more expressive, although it was “good” in terms of productions it is far away.
In the same 2014, by the way, an English film about the First World War, based on real events, “Memories of the Future”, where the main character is also female, is also shown how a girl goes to the front from the rear (though a doctor), but the First World War, in general, in this film is shown much deeper, the drama is much more psychological and realistic, and the artistic description is close in spirit to Remarque, who personally for me created an exemplary and strongest description of the First World War.
The result of the Battalion is tangibly inaccurate somewhere, somewhere unsaid in terms of historical reliability. Historical realism in the film gives way to artistic fiction, which, in turn, in my opinion, is essentially mediocre, because in it the militaristic message clearly takes precedence over humanism and humanity.
3 out of 10
P.S. 2017 is the centenary of the February and October revolutions, which are intertwined with the First World War and are reflected in the Battalion. I really want to see this topic in Russian cinema, first, at least not bypassed, and secondly, screenwriters and directors would calm down militaristic (“patriotic”) talents and shoot films without a pronounced political context.
They wanted to get up, but they didn't. The film is crumpled and it is not clear who is to blame: directors, editors, directors, screenwriters or the underdeveloped Russian cinema itself?
It is noteworthy that the beginning is rather curious - we see a military reporter returning to the city from the front and catching a squirrel. The viewer expects that now the first-person narrative will begin, but roughly speaking, there is a bummer and then we see a young lady who sings. An even bigger bummer happens with the heroine of Maria Kozhevnikova - you think that here is another couple of minutes of the film and she courageously goes into battle, but suddenly she is eliminated completely, leaving everyone with a feeling of complete bewilderment.
Still, we cannot say that everything is so bad, there are very powerful scenes, despite some incongruity and deviation from historical reality. That’s why you should watch the whole movie! Particularly impressed were the moments where Aronova showed all her acting talent, embodying the image of a strong Russian woman. The actress looked very convincing and instilled awe through the screen of the cinema.
However, some scenes were on the verge of foul. Suddenly, the revived groom of one of the heroines, who first of the film is killed over the funeral. Or the way Bochkarev defended her "soldiers" - it was pathetic and beautiful, but not plausible and not convincing. Then the officer weeping in the pillow! The actor coped with the task, but the frame is inserted into the film ineptly. His afflicted appearance should have made us feel the decline of the army in those years, how terrible it was and how desperate it was. As a result, I look at the picture and feel nothing but the desire (pardon) to laugh. And for dessert, we get extremely unlogical, quote, “criminals and scoundrels”, who at first so calmly watched the beating of the heroine Aronova, and then suddenly jumped up like a stung ... and rushed naked (khm) chest on the embrasures. It seems that they were taken to Pontus. I don't believe it!
Well, it's not for nothing! We need this, otherwise there will be no development in Russian cinema, and I believe in it!
So I put 7/10 and continue my vigil!
“Battalion” was not watched at the time of its release on the screen, the abundance of advertising and enthusiastic statements from “respectable” people alienated me from it. And then I decided to still appreciate the film, which talked a lot, and somehow forgotten immediately after watching the audience. The biggest drawback of the film is the enthusiastic hurrah – patriotism in its script. There is nothing to say, the creators were forced to remove the customer such cranberries, which were not interesting to watch and there is nothing to discuss. But we were able to compensate for this by showing the lives of volunteers and scenes from the front, and that’s where what hooked me in the film begins. This is the hopelessness of attempts to save the front and continue the war in the summer-autumn of 1917.
(Briefly on the situation in the country at that time, after the February revolution in Petrograd and the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, the authorities lost their positions both in legislative and administrative terms and in military terms. March-April 1917 was a bloody episode at the fronts, when officers were killed only for being officers, especially the soldiers' committees on the Northern and Western fronts, where soldiers had been sitting in the trenches for two years without advancing, but without retreating, without understanding either the goals or the objectives of the war. Mass desertion became inevitable, and even the less prosperous southwestern front failed to advance. The failure of the June offensive of 1917 was the moment of no return to the continuation of the war, and any attempts of the Provisional Government to continue the war were doomed to failure, and in fact predetermined the October coup of the Bolsheviks under the slogan "Down with the war". Formed female battalion volunteer under the command of Bochkareva took part in the last unsuccessful attempt to move to the offensive of the Western front, just about this episode of the war and tells the film. The desire of women to fight for their homeland was met with ridicule by declassed and propagandized male soldiers. The rigidity of the depiction of scenes of battles, death and attitudes towards women only emphasized the despair of attempts to continue the war, the scene of Bochkareva’s beating by her husband looked especially pathetic, and the indifferent faces of soldiers when they beat a woman awarded with military awards in officer’s epaulettes. And in order not to talk about the Bolsheviks who had corrupted the front and not to say cheerfully patriots about missed opportunities, at that time there was no power capable of uniting the people and curbing the atrocities, no one wanted to fight. And it was shown very clearly in the film (probably Dmitry Meskhiev, deeply respected by me, thus laid a mine in a jingoistic movie).
Magnificent acting of Maria Aronova who played Maria Bochkareva, who managed to convey the ambiguous and tragic image of her heroine. About the rest of the actors I will say neither bad nor good, some played well, other popular media faces it is unclear what they portrayed.
With all the cranberries, jingle-patriotism and engagement of the actors, I found in the film “my” that hooked me and liked me, exactly what conveyed the atmosphere of time. That is why I have ambivalent feelings about the Battalion, but I want to see it as positive.
My review will be different from most others, I just watched the film and compared the historical facts.
In view of the fact that the First World War was forgotten in our country, because of the political situation, for a long time it was called “imperialist”, then only in recent years, it began to be remembered from a different point of view. It became fashionable again to remember the former participants of that war, to publish the memoirs of the participants, to study that war, to curse our former allies in the Entente (British and French), to glorify the white movement, albeit from the Reds, fought in the Civil many participants of that unjustly forgotten war. What am I talking about?
And so, last year, the first such significant film about the heroes of the First World War, “The Battalion”, was released. The first, because "Admiral" is more biopics with elements of melodrama, similar to the life of Kolchak. Straight white and fluffy was the Supreme ruler (sic!) of Russia, such an icon. But about the Great War (as it was called by contemporaries), there is told very little about the participation of the main character in it. Hotinenko’s series “The Death of the Empire”, with great actors, wonderful directing, also does not count, as there we see a whole bunch of events that are explained one-sidedly. The Bolshevik spies destroyed such a great country. Part of it is possible to agree with this, but it is impossible to show the story so straightforwardly. Some emotions, few facts, stories about German spies-Bolsheviks, for 100 years go through the pages of the books of many historians.
So the Battalion came out. That's right with a solid sign at the end. It is a pity that the other titles were not made according to pre-revolutionary orthography. That would be more interesting. But let's get to the movie.
Summer of 1917. The First World War. Russia has already had the February Revolution, a Provisional Government, but Russia is still waging war. The fourth year of the war has begun, but ... the army does not want to fight, everywhere soldiers' committees decide, instead of officers, whether to go on the attack or not, in general, confusion and vacillation. The offensive of the Western, South-Western and Northern fronts was drowned out. In order to solve this problem, Petrograd decided to create women’s shock battalions. They are created to influence men, they say women are fighting, blood is shed, and you dickheads only know how to drink and strike. Although the front introduced the death penalty, but ... too afraid to shoot the then commanders. Yes, the detachments in our army have not yet thought of, decided to act in this way. We know that women’s battalions were defending the Winter Battalions in October 1917. In this film, the story of the creation of female percussion units is slightly opened.
Unter (later lieutenant) Maria Bochkareva is a real historical person. She got into the active army, at the request of Emperor Nicholas II. She is one of the commanders of the women's strike units. Marina Aronova just perfectly fit into the role. To be honest, I can’t imagine anyone else in this role. At least kill him, it's not working. Iron from the outside, inside she remains the same simple, unhappy Russian woman, suffering an unbearable husband. Her husband's beating at the front was a tough moment.
I will note that the confrontation between the Soldiers’ Committee and the Women’s Battalion is imposed throughout the film. But at this juxtaposition, we can imagine to what extent the front was destroyed. It was real. And for this we must say thank you to Kerensky and the Provisional Government with its “Declaration of the Rights of the Soldier and Citizen”.
Kerensky performed by Marat Basharov, I liked it. I am not a fan of Basharov’s talent. The hairstyle and the look. Kerensky doesn’t have much screen time, but here he looks naturalistic. If you compare Basharov with other actors who played Kerensky, for example, Mikhail Efremov (“Romanovs: crowned family”), Viktor Verzhbitsky (“Admiral”), then their Kerensky, well, just no.
Maria Kozhevnikova as the general’s daughter and a fighter of the death battalion... well, she did not impress me. Rakhmanova was more impressed, the Jew impressed more, but the State Duma deputy, here the weakest link. Even the haircut and straightening, she is not saved here.
Evgeny Dyatlov, Vladimir Zaitsev and Arthur Vakha also played well in the episodes. In some episodes, I had some questions. At the moment where the hero of Dyatlov, a colonel at the request of the regimental committee, removes his epaulettes before the attack. I doubt that the officer, especially the General Staff, cut off his epaulettes, at the request of some kind of bark? It all looks too strange, at least, not to say idiotic.
I will note that in some moments, the events with the fraternities of the Germans are shown quite convincingly. Yes, in moments of general anarchy and especially at the front, the Germans really came up with such a way of conducting intelligence. You don't have to go under bullets, cut barbed wire and risk your life all the time. I climbed into the enemy’s trench, shouted a few slogans, drunkenness, and it would seem that there had been no three years of hard war with the social upheavals that ensued from it.
It is a pity that it is not shown in the film of our military generals. Commander of the Petrograd Military District, General Polovtsev? He has never been to the front. All 1917 in the office, in the headquarters of the district, on Palace Square sat. Where's Kornilov? Where's Brusilov? Where is everyone?! Did he not command the Western Front in the summer of 1917? Here he is shown as a man, insignificant. And then in the film, it is clear that our parquet suite (with the exception of the colonel played by Dyatlov), is about to win the war, but the scoundrels-Bolsheviks prevented. At least I have that opinion.
Let the sacrifice of women fighters be shown, their courage, their contempt for death. But the film omits the fact that women's death battalions, after a failed summer offensive, were withdrawn to the rear to guard strategic targets and other minor tasks. Because of the high losses. According to some reports, these units lost up to 90% of their personnel during the battle. For comparison, the Cossack parts are 40%. But I am not going to compare hastily trained women to wars of cavalry. They have done their duty to their country. It is a pity that one question has not been answered. Why did these young women and girls die? For Kerensky? For a rotten power that decides nothing? But the filmmakers gave us a chance to answer that question. In the female shock units, as accurately seen in the film, went for various reasons, and not only representatives of the lower social strata.
In general, Dmitry Meskhiev made a good military-historical film, but in my opinion he showed everything in it too superficially. The screensaver at the beginning of the film "Military Historical Society" looks solid, but it seemed to me that the consultants of this organization about a lot was silent or forgotten. Even so, the film was successful. Realistic, even cruel in places picture.
About the film "Battalion", I learned a long time ago. In early 2012, Igor Ugolnikov said that in 2013 he plans to start production of a film on a military theme. I am familiar with the work of this producer, especially with "Brest Fortress" - I liked this film. It was realistic and brutal, but it did reflect the reality of the war. On "Fortress" spent 253 million rubles, and on "Battalion" about the same. It took me 3 years to learn more and more about the film. After watching the trailer, I became even more eager to watch the movie. The only thing frightening is the movie with a feminist accent. In fact, the film left me devastated and uncertain. It's too confusing to end.
After watching the mini-review "BadComedian", he said, perhaps a series should come out that will reveal the whole point to the end. And indeed, the creators simply did not have enough screen time. More than a year later, the long-awaited series I watched last night comes out. A total of 4 episodes of 53 minutes were presented. In short, 2 hours were added to the film. It's strange that the creators thought people would forget about the movie in a year. The series has a different name not "Battalion", but "Women's Battalion". Why, in fact, do you think?
Remember the same film "Battle for Sevastopol", which was also later released as a series. However, the title of this film does not reflect reality, but only distorts it, in comparison with the Battalion. Very heavy film, and in terms of plot and filming. The landscapes are beautiful, of course. Yes... what to say, all the camera work is worthy of a couple of Russian awards. Everything is so harmonious and contrasting that it is unbearably difficult to tear off the look. The atmosphere of the 20th century is 100% present.
Plot:
The monarchy is overthrown, the men do not want to fight. By order of the provisional government, a women's battalion under the command of Maria Bochkareva was created. Thus, they wanted the peasants to be ashamed, and they began a war they had forgotten.
Actors:
Let’s start with good work:
Maria Kozhevnikova, this time I was pleased with her work, she got used to the role of a former countess who is not broken in spirit. For the first time I see so many unknown actresses who play better than most modern actresses, such as Khodchenkova, Boyarskaya, Chipovskaya. Take an example! Liked: Valery Shkirando, Alena Kuchkova, Yanina Malinchik, Mila Makarova and Maria Antonova. They just played their roles beautifully. In the future, I want to see them on the screen much more often than those listed too “popular” actresses.
Let’s talk about Maria Aronova. She's the highlight of the movie. Maria not only managed to get into the image externally, but also played 200%. Throughout the film, I couldn’t take my eyes off her. Emotions beat over the edge after her words. It is fair, harsh and at the same time very weak. I wonder why she wasn’t nominated for the B award. Nick"? That's very stupid of the jury. Julia Peresild had a good role, but not as difficult and persistent as Aronova.
In the end, I gave the film a 7 because there was a lot that was understated. A full-length film series revealed everything to me. Those moments that were not told to us were fully revealed. So, who spit bile that the film is short and unsaid, then watch the series.
After a full review I put:
Recently it has become fashionable to shoot films of historical themes. An even bigger trend is the release of such tapes, timed to a certain memorable date. Sometimes there are really good pictures that you can see, especially on the anniversary of a particular temporary event. ' Battalion' Director Dmitry Meskhiev, released on the 100th anniversary of World War II, does not belong to this category.
You don’t have to be a trained historian to know that history itself is full of blank spots, having been rewritten throughout time in favor of one ruler or regime or another. For Russia, the theme of the First World War and the revolution associated with it is still very painful, full of questions and ambiguities. As for the proposed film version of historical events, it can be argued that the creators believe that the Russian soldier is a bastard and a coward, able to sell for German delicacies, and that without a Russian woman he has nothing to do on the battlefield. I do not dispute that throughout the world wars, women have been directly or indirectly involved; I bow my head to heroes of both sexes. But I refuse to believe the version presented to us in the film 'The Battalion'. Too many aspects were not shown at all, for example, the agitation of the Bolsheviks to renounce war with the Germans (and this is important, because our soldiers refused to fight for German food if they refused). But the blacks showed so much that the Russian people did not want to call them pigs. Here you and rudeness with muzzle in the women's garrison, and drunkenness with the Krauts in the embrace of our troops, and a hint of attempts to rape the Russian soldiers of the female battalion, and even to the delight of fans of the film ' Once upon a time there was one woman' Director Andrei Smirnov colorful beating husband of his wife. Feminists will appreciate it.
Surprised the casting. Yes, make-up artists tried, but the glamour is in the dirt and soot glamour (take at least the poster of a film with a sexy sculpted and spongy actress in military uniform). And why was the heroine of TNT star Maria Kozhevnikova needed? For Maria Kozhevnikova's sake? What is the meaning of her presence in the picture?
There are many downsides, to list for a long time. I will also name, perhaps inconceivably protracted timekeeping, a huge amount of empty escalation of the situation, empty cardboards instead of actors, Marat Basharova (again, the TNT star sits at the jury table in one famous & #39; mystical & #39; program, only this was crammed into the film). The film is empty and will soon be forgotten. It's a pity they'll be released like this a lot more.
It seems that the reviews of moviegoers are read mainly by moviegoers themselves. How else to explain that the native cinema is constantly on the same rake of their own ambitions and delusions? And how to explain that historical themes turn into melodramas in some “skillful” hands? I will try to explain such a harsh position.
Battalion is not the first film in which the authors try to show the viewer their vision of the distant First World War and revolutionary events in Russia. Recently, a similar topic was raised in the film Admiral, where Mr. Kolchak appears as the brightest person in the history of his native country. However, after reading the documentary, you understand that everything was not at all as shown in the movie. The Battalion is about the same story. Reviews of the work of Dmitry Meskhiev are diametrically opposite. Those who liked the film, note the bright play of the actors, high-quality shooting, the dynamic development of the plot. That is, mainly the external component of the picture, its wrapper. It is hard to disagree with them.
The main claims to the content of the film. The screen shows the tragic events of the spring and summer of 1917, when the Provisional Government of Russia created “Women’s Death Battalions”, in order to maintain the army from collapse and continue the war to a victorious end. The main character of the film, Maria Bochkareva is a real historical figure. In the film, she and her subordinates act as the saviors of the Fatherland. Their unparalleled courage is the last hope of the Motherland. If men refuse to fight for the freedom and independence of the country, let weak women be their example, and let men be ashamed. The film even depicts individual melodramatic lines. By the end we see the heroine of Maria Aronova, as in the Soviet film "Chairman" - and "husband beaten and enemy shot, alive." It is a pity that this has nothing to do with reality. Anyone who is curious will read it, at least on Wikipedia. No, the women's battalions were actually like Maria Bochkareva, the commander of one of them. And, indeed, she was a very extraordinary and courageous person. Is it worth it to be perpetuated? Is it necessary to glorify a person with a criminal past? Read about her life before the war. And she did not end well - she was not shot "suddenly" and had nothing to do. In short, it was a very controversial person.
In the film, women fight alone in a clean field, while male soldiers prepare to run home. Why, by the way, did not leave is not clear, in the plot they were not held. According to the memoirs of Denikin, who was one of the commanders in those places, the women's battalion fought as part of a regiment of one of the divisions, acted bravely, but suffered huge losses and was disbanded. Most importantly, they fought not alone, but together with other units. Why show half-truths? Why show that the army was completely disintegrated by abstract soldier committees? These committees were actually approved by order of the Provisional Government. This was after the February Revolution, when the Tsar was overthrown by his own generals. The government was revolutionary, and it was headed by SR Kerensky (in the film the hero of Marat Basharov), everyone played democracy. And soldiers of the battalion Bochkareva was sent to the front under the revolutionary French Marseillaise. "War to a victorious end" was the slogan of that government. He, almost a hundred years later, is echoed by the producer of the film, Mr. Ugolnikov, who in his interviews sincerely believes: “A few more months then Germany would have fallen, and the straits in the Mediterranean would have been ours, there would have been no Revolution.” He also sincerely believes that the Bolshevik traitors were to blame. They, not the tsarist elite, and then the liberal government, destroyed the country. So here's what we've got to learn from watching the Battalion. How easy it is to judge retroactively on a soft sofa. And this idea is anti-Bolshevik, anti-Soviet, pushed from film to film. There is no attempt to deal objectively with the past. In the USSR, only whites were bad, but now it is exactly the opposite. No objectivity. That's bad.
And many of Bochkareva’s contemporaries believed, and I join them, that the creation of such women’s units was a disgrace to the current government, which, having overthrown the tsar, could not solve any problems. But she just destroyed everything she could and fled abroad, like Kerensky, hiding behind women in soldiers' uniforms. And it's not just women who were really examples of courage. Could they have solved the country’s then-global economic and social problems? The tragedy of these battalions is that they were given less than a month to prepare, and then sent to slaughter against one of the strongest armies in Europe. Where is an example of pride? What should we admire? Paphos and epic in the film with excess, and the real meaning and truthfulness is not enough. Authors should read history books before taking on serious topics. Evaluation only for the shooting and partly for the play of Maria Aronova.
3 out of 10
It's a good movie and it's wonderful that it's been so widely advertised. How this rarely coincides in Russian realities, when the wide advertising of the film and its good quality meet together.
The film, based on real events, will tell about the “battalion of death”, which was created by the government during the First World War to raise the morale of the entire army under the leadership of Maria Bochkareva.
It made a great tape. In the beginning beautifully shown St. Petersburg of the early twentieth century, elegant conversations and courageous officers. But then the movie takes us into something else. The horrors of war, but there is not much war. But more than that, the film demonstrates the heroism of women who defended their homeland better than any men who willingly went to war for the sake of their already disintegrating country.
The cast of the tape is very colorful. There are many famous people in Russia. But most of all I would like to note the heroine of Maria Bochkareva – Maria Aronov. It shows the wide range of emotions and experiences inherent in a woman who must be a stern leader to prevent the slackness of the battalion, and at the same time Maria shows that she is a woman and that she too has emotions, that she, as a mother, cares for every girl in her battalion.
In addition to the actors, I would like to mention the camera work. Black white inserts of historical shootings remind the viewer that this is all a real story.
In general, the Battalion is a good picture in honor of the great “battalion of death”. But beyond that, the film offers hope of reviving our cinema.
8 out of 10
That’s the emotion of watching this movie. From the very beginning, in the episode when the girls began to cut, the heartbeat increased. Throughout the film, we see such tragic and exciting moments (beating women, their training, killing girls, etc.) that even the most callous person should wake up, something should alarm him, which will make him sympathize with the main characters. Again, many people have felt this way since the beginning of the film. That is why it is considered ' a heavy film'.
The saddest thing about this story is that it is not made up. And such girls really existed in the history of Russia. They asked for the front for various reasons and circumstances, they were ready to die for the good of the Motherland, they could do anything. With these actions, they certainly deserve respect. And in my opinion, it is very good that such heroes are remembered and made films about them even after a hundred years.
Yes, it is impossible to say that this is the first and only film about the female share in the war (both in the First World War and in the Great Patriotic War). All these films (' And the dawns here are quiet...', 'Night Swallows', 'Don't Leave Me' etc.) undoubtedly command respect. Equally worthy of this respect are the film crew, the cast, and all involved in such projects. Thank you very much.
I think the cast should stay longer. The main task of the actor is to transfer the viewer to the atmosphere he sees on the screen. With this task, this film coped. You couldn't get away from the screen. Yes, there is love and cruelty in the face of women and men, and a variety of heroic deeds.
If you thank each actor individually and write a few lines about him, then this review will turn into a page of praise. But it is impossible not to mention Maria Aronov, it seemed that she would never have a serious role in the movie, as she herself is a very smiling person and has a sense of humor. But here we meet her as commander 'battalion of death' with some cruelty, stubbornness, but at the same time with a sense of compassion. What made her accept such a role? It's a big mystery, but it's commendable. Applause standing up!
Many say, and some even complain, they say ' films about the war we shoot in packs, and another can not' So if we're good at it, why not? There must be something for the viewer to enjoy. And to domestic films, many are biased, regardless of their genre. So what do you want to do?
The plot of the film, the narrative itself, I think, does not raise questions. Everything is done at the highest level: scenery, costumes, ' correspondence ' of that era. What else can I say? Enchanting!
Summing up my review, we can say that the film leaves indelible impressions, literally touches the soul, makes you think about the courage of the main characters (no matter how paradoxical it may sound). All emotions, unfortunately, I could not write. So just take it and see for yourself! You will not regret your time spent, I assure you!
10 out of 10
I want to begin my review with an excerpt from a real letter of Russian Women to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia dated 14.05.1918. When I watched it, I remembered a few lines from that letter. I can't pass by.
Everything that is best in the soul of a woman, holy, pure, tender, that we can only pass on to our child - we are Russian women - we put at your feet.
Thank you for the best years of our childhood, when we loved our homeland and believed in people, thank you for your attitude to women, let the Queen kiss your beautiful clean eyes - If we were not afraid to harm you, we women would reach out and carry you in our arms.
Live, Sovereign, breathe the same air with us - we are all ready to die for you!
Before posting a review, I read a few of the published ones. I cannot help but express my opinion about the religious propaganda allegedly (even if not explicitly) present in this film.
She's not here. There are several scenes where prayer is present. But is that propaganda? If you think so, what is this movie about again? This is a film about the Russian War. The war of the Russian people. I don’t know, and I don’t want to argue and judge what Russia is now, but then Russia was an Orthodox country, and despite the fact that at that time they tried to eradicate religion from public consciousness, they were Orthodox people. It would be strange if women did not turn to God. Really weird. A decisive divine intervention? It is no one’s fault that in the face of death, believers recite prayers... these women would recite the prayer anyway. That's all.
The film.
How subtly shown in this film is the physical - exactly physical! - weakness of a woman ... she can not be on a par with a man - she is fragile, weak, not created to shoot at the enemy with a bayonet. Not to kill, to hide the Russian land with your body. Oh, not for that at all... Created - to collect flowers in the field, to decorate the world around, to be near a man - with his help. Nearby, not in front.
At the beginning of the film, when these girls, very young girls, get into the battalion and pass the first exam - it seems that they can do anything. Step in formation, run an obstacle course, bayonet, shoot at a target ... but war! war is not training, not play - life. Scary, mortal... _Real_
And how subtly shown in the film is the power of a spiritual woman!
While ...
Men. men have thrown off the king, started a war. Men drink schnapps on the brewdershaft with the enemy and refuse to shed blood for the Motherland, which they themselves plunged into chaos of powerlessness, senselessness and horror. Men would rather shoot their commander than go to shoot at the enemy, risking their lives for the Motherland. Men who have abandoned their homeland.
It is the woman who goes forward. Fearless. With tears. Fragile. I can't. Coming forward. Dying. Falling. Going forward.
That's so bad! And how it hurts!
It hurts so much that you can't even breathe. In the scene when Bochkareva meets her husband... and there are so many men... are there men?
Soldiers.
Only a woman can give people hope.
Yes, there is still - there are still - men are real, strong. Ready to fight. But they were also ... inspired by a woman.
You have to watch this movie only to see the truth, not covered, not polished. Just the truth. Just the way it is. Vile, dirty... and insanely strong.
A woman. Russian Woman. Amen.
The film leaves a double impression: on the one hand, it is felt that it is banal not finished, on the other hand, the atmosphere of the time when the old state was dying, and the new one was not yet born on its fragments is well conveyed. The biggest omission comes down to the fact that in the film you do not particularly empathize with anyone – there are a lot of heroines, the story and motives of each are not disclosed, screen time is allocated very little. And taking into account the fact that all girls wear the same overcoats and have the same hairstyle, it becomes very difficult to distinguish one character from another, except for the case of a very specific appearance (a peasant woman) or the recognition of the performer of the role (Maria Kozhevnikova).
As a result, the motives of the heroines become completely incomprehensible: a girl who lost her fiancé there goes to war - her motivation is clear: she wants revenge. Why are the others coming? Patriotic rise? But it's not shown in any way. On the other hand, the motivation of the men who refused to continue fighting is clear to anyone who knows even a little bit about history. To understand what was happening at that time, it is enough to give the following facts. Russian industry was able to produce enough ammunition only by 1917 - before that the artillery was experiencing a terrible shortage of shells. It was the third year of the war... But the produced shells still need to be transported and distributed. There is a myth that under Stalin fought with one rifle on seven – the problem is that under Nicholas II really fought without ammunition. And this is confirmed in the memoirs of Churchill, who is difficult to accuse of love for the Bolsheviks. It is Churchill who laments that Russia came out of the war (World War I), when its industry had just adapted to work at the front (and this is about 1918!).
Marshal Zhukov is credited with saying that "babs are born again." The fact is that in the first year of World War I, Russia lost more than a million dead and wounded (some of whom later died). It is impossible to say how reliable the story is, but when the Allies proposed to Nicholas II to give up offensive operations for a while – given the monstrous losses of personnel – the Russian emperor said that Russia would sacrifice as much as it needed to win. Perhaps this is fiction, but given the Hodynka and Bloody Sunday, the Tsar hardly worried much about the deaths of his subjects. Finally, food at the front – and this is shown in the film: pea porridge without signs of “beef yogurt” as in school – was not the best. What if one of the reasons for the uprising on the battleship "Potemkin" was that the sailors tried to feed meat with worms!
Naturally, soldiers’ committees also disintegrated the army, informing and misinforming about what was happening in the rear. Russia at that time was mainly a peasant country, and in the army served in the mass of their peasants, for whom the most important thing is a piece of land in their native farm. How did they hear that while they risked their lives, were maimed hundreds of miles from their home for goals that were incomprehensible to them ("The Tsar said!" - and the Tsar is no longer on the throne, and in Russia there is always a good tsar and bad boyars, at that time the Provisional Government), their land is divided without them? How do you know that when you come home without a leg or an arm, with shrapnel in your side, you have nothing left in your village? Finally, people have already sat in the trenches for more than 2 years.
This moment in the film is worked out best. Of course, the motivation remained behind the scenes, cause-and-effect relationships are not found, and people who refuse to war are represented by cattle (which, of course, is partly true - there are moral freaks everywhere, and even more so in war: people are angry, frightened, fierce). The "Battalion of Death" against this background appears to be a standard of nobility and combat capability, is exhibited almost the only real force on the entire front (which is craftiness, read the history, for example, of the Wild Division). But we must pay tribute to the creators of the film: they did not represent the girls of the “Battalion of Death” with some superhumans, packs tearing apart enemies with almost bare hands – these are ordinary people who died in masses, were injured and concussed and just as could not do the work of the entire army alone.
I did not like the elaboration of dialogues – they are very modern, and to give a touch of antiquity, old forms of alliances and prepositions are periodically used (“ali” instead of “or”). The problem is that it's not enough. You can give an analogy: the film “And the dawns here are quiet” in 2015 – Petty Officer Vaskov speaks in a clear viewer, but at the same time different in style from the modern language. In this regard, "Battalion" did not stand out - there is an ordinary modern speech, somewhat disguised with old-fashioned words.
The worst thing is that it is from such trifles that the general impression about the film is formed: due to the fact that the characters do not have enough time to reveal, you begin to empathize at the very end of the film, when it is too late. Since there is no explanation of the motivation of the characters, it is very difficult to associate yourself with him - there is an understanding that girls sacrifice themselves, that they do the right thing, but this does not cause complicity, because the viewer does not know anything about the heroines - they are strangers. Modern style of speech pulls out of immersion in the world of the early XX century, subconsciously feels that everything that happens is not real (although based on real events), that it is only a theatrical production. And these little things greatly weaken the film, the idea of which is good, and the feat covered by it is really great.
6 out of 10
In short, it’s a good propaganda film, and a bad movie in general. Historically, the film is bad as a war movie-bad, zero drama, heroine-dumb chicken. A very strange topic for glorifying the First World War, to be honest. In the history of this war there are many real examples of tragic heroism. And since 'Battalion' - a gift for March 8, heroism had to be sucked out of the finger.
Historical certainty is completely absent, both in general and in detail. Apparently, she was sacrificed to the main idea of the film ' Men-goats do not want to defend their homeland, again all the women will have to do' The reasons why the army disintegrated and refused to fight tactically remained intact. Nothing is said about huge losses, retreats, shortages of essential equipment, 3 million captured Russian soldiers. There is none of this, the Great Empire is being corroded from within by some evil forces, and stupid soldiers are being led and do not want to fight. That's the whole story.
Actually, the fighting is shown so that there is no doubt: CA netlenka is the weaker sex. Everything is illogical, crooked and completely stupid, 'female' vision of war. When the Amazons lit hay in their rear to cut off their escape routes in a night attack, I almost broke the monitor. You could've just shot yourself. The result would be the same.
Heroes are all like one cardboard: noble - noble, vile - mean. It seems that a certain action develops that directly affects the fate of the heroes, and no, the heroes themselves do not change. Therefore, the war does not seem to be a horror and drama, business, shot and all. Well, killed someone there... By the way, I did not remember any names of soldiers!! In ', Brothers in Arms & #39, there were more heroes, and I remember them all. And there is even nothing to cling to, no character, one cardboard rustles.
The love line was pushed not even on the second, but on the tenth plan. One soldier only runs at night, and even then to a lawful, married husband. It's not like these guys, assholes, just to rape.
Well, finally, to pay tribute to the heroines, the creators deafeningly fart in the puddle - in the credits write ' Women continued to create battalions' Women's battalions were not created by women, but by the Provisional Government. The women in them only served as Kerensky’s personal guard. The battle of the battalion Bochkareva was the first and only one in history. Assessing the huge losses of the female battalion, the command moved it to the rear, as well as all the newly formed. Women did not control these processes and did not influence anything there. The credits for the film include the Russian Military Historical Society. . .
P. S. I read the info that this masterpiece was mounted from a TV series, which will soon please us on one of the TV channels. I wonder what the show will be about. The film shows in general everything that is possible on this topic, and even composed pretty. I'll have to watch it again.
Shoot the commander in the chest! ... oh, wait, I forgot my bra.
I watched the reviews written before me. The strange combination is that the vast majority of reviews from professional critics are negative and from ordinary viewers positive. That is, even despite the heroic, such a topical and in-demand theme, professionals cannot keep silent about the wretchedness of this movie, and ordinary people are ready to watch this low-grade, and even praise. Here you do not even know what to do: either to be happy that after all not all reviews are custom-made and censored, or to be upset that our ordinary people, whatever you show them, everyone will eat.
In my school years there was such a joke: the girl pretended to swing a heroic gesture on her chest a sweater and shouts ' Shoot in the chest of the commander!' then changes the tone to fiery and shy, smells the sweater back and adds '... oh wait, bra forgot' This is a great joke that characterizes this film.
I won't be spreading for long. I will say briefly and clearly - this is not a historical film ... this is not a monumental film ... this is not a melodramatic film ... this is not a movie.
The first and most important point is a terribly poor scenario. You just can't write so badly! Four adult men wrote about the women's battalion, and even with the opportunity to rely on real historical events and characters - and it feels like a group of first-year students wrote their first-ever script. It's just a set of individual scenes. A kind of sketch in the style ' pseudoheroism-suffocation-pseudoheroism': ' our regiment will stand in the rain until morning' - ' I'm pregnant' - ' our battalion has passed the obstacle course' - ' my deceased groom is alive' - ' I collect daisks' - 'Oy, the Germans go'... It's just a comic. Everything is primitive, concrete and incoherent.
Actors play according to the standard scale of our cinema today - i.e. from ' average' to ' very bad'.
The question for the director is, what is his role? As they say, well, you see that everything is bad - that neither reality does not work, nor a fairy tale, nor a historical costume film - but only clumsy shooting of props and nature (and inside it, props of the same, the actors sit and move) - so come up with at least some chip to clear your conscience. Nah, why, that's fine. A budget of 10 million has been implemented.
4 out of 10
Having in his resume a number of well-appreciated by the audience and critics, director Dmitry Meskhiev for his new film took the theme of the First World War, and more specifically, the women’s battalions that existed then. The theme is more than fertile for a good military drama, emotional, psychologically complex and, moreover, unbeatable. Looking ahead, we can say that the director, although not perfectly coped with the task, but behind Bondarchuk in the producers and PR Allochka from “Univer” dug in a surprisingly worthy film that can not only play on emotions, squeeze tears from my eyes.
First of all, Maria Aronova deserves attention (in fairness she should be on the cover of all DVDs and on all posters for the film ... in fairness, but not according to the rules of advertising) who, if her game did not atone for all the sins of the film, then at least half of them. People who remember this woman as a hat saleswoman from "Soldiers", flirting with a young officer - prepare to be quite surprised. Even outwardly, she looks like her historical prototype, and for the sake of acting, she does give us a real benefit, showing both a harsh soldier and flaunting everything female that no war can take away.
There are three deterrent factors from viewing: Maria Kozhevnikova, Ur-patriotism and a tear presser. About the first, I can reassure – yes, a miracle did not happen, and the play of this actress leaves much to be desired, but despite the fierce use in the advertising campaign, her character will not be with us the whole film, but only half, unlike Aronova. The second is present, and unfortunately, like the third, it periodically crosses the border of good taste. But not as often as you might expect. And the pitch is not as rough as in most modern domestic films about the war.
You can also complain about the insufficiently deeply disclosed topic, sacrificing psychologicalism and revealing the characters, Meskhiev, periodically includes the regime “Patriotic Cinema of the 21st Century in Russia” and very one-sidedly shows a bad soldier and good officers, shows the desire to kill enemies as completely right and good, and the unwillingness to fight – only as cowardice and betrayal, without going into details, without answering the questions – “why” and “how”.
The heroine of Kozhevnikova turned out to be flat and not interesting. According to the precepts of Mikhalkov, this is a pure soul countess, against the background of which, even despite the dirty shape and shaved count curls, the rest look like having nothing holy. Yes, perhaps with a deeper character Kozhevnikov could not cope, but it can not be said that she spoiled the picture. She looked surprisingly organic, but scantily spelled character she with his game to pull, of course, not in a state.
In the dry residue, we have a picture made at a good technical level, with an acting game of the range from “good to excellent” and an interesting historical period, revealed not one hundred percent, but also in this state deserving of audience attention.