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.
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.