Bitter Harvest

Its narrative and visual approach almost suggests a compendium of the clichés one should avoid in a film like this.

The film is an awkward mix of swashbuckling love story and polemic, painted in very broad strokes.

The dialogue is at times embarrassingly bad.... On the other hand, the period details are impressive and must have cost a pretty kopiyka or two, and the film benefits visually from being shot on location.

Given the scope of the early-1930s atrocity, the most shocking thing about director George Mendeluk’s new dramatization is how utterly devoid of emotional impact it is.

A subject like the Holodomor demands something more than a TV-movie aesthetic and pitched battle scenes featuring a couple dozen combatants.

There ought to be no lack of firepower in telling this shameful tale. Too often, however, Bitter Harvest is guilty of overkill.

This is a story of villainous oppression, unfortunately told with oppressive earnestness.

How many movies about 2-nd World War and it's horrors we watched? How good we know the topic and thus made it popular for Movie-studios? It is a rhetoric questions and now we have a great deal of movies in pantheon: 'Saving Privat Ryan', 'Schindler's List', 'The Book Thief', 'El laberinto del fauno' etc. They are absolutely great and give audience real feelings of horrors of war and occupation. They recreate emotions people felt. They wake our imagination and show the true story of event's through peopl's hurts. But what could have happened if world could not defeat **** tyranny? And answer to that question is not always an anti-utopia as '1984'. We have real stories that have never been told, we have lot of terrors and crimes made to the human who could never rise their voice loud enough for world to hear. 'Bitter Harvest' is one of that movies - it has a very great deal of drawbacks: overacting, little scale of actions, poor camera work, and the main thing - actors who don't understand that deepest despair, total horror and loneliness of whole nation that has no friendly-country, only those who wanted to plunder and take something. The deepest despair is not shown at all. As example above '1984' - gives more bright emotion which was in human's mind. Ukraine story of 1920-1991 is a story of nation defeated by tyrants and silent for centuries. People fought, suffered and died - unknown and futile victims. Their stories were never told to the world. The horrors of Russian occupation was so terrible - that hundred years after they are still forbidden for World to know. There was countless millions of Ukrainians who was always ahead in struggle for freedom, but envy of historical neighbors have neither gave real support, nor even allow to tell about Ukrainian identity. This despair is in the basis of national Hymn and ideology - to survive, to live through defeat and hatred toward you. Movie lacks it - seems George Mendeluk just don't understand that deepest tragedy of millions and tries to imagine what it was like - but he fails. The main part is that despite drawbacks described above movie opens the topic for discussion and further work. It is absolutely sure it cannot be done without knowing the Ukraine, living here and knowing our live histories. This topic is of utmost importance as even now in 2017 Russian Federation does the same things they did fir centuries: they enslave. kill and LIE. Their lie is very loud and sophisticated, they 've made far more successful methods then **** propaganda. And they have never been defeated as ****, so they turn reality upside down and even now defend all that was done centuries ago against conquered nations. Movie lacks of authenticity, actor's work is absolutely synthetic, scale of actions is too narrow - so it cannot be rated as WorldWarII movies. But movie reopen the topic that is even more important than World War II - as crimes done in USSR in 1920's did the groundwork for all what come later. Showing this to the world is of utmost importance for history and humankind. This is the first step into unknown and George Mendeluk has courage to do that – so he deserves respect and honor. I hope that this topic will bring more masters to understand and bring world the truth that was concealed and ignored for so long. Author: Mykhailo Sazhniev

Solid movie overall. It is bit cliche but its entertaining for the most part. Really doesn't deserve all the negative reviews from critics. I would consider it a good a one time see.

Bitter Harvest portrays Ukraine in the grip of Stalin's death-by-starvation campaign in the 1930s. The country is forced to comply with Stalin’s territorial ambitions, leading to widespread poverty and starvation. Yuri (Max Irons) resists, even as he is separated from his girlfriend Natalka (Samantha Barks). Central to the story is their love, which contrasts with the Soviet plans in Ukraine, offering a refreshing change from the official narrative that caused suffering in the region. Yuri and his friends attempt to escape and save their families, but the plot progresses slowly. While Terrence Stamp and Barry Pepper bring some distinction to the cast, the rest of the actors fail to deliver the powerful performances the material demands. The modest production scale does not match the film's thematic and narrative ambitions, falling short of being an epic. The main issue with the film is the dilemma between finding it somewhat dull but appreciating its important themes. Deciding whether to rate it lower or recommend it depends on the viewer—whether they are willing to endure a slow-paced plot for the sake of its significant themes. Bitter Harvest may be dull, but its theme is memorable. It highlights the potential for human evil, treated as a tragedy in the film. The movie does not delve into graphic details, which might not have improved it anyway. Even if action added vigor, it might not have aligned with the intention of highlighting injustice; some filmmakers can evoke empathy through action or violence, creating a sense of tragedy, however, Bitter Harvest has no signs of a Schindler's List. The material may outshine the filmmakers’ abilities and the budget's limitations. While not an epic, the film is well-meaning and worthwhile for its stand against genocide. If taken seriously, it evokes a sense of sad resignation over past atrocities and the frustration of being unable to change them. In summary, Bitter Harvest is a somewhat dull film, but its theme leaves an impact.

The director is so ridiculous as to be an outrage to the Ukrainian genocide. (Mauro Lanari)

This movie glossed over a lot of things in history. 1. They make life in pre-bulshevik Russia look good when really they were all starving illiterate peasants. 2. They don't mention the bad weather earlier in the year that partially caused the famine in the first place 3. Greed of the kulaks. Kulaks were peasant farmers and were the main victims of the holodomor.they never mentioned the fact that before the bulsheviks kulaks would sell grain at high prices when everyone was starving and burned grain they couldn't sell. They were basically ****. 4. This is a historical event and they try to make it a romance.