Burnt by the Sun 2 (2010) User Reviews

Dear oh dear

[Skullen · 3/10 · 7 August 2010]

Hmm, to be honest, I shouldn't even be writing this. This film shouldn't exist at all. The first Burnt by the Sun was perfect - and ended perfectly. When I heard that there was to be a sequel, my heart sank, and having finally seen the film, my heart is still down there... This film is bad. From the lack of plot, to the ropey acting, to the appalling FX (oh my word, God save us from yet another one of Mikhalkov's badly rendered German planes!), to the bad choice of shots (few still camera shots, showing Nikita's lost his nerve and belief in his ability to frame a shot well and meaningfully), to the absurd events that occur (e.g. defecating out of planes)... this film has nothing to commend itself. Save yourself... keep the pure memories of the first film and don't watch this.

Cannes, don't!

[lawer2 · 3/10 · 6 May 2010]

It is difficult to imagine, but! If anyone of the Cannes-2010 Jury read this, please, do not give any prize to this trash with "great movie" label. Do not defame my country.

So, the "masterpiece"... Every film starts with its slogan nowadays. This time it was "The Great movie about the Great war". Let's even forget Mikhalkov is not overly modest. But, if you dare to touch such important subject before the 65th anniversary of the Great Victory and declare your product "Great", it must be great.

And what we see? All the movie is full of stupidity, Mikhalkov's fantasy and himself. Several separate novels (bad plots). About what? Who knows! There are good Nazi military men and bad soviet civil men and women. Stupid soviet people force Nazis to bomb Russian Red Cross ship, or, for variety's sake, burn 100 or 500 peasants. Nazies even cry when they are forced to do so! And only Mikhalkov's Kotov does the right things. He is everywhere. He - but not any sense. There is no need for the voluminous review to summarize, Utomlyonnye solntsem 2 are: nazi ass, trying to defecate down from 400 km/h plan, and "show me your tits". Great...

BTW, "burnt" may sound better for English-speakers, but the right translation is "Tired by the sun" - not "Burnt...". And you are really tired after watching this movie...

Messy and uneven

[george_aslf · 3/10 · 28 April 2010]

Does it really matter that the characters that have implicitly died in the first part somehow come back to life in this sequel? This happens in films a lot, doesn't it? Jason and Michael Myers always get killed but they keep returning again and again, so why can't General Kotov (Nikita Mikhalkov) do that? I don't have any problem with this, really.

Secondly, although the events in the sequel take place only approximately seven years after the events of the first film, the characters seem to be at least 15 years older. However, this is not a problem either. In "Curious Case of Benjamin Franklyn" Brad Pitt's character kept changing every single minute and no one complained about that, and, moreover that film has even won several Oscars.

The real problem of the film is that it lasts almost 3 hours, during which a lot of things seem to happen, but at the end you realize that almost nothing has happened. The same story could have been told and shown more efficiently in 1 ½ hours. The film has no integrity. It is rather many small films with nothing or very little in common (in terms of style, spirit, pace, genre). In fact it has almost nothing in common (in terms of style, spirit, pace, genre) with the first part which is by all means a much better film. On the other hand each (or almost each) little episode is executed quite well, and perhaps a better editing could bring these little films together more successfully into one good film (insted of the messy and uneven movie that it is now).

Too many famous actors have cameo appearances, and this is the case where quantity does not necessarily mean quality. Some of these appearances do work well (another great performance by Evgeny Mironov) while others are disastrous (Maria Shukshina).

Finally, one of the main reasons why the film fails to be a good film is uncertainty of the director in taking the decision regarding the genre he wants to fit his film in. At times the film is a war drama on the edge of corny melodrama (influence by Saving Private Ryan is noticeable) turning from time to time into an epic tragedy (Schiendler's list influence) and all of a sudden turning into Inglorious Basterds (influence by this Tarantino film is evident). This could have worked had Mikhalkov not taken his work so seriously. Too much pafos is not good, but could be bearable. However, pafos mixed with comedy is something awkward and indigestible.

The final scene with a dying soldier wanting to have a look at girl's breasts before he passes out, was probably meant to be dramatic, thought provoking and tear jerking. However it is utterly ridiculous.

Overall, a great film by Great Nikita Mikhalkov. Not.

Do not waste either time or money or traffic

[pivanshin · 1/10 · 2 May 2010]

This is one of the most awful movies I have ever seen.

The plot is very uneven. The action confusingly jumps from one time and location into another.

Despite having of all the usual comedy gags: ass and tits demonstration, wetting his own pants and idiotic bad bosses the movie fails to amuse since it strives at the same time to be pathetically patriotic and dramatic. The acting is also poor. Most of the actors almost permanently goggle eyes and/or beat in rather intense hysterics which adds to comical side of the movie. Also the movie contains a lot of acts of violence. I simply cannot understand how could anyone put such a combination of stupid jokes and gore in one film.

Waste of time.

Epic fail

[voodoo-27 · 1/10 · 6 May 2010]

I guess, it's the worst movie I've ever seen. After this spit at Russian history Mikhalkov is a "spent bullet" director for me. If you want to know about the history of WWII in Russia don't watch this movie because all you'll see is several scenes of "how Mikhalkov wanted it to be". He's gone too far in his quest to alter the history. He shows a silly death of "kremlin cadets" just to "prove" how dull the Russian commanders were. But in a real world these "kremlin cadets" stopped Nazi's near Moscow. The final scene is absolutely amoral, it's like a knife to the heart of those who died defending their motherland. In fact, it's hard to find a scene in this movie where people are not silly. I've read a lot of feedbacks from people who fought in this war and these people say that Mikhalkov is a liar and they curse him.

spit on history

[mkimask · 1/10 · 2 May 2010]

As everyone already knows this is the most expensive movie made in Russia. So I was expecting some good story and visual effects. But what we got was something awful. There is no story in the movie, it's more like "let's show them that scene, now let's show them this scene" and the connection between scenes is really unnatural. This movie is anti-historical. There were no "shtrafbat" in 1941, there were no German tanks under sails, Stalin was not looking like a zombie etc etc. And another thing is, that Red Army did fight against Germans, but for some reason Nikita Mikhalkov is showing us that Soviet Army is a bunch of scared and unorganized people. if things were like that Germans would have taken over Moscow in 41. Some of the scenes of this movie are so ridiculous that I do not even want to talk about them. For example, the scene where German shooter wants to s**t right out of a flying plane. That is impossible and you can't move your plot by creating impossible situations.

So, in conclusion, I would like to say that it is unpatriotic, stupid, anti-historical movie with very poor visual effects. Do not watch

Michalkov falls - everyone dies

[gess1001 · 1/10 · 31 May 2010]

It's amazing, it's astounding, it's unbelievable - it's trash beyond any usual definition of trash! Some compare it with the "Inglorious basterds" and indeed it's just as insane and irreverent to historical truth but the madcap feats of daring and a plethora of lively and memorable characters that made IG such an affable flick are not there, replaced by a (s)crappy sequence of sketches performed by a coven of morons, traitors, cowards and assholes. "Sun-burned 2" is a live adaptation of "Happy Tree Friends" with the plot of every episode following the same pattern: enters Michalkov(a), enters everybody else, everybody else dies horribly, Michalkov(a) leaves, viewer doesn't give a damn.

Worst movie ever

[sauriva · 1/10 · 15 October 2010]

It's obvious that Mikhalkov is dead as a director and was never born as an actor. Pathetic, too long and without any sense this film was made on government's money and that is funny, 'cause those money would better be spent somewhere on the social sphere. The way that Mikhalkov looks at his daughter through this film makes me think he is a sick man. It's OK to help own children to achieve something, but not sticking them in every own project to make spectators vomit. Also the fact that children from schools was made to watch this film and their parents were made to buy them tickets make me sick, 'cause no one wanted to look at this piece of crap and waste their time, but this is how the bank was made.

Still a Watchable War Drama

[ronchow · 7/10 · 28 May 2012]

Granted, Burnt By the Sun 2 is not as good as the original, but as an anti-war film it is still watchable. I think rating it one star out of ten is excessively and unjustifiably harsh on the film and director Mikhalkov.

I have no way of gauging the historic accuracy of the film, so I will avoid looking at it from that angle. As a war film, expensively done - some scenes of destruction are stunning - and at 3 hours, I enjoyed watching it. The jumping back-and-forth within a period of 3-4 years was not done properly, nor was it necessary in my opinion. This makes the story a bit hard to follow for viewers like me. The blood and gore in battle scenes did not turn me off, and it did to some, and I have no issue of Mikhalkov taking an extra step in depicting the horror of war and the physical damage done to human bodies. War had never been pleasant.

Keep and open mind and watch this film. Brush aside its shortcomings. One can still find a decent film in BYTS2.

Great movie to fall asleep!

[soliev · 2/10 · 26 May 2010]

The main poster says, "Great movie about great war." The question that rises on my mind is, "HAHAHAHAH are you serious!? Great movie?! Please Nikita stop it you are too funny!" When I saw the title I knew that there is going to be something wrong. All recent successful works, actually never mind more of like just one movie which I liked by Nikita Mihalkov, which was 12, was a remake and not original version. Despite all those views I thought that this is going to change my mind, I repeat I thought! Probably the slogans of the movie suppose to be, "Do you suffer from Insomnia? Do you want to figure out a way to commit a suicide? Well look no more since Burnt by the Sun can change it all!" The movie strictly concentrated on hatred towards Nazi Germany and Stalin's reign. That I found out from movie description on IMDb, very sad. What sadness me most is the fact that in cinema you are able to see that the movie is high quality and they spend a lot of money on it, but let's not forget this is not a 3D movie. Why spend all that money on depicting every single pimple on the person's face when you can write a good script, not showing us all details of the person's face and we will be happy, I promise. The worse part is that it is just part 1, there is part 2 coming out.

In deed there were couple of interesting and funny moments, but that doesn't change the fact that movie "SUCKED!" Dear Nikita Mihalkov please write better scripts.

Out of ten the max I can give it is 2, yep it was pretty much that bad...

(via wioym.net)

Must see.

[clasbin · 10/10 · 24 July 2011]

I watched the first 'Burnt by The Sun' years ago, not being aware it is the prelude of a trilogy. Then I saw it again, motivated by a discussion with a friend and it was enough of an incentive to follow up its sequels.

It might be too soon after watching it to be truly objective but the story still has a hold on me and I can't wait to see its further development. There are times when I even forget to read the subtitles, but the movie still plays before my eyes and in my head. The fact that the script abides or not by the rules of Hollywood dogma is of little importance to me. Many great movies don't. It is rather a chance to see if the picture really grabs you or not. And what I see is a beautiful, graceful and subtle movie that leaves me no time to yawn or chew popcorn. Not a movie for people with the attention span of a golden fish. It relies heavily on the relation with the first part of the story, whatever knowledge you might have of the communism and your emotional intelligence.

As a citizen of a country that was 'liberated' by the Red Army and upon which the Soviet Union bestowed the unwanted gift of communism I was paradoxically raised with neither hatred towards the Russian people nor with the forced love for them. So, when I say I love N. Michalkov with all my heart after watching most of his movies, it really means something. War clichés? Maybe, but expertly done. Things that don't add up? Eastern peoples are much more used to symbols instead of sanitized narrations of quantifiable facts. It's just how our brains work and we are not ashamed of it. Characters might not exist as depicted? That never stopped anyone from telling a story, but you may as well picture them as merging together lots of real experiences. Goofy moments? Great irony.

One last thing that accounts for a lot of hate. In Soviet Union and some other countries (my own included) communism relied also on exacerbated nationalistic feelings. Some people will never recover from that while they still draw breath. Ironically, the main character psychological drama is based upon the fact that he accepts his fate because he 'loves his country'.

So, those of you who get this movie, it can be like our private joke. Those of you who don't... Well, who cares about you anyway.

Slow and a bit too long, but otherwise OK

[v-tadic · 7/10 · 3 June 2010]

Before obtaining a copy of this film, and being very fond of Part 1, I read some of the reviews here. When reactions were so violent and outraged, most probably they were subjective and the product of defective education. Some even bordered on malignant stupidity. But this could be expected from the contemporary one-book, action-movie generations.

Although not the best of the Mikhalkov's movies, it is not bad at all. It could be vastly improved by re-cutting and shortening by one hour or so, but it nevertheless gives an accurate and touching picture of the horrors of the WW II in Soviet Union, of the enormous loss of young lives because of the monstrous Stalinist regime. Red Army was practically headless in 1941 because the majority of its leaders was either killed or in Gulags. It took some time and enormous loss of lives, equipment and territory, to push forward new and capable Red Army leaders and to train the ill prepared troops to fight Germans on equal footing. Mikhalkov's film accurately portrays the chaotic days of '41.

If you want to be "awake" go watch Steven Seagal or some such American crap, Mikhalkov is not for you. You are incapable of understanding the fight for survival on your own soil. So, shut up. If you don't like it, why watch it?

It's so bad that it's good

[beaumain · 1/10 · 27 May 2011]

The reason Mikhalkov's film became Russia's worst box office flop is obvious. It is a very bad movie. It has a stupid script, useless scenes of violence, gore and defecation. It has bad acting, discontinuity and retcon. All of the characters that were presumed dead since the first film are there, alive, and surprisingly changed their age.

The acting is terrible, all actors except Menshikov are copying Mikhalkov's manner of raving, mumbling and gabbling. They are hysterical all the way, they never seem to calm down. They scream and shout when they need not to.

Another reason for the film to fail is that it offended the feelings of Russians. It shows their army as a pack of hysterical idiots who shoot and blast each other. In the same time, it portrays invading Wehrmacht as kind and cheery boys. Germans don't seem to be there to fight and conquer, they only return fire when attacked by those crazy russkies. Any violence from Nazi troops is always provoked by Russians.

It is surprising that some in the West consider this movie a Russian patriotic propaganda. In Russia itself it is clearly viewed as anti-patriotic. The movie dishonors Russian army, it exaggerates the role of penal battalions packed with former political prisoners, and downplays the role of the ordinary Red Army units. It shows Russian generals as drunkards, their Supreme Commander as a psycho, and the Red Army as a gang without any discipline or subordination.

In this film, Russians seem not to fight Germans, but trying to die by any means. In the second part of the film, Stalin even directly orders to LOSE MORE SOLDIERS in action. Oh, these Stalin, he's sooo eeeevil, and hates his own army more than Nazi do. Overall, the movie doesn't work even as anti-Stalin propaganda, because no viewer can believe such stupidity.

Still, after all, one may find the film amusing, because it has so many stupid and ridiculous scenes that make it worth watching.

• See a Nazi air fighter defecating on a Russian ship;

• see Stalin having his face dipped into cake;

• a German tank crew giving chocolates to Russian soldiers;

• a scout leader pissing his pants;

• a nurse stripping before dying soldier who have never seen woman's breast;

• see Christ Magic as an Orthodox priest brings down German attack plane with his prayer...

The film is so bad that it's good. Mikhalkov could make a hilarious parody of war films - unfortunately, his movie pretends to be a serious drama.

peace of crap

[energumenoster · 1/10 · 15 May 2010]

It's not a secret that Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev continue anti-Russian, anti-soviet, anti-historic and certainly anti-Stalin propaganda. Their puppets gave about $55 million from state budget to Mr. Mikhalkov for another peace of crap. So, don't trust that scandal campaign in Cannes. They cut about 1 hour because the movie is so miserable that there is nothing to watch for film-maker or usual viewer. Thanks to Mr. Mikhalkov our heroes, our veterans who had smashed fascist Gitler had been so foully slandered in commemoration of the 65th anniversary of Victory in Great Patriotic War. BTW, Berlin was captured by soviet atheistic people. So, Mihkalkov's pseudo-Christian scenes looks just idiotic.

Shockingly bad

[harryplinkett14 · 1/10 · 27 September 2013]

Did they wait for sixteen years after making "Burnt by the sun" to finally give us this film? Did we need to see this? Do they feel they have finally told that epic story that absolutely needed to be told? OK, so what's the story? What have you stuffed into these three hours of film? Well, nothing, really. Nothing happens most of the time. And when something does happen, it is bizarre and over the top. It looks like a film made by a first-time director who is insecure and turns the shock to 11 just to make sure the audience reacts properly, but only ends up creating exaggerated and laughable scenes time and again. I have to admit I didn't even see the whole thing. I had to jump over some of the really boring scenes just to make it until the end. It is that bad.

I'll stick to the 1994 film and pretend this pile of rubbish doesn't exist. No, it's still not really bad enough to merit just one star, but I'm giving it anyway, just to show how disappointed I am and how the sequel pales in comparison to the first film. Have you people lost your mind? And I won't even get into a discussion over how historically accurate the film is.

Don't watch this, you will only be baffled and irritated.

Great movie!

[kriskozak-868-652297 · 11 October 2010]

Nikita Mikhalkov is one of the greatest director's of our times. His sequel to the Oscar-winning "Burnt by the Sun" is visually spectacular, perfectly acted, artistically spectacular, emotionally moving, and most of all - it is an intelligent film for an intelligent audience. In the time of all- pervading stupidity and vulgarity of mainstream movies and pseudo-intellectual pretentiousness of so called "alternative" cinema, Mikhalkov is one of the few storytellers who can deliver a visually stunning film with emotional depth. His film is not a mere entertainment but a deeply humane and powerful look at our human collective history. This is not a film about Soviet struggle against Nazis. It is a deep look at human tragedy as well as the story of love, courage and the power of human spirit. Do not listen to reviewers who blinded by their political views and personal prejudices, cannot see the power and beauty of this film. This film is worth seeing over and over again. It is a GREAT FILM!

Worthy film

[HannaB555 · 7/10 · 30 April 2010]

I was disappointed that the film's box office takings were small. In his interview at the premier Mikhalkov said that the point of the film was to make the present generations living in relative peacetime realize how lucky we are and to value what previous generations fought for, that it would be a tragedy if we needed to live through another horrific and devastating world war to understand the value of peace. He aimed to show and remind us of the realities and brutality of war, of the selfless and heroic effort of our grandfathers and grandmothers. I have to say "Utomlyonnye solntsem 2" really moved me. Any shortcomings are outweighed by the very powerful images, dialogue and scenes that remain with you for a long time afterwards and make you think. I think the Christian prayer scene was very powerful, but there was also a Muslim prayer, so the film conveyed that the main thing was to have faith and the courage to remain human. This film has an ability to involve the viewer on an emotional and almost physical level. Perhaps not as great as the original, but a very worthy and important second part.

Epic Film, deserving of wider release!

[davidcartiersr2003 · 9/10 · 4 December 2010]

I feel a little awkward being the ONLY viewer thus far to give this a positive review, but I loved it ... I was riveted to the screen for the full 3 hrs, and absolutely can't wait for the final chapter, due out next year. Granted, this thing is a bit awkward, seen as a sequel to the great first film, but I feel that, viewed on it's own merits, it's good , possibly even epic, storytelling, very engaging and well produced. This is not "great art", and doesn't compare to the original,which I regard as quite monumental in it's subtly powerful depiction of Stalinist totalitarianism .. but I don't see that as a justification for ridiculing this one. I've long been an avid fan and collector of Russian cinema, with over a hundred DVD titles in my collection, and, in my humble opinion, this one is at least above average, overall, despite some flaws. I'm having a difficult time understanding the almost visceral revulsion shown towards this film by other reviewers ...

This one has a plot, a separated father and daughter searching for one another amidst the insanity and horrors of war ... It's a bit old fashioned, but I find that refreshing. Frankly, I'm appalled at the way so many critics these days are eager to praise a film, based entirely on it's textural and stylistic oddities, with virtually no apparent consideration of whether the movie has any real substance or content, at all. I went into this with very low expectations, believing that Mikhalkov had sold out and just lost it, after the horrid "Barber of Siberia", and the disgustingly bad "1612", to which he had attached his name. However, I was pleasantly relieved, and now consider that this could truly be his Magnum Opus, although, since "2" is really only half a film, final judgement will depend much on the third and final instalment.

There are moments of surreal beauty in this, as when his daughter is nearly killed by a falling Stalin bust after a ship explodes, and the scene wherein his daughter bares her breasts to a dying tank soldier amid a vast snow covered wasteland of wreckage ... I found that almost unbearably poignant. All the reviewers laugh derisively at that scene .. Why ???? I can well imagine that if I were a young, inexperienced boy dying a lonely death, attended at the last moment by a lovely young girl, my last wish might be the same ... Isn't this human ??

The acting is good, and generally restrained, .. Menshikov puts in a strong performance, as opposed to his clownish overacting in "Barber" and his rather weak understatement in Dr. Zhivago.

Other criticism mentions that there is is a bit too much emphasis on the Orthodox faith in evidence here .. but that is far from historically inaccurate ... When faced with possible defeat Stalin did take the reins off for awhile, and there was a strong resurgence of the church, as there is today in Russia. Many newer Russian films suffer from a blatant , overt patriotism ... but this film is not thus guilty, neither side is depicted as perfect, and the sense of patriotism you do get from this is natural and realistic. I believe that the father/daughter framework in this story comes straight from Mikhalkov's heart. For evidence of this, watch his very personal and wonderful documentary, "Anna from Six to Eighteen".

While this film is possibly closer in tone to Klimov's "Come and See", than it is to Mikhalkov's earlier classic, I found it a great experience, and believe that, were it given a wider release in the West, it would likely find a much larger audience. Unfortunately the DVD currently available in N. America bears rather poor English subtitles, I found the film so thoroughly enjoyable, that this did not detract from the overall experience. I have a very low tolerance for bad films, seldom being able to sit through a full 90 minutes of Hollywood product, but , for me, the 3 hours of this film passed by like minutes!!

Lackluster sequel losing its religion

[subspacesignal · 6/10 · 24 May 2010]

Utomlyonnye solntsem 2: Predstoyanye (Burnt by the Sun: Anticipation) is the sequel to Nikita Mikhalkov's exceptional 1994 period drama about Stalin's political repressions in the 1930s. However, a lot of water has passed under the bridge in 15 years and the poignancy of the original is certainly lost here.

This film follows the struggles of the repressed Kotov family and the man who is responsible for their plight through the Soviet theater of WW2. The plot is neither simple enough to be called a drama nor expansive enough to be an epic. Instead its a picaresque flow of vignettes reminiscent of a play - the majority of scenes have retained the original film's intimacy, with few actors on screen at the same time.

In terms of direction I was impressed in places, though mostly by technical skill rather than revelatory plot devices or subtle acting. The restrained use of sound effects and music that worked so well in the first film is definitely one of this sequel's redeeming features.

On a less positive note, I was exasperated by the treatment of suffering Mikhalkov offers his audience - many characters spend their entire screen time whimpering, crying or cowering in the rubble - not exactly the Tears and Glory that many have come to expect from the genre. We can only hope the Glory will come in the third film (we are, after all, in Anticipation).

As an actor Nikita Mikhalkov is accomplished and energetic as always, but the show is easily stolen by Sergei Makovetsky, gingerly portraying a sympathetic SMERSH officer stuck in a catch 22, as well as Mikhalkov's promising daughter Nadya as a tormented young Pioneer lost in the landscape of war. I should note that Makovetsky recently starred in the considerably more engaging WW2 saga "The Priest" and is on something of a roll lately.

Despite the overall quality of the cast the direction takes an unusual approach to a number of performers - Dmitriy Dyuzhev of Brigada fame, for example, spends the entire film whimpering unconvincingly - something he was obviously never designed for. Oleg Menshikov, a fine period actor many will know for playing Yerast Fandorin in 'Statski Sovetnik", is no more or less wooden than grandma's kitchen ladle - it seems Mikhalkov was simply uninterested in engaging this actor.

Considering how much money was spent, production values are quite low in places - props often seem lonely on battlefields and costumes lack imagination. Perhaps most of it went to the actors that managed to cozy up to this lucrative gig... In any case, a number of scenes feel cheap and give the entire production an air of inconsistency.

Last but not least, it would be a shame not to mention Mikhalkov's own fate. Most foreigners will be unaware of the fact that in the 15 years since the release of the original movie, Mikhalkov has become a close friend and associate of a leader himself accused of political repression - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. I would have no qualms with this ordinarily, assuming that all the funds his efforts raised were spent making great movies. Unfortunately, Mikhalkov's tenure as figurehead of Russia's film industry did not produce many quality films. Certainly, none by Mikhalkov himself.

The bottom line: a sequel unworthy of its predecessor in almost every way, but good enough to own on DVD or watch with the family.

Mikhalkov is still a great director

[costin-stucan · 10/10 · 10 December 2010]

I have to admit I'm a big fan of Mikhalkov's movies as I've seen over 90% of those. A few months ago while reading the previous reviews and especially those 1-star ratings I just couldn't understand. I wasn't able to buy the sequel but I was so intrigued...Such a sensitive, fantastic director can really turn into a trash-maker overnight? I found the answer a month ago after buying the DVD. No, Mikhalkov is not a worse director now! I won't discuss the political context of his recent life, I'm interested only in his movies. Burnt by the Sun 2 is a powerful one, full of Mikhalkov's(read Russian) joy, melancholy and wonderful hyperbola. I agree this is a more commercial movie than the previous Burnt by the Sun but it still has a great soul. And those "historical inadvertences" claimed by some readers can be solved very easy. I'm a WWII scholar with hundreds of books under my belt. Yes, the shtraf batallions didn't exist back in 1941 but during the same summer the Germans entering USSR were encountering what they referred to as Black Divisions. Who were they? They were convicts released from Gulag or from other prisons together with convicted captains, colonels or generals as part of the Second Strategic Echelon of the Red Army. Anyway, watch Burnt by the Sun 2... you'll discover at least one epic scene, a landmark of war genre movies! The watch is ticking :)

Not for the Russians it seems...

[bmradux · 10/10 · 30 November 2013]

I can't wait to see the first part. I saw this one with my girlfriend on the hint from an arts professor that the movie is being shown on TV. No time to read any reviews in advance. We think it was absolutely grandious. It's like a freakin' Russian painting. REAL. I really don't give squat about historical precision. I would read 20 books, or watch 20 documentaries if I wanted historical precision right now. In this movie every moment IS natural and real. Every moment is complex and unpredictable. Like in real life a situation or discussion involving more characters can find an infinite variety of endings. Now and then a sheet of grotesque improbable circumstancial humor is layered upon ...not unlike life. I was shocked by the 4.1 general IMDb rating. Relieved, when browsing through the reviews. It seems the rating is held down by the people of the former USSR mostly. "Not historically accurate" is the argument I found. So.. if you want to see a perfect movie about some strange situations and thoughts that MOST probably might have been lived and thought on Russian soil during WW2, see this! If you want "historically accurate", watch a few documentaries(again), or find some of those nice, dusty propaganda movies from that time! It will all be lean, clean and will match your current knowledge!

Fantastic movie

[rsalikhov-775-654771 · 10/10 · 25 June 2010]

It is the best Russian movie in years, deep, powerful. At times it reminded me of "Idi i smotri" but it touches a lot more than the Klimov's classic. I see this movie as a story of a powerful love and an invisible connection between a father and a daughter, at least that is how I felt when I was watching the movie. Everything else was secondary but nonetheless just as powerful. The movie is fairly long but I find that it was paced perfectly, perhaps some of the dialoges between Menshikov's and Makhovetsky's characters could have been reduced by about a minute but that is probably important for the final part of the trilogy.

There is really a very little connection to the first movie but it does not matter. Burnt by the sun - 2 is a very different movie, has a different feel and is much more epic. The acting was superb, so many great performances, one that really stands out is by Mironov but even the miniroles have been performed flawlessly.

Never before they showed in any of the Russian movies the panic that ruled in the Western USSR during the first months of the war, I believe Mikhalkov portrayed it very similar to what it actually was. I have spoken with some Russian WWII veterans before and this is very close to what Mikhalkov showed.

In any case this is movie not for everyone, specially in the age where Avatars rule the box office, the movie will probably be not be appreciated as it deserves. I seriously have no idea how this movie can get a 3.9 rating while Dark Night had 9.8 for a long time. I would say if you appreciated "Idi i smotri" before this movie is a MUST.

A tricky one

[rodhagen · 8/10 · 28 July 2010]

A difficult movie to assess. Many people seeing it probably expected more of the very clever, but somewhat romantic, view of Russia on the verge of succumbing to Stalinism contained in the original "Burnt by the Sun".

Inevitably they will be disappointed. This movie deals with a period when the romantics of earlier days had been crushed, when the Russian world was unremittingly harsh, capricious and chaotic for all, and its people confronted great menace from both inside and out.

Its structure is, as others have noted, somewhat chaotic, with frequent , but clearly delineated, changes in time, both backwards and forwards. We see contrasts drawn between the earlier era of the first film, together with the the time of the great retreats in 1941 and the recovery of Russian lands, and re-assertion of what passed for Stalinist "order", in the advances of 1943. At times this is disconcerting, but for me it captured the essence of the era.

The film never lurches into the excesses of "heroism" that one often sees in Hollywood movies dealing with war (and in Soviet era "war" movies , too, for that matter). If it owes its approach to anything it is to Remarque's "All quiet on the Western Front" and other similar works. Vignettes of personal strength, suffering and weakness. Recognition that contingency, accident and decisions made from afar, rather than personal attributes, largely determine who lives and who dies in war -an absence of heavy moralizing (though there are some Christian allusions that it may be interesting to see resolved in part 2 when it arrives), but the recognition of moral dimensions even amidst chaos.

It is truly brutal at times, but paradoxically the violence is almost understated when one thinks of the staggering 20 million people who died during the period portrayed.

People have very different reactions to this film. Three of our party were seriously disappointed while two of us thought it seriously good, and wanting to see how the next in the series resolves the many unanswered questions which this film leaves you with.

Much much better than I expected.

[sandor-931-380533 · 10/10 · 23 December 2010]

Those who rated only 1 to 3 star this move, shame on you. They were probably expecting some Hollywood trash like Inglourious Bastards with lots of special effects and some video game feeling.

I have seen the Russian version of the film, didn't quite understand the dialogs, but even couldn't stop viewing it. This was an amazingly good movie, excellent actors (real actors and not media hyped celebrities) probably not as good as the first one, but still much better than most highly rated Hollywood production on WWII.

Russian films on WWII seem to me more credible, more human, probably because they don't feel the need to justify ans explain themselves and their leaders.

Wonderful film

[iamkoan · 8/10 · 26 July 2011]

One of the best war movies. How can we, who have never been there understand war? The madness, the horror. Makes no difference , is it 1943 or 1941 or Afghanistan. I cannot understand war.But I can understand being human. Our frailty,red blood,our dreams, skin and bones. This is what the movie is about. We are not made of symbols such as Motherland, Nazis, Stalin,Communists,Soviets,heroes etc, propaganda is made of symbols.We are made of flesh and blood. War is so crazy we hide from it behind imaginary heroes, historical facts , we want some rational to hide from the madness. This film does not comfort by providing meaning,symbols and chronology, maybe that is why so many bad reviews.