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.
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.