User reviews

I liked this movie very much. It showed the human side of war. It is a compelling view of life during wartime, as seen through the eyes of a handful of individuals, each with his own perspective and agenda. The story is a warm, sometimes depressing, but ultimately hopeful look at human nature at it's best, and worst.

Without doubt the dirtiest war of the late 20th Century was the war in Chechnya . It was actually two wars from 1994to 1996 and flared up in to a second war that lasted from 1999 to 2007 and even today there's acts of sporadic violence . The wars have cost the Russians as much as 8,000 military while the Chechens themselves may have lost 250,000 people both combatants and civilian , a quarter of the population of Chechnya . The worst thing is neither can claim any moral high ground . The Chechens may claim to be victims of genocide but any resistance that involves massacring civilians at Russian schools , cinemas and hospitals has a hard time of claiming victim hood

The most compelling account of the conflict comes from the pen of Arkady Babchenko in his book One Soldier's War In Chechnya . It tells of his time as a conscript in the Russian army in the first war and of his time as a regular volunteer in the second war . What quickly becomes apparent is what a brutal institution the Russian army is . Recruits spend the first year of their service under " the rule of the grandfathers " soldiers in their second year where recruits are subject to effective slavery at its most brutal and unrelenting which will shock anyone who has any military understanding

PRISONER OF THE MOUNTAINS is set during the first Chechen war where two Russian soldiers , Sgt Kostylin and Private Zhilin , are captured by rebels . The film does allude to the structural gulf between an experienced soldier like Kostylin and a recruit like Zhilin , the older soldier doesn't believe the Chechens will trade the recruit because he's unimportant to the Russian army but this is quickly forgotten about as the film moves in to predictable and simplistic territory that states that no matter the conflict and the uniforms we wear we are all human beings caught up in situations made by others

It's a well enough made film but by the same token there's nothing outstanding about it either . There's also the problem that if you've read Babchenko's book featuring the very real atrocities each side has committed against the other - in fact each side also commits atrocities on their own - then it does have a rather Walt Disney feel

The simple story of two men captured an imprisoned in a small village develops actually to one of the most poetic and effective peace messages of our times. Based on stable and very well described characters and by the use of magical photography of a small village in Caucausus the movie helps us face the tragedy of war and the madness of human conflict as well.

The movie is about two Russians captured by the rebels, kept as hostages by an old man whose son is also in prison by the Russians. Since the old man wants to trade the two Russians with his son he insists that they must not be killed, he keeps them as a hope for his own tragical mission, to rescue his own son, despite the fact that other rebels want hostages killed. One of the Russians, actually a young and unexperenced soldier ends up respecting that small village. The relations among villagers and hostages, the deep human touch between the young Russian and the niece of the old man become the real story in the middle of the war.

The viewer confronts since the very beginning what war is about, the importance of human existence and life and the madness of human conflicts. Above all is life, creativity (the youg Russian repairs clocks), laugh and drink. While poverty and sadness reigns in the village tradition and human figures seem to survive. Those human values survive for a few moments before reality shows the cruel side of life once again. The movie is extremely poetic, images and folkloric scenes are well dressed with silent and simple russian music, silence and well developed scenes (the old man loading his son's dead body, the mother of the Russian and the old man meet each other as ennemies with the same feelings though as parenthood is above all wars, the young Russian is afraid to die).

Although the actors are not famous you will appreciate the natural talent of the actor playing the old man, a perfect tall-thin shape which dominates the screen. This movie is a must, a call of nature of humanism, a message which can't lose its modernity.

As other have commented, the movie tries to apply a relatively even hand to both sides of the chechen conflict, possibly being a little more biased to the chechen point of view. What surprised me about this movie was that I came out of it more supportive of the Russian side of the conflict. Let me explain: Lets say you are a American living in present day Wyoming. Now imagine if there still existed unassimilated cheyenne indians in the area living out their old traditions and who would still periodically conduct war parties and scalp and kill anyone they found who was not a part of their tribe. If you are living in Wyoming, taking trips outside urbanized areas becomes quite harrowing. Such conditions would make one lose one's fascination of Indian culture quite rapidly.

Present day conditions in the Caucauses are not so much different than the hypothetical example given above. These traditional Islamic cultures can be extraordinarily savage and haven't progressed much in the last 1000 years. The only current technology they have embraced is that which allows them to kill more people.

The movie is well written and directed. It does try to be as honest as humanly possible with the subject matter. As a result, one is not preached to and allowed to make up their own mind, which is very rare in film.

Sometimes I think you could show two hours of a ploar bear sleeping in a snowstorm and film critics would find some kind of interesting if not apocalyptic story in it. Such is the ability of cinema buffs to project their beliefs, sentiments, and subjective interpretations into film. For this and only this reason can one explain the many awards and nominations of the bleak, tedious, and uneventful "Prisoner of the Mountains". Adapted from a Tolstoy novel about the age old struggle between Russians and Moslems in Chechnya, this film follows the misadventures of two Russian soldiers who are captured and detained by agrarian, mountain dwelling locals. There a prisoner for prisoner swap goes sour. There's some brief violence and scurrying around which takes about 10% of the movie run time. The rest of the time is spent watching the two captive soldiers getting drunk, whittling, chatting with passers-by, and making friends with their captors, etc. Were is not for the fact that the film gives a rare look (for westerners) into the beauty of the mountains and people of Dagestan, this film would be difficult to recommend.

There are probably a lot of prejudices people have against Russian film. Mine were gone after I had seen this one.

"Kavkazskij plennik" is a film about a youth who's being sent to Chechnya to fight for the Russian army. He's together with another Russian soldier being captured in Chechnya by an older Chechnyan man who wants to change them for his own son, who's is being held by the Russians. There being locked into an old house high among the Caucasian mountains. Soon a friendship develops between them and young girl who brings them food and water.

This movie was made after and during the last months of the first Chechnyan war. Everybody's a victim and there is nothing to win in this war, specially for the Russians. It is just a matter of how much you lose. The persons in this film do not hate each other because their fighting on different sides. The Chechnyans probably hates what these Russian soldiers represent, but they know that this war isn't caused by these two Russians. They are both just a small, meaningless part of it. Russia does not give a damn about their lives, probably because it's leaders have lost the humane touch, while calculating their offensives. Lives have been reduced into numbers on white sheet. But there are people who care, even among the "enemies". Normal people still show respect for humanity.

The rhythm of the movie is great, it leaves the viewer enough time to think and also find the deeper thoughts from the movie. The music is well selected too, I just cant get that tune out of my head. This together with a realistic humane aspect gives this movie a strong pacifistic tune. Definitely worth to take a look at.

In the war between Russia and Chechnya, the two Russian soldiers Sacha (Oleg Menshikov) and Vanya (Sergei Bodrov Jr.) are ambushed and made prisoners of war by a group of Chechens. The old man Abdul-Murat (Dzhemal Sikharulidze) wants to exchange them by his last son, who was arrested by the Russian troops. His other two sons were killed by the Russians, and his family is composed only by his teenager daughter Dina (Susanna Mekhraliyeva) and himself. The two soldiers are kept alive in his village, while Abdul tries to negotiate them with the Russian Commander Maslov (Aleksei Zharkov). Sacha and Vanya are very different persons and while together, they get closer. Sacha has the mentality of a soldier, intending to kill the Chechens from the village, while Vanya is a teacher and prefers to try to understand the locals behavior and culture, performing small jobs for them, like fixing clocks. Vanya falls in love with Dina. This beautiful movie is another magnificent anti-war movie. The touching story, supported by an excellent cast and the Caucasian locations, makes this movie a worthwhile entertainment. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): `Prisioneiros das Montanhas' (`Prisoners of the Mountains')

Prisoner of the Mountains is an excellent movie. Vanya a young recruit , and Sasha a veteran soldier in the Russian army are captured after an ambush by the Chechens. The Chechen leader keeps them to trade for his son who is captured by the Russians. Then a friendship develops between the Chechens, and the two Russians. I study Russian in college, and even though the subtitles aren't very accurate at times it still helps. The whole plot is just amazing. It shows the human side of soldiers. I definitly recommend this movie to anyone who hasn't seen it.

In this film, I can find almost everything what I like in a movie. It presents the life of a small community, their thoughts, their feelings and their habits. It has a nice atmosphere, beautiful sights, good actors, and a strong story. What else do you want? Another reason to love Russian movies.

One might assume that the title refers only to the two Russian soldiers taken hostage by villagers in the Caucasus. But the Russian army has the village surrounded, so the townspeople are also prisoners. Moreover, each side is a prisoner of their own hate: the Russians can't see the villagers as humans and the villagers can't see the Russians as humans, thereby continuing the cycle of hate. Even the village elder is a prisoner of tradition: he uses a ceremonial knife for something in which he could have used a gun.

All in all, "Kavkazskiy plennik" (called "Prisoner of the Mountains" in English) is a very well done movie. Oleg Menshikov and Sergei Bodrov Jr. do very well with their roles, and the situation in Chechnya makes the movie all the more relevant.

When I saw the votes I was rather shocked. When I watched the "Plennik", my first impression was that it`s a very much humane, non-racist and deep movie. I was absolutely stunned by the cast and the actual performance of the actors ( well, that is my personal opinion as Menshikov is my fav actor, but Bodrov did well too ). It isn`t a story of two rude and life-hating soldiers, it`s a story of two individual personalities, of everlasting feelings. I really don`t understand, what was so wrong in it to get such low appreciation? Maybe it`s just that the western people are too different from Russians? I don`t know.

Prisoner of the Mountains provides an inside look into the Russia/Chechnya conflict through the eyes of two captured Russian soldiers, Vania and Sacha. The unlikely duo forms a friendship out of their will to escape their imprisonment. Despite the serious basis for the story (the continuing war between the two countries), the film is very multifaceted in that it contains comedy, love, and suspense. In this respect, I greatly disagree with another user who described the film as `bleak, tedious, and uneventful.' The main reason this film succeeds is that it does not only focus on the war and battles between the two sides, but rather develops the underside of the conflict-the characters on both sides.

This user likens this film to watching polar bears sleeping because violence only makes up ten per cent of the plot. I have seen movies that are as boring as this analogy. Prisoner of the Mountains does not qualify as this type of film. Bodrov incorporates many different types of scenes in the plot action that evoke a variety of emotions from the audience. There are serious scenes, such as when Sacha and Vania are captured, which elicit fear and apprehension in the viewer. In contrast, there are also more humorous scenes, as in when Vania continues to meddle with the gun he and Sacha stole, after Sacha warns him to be careful, and the gun fires, causing them to lose their only bullet. In this respect, Bodrov makes his film very well-rounded by incorporating various types of scenes that play to different emotions. While the central plot is serious in its portrayal of the war, Bodrov includes less intense scenes in order make the film more interesting and develop the personalities of the characters. The scenes in which Vania and Sacha are shown `getting drunk, whittling, chatting with passers-by, and making friends with their captors' serve to help the audience understand the backgrounds of all of the characters, as well as show character transformation. Through discussions between the two soldiers, the audience discovers that Sacha's at first exterior most likely results from the fact that he is an orphan. In time, we see how Sacha grows to respect Vania, despite his naive nature, and becomes a father-figure to the younger soldier, ultimately sacrificing his life for him. Moreover, we learn how Dina grows fond of Vania and ultimately defies her father to help him escape. In this respect, these scenes are the main point of the movie. In this viewer's desire to see violence, I think he missed the obvious. Bodrov wants the viewer to understand the feelings and motivations of characters on both sides of the conflict. Had the film shown one battle after another, the audience would not have been able to understand the characters because only fighting would have been shown. In this respect, the non-violent scenes are critical to character development as well as the overall impact of the film on the audience.

While violence is the setting for the film, it is not meant to be the sole focus of the plot. Consequently, rating this film based on its lack of violence does not do it justice because violent scenes purposely comprise only a part of the action. This reaction would be similar to evaluating a straight play, which had a few musical numbers, as if it were a musical; you would obviously be let down and give it poor marks because your expectations would be too high. In this way, I do not feel that more violent scenes would have added anything to this film. Bodrov sought to illustrate the general tense atmosphere of the situation through the initial capture of the soldiers, the failed escape of the soldiers, the death of Abdoul's son and the expected shooting of Vania. These incidences of violence effectively convey the difficult environment to the audience. Additional killing would have been gratuitous in light of Bodrov's main emphasis of character development. Overall, I found this film to be incredibly engaging and interesting for its depiction of the bitter conflict between the two countries. As a westerner, I can say that the scenery was nice, but that it was not the only good aspect of the film as this viewer states. Perhaps the name and subject of this film is misleading. To a person who wants to see a lot of violence in films, Prisoner of the Mountains would not be my first recommendation. To this viewer, I would suggest The Betrayed, another film on the Russian/Chechnya conflict with significant violent footage. In forming impressions of films, it is important to take into consideration why the director made the film as he/she did. In this instance, it is clear that Bodrov did not only want to present the violent nature of the war, but that he desired to explore the individuals behind the conflict.

"Prisoner of the Mountains" - a military drama by Sergey Bodrov Sr. The story of one of the exchanges of prisoners during the first Chechen war. And there were thousands of such exchanges in that meat grinder. The sad and shameful page of modern Russian history. Wonderful game by Oleg Menshikov.

Excellent and intriguing movie about the situation in the kaukasus, a very sensitive movie also which allows you to really live into the situation of the main characters on both sides, with brilliant acting and screenplay.

Best, most moving anti-war movie I've ever seen. The scenery is breathtaking. The acting and direction superb, and the story is without equal. Highly recommended for anyone who likes great movies. This Russian movie is incredible in scope and production. Two thumbs up!

Like many other Russian films, the two main characters in `Prisoner of the Mountains' can be viewed as representative of the Russia that was and the Russia that is. Through their interactions with each other and the other characters in the movie, it is possible to draw conclusions about the state of the new Russia, the relationship between Old and New, and the problems and challenges that new Russia will face.

Ivan, the young, innocent Russian soldier represents the new Russia. He is open, accepting, inexperienced, and most importantly, he is not filled with hate. The second Russian soldier in the film, Sasha, is the old Russia. He is experienced in war and killing; as he puts it, he did not start out a killer, but he learned to love it over time. He was not always so callus, but grew so because of his environment. He is hard, cold, and firmly believes in the limits that race and ethnicity place on people. These two are both captured, and as they spend time living amongst their captors, both seem to form relationships and bonds with them. Sasha, however, only does this to gain their trust, and without a moments hesitation kills Hasan, the mute, with whom he spent so much time. Ivan, on the other hand, creates genuine bonds, truly finding love with the young girl. Ivan is not caught up with the fact that his feelings are taboo; his young heart and his open mind do not have room for hate.

Ivan is caught up in a war he has no part of; it is Sasha's war, not his. Because of the actions of Sasha, old Russia, the potential relationship between Ivan and the young girl, new Russia and Chechnya, is never realized. Ivan suffers because of the moves made on his behalf by the war mongering Sasha. Sasha has nothing to escape for, but he promises Ivan he will get him home. Sasha's method, however, only serves to worsen the situation. Even when Sasha is dead, it is too late for Ivan, the scars, distrust, and hatred run too deep to ever be mended, and new Russia is left dealing with the issues and hate it does understand that old Russia has left behind.

It's funny how several simple characters can be combined to create a complex storyline. While each character is unique, none of them are particularly interesting on their own. It's only when they interact that the story and the underlying array of emotions come to life.

As with many "war movies," you get the hardened veteran, the raw recruit, the inert, somewhat indifferent commander, and the worried mother. Each are truly one-dimensional and could not stand on their own to carry the film. But when combined, their synergy creates an absolutely engrossing story. They all draw the viewers into their world and don't let go. I couldn't have looked away even if I had wanted to.

Further, this film allows westerners a glimpse into a world they will likely never see firsthand. While the shots of the Dagestan mountains are impressive, the stark poverty found in what one assumes to be actual villages and dwellings in those mountains are both captivating and horrifying to the average western sensibilities. Not everyone in this world lives for the latest fad or gadget or is as pampered as the ones who need to watch this film the most. Even the Russian military base, a very realistic depiction, was hardly fit for western barnyard animals. Welcome, viewers, to how most of the world lives.

Now I must take exception to some of the other reviewers who try to explain Vanya's inability to fire on the enemy as a reflection of his" pacifism." It is obvious that those reviewers have never experienced the confusion of a combat situation - especially that of a poorly trained recruit in an ambush in unfamiliar terrain. If one doesn't know from where the fire is coming, one doesn't just start launching rounds indiscriminately in all directions. Additionally, these reviewers have never felt the fear of being on the receiving end of live rounds which can temporarily shutdown one's capacity to think clearly. Ignore their comments.

Overall, I must say this movie is well done and the actors fit perfectly into their roles. I definitely recommend this movie, and also, don't be off-put by some of the other comments about the slow moving story or the lack of action in what's supposed to be a war movie. This is a real story. If you want nonstop action, explosions, and shooting, rent a Schwarzenegger war picture.