Kirpianuscus Bogdan Stupka. in fight to create a credible Taras. a literary gem. who becomes a political tool. that is all. the film has a lot of sins but the basic problem is the ambition to create a Hollywood blockbuster as support for the Kremlin 's interest. the fragile beauty of the book is lost. the Kozaks becomes Russian puppets. the Pole society is victim of a Manicheism who not convince and not impress. the entire story becomes an aggressive political speech. sure, many historical films from the East Europe are illustrations of the same recipes. but under the Communism regime. and the delicate problem is to transform Ukraine in a part of Russia, to use special effects for ignore the senses of book, to destroy a noble idea for a not real decent result. short, a Russian story. full of nationalism. and not convincing . useful for a kind of public . and not more that.

Armand In same time, an error and a masterpiece. A film in which history is only an political instrument. Strong, hilarious and aggressive. And a movie in which every detail is explore in fantastic way. So, the result is a schizoid work. Shadows of Jirinovsky and medieval air. A fake Ukraine and romantic sticks. A huge picture and a boring manifesto. But the delicate fact is the absence of Gogol. The director, in past maker of spectacular pages of lost history, is in this sad case only organiser of a Russian propaganda show. Enthusiastic and full of good intentions, he crushes the original story. The Christmas tree is impressive; but only ornaments. The wood is far of the public. It is difficult to say if "Taras Bulba" is a disaster. The crumbs are good taste. The cake is old and strange. But the memory is more tempt by the beautiful coins and Kosacs costumes.

Cinema Scholar The 2009 Russian-made adaptation of "Taras Bulba" yet again highlights the directing genius of Vladimir Bortko. The film is beautifully crafted with spectacular costumes, truly epic battle scenes and a melodic score.The cast is hand-picked to suit the roles perfectly, with Vladimir Vdovichenkov (Brigada, Bumer) playing the patriotic Ostap. Igor Petrenko (Geroy Nashego Vremeni, Volkodav iz roda Serykh Psov) is seen in yet another negative role that the audience can sympathise with - the traitorous Andrey. The stunning Magdalena Mielcarz (Quo Vadis?, Limousine) plays Elzhbeta, Andrey's love interest, and his sole reason for betraying his father and country. However, the real show-stealer is Bogdan Stupka (Est - Ouest, Ogniem i Mieczem), who portrays the brave Cossack Colonel Taras Bulba. The fearsome leader's role is played superbly, with his character catching on the exact same vibe that came off him in the original novel. A noteworthy mention also goes to the Russian cinema veteran Mikhail Boyarsky (D'Artanyan i tri Mushketyora, Gardemariny, Vperyod!), seen as Moisei Shilo, a well-respected Cossack and a seasoned warrior.The film remains true to Gogol's 1842 edition of the novel and to history. The Cossack's repeated words of praise for the Russian Land and Orthodox Christianity can be found in the manuscript. The political situation at the end of the XVI century in Ukraine was that it's cultural and religious life was being tarnished and oppressed by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Rzeczpospolita. The Zaporizhian Cossacks were frequently involved in violent clashes with the Poles, which lasted well into the XVII century, until Ukraine requested Russian military assistance to finally defeat Poland and force it towards diplomacy. Interestingly, the Cossacks considered themselves independent from any nation, be it Russia or Ukraine, and they did not recognise the sovereignty of either ruler. Instead, they elected their own leaders and fought for their lands - the lands of the old Kievan Rus' that were united by Orthodoxy, and called Rus' for short.With the budget of 516 million Russian rubles, Bortko is able to re- create the feeling of the time, aided with mass numbers of actors to ensure the realism of battle. Zaporizhian Sich was built as an accurate depiction of a Cossack settlement and the costumes used are reflective of the dress sense of the various factions.Surely the picture could be improved on a number of fronts. Andrey's character development suffered, largely due to the time constraints of a single part film feature, however, that did not detract from the empathy one could experience with him. Another element that suffered from time constrains is the number of self-reflective narratives, that provide an insight on the various characters, present in the original novel. This is a common problem to all film adaptations of previously written materials.Overall, Vladimir Bortko's "Taras Bulba" is a solid historical feature and a worthy adaptation of Nikolai Gogol's masterpiece. While it is somewhat inappropriate to compare it to a mini-series, the film reaches the same high standard set by Bortko in "Master i Margarita".8/10

Yuriy Dekabrov I'd like to start off with what is good in this movie, for the list will be infinitely shorter than what is bad.Good points: 1. Bogdan Stupka ('Taras Bulba') performance. His presence in the movie is the only excuse to see the movie in the first place.2. Attention to detail in costumes and observing cossack traditions. The movie can be a good reference for re-enactors of Zaporizka Sich and Rzech Pospolita of XVI century.Bad points: 1. Patriotic speeches comprise over 50% of the total movie time. Every single cossack having at least one line in the movie, had to proclaim a speech about the never-ending glory of orthodox faith and Russian land before dying. I mean, it is OK once. It can be touching. However, in Taras Bulba there are 5 or 6 nearly identical speeches within 5 minutes span. Around the third speech/death sequence it gets really boring and you think 'will you please just shut up and die?' The word 'Russian' appears in every other sentence of the movie. I mean, I know those are Russians who make the movie with the aid from the government. I bet, anyone from outside USSR will return from the theater with the firm belief those were Russians fighting Poles. But hey, the entire thing actually happens in Ukraine! Yet, reference to Ukraine is carefully avoided and quickly mentioned only twice in the entire movie.2. Battle scenes. The movie attempts at Braveheart realism with close-ups of wounds. Which would have been OK, if they haven't shown close-ups for nearly EACH SINGLE CUT AND PIERCE in the movie. Coupled with unimpressive execution of one-on-one duels and poorly organized mass scenes (you get the full screen of cossacks and Poles walking (not running!) chaotically without any apparent purpose or sense of direction, it creates seriously sad impression.3. Performance of the younger cast. Vdovichenkov is no longer a criminal from 'the Bumer' (the BMW) but his line 'Ty chto skazal?!' (What have you just said?) was performed in the XVI century church in the same manner as previously at the criminals' meeting in 1990s. Younger son, Andriy (Petrenko) is not nearly as passionate as his father, Taras, (Bogdan Stupka). Yeah, I betray my motherland and my father, because I love you. No big deal.4. Soundtrack is as awful as in Bortko's Master and Margarita.