Maybe it's the best Soviet movie that ever appeared. The date is 1920, when the White armies were finally defeated and driven out by Bolsheviks. The ultimate battle took place in Crimea, a small peninsula in the South Russia. We can see the battle from different points of view. Four central actors are astonishing. Yankovski, as a intellectual who fights for the Revolution but cannot blindly believe in its ideology; Bykov, playing a real Red commissary, naive as a child, cruel and enthusiastic; Vysotski, a White officer, disillusioned and sardonic; Savvina, a White nurse, patriot of Russia and of 'White cause'. Many episodes will stay in your memory forever, as, for example, the White officers who enter the sea, preferring death to giving up. The movie is enlightened by a wonderful sense of humor - sometimes simple and robust, when coming from Red soldiers, sometimes elegant and melancholic with the noble officers.
3 Reviews
An unknown classic!
zemba7-817-690808 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
One of the great anti-war films ever made, hardly known in the West. Hard to follow if you know nothing about the Russian Civil War but this does not detract in the least. A fascinating film, beautifully acted, and with some fantastic war scenes. And the late, great Oleg Yankovsky, Russia's greatest actor and one of the five greatest of all time, is brilliant in one of his first big roles. Should be studied in all classes of Russian history. As powerful a film as Paths of Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front and The Human Condition.
SPOILERS!!! The last three scenes, excluding a brief coda, are very upsetting! A White soldier, having one shot left in his rifle before leaving the conflict, randomly shots and kills a Russian soldier (Yankovsky) who is a man of peace. A group of White Russans, surrounded and backed into the sea, refuse to surrender and march into the surf and die. Most do this at first and, finally, they all do. I think this is based on a true incident. Lastly is one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever filmed. A soldier, getting on a passenger ship to escape the war, cannot take his horse on the evacuation ship, though he tries. The horse, frightened, now runs back and forth on the pier, not knowing what to do. Finally he jumps into the sea and tries to follow the departing ship and drowns. The scene is almost unwatchable.
You can do much worse than try this Yankovsky film.
SPOILERS!!! The last three scenes, excluding a brief coda, are very upsetting! A White soldier, having one shot left in his rifle before leaving the conflict, randomly shots and kills a Russian soldier (Yankovsky) who is a man of peace. A group of White Russans, surrounded and backed into the sea, refuse to surrender and march into the surf and die. Most do this at first and, finally, they all do. I think this is based on a true incident. Lastly is one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever filmed. A soldier, getting on a passenger ship to escape the war, cannot take his horse on the evacuation ship, though he tries. The horse, frightened, now runs back and forth on the pier, not knowing what to do. Finally he jumps into the sea and tries to follow the departing ship and drowns. The scene is almost unwatchable.
You can do much worse than try this Yankovsky film.
How the Red heroes liberated Crimea or the Last Battle of the Civil War
lyubitelfilmov30 January 2023
Tragicomedy, historical and military drama. One of my favorite childhood paintings, which I watched and reviewed countless times, and every time I worried about the characters again, even though I already knew the ending. And now, after a certain number of years, and having gained knowledge and life experience, I decided to see if this picture is so good now, is it outdated? Is it relevant? And I can definitely say yes. It is good now, it is not outdated, and it is relevant. And here's my brief opinion for you - How the red heroes liberated Crimea. And although I have nostalgic feelings for the picture, today I noticed some things that are worth noting in a separate paragraph, but for now I will focus your attention on the expressive merits of this masterpiece of Soviet cinema.
So, here they are: 1. The scenario is November 1920. The civil War in Russia almost ended with the victory of the Red Army. Only the Crimea remains, which is held by the most fanatical whites led by Baron Wrangel. The Red Army is tasked with assuring the defeat of the whites in the shortest possible time and liberating the Crimea from this evil. To do this, it is necessary to conduct reconnaissance of enemy positions, which will be performed by private Andrey Nekrasov and the private assigned to him as assistants (former komroty, demoted to private for unauthorized actions) Ivan Karjakin. But this was only the beginning of this amazing friendship between two such dissimilar personalities. And the second line is dedicated to the furious white man and the irreconcilable enemy of the Reds, Lieutenant Brusentsov, who is shown both as a noble and a vile man. Adventures are waiting for us both in Tavria and battles for the Crimea, including the storming of the Turkish rampart and the crossing of the Sivash, because the last battle of the reds and whites was the fiercest. And the finale will make you both happy and sad at the same time, because a considerable number of lives were paid for the liberation of Crimea. Dialogues are something, they are witty, but so vital that I remember almost all of them by heart (I especially remember this phrase "Like my grandmother in the garden"). The characters of the characters are worked out deeply and thoroughly, almost all the characters can be remembered. My respects to the screenwriters (Julius Dunsky, Valery Frid).
2. Humor - there is a lot of it here, and if it were not for the abundance of dramatic moments and not the time of action, then one could take this picture for a comedy, because the humor here is everyday, there is no affectation in it, although in some moments they overdid it, but I will not count it as a minus. The composition performed by Anatoly Papanov is a kind of "father" for Nekrasov, Karyakin and in general all the fighters of his regiment. Very sensitive and reasonable. And Lieutenant Brusentsov contributes to the local humor with his witticisms.
3. Battle scenes - this picture is also a military and historical drama, so the storming of the Crimea and the battles with the Whites and Makhnovists are also here, and they were shot very well for the end of the sixties. Yes, in our twenty-first century they look more caricatured, but we always give Soviet paintings a discount on the time of their release, so we need to do the same here. It can be seen that military consultants worked on the picture, including those who stormed the Crimea in 1920 (and maybe in 1944). The heart bleeds when the red heroes die under artillery and machine-gun fire of the Belyaks.
4. Vivid images - I have already partially talked about this above, but I can't help but mention it separately in order to once again deservedly praise the creators of the picture. For it shows both sides of the conflict, but the creators showed why the whites lost - because they fought with the Russian people, whom they did not understand, and who did not understand them, because behind the external nobility and beautiful form there was a rotten inside, a readiness for meanness and treachery for the sake of momentary goals (remember the episode with the wedding or the initial the scene with the lieutenant). And for the Reds there were the people, the worker Karyakin and Popovich Nekrasov, the paramedic Frunze and the shoemaker Stalin, the Cossack Shaposhnikov and the nobleman Karbyshev, and so on (remember the episode with the doctor and the teaching of the alphabet). That's why the Reds won that war, so for me they are real heroes, whom I admire. Yes, there were good people among the whites, too, but they were an insignificant minority, and they could not influence the balance of power, and at that time only the most zealous followers of the white idea remained in Crimea, and they fought zealously for the Crimea (we forget about the white terror against everyone who even looks askance at them "nobility"). And after that, is it worth feeling sorry for these officers who were drowned in barges? Seriously?
Now about some things that my tongue won't turn to call cons. Well, there is practically no subordination in the picture, which drives one into slight bewilderment, the movements of the heroes are too fast, the escape from Makhnovist captivity (or rather its finale) looks too comical. The Turkish rampart is represented by a kind of fortress, which in reality was not. There were lines of trenches, machine guns and cannons, but there were no fortresses spitting flamethrowers.
A little about the main characters: 1. Andrey Nekrasov, performed by Oleg Yankovsky, is a private of the Red Army, of "alien origin", who voluntarily arrived in the army to finish off Wrangel, a former student who had experience with photographic equipment, which would be useful to him in the service. A strict, intelligent, reasonable man who showed ingenuity and bravery on the battlefield, whose role was perfectly performed by the wonderful actor Oleg Ivanovich Yankovsky. Bravo!
2. Ivan Karyakin, performed by Roland Bykov, is a "shirt-guy", an optimist, a merry fellow and a joker, vigilantly watching "unreliable" comrades, but he is ready to rush into fire and water for a friend, leadership habits have not gone anywhere, but they are justified, because the character evokes a lively response in the heart. It was performed by the equally charismatic and magnificent actor Roland Antonovich Bykov. Bravo!
3. Alexander Brusentsov, performed by Vladimir Vysotsky, is a lieutenant of the Wrangel army, an ardent anti-communist, although a fanatic, but not devoid of such qualities as reasonableness and understanding of the truth, is shown at the same time as a noble and vile character, whom in the end you already hate for all his actions. Vladimir Semenovich played the lieutenant superbly, one cannot argue with this, but his character only causes rejection, because not the best is hidden behind a pleasant appearance. Bravo!
The picture is good, and I will review it further with great pleasure, because it shows the human character, our strengths and weaknesses, how we should and should not act in this life (for example, after a fight, do not wave your fists).
My rating is 10 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
So, here they are: 1. The scenario is November 1920. The civil War in Russia almost ended with the victory of the Red Army. Only the Crimea remains, which is held by the most fanatical whites led by Baron Wrangel. The Red Army is tasked with assuring the defeat of the whites in the shortest possible time and liberating the Crimea from this evil. To do this, it is necessary to conduct reconnaissance of enemy positions, which will be performed by private Andrey Nekrasov and the private assigned to him as assistants (former komroty, demoted to private for unauthorized actions) Ivan Karjakin. But this was only the beginning of this amazing friendship between two such dissimilar personalities. And the second line is dedicated to the furious white man and the irreconcilable enemy of the Reds, Lieutenant Brusentsov, who is shown both as a noble and a vile man. Adventures are waiting for us both in Tavria and battles for the Crimea, including the storming of the Turkish rampart and the crossing of the Sivash, because the last battle of the reds and whites was the fiercest. And the finale will make you both happy and sad at the same time, because a considerable number of lives were paid for the liberation of Crimea. Dialogues are something, they are witty, but so vital that I remember almost all of them by heart (I especially remember this phrase "Like my grandmother in the garden"). The characters of the characters are worked out deeply and thoroughly, almost all the characters can be remembered. My respects to the screenwriters (Julius Dunsky, Valery Frid).
2. Humor - there is a lot of it here, and if it were not for the abundance of dramatic moments and not the time of action, then one could take this picture for a comedy, because the humor here is everyday, there is no affectation in it, although in some moments they overdid it, but I will not count it as a minus. The composition performed by Anatoly Papanov is a kind of "father" for Nekrasov, Karyakin and in general all the fighters of his regiment. Very sensitive and reasonable. And Lieutenant Brusentsov contributes to the local humor with his witticisms.
3. Battle scenes - this picture is also a military and historical drama, so the storming of the Crimea and the battles with the Whites and Makhnovists are also here, and they were shot very well for the end of the sixties. Yes, in our twenty-first century they look more caricatured, but we always give Soviet paintings a discount on the time of their release, so we need to do the same here. It can be seen that military consultants worked on the picture, including those who stormed the Crimea in 1920 (and maybe in 1944). The heart bleeds when the red heroes die under artillery and machine-gun fire of the Belyaks.
4. Vivid images - I have already partially talked about this above, but I can't help but mention it separately in order to once again deservedly praise the creators of the picture. For it shows both sides of the conflict, but the creators showed why the whites lost - because they fought with the Russian people, whom they did not understand, and who did not understand them, because behind the external nobility and beautiful form there was a rotten inside, a readiness for meanness and treachery for the sake of momentary goals (remember the episode with the wedding or the initial the scene with the lieutenant). And for the Reds there were the people, the worker Karyakin and Popovich Nekrasov, the paramedic Frunze and the shoemaker Stalin, the Cossack Shaposhnikov and the nobleman Karbyshev, and so on (remember the episode with the doctor and the teaching of the alphabet). That's why the Reds won that war, so for me they are real heroes, whom I admire. Yes, there were good people among the whites, too, but they were an insignificant minority, and they could not influence the balance of power, and at that time only the most zealous followers of the white idea remained in Crimea, and they fought zealously for the Crimea (we forget about the white terror against everyone who even looks askance at them "nobility"). And after that, is it worth feeling sorry for these officers who were drowned in barges? Seriously?
Now about some things that my tongue won't turn to call cons. Well, there is practically no subordination in the picture, which drives one into slight bewilderment, the movements of the heroes are too fast, the escape from Makhnovist captivity (or rather its finale) looks too comical. The Turkish rampart is represented by a kind of fortress, which in reality was not. There were lines of trenches, machine guns and cannons, but there were no fortresses spitting flamethrowers.
A little about the main characters: 1. Andrey Nekrasov, performed by Oleg Yankovsky, is a private of the Red Army, of "alien origin", who voluntarily arrived in the army to finish off Wrangel, a former student who had experience with photographic equipment, which would be useful to him in the service. A strict, intelligent, reasonable man who showed ingenuity and bravery on the battlefield, whose role was perfectly performed by the wonderful actor Oleg Ivanovich Yankovsky. Bravo!
2. Ivan Karyakin, performed by Roland Bykov, is a "shirt-guy", an optimist, a merry fellow and a joker, vigilantly watching "unreliable" comrades, but he is ready to rush into fire and water for a friend, leadership habits have not gone anywhere, but they are justified, because the character evokes a lively response in the heart. It was performed by the equally charismatic and magnificent actor Roland Antonovich Bykov. Bravo!
3. Alexander Brusentsov, performed by Vladimir Vysotsky, is a lieutenant of the Wrangel army, an ardent anti-communist, although a fanatic, but not devoid of such qualities as reasonableness and understanding of the truth, is shown at the same time as a noble and vile character, whom in the end you already hate for all his actions. Vladimir Semenovich played the lieutenant superbly, one cannot argue with this, but his character only causes rejection, because not the best is hidden behind a pleasant appearance. Bravo!
The picture is good, and I will review it further with great pleasure, because it shows the human character, our strengths and weaknesses, how we should and should not act in this life (for example, after a fight, do not wave your fists).
My rating is 10 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
