Soyuz spaseniya

Director Andrei Kravchuk has made so far such interesting films on historical subjects as "Admiral" and "Viking". Now he took up the Decembrist revolt in the film "Union of Salvation." Personally I think that in this impromptu trilogy, Kravchuk's latest work is the most powerful.

It tells us about young Russian officers who returned home after the war with Napoleon. Having managed to defeat such a dangerous enemy, our heroes decided to make their own country better. Now they need to change the existing monarchical order. Gradually, the plot fits the events on the Senate Square and it is worth seeing with your own eyes ...

Some of the scenes in the film scared me very much, others are admirable. And the most interesting thing is that most of the material was taken by the authors from documentary sources. There is no special fiction here.

It's not easy to watch such a movie. On the one hand, it's very beautiful, on the other hand, it describes complex historical moments, sacrifices and the collapse of hopes, but that's the life - you need to describe it as it is, or not start the movie at all. Fortunately, Andrei Kravchuk knows his business and gave us a unique opportunity to see on the screen what we previously could see only in books.

The Union of Salvation is worth watching. The film came out confident and ambitious. You may sense the hand of a master in it, and if you want to learn a little more about Russian history, then you should definitely take the "Salvation Union" into account.

I went to this film, being 99% sure that the film would be good. And - I was definitely right now this one percent of doubt has disappeared.

To begin with, I would like to note the musical component: it was damn suitable in every single (and whole) moment of the film I was especially pleased with the appearance of the Nautilus Pompilius melody "Progulki po vode" (for those who want to shout that the film is against the Decembrists this melody should become a symbol of comparison of the sacrifice of the Decembrists and the sacrifice of Christ and this probably indicates that the film at least respects Decembrists).

Events take place rather chaotically, and a person who doesn't know Russian history will have a hard time, but gradually he will get used to the quick narration and will go into rhythm. But I would like to note that such number of events which was covered by the film cannot be served a better way in two hours. The director's work was really brilliant.

In addition, the actors are marvellous. These are absolutely not those boring identical faces that an ordinary person is used to seeing on TV screens. These are new full of life energy faces that you really want to look at, who want to empathize with, and I'm not talking about any one side - the tsar or the Decembrists. I'm talking about everyone in general, because the cast is excellent. Like their acting.

Now we turn to the historical essence and I believe that the director did the almost impossible and the best that he could do - he did not adhere to anyone's point of view, telling dry historical facts and so that you begin to think about who is closer to you and - a miracle! - both sides are close to you because they are people, because they are insignificant and great, because they are delightfully insane and a little stupid. And they should be admired. The Decembrists standing under the buckshot knowing they were going to die, the Decembrists running on the ice knowing it would break under their feet. The humanity of Nicholas I, who until the last did nothing with the militant people, who ordered to shoot on the ice, giving people the opportunity to escape and forget about everything. Where is the support of the tsar here? Where is the support of the Decembrists here? Nowhere. And isn't it wonderful when the director himself gives you the right to choose which characters you stand on the side of? Yes, the Decembrists were hanged - it's a fact, isn't it? Yes, they shot at them - it's a fact, isn't it? Yes, the Decembrists wanted to change the world and change the order of the country, using radical methods or not, whatever - it's a fact, isn't it? Fact. Historical fact.

10/10

Russia is making Hollywood look juvenile by comparison when they make films like this. This movie is stunning and the story is extremely engaging. I recommend this to everyone. It's much more classical and well made than any American movie from the past 10 years.

The plot of the film takes place over several decades of the 19th century. Russian troops managed to fight back Napoleon and took over Paris. It was not an easy time, young officers believed they could change the whole world for the better. Idealists look into the eyes of the enemy courageously without fear. Who can achieve the desired and show the will and power if not they?

To begin with, they decided to put an end to injustice at home and decided to establish a constitutional monarchy. But despite all the ideals and faith in their truth, it was not easy to fulfill their plan.

Andrei Kravchuk's film "The Union of Salvation" is a large-scale historical study that describes some of the most difficult pages of the Russian Empire history. The revolt of the Decembrists had to show the emperor that the old rules and laws were no longer able to restrain the empire from collapse, and although the rebellion was suppressed, it became a special precedent that brought the country under global historical changes.

The story turned out to be stunning, with rich scenery, costumes, large-scale battle scenes. We can see what all the money was spent on, rather big amount of money. Nothing of the kind I have ever seen in Russian cinematography before. The film was made by people who definitely knew their job.

TO sum up: "The Union of Salvation" turned out to be a strong historical picture, in which real heroes of the past appear, capable of fighting against the system in order to raise the state from its knees. The film deserves attention.

I have no idea what the filmmakers were assuming. That Decembrist revolt is widely known to moviegoers, or that omitting the bulk of the details, cramming everything into two hours, and just bombarding the viewer with narration, time skips, and name inserts is going to immediately clue everyone in as to who is who, what they wanted, or even what side they are on. Or maybe they already knew that they would be commissioned to make a miniseries for TV out of what was left on the cutting floor.

Oh, would you look at that? The series came out in 2022.

Despite the fact that the standoff and subsequent suppression of the crowd are masterfully done, beautifully blending CGI and practical effects, the movie is lacking in everything else. Everyone besides Nicolas I is either bland or a caricature. Muravyov-Apostol gets a shoehorned, fictional love story that goes nowhere, adds nothing, and makes it all feel like studio encroachment because they knew that this was the only way they could make you root for the guy. The same mass appeal can be implied by a soundtrack featuring unfitting edits of rock music.

Obviously, the most prevalent topic of discussion is whether this movie is state-funded propaganda appealing to the masses to not "revolt," as inferred by all-knowing Russian liberals. What history books have they been smoking? If Kravchuk wanted, they could've leaned in so many directions to absolutely besmirch these people. From outlining what their actual bloody plan was on how to prevent counter-revolution to simply showing how Muravyov-Apostol tried to escape only to be stopped by his own soldiers angry at him for leading them to treason. If nothing else and truly almost nothing else is shown, the movie paints them as unscrupulous patriots and not as French-speaking, Voltaire-quoting, loathsome cowards who couldn't even shoot the tsar despite ample opportunity. They even presented Trubetskoy as not a miserable craven who just didn't want to come out, but as someone who thought he wouldn't need to because he saw Nicolas as weak, that he sees what direction the wind blows, and that he is going to fold any second. Which is so much more credit than even the Soviet interpretation of his action has ever given him.