robertmaybeth 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.

ChillEastweed A Soviet tank unit destroys an Afghan village and the crew of five of the sole surviving tank attempt to rendezvous with the rest of their division, but get lost along the way, trapped in a desolate desert valley while Mujahadeen guerrillas keep hunting them. Stress and tension keeps rising between the tank crew.Very little-known anti-war movie. Well acted, nice cinematography. Nothing too cliché, nothing too over the top action, very entertaining and still holds up well today. The title may fool you that it is some 80's b-movie but it's definitely not.Better tank movie than Fury (2014).

bandw It is 1981, the second year of the Soviet-Afghan war. After pulverizing an Afghan village, a Soviet tank takes a wrong turn and loses communication with its unit. Unfortunately for this tank it has entered a valley through a pass which is the only escape route. The anti-Soviet Afghan rebels did not take kindly to the brutal destruction wreaked by this tank, which they referred to as "the beast." The desire to avenge the attack is strong enough to unite a couple of feuding rebel tribes, and the story details the single-minded determination of the rebels to pursue and destroy the tank. In the process we get to know the five member crew in the tank as well as some of the rebels. There is a goodly amount of footage from the interior of the tank--claustrophobes beware.The tank commander is of the old school, having fought the Nazis in WWII at the age of eight. His obsession to get back to safety with his tank creates stress within his crew, to say the least. There is enough conflict in this movie to fuel several films--conflict among the tank crew, conflict among the rebels, conflict between the tank crew and the rebels. The pacing kept my attention throughout. The cinematography is outstanding. The desert landscape plays an important role and the camera uses it to great effect. The musical score contributes in establishing mood, but it is not intrusive. All of the actors were up to the task. Having the Soviet tank crew speaking in English was initially off-putting, but quickly ceased to be a problem for me. The Soviet-Afghan war proved that the Afghans are not easily subdued. Robert Gates (U.S. Secretary of Defense 2006-2011) has recently been quoted as saying that approximately two million Afghans were killed in the war and five million fled the country. What a disaster.The DVD I got from Netflix was single-sided with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The movie was filmed in wide screen and I think much would have been gained with that format, since the landscapes played such an important role.

johnklem ... as do its origins as a play. William Mastrosimone's a good enough playwright but doesn't have a good grasp of screenplays. The potential's there in the idea but he makes his political points too clumsily and there are far too many convenient coincidences that would have been (were?) overlooked on a stage. Even so, the biggest problem is the miscasting of the tank commander. He's never credible, despite his acting abilities, which are considerable. He's just miscast. He's the overweight sidekick or the comic relief, not a driven, battle-hardened Soviet commander. The other mistake was filming it in Israel. While parts of Afghanistan are barren, using Israel as a stand in flattens the film and lessens the impact of the Soviet presence. Hard to explain but it's clear when you see the film that the backdrop is wrong. Not a bad film but it could have been so much better.