Skunkyrate Gripping story with well-crafted characters

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

bwanabrad-1 Russian production. Genre ; WW 2 drama.1975. Based on the novel by Mikhail Sholokhov. Screenplay and direction by Sergei Bondarchuk with Vasili Shukshin ( as Poitr Lopakhin ), Vyaheslav Tikhonov ( as Nikolay Strltsov ), Sergei Bondarchuk ( as Ivan Zvyagintsev ), Georgi Burkov ( as Alexandr Kopytovskij ), Nikolai Gubenko ( as the Lieutenant ), Yuri Nikulin ( as Nekrasov ), Ivan Lapikov ( as Poprischenko ) & Nonna Mordyukova ( as Natalya Stepanova ). The film is based on the book by Nobel Prize winning author Mikhail Sholokhov. The action is set in Russia in July of 1942. The exhausted Soviet army was in full retreat against the might of the invading German Panzer divisions. A decision is to hold a ridge with what is left of an infantry regiment near a small village on the banks of the River Don, to allow the exhausted remnants of the army enough time to withdraw across the river and help fortify Stalingrad for the decisive battle that must come.The loss of Russian life during the campaign was horrific and while there are some impressive set battle pieces, the film concentrates on the exploits of half a dozen or so soldiers from the shattered regiment, who must not retreat even in the face of the Panzers' greater fire power. The film depicts the thoughts and fears of the individual soldiers in the face of the impending battle, and their thoughts of their Mother Russia as well. While the battles rage, the viewer is not only shown the inhumanity of the conflict, but also the strong personal bonds that develop between comrades in arms in a deadly conflict. There is also plenty of humor in the script, even if it is often grim and tinged with violent overtones. Vasili Shukshin ( as Poitr Lopakhin ) takes the acting honors, with a character that is as much larrikin as it is proletariat.

D_vd_B Sergei Bondarchuk is a great director. He has proved it with War and Peace, with Waterloo and now again with They Fought for Their Moterhland.The film looks great. It's amazing how Bondarchuk can translate a world to film and still make it feel very real. The production is great, except for some minor things (tank turrets don't move). When I watched this film, I got the feeling that the whole world was at war. Not only these soldiers somewhere in Russia, but that they were just small parts in a big world conflict.Most people always complain about the acting in Russian movies. That doesn't go for this one. It all feels very natural. The pain they show looks real, their sweat is there and I cannot imagine it with other actors (or acting method). Sergei Bondarchuk himself plays a role and he shows that he cannot only direct, but also act.What I loved the most, is that this film shows war as I think it is. There are humans, the enemy is just a dot far away and every fight there are losses. Russians and Germans bleed alike. The Soviet flag is shown and it's clear who we are supposed to root for, but the main characters aren't heroes. They fight because they are told too, not because they are tough.The music is like the music of War and Peace; not really pleasant to listen to, but it's perfect for the film. When an act of horror is shown, voices rise as if they complain. A requiem to humanity.They Fought for their Motherland is bit like Spielbergs Saving Private Ryan; only without the misplaced heroism and with that touch of humanity.Maybe not for everyone (since their is a delicate balance between spectacle, humanity and of course philosophy), but when you are looking for more aspects of war than just the heroic stereotype combat, go for this.

Michael A. Martinez Bondarchuk's big world war 2 film has some excellent scenery (as usual) and is mesmerizingly polished from a pyrotechnic standpoint. The two big battle scenes have lots of cool explosions and mock-up Panzer IV's, but lack focus, drama, and realism. The German soldiers don't seem like they're terribly motivated or even trying that hard. The first battle scene is particularly disappointing in this way - with the German tanks blowing up easily after only one AT rifle shot and the Germans too quick to retreat time and time again. Meanwhile the good Russian freedom fighters take no casualties.Halfway through, the film has a huge battle scene featuring the complete annihilation of a town including a really cool plane crash and explosion. For the next 10 minutes or so the film does no wrong - Bondarchuk himself has a great role as a shell-shocked soldier who bayonet-charges some Germans while artillery goes off everywhere around him. Really cool! The problem is, after that point it's all downhill from there and there's a whole 'nother hour left! This last hour really drags on without much action - just a bunch of boring chit chat.Also, one of the cameras used in the wide battle shots has the dirtiest lens I have ever seen used in a big-budget film. It's totally distracting and ruins what would have been a couple classic battle scenes. What happened?

lorus77 As a tradition for Soviet movies, most of the actors here are theatrical actors and their interaction on the screen is nothing if not realistic and natural. But Shulshin's talent makes him rise above others.If that's not enough you have Nikulin, who was a war veteran himself, in one of his dramatic roles.