Bitter Harvest (2017) User Reviews

An important episode in history obscured by a mediocre love story.

[CineMuseFilms · 6/10 · 16 April 2017]

Everyone knows about the Holocaust but few have even heard the word Holodomor. It means 'death by starvation' and it refers to the Ukrainian mass famine deliberately engineered by Joseph Stalin during 1932-33. Scholars label it as genocide and estimate between 7 and 10 million deaths were directly linked to Stalin's policy of de-populating the Ukraine. More accurate numbers are not available because long-standing Russian secrecy has only recently eased enough for the story to be told. The film Bitter Harvest (2017) is the first feature movie to tell this story using a dramatized romance that attempts to humanise a story of inhumanity.

Set in 1930s Ukraine, the story commences with two young childhood sweethearts in the film's only joyful moments. It quickly moves to Joseph Stalin ordering a mass collectivisation program to confiscate the Ukrainian harvests so he could feed his armies. Most chillingly, he commandeers the grain seeds so famine was not only unavoidable but planned. As their village faces an impending catastrophe, the now grown-up young lovers, aspiring artist Yuri (Max Irons) and his betrothed Natalka (Samantha Barks), must separate as he goes off to join the anti-Bolsheviks in Kiev while she remains to care for her ailing mother. Yuri believes in the power of painting and music to tell the world what is happening but his art teachers in Kiev force him to use art for revolutionary propaganda. As Stalin's forces deplete Ukraine's rural food-stock, villagers are accused of hiding grain and seed and failing to support the revolution. Wherever food is not surrendered there are mass executions in front of mass graves, while others starve to death in their homes and on the streets. Yuri is captured and tortured, but escapes to be re-united with Natalka and they eventually flee to Poland.

The detail of this love story pales against the bigger narrative of Stalinist atrocities. While it is a conventional cinematic device to convey a big story through a small lens, the relationship between the two is critical. The two stories of this film are out of balance and unevenly directed. The attempt to create an epic love story diminishes the magnitude of the Holodomor and almost glosses over the scale of its horrors. While the cinematography is excellent throughout, the acting is wooden, melodramatic, and lacks authenticity. The clean-faced good looks of the dual protagonists form a jarring contrast with the caricatures of the Stalinist scar-faced ogres who are depicted as pure evil. Turning archival images of starved bodies on streets and decimated corpses in mass graves into background props to tell a love story feels disrespectful. The film's lack of nuance and simplicity of narrative is a lost opportunity for insight into this dark episode of history.

It is difficult to be critical of a film that deals with such important subject matter. In terms of the need for the bigger story to be told, this film should be rated highly but as cinema it is seriously flawed. On balance, the one and three-quarter hour investment to see this film is worth the time as it is the only available narrative film of life at the time of the Holodomor. As such, it is educational cinema that helps us understand contemporary Russian-Ukraine politics. However, the shelf-life of this film will be determined only by the time it takes for a better film to be produced.

I wanted to like it

[dbaldwin-52621 · 6/10 · 4 March 2017]

The acting is good, the chemistry between the leads is effective, the evocations of village life are beautiful, the panoramic views of Ukraine are splendid, the music is beautiful, the subject is important—and yet, Bitter Harvest does heart-breaking disservice to those who perished in the Holodomor. Trying to cover political history from the death of the Tsar announced in one scene (evidently in 1918) to the famine itself (1932-3), while the romantic drama seems to take only a couple of years, blurs and trivializes history. The Hollywood hijinks and impossible escapes caricature the real conditions from which there was no escape. A few peasants standing in the fog with make-up circles under their eyes belittles the piles of skeletal corpses and bloated bodies of children that even one photograph of the real Holodomor bears witness to. Showing a fleeting screen shot of an article from the New York Times about the famine without clarifying that it was written by the notorious Soviet falsifier Walter Duranty (whom Malcolm Muggeridge called "the most dishonest journalist I have ever encountered in my fifty years of journalism") – Duranty, a famine-denier who stands as one of the reasons that the Holodomor is not better known in the west – simply sickens. For all the money spent on special effects (well done, by the way), the scope of the Holodomor is utterly lost. And what would it have cost to hire a decent screenwriter who could have reined in a plot that tries to do too much, and who instead could have focused on some serious moral dilemma that those impossible conditions spawned on the level of the individual?

Yes, see the movie – there is worse Hollywood silliness out there, and the good things listed at the top are worth seeing. But then, for history's sake, go out and BUY A COPY of Harvest of Sorrow, by Robert Conquest (who passed away recently, alas). It is the definitive history of the Holodomor, and – in this time of 'alternative facts'—the facts needs to be set straight. https://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Sorrow- Soviet-Collectivization-Terror-Famine/dp/0195051807

To understand the present, need to know the past

[i-jarosewich · 7/10 · 25 February 2017]

The Holodomor in Ukraine, the genocidal famine planned by Stalin and his commissars that killed millions in 1932-33, was a Soviet policy of forced starvation and is a cruel little known period in the history of the 20th century. Maybe it was too optimistic to try and cover the fall of the Russian czar, WW1, the Bolshevik/Russian revolution, the death of Lenin and the rise of Stalin and the genocidal famine in Ukraine, in 100 minutes. And then make all the horror of that period less terrible with a hopeful love story. Too much horrible history in too little time. However, someone had to try so kudos to the director for that effort. That period of history was deeply cruel and it's hard to imagine how else to make the story palatable. Visually, the movie is terrific. The brutality in some scenes, although no doubt historically accurate, is tough to watch. I thought the local commissar was very effective in his cruelty, and in comparison, the Stalin figure almost seemed like a lightweight. A number of the professional critic reviews sound downright snarky. This isn't an easy move to watch or an easy story to tell. And while there is plenty of room for suggestions of how to improve, it is not a movie of no value as some wrote. The accusations of exaggeration and melodrama are actually bizarre. I think the famine and the horrors of communism, which my parents and grandparents lived through, were no doubt much worse than depicted here.

Heavy handed direction kills it

[anthonyjlangford · 6/10 · 23 February 2017]

1930's Ukraine. Genocide through starvation. It was never going to be a pleasant story. It's tough to make a film out of something so one sided and something so horrific. And at times its difficult to sit through. Yes it's violent but we don't see a lot of it up close. It's not gratuitous. It's already dire enough. Yet there's plenty to be depressed about.

The story itself is quite good. Following the journey of one character so we get an overview of what happened in varying parts of Ukraine during this time. And yet it's a stretch. Certain scenarios are just asking us to suspend belief a little too far. Our central figures should have been killed several times over. Knowing this is set within real events (though not of these characters) keeps us involved. But only just.

The problem is with the director. The early scenes are so over-lit it makes you feel like you're watching a Disney TV play. The clichés come thick and fast through the staging and unfortunately some of the dialog too. The direction is heavy handed, falling back on triteness such as blood dripping from a sword stuck in the ground and other lame symbolism.

It's all a bit overblown. The cinematography, the music. They wanted to make a real epic here but even at 100 minutes, it feels overlong and over-baked.

It's horrific to be certain and I wanted to care more but the central story just doesn't grab us the way it should. Terence Stamp adds an element of acting class. Shame that it can't be said for the rest of the cast. For example, Stalin is a caricature. Hours after seeing it, I'm already beginning to forget it. And that's not a bad thing.

An event this huge deserves so much more.

Without a doubt one of the most thoughtless movies ever!

[lianaborysiuk · 1/10 · 8 April 2017]

As a Ukrainian who went and saw this with their grandparent who as a child suffered through the Holodomor, this movie was so personally offensive. When I heard a movie was being made about this genocidal event, I was cautious, the outcome could either be excellent or terrible. And at my grandmother's insistence, we saw it. The end of the movie I asked her what she thought; she cried. She cried, saying her country, the culture, the language, was butchered in ways she wished she hadn't seen. And I couldn't agree more, from frankly laughable dialogue to comical pronunciation of Ukrainian words by British actors, all in all I completely agree that on such an intense and deeply serious issue, this film should NOT have been created.

The true colour of communism!!!

[Reno-Rangan · 7/10 · 24 February 2018]

I have heard Holocaust, but not Holodomor. Thanks to this film. This is a piece of history. A bitter history, that people of the world should know what communism does. It commenced during the end of Tsar era and when Stalin's reign began. The film focused on a young man grew up in a small town, dreaming to be an artist. But suddenly everything has changed once Ukraine struggled to gain its independence from the Soviet Union. From his perspective, his journey through the Unkraine's toughest time had been explained. It had some romance, but overwhelmed by an unending conflict. They had to wait for 60 years, finally to get what they were fighting for.

The music was good. The background score accompanied awesomely throughout the narration. Decent actors and direction. Overall a good film, but I don't know what went wrong for it fail to reach out the people. Maybe the unfamiliar cast. But anyway, this film still did better in Ukraine as expected. From the 30s, slowly faded away from the world's interest in this matter. Mainly the reason could have been the WWII. Otherwise, there's no difference between what had happened here comparing to what nazis did a decade later. Why not, you will surely learn something out of it. So definitely yes, I would recommend it.

7/10

Bitter harvest, bitter disappointment

[faverolles · 4/10 · 16 April 2017]

We looked forward to viewing this movie at the Ukrainian festival at our local theatre.

One big mistake though, didn't properly check the movie background - it is pretty much an English movie, not Ukrainian.

The main publicity focus in advance was on the Russian government induced famine in the Ukraine against the background of a love story.

In reality the movie tries to cover too many of the parallel social and political changes in the Soviet state of the 1920's and 30's, such that almost none would be clear to the average viewer. Including the internal power struggles within the communist regime.

This broad spectrum tips over in to the relationship between the two young lovers who appear almost wooden at times as they flit in and out of the narrative.

A serious and little known subject doesn't get its dues here regrettably. The film tries hard but lacks the focus and cultural nuances that may come from a locally made film.

Let's Speak Aloud about Fascism

[qanistra · 10/10 · 11 January 2022]

Well known stories like Hitler Fascism and Holocost. SO MANY FILMS ABOUT IT AND EXHIBITIONS.

However, The Biggest TRAGEDY in a history is HOLODOMOR that took place in last century in Ukraine. And until now there are not so many films or museums exhibitions yet.

This STORY is based on Director Family story where they got luck to run away from the hell. I expect new wave of films about this and as well I hope nothing like that would never happen at any corner of the planet...

Holodomor means murder through starvation

[film-89206 · 7/10 · 25 March 2017]

The Holodomor killed more people than the Nazi Holocaust or the Young Turks murder of millions of their Christian citizens through the Armenian Genocide.

Bitter Harvest explores the history of this tragic event through the eyes of different villagers. A challenging movie with many well done vignettes, it anticipates the creation of more films about this event.

An important difference between the Holodomor versus the Young Turks murder of millions of Armenians citizens is that the Russians have the courage to admit the painful past, thus opening the door to healing. Perhaps this is one of the universal strengths of the Slavic Soul, to be able to look in the mirror of history and through the pain of introspection create great art.

Sadly, thus far, other than a handful of intellectuals, Turkish government remains trapped within the hell of self-deception denying the crimes committed by its forefathers. This ongoing dance of denial which some call "Erdonial" prevents progress and perhaps is one of the constraints against the creation of great art.

Bitter Harvest is a good film with a strong cast turning in strong performances. It will make a good supplement for history classes, and for those times when one is in the mood for lesser known truths that need to be remembered.

superficial

[Kirpianuscus · 16 March 2018]

...is the first word about it from me, a man from East, with Ukraine roots. but, scene by scene, you discover its virtue. not so insignificant. because it is an introduction, with form of lesson, to the Holodomor. so, it represents a sketch, with decent performances, not the most inspired dialogues, so simple than it coulb seem be pathetic and fake. but, after its end, you discover it as a nice try. not convincing, too American, using classic ingredients and tricks for a storyy more complex and profound for have need of them but, maybe, a reasonable start point for discover one of most terrible crimes from XX century. sure, it is not perfect and for a viewer like me seems a sort of blasphemy. but, it is a try. or a small hommage. in fact, a first step for propose to West a story about a land and its sufference. and that saves a part from huge mistakes of film.

Bad propaganda film in the spirit of the Soviet Union

[kis-aleksandar · 1/10 · 15 April 2017]

The film, which is a typical example of neo Stalinist propaganda, with scenes of pastoral idyll that irresistibly reminiscent of the films of Leni Riefenstahl.

The film is about a young couple in the maelstrom of post revolutionary Ukraine, which was in the Soviet Union. The basic idea of ​​the film is to present Ukraine as a beautiful, unspoiled, untouched, sunlit, religious country that was well, occupied by the Russian Tsar, but just when they killed him, too, came the evil Bolsheviks.

The film is so simple, pathetic scene presented the events in Ukraine, the most reminiscent of vaudeville and plays such as is exhibited in the Soviet Union, to ignorant folk and the working masses, showed how capitalism is evil and the Soviet system to be the best.

When displayed Ukrainians, golden wheat fields are illuminated by the sun, and when the village enter Bolsheviks are immediately gloomy rain clouds, while the Bolsheviks kill and harass the poor Ukrainians. To this pathetic attempt failed to explain, Stalin is portrayed as grotesque almost comically simple figure. Stalin (although Georgian) was presented to Elidel and destroy Ukraine, all with the goal that was completely robbed and thereby enrich Russia.

Pathetic scenes are lower and the director, probably in an attempt to justify the money that the Ukrainian state has invested in the movie, from the Bolsheviks trying to make the Russians. So the whole movie is nothing but a failed attempt of the Ukrainian government to make a propaganda film in cooperation with foreign subcontractors.

Pathetic to see the classic scenes of Soviet-style, where the role of dirty capitalists or German Nazis replaced with Russian- Bolsheviks. So an example, in a bar musicians play the Ukrainian song, and the wicked Russians attacked them and forced to play "Kalinka". Honestly, I have not watched the movie until the end. There are better TV commercials for toothpaste.

Stalin- not Hitler for a welcome change

[barbourjohn-633-608932 · 9/10 · 15 June 2017]

The Communists starved the Ukrainians under Stalin. The New York Times via Walter Duranty, covered up their crimes. Bitter Harvest is a fictional action- drama based on one man's story that lived through it. Now, finally a movie that is not about Hitler (national socialism) but about the real threat America faces from the left- International socialism ( communism) - still being covered up by the same lying media. Walter Duranty is best known for his stringent denial of the genocide of the Ukrainian people, known as Holodomor. Duranty refused to report on the man-made famine that killed up to twelve million people. Duranty also claimed other journalists who reported the truth of the USSR, such as Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones, were liars. Muggeridge went on to call Duranty "the greatest liar I have met in journalism." Some of Duranty's most well known lies and falsehoods about Holodomor are: "There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be." --New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1 "Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." --New York Times, August 23, 1933 "Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding." --New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6 "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." --New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18 "There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition." --New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13 Duranty also admitted privately that the genocide was happening. Bruce S. Thornton wrote: Walter Duranty stands as perhaps the quintessential fellow-traveler, killing news reports of famine and writing that Ukrainians were "healthier and more cheerful" than he had expected, and that markets were overflowing with food—this at the height of Stalin's slaughter of the kulaks.

Unfocused Drama

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 9 April 2017]

A common myth involving famine is that that it's entirely down to there not being enough food to go around an increasing human population . In other words there's too many people to survive on an essential resource , or "Malthusian catastrophe" to give it its technical term. What is being said is that there's too many people but there's often the innuendo that there's "too many (Insert black , brown or yellow here) people" here. The reality is that there's more than enough food in the world and the problems of food supply lie elsewhere, Don't believe me ? Ask yourself this:if there's more than 7 billion people in the world , more than it has ever been why is it that in the last few years only the Horn of Africa and North Korea have suffered famines ? You see my point ? It's nothing to do with resources and has everything to do with war in North East Africa and state policy in North Korea

BITTER HARVEST tells the story of one of the worst man made disasters in human history , that of the 1930s Soviet famine , most especially the Holodomor experience of the Ukrainians. Make no mistake because the famine was entirely man made where Josef Stalin rescinded Lenin's New Economic Policy ( Lenin and Trotsky's name change for capitalism )and executed or imprisoned everyone who knew anything about farming or engineering. A recipe for disaster in other words

The film itself is far from a disaster but constantly fails to make up its mind as to what it's trying to be. From the opening scene where the lead male and female are introduced as children you think that the film might be going one way only for it to go in a direction that it doesn't need to. It's a little bit love story , a little bit historical epic , a little bit action adventure etc but these segments never join up to a bigger picture , so much so it leads to an ultimately unsatisfying movie. It doesn't help that the goodies and baddies are painted in such broad stereotypical strokes

This is especially annoying where the casting is involved. Tamar Hassan is an actor I know from low budget British hooligan sub-genre films but is something of a revelation as Commissar Sergei but ends up being a rudimentary villain because that's what the screenplay demands and it is the fault of the screenplay . On the other end of the spectrum is up and coming Welsh actor Aneurin Bernard who plays Mykola a multi-layered Marxist and complex character but quickly disappears from the narrative. Things like this draw your attention to the fact that this is a well meaning film but should have been a great film as well as a well meaning one

Propaganda

[vnjegomir · 1/10 · 11 August 2017]

This is nothing but new fascist propaganda. If the movie was stick to historic facts, than the fact that Ukrainians are a mix of Russians and other nations would be stated. They were not against czar as they were Russia back than and never Ukraina before Second world war when they served Nazis from Germany by killing Jews, Gipses, Russians and not obedient Ukrainians.The Stalin era was the same for all parts of the USSR, Ukraina was not exception. Other than total historical miss, the movie is hard to watch after 10 minutes. The pure propaganda with low quality acting.

Good film, great effort.

[subxerogravity · 7/10 · 27 February 2017]

Feel the same way about this movie as I felt about Nate Parker's Birth of a Nation which came out last year.

Bitter Harvest is technically about a fairly new topic of the Holodomor. Though it happen 80 years ago I don't think enough information came out about it to make a movie until 2003 when the Russian admitted to it (At least that's what the film is telling me). As far as I know this is possibly the first movie all about the event with a focus on the story of Yuri, an artist at heart, warrior by birthright as he live through this genocide.

The movie jitters a little. It reminds me of the awful Red Tails , which focus a lot on giving us info about the situation rather than telling a story. Weather the filmmakers admit to it or not they were giving us a lot of info more than telling us a story. Though at least that's how the film starts. As we get to know Yuri, the actor that played the part was really good and someone you wanted to pay attention as you go over Yuri's struggle.

But the film technique is too robotic and formulated for me to get a full on emotional connection from all the main characters despite being played by great actors like Terrence Stamp who plays an old warrior and Yuri's grandfather.

I was also very impressed by the actions sequences in the film. Like I said, the film is not organic enough to get much feeling for what I'm seeing but I respect the technique of the action being performed.

The detailed story is nothing I have not seen before. No surprise, everyone at one point in history seems to have gone trough the same events portrayed in the movie (This is happening to people right now) So even though, I learned about Holodomor, A topic I never herd of before watching this film, The movie has nothing new to show me.

So, I don't know if this is the first or one of the first times that a movie deals with this part of Ukrainian history before, but like Birth of a Nation, I want to give it credit for tackling the issue and being decent with the content and hope that the next movie I see on the subject does better.

Historical movie let down by the detail

[spankeem-380-216649 · 4/10 · 10 June 2018]

For a historical movie to pique my interest I want it to look and feel realistic and be as visually accurate to the period as possible. This movie for all its bells and whistles falls short.

The face of the character Sergei (Tamer Hassan) looked too clean to the extent he actually looked like he had just had facial detoxes and possibly botox injections. With the exception of a few scenes the face of Yuri (Max Iron) was the same. Whilst other characters had that dirty look you would expect from farmers of the period who are experiencing hardship and famine these guys looked like they were ready for a night out.

I found that the housing was too clean and sanitised and the clothing was (with the exception of a few scenes). Added to this the housing appeared too clean for the period and the clothing looked like it had come straight from the dry cleaners.

Of the acting, the only characters that stood out were Yarslov (Barry Pepper who was killed not long after the start of the movie and Natalka (Samantha Barks).

It also didn't help that Stalin (Gary Oliver) looked like a Harry Enfield character than the big man himself.

When I watch movies like this I feel for the actors and crew for putting in the hard yards, only to be let down for that lack of detail.

Buried History of Ukrainian Famine Finally Being Told

[luciuk-l · 7/10 · 3 March 2017]

Here is my review of Bitter Harvest, published in The Globe and Mail (3 March 2017): www.the globe and mail.com/arts/film/buried-history-of-Ukrainian-famine-finally-told- in-film-bitterharvest/article34183392/

Although not without some problems this film does a good job of introducing the difficult subject of the genocidal Great Famine of 1932-33 in Soviet Ukraine (the Holodomor) to a general audience.

disappointing

[EddieGunner · 4/10 · 26 June 2017]

A love story, a war story, a starvation, all in all its nothing else then anti Russian movie, that come out in some time when most western world is anti Russian mood on,, which is viewbale by other comment of movie

back to movie, ITs very good subject and there could be made some good movies, but this, this is not a good movie, its very bad one. Main actors speak English and only in some sporadic situation others speak Ukranian or Russian. Acting wasn't on big level either,

there would be much more negativity i can say about this one, but that might ruin someone's watching, which i don't recommend at all :)

Dark Page in the Human Experience

[islandon · 10/10 · 30 May 2017]

The Holodomor, or Ukrainian Holocaust is a dark topic. It is a short testimony to the power of the human spirit to survive even the most cruel and vile regimes in History. Even with the murder of 10 million Ukrainians by starvation in only 2 years, millions more survived. The bonds of love, family and heritage were what saved this great people from annihilation. Like the Holocaust in Germany only a decade later, we must learn and NEVER FORGET!!!

Remembering the Holocomor

[lavatch · 7/10 · 5 July 2017]

"Bitter Harvest" aspires to be a historical film on the scale of "Doctor Zhivago." The focus is on a fateful love relationship placed in the context of the early years of the Soviet Union.

The film examines peasants and kulaks in the Ukraine following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. We are introduced to three generations of a proud, freedom-loving family of farmers. The grandson is a young artist named Yuri, who has great respect for his family tradition and the icons that are at the heart of Eastern Orthodoxy. As Yuri is an artist, the icons will figure prominent in the film's narrative.

Yuri and his friends have an idealistic spirit for the new government in Russia. Even the announcement of the brutal killing of the tsar does not seem to affect the community in the Ukraine. But following the death of Lenin and the rise of Stalin ("Koba"), the era of repression and collectivism suddenly impacts Yuri and his beloved Natalka.

"Koba" Stalin whispers to an associate, "You must be taught to bow to our will," and that is the course of action that Stalin pursues against the kulaks. These decent, hard-working landowners were called "blood-suckers" by Stalin and were stripped of their properties, exiled, or killed.

Beyond the atrocities, an even more catastrophic ploy of Stalin was a carefully manufactured famine that eventually led to the deaths of seven to ten million innocent people. This was known as the Holodomor ("death by starvation") in the years 1932-33.

The film graphically portrays the violence and develops an especially nefarious creature in the character of the Commissar, who holds Natalka hostage and attempts to make her his mistress. She outfoxes him with a poisoned stew, which, though not fatal, allows her to escape his clutches.

The film becomes overly melodramatic when Natalka loses the child sired by Yuri, yet receives a miracle from heaven in the form of the orphan boy named Lubko, whom the couple adopts. It seems inevitable that Yuri, Natalka, and little Lubko will escape to Poland and eventually find their way to Manitoba, Canada, which was the dream of Yuri's father.

At one point, the megalomaniac Stalin gives instructions to an associate to force the peasants into a situation of death by starvation, then asks, "Who is the world will know?" It turns out that with the release of records in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, everyone will know the truth about this malevolent dictator, as apparent in this fine film.

Oh, Cold War time returned..

[starartillery · 1/10 · 22 October 2018]

One more film about evil Russia. Terrible Russians invaded to USA and killing children there, invaded to Afghanistan and killing heroic Taliban fighters for freedom there, made zombie apocalypse in Great Britain, killing peaceful people in Chechnya... Genociding Ukrainians in 1930th at Ukraine... Waiting the film about mass murdering of people in Crimea during its annexation and heroic Ukrainian resistance now...

MUST SEE FILM, Bitter TRAGEDY

[katarina7777 · 10/10 · 9 January 2022]

You MUST watch it, but It will not be easy to watch this movie.... historical facts and one of the first movies about this page of history.

I watched this movie in cinema... Noone jew popcorn, people cryied... The movie makes you rethink and hunger to learn more about real history, a tragedy previously unknown nobody, until 1991 it was forbidden to talk about it and after many people were afraid, they could not believe USSR and Stalin regime finnished.

Director of the film made a great job, based on successful history of his family... to survive! And only God knows... the real number of death only in 1932-33, from 20 to 40 mln... dead and halfalive bodies were collected in villages of Ukraine and thrown in one big pit, where people were still half alive... hard to imagiine. The bread / wheat from ukrainian villages/cities were collected and taken to Moscow from where Stalin sold it out all over the globe, while Ukrainians had 0 seed to eat.

Now this must be shown in every school of the world. The tragedy must be told. We all hope nothing common will be repeated at any other point of the globe... but we still have some countries.... living in regimen where flow out of information is impossible.

Max Irons shines in lead role...

[moveebuff1953 · 6/10 · 21 August 2017]

Both my parents were born in Ukraine. I learned about Holodomor when USSR fell . It was Stalin's genocide against Ukrainians. Opening scenes seemed like a was watching a play. It just didn't feel Ukrainian .. 1932 was an extremely difficult time for Ukrainians as Russians stole everything. Seeing people dancing on the screen with embroidered costumes wasn't realistic. It took too long to get to the main plot which should have been how the Russians were murdering villagers on Stalin's orders. Death, despair took its toll on the people The love story should have been secondary. It would have been a more powerful drama akin to Jewish holocaust films. The acting was brilliant and the actors were most likely chosen for their box office draw. I would have liked to see more actual Ukrainian actors in the leading roles and actual Ukrainian language spoken (with subtitles). There can be no mistake about this genocide of 10 million Ukrainians. It happened. Ukrainians have been ruled by the Poles the Germans & Russians. They want their own country but even as I write this Putin is hell bent on killing Ukrainians on a daily basis. He is clever & has soldiers without identifying uniforms or weapons so the world is not paying attention. I hope more people watch this movie & learn how horrible the Russians were and still are to Ukrainians.

A part of the History that should not be overlooked, but the script...

[gilgamesh-gilgamesh · 5/10 · 24 May 2019]

I believe the money was all for the cast. The script ... well, there's a script and there's the history already told.

Great

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 2 April 2022]

This depicts the Holodomor, the starvation of millions Ukrainians due to policies enforced by Stalin's regime.

I always appreciate when an important story, that a lot of people don't know about, is told. In general the countless tragedies of the Soviet Union are something that we in the West should be more educated on. This is a fairly good and largely successful attempt. Given how bad we human beings can sometimes be when it comes to to appreciating the suffering of such a large group of people compared to a much smaller one, it's no surprise and probably a smart decision for this to focus on around a dozen characters(with only two clear leads) that all share some sort of relationship - family, friends... enemies. With that said, there actually being a romantic subplot, even if this is based on real people, does feel desperate.

Other than a handful of the effects shots being dodgy, the production values are solid. Cinematography and editing are competent. The film understands that with this degree of misery on display, the audience can only take so much, and keeps to a short running time. It does manage to fit in a substantial amount of different but related aspects of the suffering. Given that food shortage was what killed many of these people, it would be completely understandable if they didn't also include the persecution of those who refused to tow the party line, as well as the treatment of artists.

I recommend this to everyone who wants to know more about the horrors on the other side of the Iron Curtain. 7/10.