KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

vanillabean349 This film was truly an experience to watch. The events of this film are based on the story recounted by Slavomir Rawicz, a polish army lieutenant who managed to escape from a Siberian gulag during the second world war and walked to freedom in India. Peter Weir uses this story and some imagination to produce the sometimes fantasy-like plot for the film. In the opening scenes, Janusz, the protagonist, is being interrogated on charges of spying for the Allied powers, but refuses to sign a confession even after his wife is forced to falsely testify against him. This sort of corruption was not unusual in the USSR during this time, further developing the exposition for the film. The film also does a great job of depicting the experiences of prisoners in these gulags. Upon their arrival, the commandant of the camp explains the true viciousness and harshness of the natural environment in these camps, and that this ought to be feared more so than the guards, officers or work. This is an accurate picture of the gulags, especially in Siberia, where bitter-cold temperatures, sudden storms and other harsh conditions took the lives of both prisoners and guards at only marginally different (but still alarming) rates. Work in these camps was often tough labor like the logging shown in the film, and was possibly even more dangerous than the film depicted. Trees would often fall on people, accidents often occurred that resulted in serious injuries, and there are recorded incidences of people who chose to harm themselves to get a reprieve from this dangerous environment. In addition to the work and conditions, the types of prisoners in the gulags depicted in the movie were also accurate to a great extent. Gulag populations were far from homogeneous, and often held career criminals, political prisoners, and many common people who were charged falsely with some crime, as well as people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The career criminals often took control of the prisoner population, and were able to manipulate others in the camp to get what they wanted. Often times, the guards even supported this behavior. Similarly, there were people of all walks of life, all levels of health, and all manners of allegiance to the soviet order. While many of the main characters were in open opposition to the Soviet system, people like Valka - who still praised Stalin even after escaping the camp - did exist. Overall this film paints a relatively accurate picture of gulag life, and the types of conditions seen within the camps. The characters are at times overplayed, and the story itself becomes slightly monotonous after a period of time, but I would recommend this film to anyone interested in a story of true human will.

eritchey-46322 Peter Weir's The Way Back is a film chronicling a group of Gulag escapees' journey to freedom in India. While I found the film enjoyable and mostly accurate to the characteristics of the Soviet Union's Gulag camp system, I must acknowledge that the story's origin is a bit fuzzy. The film was based on a nonfiction book The Long Walk, which has been disputed. Although there are records of one or two groups of Gulag escapees turning up in India, the author of the book, who claimed to have accomplished this feat, did not actually escape a Gulag. While the origins of the story may not have been accurate, the depiction of the Gulag camp was accurate for the most part. For instance, Valka, the criminal character, had the authority in the barrack, which was true of most Gulags as guards tended to let criminals keep order. As was discussed in the film in the mining scene, heavy labor like mining work was fatal-it was just a matter of time before the inmate met their demise. Though comical, Valka's chest tattoo of Lenin and Stalin provides a good example of the blind loyalty to Stalin during World War II. Many inmates believed that their being in the Gulag was benefitting the regime and still held intense loyalty for the Communist government that had usually wrongly arrested them in the first place. Where this film fell short was showing how insanely fatal the Gulags were, especially in Siberia. Although we get a sense of the bitter conditions and their lethality in the scene where the guards allow the prisoners to take shelter in the forest away from the blizzard, I think that the film could have expanded upon how deadly a sentence to a camp like the one in The Way Back would have been.Straying from my discussion of historical accuracy, I must acknowledge that, as a viewer, the film seemed to drag on at points, especially as the group trekked across the desert. Despite this, when I think back on the film, I wonder if the long time in the desert was of some artistic significance. I wonder if Weir consciously chose to have the scene go on and on to mirror how the escapees kept walking and walking and never seemed to make much progress through the desert.

tannerpim This great Movie sometimes feels like a National Geographic book that you enjoy from your seat Yes, the Characters do get some malnourishment , and some do die from the trek, but the lighting is made well the clothing the actors ware draws you in as a viewer to believe the place and time is relevant ,to say the least, and the escapees do bond enough to make it as a team, but there is, unrealistically, not enough conflict and Drama. It is all handled in such a delicate way, that it is too delicate for its own good. It is without much tension and it all plays out so gentile that the Movie is OK to watch but there is way too little to feel, what would make the movie better, is more conflict and more drama, they don't explain the other stories of the other escapees, like what happened to valka, and the other guys , its okay just wish it was more engaging

false flag terrorism Great scenery, but that's about it, too many goofs and holes, not to mention that 'history' is merely a set of events that are agreed upon! Lots of time spent with the group walking through a desert, living off a berry, a snake, and a muddy puddle, that they somehow manage to fill their bags and bottles, full of water?? A well, filled to the top with clean looking water, in the middle of a desert??? how? why? who put the water there? A sandstorm that knocks everyone to the ground for an hour or so, yet they still have buckets of water that they were carrying? One scene, one guy kills a snake, whilst the other 4 are lying in the sand, dying, the next scene, they have somehow built a large rock shelter, using near perfectly formed bricks, they have built a fie and a brick BBQ, and said snake is now simmering on it, like chicken?? Come on! The final stages are comical, they somehow reach Tibet, the 4 remaining, dying guys, including Ed Harris, who must be 134 years old, they wake to find one of their party is missing, the two younger guys go look for him, and see him climbing a mountain top, just disappearing out of sight (the Himalayas, no, really!) So they run after him, the next shot they have caught up, and have fully scaled the Himalayas, in the rags they were wearing, in their near death state! Come on! Its the small details that count!