The Beast of War (1988)

Load of rubbish!!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It would look kind of like this. The plot is moronic, the characters ridiculous and superficial, and the action is straight out of the fantasy of a bunch of schoolboys. I won't even call this pathological anti-Russian propaganda, because it's too dumb to even qualify as such. There is no attempt to make anything in this film even remotely believable, and one every so often finds himself wondering whether or not this is a parody. This thing is so silly, it makes Rambo 3 look like a serious war drama. So let's address the plot in brief. The Soviets decide to annihilate a tiny village (a few houses and a mosque) in the middle of nowhere. Why? No reason. Not only do they blow up every house, but the mosque, too. Then they kill all the livestock and poison the well, for no apparent reason. Now, the task force consists of three tanks. Why? Why not land a team with helicopters, get the job done, and then fly them back? Why would tanks be driving around the desert with no air cover and no infantry protection? Why would tank crews leave the tanks and start exchanging fire with the rebels? What if they get killed? Who's gonna operate the tank? This is the kind of stupidity that is seen in one scene after the other. Characters act like idiots, they do one dumb thing after another, and finally a helicopter arrives to save the crew of a tank that's lost in the desert and pursued by the rebels. So what happens? The ENTIRE crew of the helicopter: pilot, copilot, gunner, engineer... drinks from a pond nearby and gets poisoned by the poison the Soviet army had previously dumped there. Now, wouldn't they have known about the poison? Would they have drunk from a filthy pond filled with bacteria and parasites of every description? Wouldn't they have prioritized rescuing their men to collectively filling their stomachs with bog water? And how did a tank get lost anyway? In this film every scene and every action taken by the protagonists makes you wonder how it was humanly possible to write something that dumb. That being said, had I seen this at the age of nine, I would have just enjoyed the brainless action. But that fact hardly saves this film from being a colossal failure. It's an embarrassment. Zero stars.

Almost no one saw this astounding movie when it came into the theaters, since it was in release so briefly it seemed like an after-thought. Even so it remains one of the best war movies made, and passing it up would be an error especially if you are a die-hard war movie fanatic.Kevin Reynolds ("water World") directs this movie expertly, with never a camera shot or bit of dialogue wasted in telling its compelling and relentless story. Once you get past the liberal use of artistic license (Russian crew members speak perfect English, with North American accents) the movie pulls you in and never lets go. The use of authentic Russian T-55 tanks (on loan from Israel, where the movie was filmed) and even a genuine Russian helicopter only heightens the story elements but never detracts from it (nobody ever says something like "See, look at all this fine Russian equipment, Dmitri! isn't this unusual?!") And what a story it is too. The movie opens with a superb action sequence: Peaceful Afghan village, suddenly we hear the "whoosh" of a shell hitting a structure and blowing it to pieces. In the next shot we are shown the source, 3 Russian tanks are attacking the village. The tank crews then proceed to devastate the place, with tank guns, machine guns, flame throwers, grenades and even poison gas. Nothing is too small to escape destruction, as the Soviets blow up the village minaret, machine-gun the live stock and even poison the well. The tank of the title (The beast") is even used as an instrument of execution for an enemy fighter.Their decimation done, the tanks then move off; two tanks go down the proper trail but "our" tank, at the orders of their mad-man of a tank commander, goes down the wrong trail. During the attack on the village, the lost tank had its radio shot out and can't communicate with their fellow Soviets and is now lost too. It is now isolated and alone, the perfect target for the Afghan mudjis sitting on a hill watching all this. They see the tank going off on its own, realize it is lost and vulnerable. So they gather their fellows, arm up with an RPG and other small arms, and follow the tank tracks in order to catch up to it and destroy it. What follows is a very tight, very taut action sequences with never a false move, plenty of interesting plot twists, and other elements that are best left unspoiled.I wish to repeat, no war movie fan should miss "The Beast" (often found retitled as "The beast of war"). In these days of CGI it's hard to believe a better war movie will come along anytime soon, if ever.

I have watched this film several times over the years but as world events have evolved, it seems to have had fewer and fewer airings.Maybe that's because there is no further way to 'polish a turd'.My apologies to all of those involved but this is a reprehensible piece of US film-making. When this film was produced, the Berlin Wall had just come down but the Soviet Union still existed and still posed a severe threat to the US. However, no-one should delude themselves - this is simply a white hat/black hat/good guy/bad guy re-hash of what Hollywood has been doing for decades. Only in this film, the Soviets are the bad guys and the 'Mujihadeen' are the good guys. Then, having ousted the Soviet regime, the Mujihadeen (see the word 'jihad' in there) seized control of Afghanistan and transformed into... the 'Taliban'.

this is one of the best combat films i have ever seen. and it feels, looks and smells real.it has everything: the conflict between the idealistic draftee and the hardened professional; the difference in commitment between invaded and invader; and self sacrifice; the ultimate warrior virtue.it shows you can't always pick a conflict's winner solely by judging which side has the greatest amount of firepower, asks whether one should gauge a society's sophistication by the modern standard of technological achievement, or by its moral sophistication? and proves that terrain may often be the greatest adversary an invading army has to conquer.and you get to feel just how impregnable a tank feels to foot-bound infantry--you feel its awesome firepower and how dangerous it is in the attack, and the potential sacrifice inherent in an infantry assault on on this impregnable beast.and at the bottom of all these realities lurks the ultimate occupier's question, "how come we're the Nazis this time?".and then there is George Dzundza. how come he didn't get more hard roles like this one? he was always the jolly fat guy who bought the next round. what a waste. but maybe his weight is what kept him sidelined. too bad. i bet he jumped through a giraffes tonsils to play this role, no matter how hard the shoot must have been, or how much weight they wanted him to lose.