NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Bene Cumb In "socialist" times Russian films were always and everywhere, with very few Western films shown, thus, in recent decades, I have not felt any particular urge to (re)watch Russian films, especially post-Soviet ones. But we all have our weaknesses and curiosities :) plus incidents happen... Svolochi is meant to be a historical film, about WWII in the rear area far away from actual battles (somewhere in Kazakshtan), but it has turned out that it is all pure fiction - presented not very convincingly, with the exception of Russian crime scene and obscene language perhaps (not accurately translated into English). Reactions to the boys' behaviour and language by military personnel are odd, if not more, and adult military characters are atypical to the Stalin era - they seem hesitant, weak, speaking mostly gently, and the actors performing them are not front-rank... The ending dating back to 1943 is hectic and airy-fairy, and the very ending is quite ridiculous, taking into account modern opportunities in finding former acquaintances.The film is "saved" by two good performances - Alexander Golovin as Kot and Sergey Rychakov as Tjapa; they squeeze the best/most out of this inconsistent story and focusing on their chemistry enables to wend your way through this 1.5 hour film without wtf! attitudes. But still, Svolochi is not a film you definitely must see, particularly if you have some knowledge of Russian values and language.

hirszowski-1 I watched the film having in mind well known facts how Stalin and his commanders treated people and soldiers in particular. What seems unbelievable to reviewers, i.e. the option granted to the kids by the government: "go on to get killed or we shall kill you", was in fact a common practice in the Soviet Army (and in the political system as the whole) KGB troops that followed soldiers on the battle field during hopeless attacks, only to kill each soldier who would try to withdraw, go slower than ordered, dodge the bullets etc. (and soldiers were aware of that!) was a regular scenario of many, then famous, battles for which Stalin's generals were decorated with kilograms of medals! In this film the difference lies only in that the "choice" was given to kids rather than to men who were forced to serve in the army, after all. Of course, I am talking about the core of the situation portrayed in the film and not arguing that whole plot from start to end is in each detail totally believable.I am surprised to find so many reviewers who firmly state that the Soviets could not use children in this way. From the military point of view it is not necessarily unbelievable: just study the history of antifascist underground armies in Poland and elsewhere, where kids (with their innocent look and presumable lack of skills) occurred clever enough to vitally help many sabotage actions, and you'll find how naive some presumptions presented here may occur.I am perplexed to read that the Stalin's regime was not that bad as it may seem based on this movie. Gulags, KGB secret actions, great starvation of the 30s that took 30 mln lives only to silent and eliminate a population of people who were resisting the regime and were not submissive enough to allow Stalin to get them deprived of their own land (farms) and many more facts are unknown, have been forgotten or are we witnessing a kind of common amnesia? A concept much more believable to me would be that the whole advertising noise about the movie was well scheduled only to invoke a "reverse reaction", i.e. "public" claim in Russia and particularly in the free world that "Stalin was not that bad". Too twisted or too clever? No, oppressive regimes have always been more clever than systems based on civilized standards. I hope we'll not be forced to try and experience whether this statement is true or not.As a former tutor in a correction house for juvenile criminals I find the movie psychologically very believable. I liked that the film showed a human dimension of people in a totally inhuman world. Professional features of the movie did not, in my opinion, give raise to any serious criticism and I found some scenes done perfectly. It's definitely not a movie for people whose perception was shaped and is embedded in today's Hollywood standards. Thanks for your attention and patience (if any) to read my review until the last dot.

dbborroughs On the box Bastards (its English title) was billed as the Russian Battle Royal. Actually this is closer to the Dirty Dozen with kids. The premise of the story, which is at least based in some truth, is that during the Second World War the Soviets took the kids they arrested with Capital crimes and gave them a choice be shot or atone with blood, ie. take on suicide missions (something the Soviets really gave their criminals). They are brought to a mountain top training facility where they are trained by military men, some of whom are in equally dire circumstances. The film follows some of the boys and some of the trainers. Its an often nasty look at the cost of war, and of the soviets. Its clear that the boys are not afraid of anything, at least until faced with death because of some things they've done. The fear is used to some extent by their trainers who execute anyone who doesn't do what they are suppose to or in one case kill another boy they owe money to. The film mostly concerns the training but in the late stages we watch as several boys are sent out on a mission and their trainers, who now view the boys as sons, wait to see if they will return. This is a good little film. The film for the most part is all about the characters and thats where the film scores. The kids are the right amount of cocky and fearful.The adults are nicely tough, loving and bewildered. Its a good mix. The action when it happens is good. If there is a flaw its that the film is too breezy at 97 minutes which left me wanting to see more of many scenes at the training camp. That said the film is worth a look.

Anastasia Foreigners might not know but in Russia the movie was at first promoted as "absolutely true story" which the author of the book survived himself. Thats why the attention to it was so great (to say nothing of the persistent advertising). And then it turned out, quite all of a sudden, it was just the author's fantasy, it's not true, no kids were made terminators in the soviet time and sent to Nazis to heroically die. and there are even documents proving that is what Nazis tried to do! The trick as you may have understood is soooo bad! To draw attention at any price? To rewrite history blaming soviet people for what they had never done? OK, we are grownups, we can just ignore the movie or its historical part, but what to do with kids who watched it... Alongside with the ongoing brainwashing how bad everything was at the soviet time. Making them ashamed for the past?If our ministry of culture thinks suitable to sponsor such movies, i don't know what for culture they have there. Apart from the history, the producers did everything to get tears out of us - poor kids in so hard conditions: hard life made them criminals (ah so) cruel power makes them kamikaze (oh really). such a fake. Would you watch this movie if characters were not that young?And big thanks to Menshov, the producer of "Moscow doesn't believe in tears", a good movie made in the soviet time, for his refusing to give the award to Svolochi at some MTV ceremony. That was unbelievable and wonderful!And today it's Victory Day in Russia and i would like to say thanks to all the people who saved the world from Nazis, who were dying for the better future for us. we will never forget that! We are immensely grateful!