Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews5
Tatiana_G's rating
Evaluating the movie I take into account two major things – judging “Transsiberian” as a thriller and the way they show Russia in the movie, because this is where the events take place. Besides almost everything in the screenplay is based upon the peculiarities of the country. Actually I live in Russia, though Siberia is father from me than most of the European countries but such are the distances in Russia. In one of the first Russian talking pictures, in “Tsirk” (1936) precisely, the was a song “Broad my native land is”; as I was watching «Transsiberian” I kept on thinking that the song might be really illustrative and that “Transsiberian” is probably the very film to show to everybody how boundless the country is.
But before watching I checked whether the film was shot in the USA, as I’m tired of watching the images of Russia that is shown in the Hollywood pictures. You know of course, if Russian then undoubtedly wearing USHANKA, drinking VODKA, singing songs, walking hand-in-hand with a bear and selling Russian dools. Such a grotesque character may be seen practically in all the films connected with Russia; and this very character is probably either a mobster (corrupted cop will do) or a prostitute, or maybe a drug dealer. This is all tedious. That is why having read that the film was done by a number of European countries (namely Germany, Spain, etc), I thought I might hope to see something adequate without Hollywood stereotypes. However there turned to be inalienable vodka and ushanka, luckily enough no bears. And those who acted as Russians were wearing sweat suits. Not but a long-distance train’s atmosphere I would not have watched the movie up to the end. In a train vodka and sweat pants are a little bit more acceptable than elsewhere. What puzzles me somehow is that the movie lays emphasis on drawbacks of the journey and the people surrounding the main heroes, the couple, but what is good – the sceneries, the hospitability, probably road romantics – is shown in passing.
The citizens of Russia may be roughly divided into “good” - those who help the tourists - and “bad” - all the rest. And the bad ones seriously outnumber the good, of course. The rights of the tourists are being violated at every step. But against all the unfairness of the world they have an incantation, that is: “We are Americans, mind you (probably, before torturing us)”.
I am most convinced of the naivety of those who wrote the screenplay, at least of what concerns Russian realities. I can assure you: nobody will drink for oil in the train. If they had shouted “Na zdorovye”, it would have been boring and dull but more or less looking like true.
Next, what a pleasure to watch a Russian police officer being able to speak English! Though a colleague of his does wear sweat paints, but one cannot demand everything at the same time. Grinko’s English proves that the creators of the film lay certain trust on our education level. For this only fact I would give the movie а 7, because earlier the only sounds the Russians made in the movies were obscene four-letter words.
To make every detail even more authentic, the character performed by Thomas Kretschmann was given such a lovely name as Kolzak. It might be even better, if somebody explained me whether it is supposed to be a surname or a Christian name, because neither exists. There is no such a name, believe me. This caricature of Kolzak is wearing not only sport trousers with stripes, but a thick golden chain as well which is in fact too much. Does anyone really believe that this is a usual uniform of the police in Russia, for it seemed to me they were introduced as policemen? And it is a pity to see Thomas Kretschmann looking appallingly and participating in such stuff.
As a whole, very naïve. I lost my time watching.
But before watching I checked whether the film was shot in the USA, as I’m tired of watching the images of Russia that is shown in the Hollywood pictures. You know of course, if Russian then undoubtedly wearing USHANKA, drinking VODKA, singing songs, walking hand-in-hand with a bear and selling Russian dools. Such a grotesque character may be seen practically in all the films connected with Russia; and this very character is probably either a mobster (corrupted cop will do) or a prostitute, or maybe a drug dealer. This is all tedious. That is why having read that the film was done by a number of European countries (namely Germany, Spain, etc), I thought I might hope to see something adequate without Hollywood stereotypes. However there turned to be inalienable vodka and ushanka, luckily enough no bears. And those who acted as Russians were wearing sweat suits. Not but a long-distance train’s atmosphere I would not have watched the movie up to the end. In a train vodka and sweat pants are a little bit more acceptable than elsewhere. What puzzles me somehow is that the movie lays emphasis on drawbacks of the journey and the people surrounding the main heroes, the couple, but what is good – the sceneries, the hospitability, probably road romantics – is shown in passing.
The citizens of Russia may be roughly divided into “good” - those who help the tourists - and “bad” - all the rest. And the bad ones seriously outnumber the good, of course. The rights of the tourists are being violated at every step. But against all the unfairness of the world they have an incantation, that is: “We are Americans, mind you (probably, before torturing us)”.
I am most convinced of the naivety of those who wrote the screenplay, at least of what concerns Russian realities. I can assure you: nobody will drink for oil in the train. If they had shouted “Na zdorovye”, it would have been boring and dull but more or less looking like true.
Next, what a pleasure to watch a Russian police officer being able to speak English! Though a colleague of his does wear sweat paints, but one cannot demand everything at the same time. Grinko’s English proves that the creators of the film lay certain trust on our education level. For this only fact I would give the movie а 7, because earlier the only sounds the Russians made in the movies were obscene four-letter words.
To make every detail even more authentic, the character performed by Thomas Kretschmann was given such a lovely name as Kolzak. It might be even better, if somebody explained me whether it is supposed to be a surname or a Christian name, because neither exists. There is no such a name, believe me. This caricature of Kolzak is wearing not only sport trousers with stripes, but a thick golden chain as well which is in fact too much. Does anyone really believe that this is a usual uniform of the police in Russia, for it seemed to me they were introduced as policemen? And it is a pity to see Thomas Kretschmann looking appallingly and participating in such stuff.
As a whole, very naïve. I lost my time watching.
The people of my generation and those who are older know about the WW II (or as it is called in Russia – the Great Patriotic War) not only from the school textbooks, but from the witnesses and participants of the event. My granddad was a soldier at Stalingrad and when I was a small girl I used to listen to his stories of how he defeated the Germans. He also told me some anecdotes, not all he told me was gloomy. But it was long ago, and no when I have a conscious interest for what happened there in the battle of Stalingrad, I have to turn to books and movies for information. Somehow most films I saw were made in the Soviet Union, only a few in present day Russia. And “Stalingrad” is an exception. In the movie the war is described from the opposite side, and the fact in itself is interesting. All that is shown in the film is quite different from what I’m used to.
The film reminds me a great deal of Remarque’s “Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben”, because the war is shown through an ordinary German soldier perception. And this soldier or lieutenant is rather obsessed by repeating he is by no means a fascist. The movie heroes right from neat and enthusiastic Europe, from the Italian coast arrive in the snow-covered hungry Soviet Union. They are doomed to die; it is clear from the very beginning.
After the elite detachment had taken part in their first fight at Stalingrad, one of the soldiers said the phrase which reflected the whole idea for me; he said “If you start thinking, you will go mad”. And to my mind it is true for spectators as well. From the one hand, one may think, OK, I’ll just watch this movie and it won’t dissipate me, I needn’t feel sorry for the people on the screen as it were they who attacked my country and not vice versa. However sooner or later but inevitably one starts sympathizing with the characters. Probably when the lieutenant chokes back his tears at seeing Kolya’s execution.
“Stalingrad” is hard to watch, all these frostbitten legs, dirt, executions, snow, famine, destroyed illusions.
As far as I know, Lt. Hans von Witzland is one of the few films where Thomas Kretschmann played his star roles. I watched quite many Hollywood movies where he was given unimportant parts of small fries, such as “Next” or “Transsiberian” (why did he do it?!). And after I had watched “Stalingrad”, I cannot make out the European actors desire to appear in American movies, even second-rated at any cost. The fact puzzles me deeply. I believe Thomas Kretschmann deserves better parts and much better screenplays than those he is given in Hollywood. And out of what I saw with him, “Stalingrad” is the best, beyond the doubt.
In my opinion the worst “Stalingrad” drawback is the way they speak Russian in the movie. I mean of course those who are supposed to be Russian. Say, the boy who spent some time with the Germans or the girl with whom they planned to escape. Was it really so difficult to find actors able to pronounce a couple of phrases without that horrible accent? Initially I set down to watch “Stalingrad” just to listen to native German-speakers because I’m studying the language. I did not expect anything extraordinary of the film. But it impressed me, made me cry when I wasn’t going to at all. I know I’m 15 years late to watch it, but “Stalingrad” is not a run-of-the-mill movie, and after 15 years it is still watchable and shocking.
The film reminds me a great deal of Remarque’s “Zeit zu leben und Zeit zu sterben”, because the war is shown through an ordinary German soldier perception. And this soldier or lieutenant is rather obsessed by repeating he is by no means a fascist. The movie heroes right from neat and enthusiastic Europe, from the Italian coast arrive in the snow-covered hungry Soviet Union. They are doomed to die; it is clear from the very beginning.
After the elite detachment had taken part in their first fight at Stalingrad, one of the soldiers said the phrase which reflected the whole idea for me; he said “If you start thinking, you will go mad”. And to my mind it is true for spectators as well. From the one hand, one may think, OK, I’ll just watch this movie and it won’t dissipate me, I needn’t feel sorry for the people on the screen as it were they who attacked my country and not vice versa. However sooner or later but inevitably one starts sympathizing with the characters. Probably when the lieutenant chokes back his tears at seeing Kolya’s execution.
“Stalingrad” is hard to watch, all these frostbitten legs, dirt, executions, snow, famine, destroyed illusions.
As far as I know, Lt. Hans von Witzland is one of the few films where Thomas Kretschmann played his star roles. I watched quite many Hollywood movies where he was given unimportant parts of small fries, such as “Next” or “Transsiberian” (why did he do it?!). And after I had watched “Stalingrad”, I cannot make out the European actors desire to appear in American movies, even second-rated at any cost. The fact puzzles me deeply. I believe Thomas Kretschmann deserves better parts and much better screenplays than those he is given in Hollywood. And out of what I saw with him, “Stalingrad” is the best, beyond the doubt.
In my opinion the worst “Stalingrad” drawback is the way they speak Russian in the movie. I mean of course those who are supposed to be Russian. Say, the boy who spent some time with the Germans or the girl with whom they planned to escape. Was it really so difficult to find actors able to pronounce a couple of phrases without that horrible accent? Initially I set down to watch “Stalingrad” just to listen to native German-speakers because I’m studying the language. I did not expect anything extraordinary of the film. But it impressed me, made me cry when I wasn’t going to at all. I know I’m 15 years late to watch it, but “Stalingrad” is not a run-of-the-mill movie, and after 15 years it is still watchable and shocking.