User reviews

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

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 :)

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!

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.

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.

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.