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 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.

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.

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.