Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

MartinHafer My summary isn't meant as criticism--it's just what you'll see when you watch this film. It is well made and I admired some of the acting-- such as the nice performance the director got out of a little boy. But the film is such a downer I cannot imagine it having any widespread audience.The film begins in the Soviet Union just after WWII. A woman collapses and give birth along a muddy road. The scene then skips ahead six years. The widow mother and her boy are on a train--- heading nowhere in particular. On the train, she meets a dashing soldier and he sweeps her off her feet. Next they're moving into a crummy apartment and soon she realizes that he is NOT a soldier but a sociopath who steals without remorse. But the mother is a strongly dependent personality and she refuses to leave the bum and the trio travel across the country stealing and living irresponsible lives. What's next? See the film...just understand it won't get any prettier!I admire the film for being daring and different. I would assume such a picture never would have been made in the old Soviet Union and the film is clear indication of changing times and attitudes. Worth seeing if you love international films, my only complaints about the film are that it don't think it was so good that it should have been Oscar- nominated plus it was SUPPOSED to be told from the child's viewpoint--yet several scenes occurred where the child was not present--so HOW could the kid have known what happened? Decent, unpleasant and unique.

stodruza Katya (Yekaterina Radnikova) gives birth to Sanya (Misha Philipchuk and later Dima Chigarov) on a country road, boards a train, and quickly meets Toylan, a soldier who has served in the second world war. With a few moments of pretensions, she has sex with him, and as a matter of course they are a couple. Men are scarce, and Tolyan is rather manly and good looking. Not until after the first sequence of events do we find out that Tolyan is a thief, and quite quickly begins to have a bad effect on the little boy. Spitting on everything that is sacred, Russian, and good, Tolyan goes on his own life journey throughout the film, to come out at the other end a convict, who is killed by Sanya, never forgetting how Tolyan had wronged his mother.To me, this is not a very interesting premise to work with. Simply enough. It is a tragedy of some depth though, and that is why I think it is important. And the fact of the huge allegorical shadow which is cast throughout, implying, of course that Joseph Stalin, the father of mother Russia, who was needed so badly, was a thief stealing the trust and loyalties of a nation and consequently a bastard as well.The film is also, a double, if not triple tragedy, which for all practical purposes seems to make it that much harder to work with. Who is the story about, Tolyan or Sanya, as advertised on the cover? Well, it turns out that it is about both of them, and Katya too, which is still all to the good if it works. The somewhat prosaic and spare material has a hard time reaching far below the surface to reach true emotional depth, that is until after the movie is over. Vor is so much unlike in this respect of Chukraj's later work, the close to perfect 2004 emotional powerhouse Driver for Vera, which is a tragedy too but yet so much full of life.In the simplest terms, perhaps, the allegorical antagonist is never hovering close enough to become real within the film for the audience. We know what Joseph Stalin did, and stood for, but I would say we need to see it happen again in front of our eyes. Kanchalovsky did this remarkably well in the 1991 film The Inner Circle, making the Stalinist horror play out in completion right in front of our eyes.I am coming to think that a successful tragedy either has to be brilliant, like King Lear is, or Kirosawa's Ran was, hit all the right points, like Million dollar Baby, or/and has to be enough fleshed out to resonate deeply enough and long enough with the audience. This film is neither of the three, but works on some level simply due to it's sheer humanity. The main problem could be that the story is split in two, with our emotional sympathies not going to either character, or if to both for some viewers, then not in the right proportions. The simplistic revenge premise does not really do the subject justice. In Vor, we watch the tragedy unfold, but somehow fail to see it through the child's eyes. It is a heavy film, and at the end you will have come away with something.I like the part when Tolyan says to Katya, at the crucial scene when she is planning to leave him near the train, "I like my life," I like the life I'm living." This kind of self-realization is what eventually gives Vor its legs. The voice-over bothered me aesthetically at first, but may have been necessary to tell the story in the way the film decides to tell it, that is to say, it would have been better done without.

bouncingoffwall A woman, who is traveling with her young son in search of a better life, meets a soldier on a train and has a sexual encounter with him. Afterward, they move in together, and she thinks she has found security and love. It doesn't take long, though, for the soldier to start showing a darker side. First, he becomes harsh in his treatment of the boy, and then unleashes his volatile personality on her.Eventually, the woman must make a decision: does she stay with this stranger, although she knows he is corrupting her child and challenging her authority, or does she leave him and return to the uncertainties she was facing when she met him?This film, a multi-layered portrayal of victimization, effectively illustrates how harsh reality can be, and how fragile our dreams. It's not for everyone. It contains sexuality which lacks sensitivity. It contains graphic nudity. But, it depicts life as some unfortunate people know it, and depicts it well indeed. I rated it 9/10.By the way, Misha Philipchuk, who portrays the little boy, is a fantastic actor. As the movie tagline claims, he will indeed steal your heart.

pipeoxide "Vor" will undoubtedly become a classic of Russian cinema in a few years. First, this was both written and directed by the great Russian filmmaker Pavel Chukhrai! It's a tender pseudo-autobiographical account of life during the last years in Stalinist USSR. An interesting theme in this movie is that of the "father-figure"...and Stalin as a "father-figure" to the Soviet Union. You don't necessarily have to be familiar with the political context of the film, but it definitely makes it all the more poignant and heart-breaking if you are. Vladi Mashkov is superb as the charming "soldier" who, not accidentally, has Comrade Stalin tattooed on his chest. Whether Toljian symbolizes a strong-yet-corrupt Stalin and whether Katja and Sasha represent the disenchanted Russian populus, that's up to you to decide. But see it!Look at "Vor" from the allegorical and political level and it's strikingly true. Look at "Vor" from the emotional and tragic level and it's strikingly true. This movie is deep, painful, and of course riddled with truth. That's why it's so powerful! Of course, the acting and direction show this truth off so vividly. I have to say, once again, that Mashkov proves to be an actor of amazing caliber, expression, and beauty. Dasvidania ;-)