Burnt by the Sun 2: A Cinematic Catastrophe

Imagine a film so disastrous that it makes you question the very fabric of cinema itself. "Burnt by the Sun 2," directed by Nikita Mikhalkov, is that film. Released in 2010, this Russian war drama was supposed to be a sequel to the critically acclaimed "Burnt by the Sun," which won the Grand Prix at the Cannes Film Festival and an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1994. Set during World War II, the film attempts to continue the story of Colonel Kotov, a character who was presumed dead in the original. But instead of delivering a compelling narrative, it serves up a bloated, incoherent mess that leaves audiences scratching their heads.

First off, let's talk about the sheer length of this monstrosity. Clocking in at over five hours, "Burnt by the Sun 2" is split into two parts: "Exodus" and "Citadel." It's as if Mikhalkov thought he was crafting the Russian equivalent of "The Godfather" saga, but instead, he delivered a tedious marathon that tests the patience of even the most dedicated cinephiles. The film is riddled with unnecessary subplots and characters that add nothing to the story, making it a chore to sit through.

The plot, if you can call it that, is a convoluted mess. It attempts to weave together multiple storylines, including Kotov's miraculous survival, his daughter's journey, and a host of other characters who seem to pop in and out without any real purpose. The narrative is so disjointed that it's hard to keep track of what's happening, let alone care about the characters' fates. It's a classic case of a director biting off more than he can chew, resulting in a film that collapses under its own weight.

Then there's the issue of historical accuracy, or lack thereof. "Burnt by the Sun 2" takes significant liberties with historical events, often bending them to fit the director's vision. This might not be a problem if the film offered a compelling alternative narrative, but it doesn't. Instead, it feels like a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas that fail to coalesce into a coherent whole. It's as if Mikhalkov was more interested in creating a spectacle than telling a meaningful story.

The film's production values are another point of contention. While the original "Burnt by the Sun" was praised for its beautiful cinematography and attention to detail, the sequel feels like a step backward. The special effects are often laughably bad, with CGI that looks like it was pulled from a video game circa 2005. The battle scenes, which should be the film's highlight, are poorly choreographed and lack the intensity needed to engage the audience.

And let's not forget the acting. While the original cast returns, including Mikhalkov himself as Kotov, their performances are overshadowed by the film's many flaws. It's hard to fault the actors when they're given such a weak script to work with, but even their best efforts can't save this sinking ship. The dialogue is often stilted and unnatural, making it difficult for the audience to connect with the characters on any meaningful level.

"Burnt by the Sun 2" is a prime example of what happens when a director's ambition outstrips their ability to deliver. It's a film that tries to do too much and ends up doing very little. For those who loved the original, this sequel is a bitter disappointment that tarnishes the legacy of its predecessor. It's a cautionary tale for filmmakers everywhere: sometimes, less is more.