1 comment

• Allen MacCannell

  Much of the movie is fairly accurate if extremely compacted and the real impact of the film is that it is clearly in vogue in Russia now to romanticize the Russians who fought in the White Army against the Bolsheviks. The biggest inaccuracy, from reading other material, was IMHO whitewashing the White Army, including Semenev’s atrocities, and Kolchak’s personal mistakes in dealing with farmers, the Czechs and the French who ultimately betrayed him.

  The movie makes the valid suggestion that he was betrayed because the foreign forces were afraid and wanted safe passage out of Russia so they stabbed him in the back.

  The opening scene was an amalgamation of brave military exploits Kolchak committed in both the Baltic Sea in WW1 and the heroic but unsuccessful battle to save Port Arthur from the Japanese 11 years before in 1905… but things did not actually happen the way they did in the scene. I don’t think he barreled through his own mine field like that…but Hollywood would be proud of that scene and he did, in real life, sew mines right before an enemy squadron near the Swedish coast when the rest of his officers were begging him to sail to safer waters.

  Kolchak did throw his gold sword overboard when he resigned as leader of the Black Sea Fleet before astonished mutinous sailors. That sword had been given to him by the Japanese when they captured him after the battle for Port Arthur. They apparently admired his bravery. I don’t blame him for not giving it to the mutineers.

  The man obviously earned a few movies to be made about him. I hope this won’t be the only such film and, with this and Doktor Zhivago, we still need more films about the Civil War 1918-20.

  The ending was just like in the movie “Titanic” which was a brilliant move. Three thumbs up. ;-)

  26 December 2008, 22:45 pm

  Reply to this