roskaposti-81132
The movie starts with a promise. High budget war movie with seemingly interesting characters. Then the movie messes all up, turns up a boring crapfest of everything gone wrong in film making. No wonder it turned out such a flop at box offices.After the first pretty unnecessary slaughter scene two main characters survive without any decent explanation and turn out to be having a fun cruise at the countryside with their jeep. Then there is some drama I just forget, because all the ranting has 0 value or interest.After that we move to totally different characters, and lose total interest to what is happening. There is a scene where stukas bomb some trucks at 5 meter height (at that height the bombs blast waves would destroy the stukas too), and we see how a truck survives even though it has bomb crates right next to it. Sheeesh, at that range a bomb would toss the truck 20 meters into the air... And the inaccuracy of the stukas is something you'll be watching in awe. Talking about historical mistakes.And the final attack at the fortress just made me grin with total disbelief for total idiotism by the film makers. Watch the scene and you understand.Don't watch this crapfest of a film, even if you think your life is too short and you want to waste it on poor films. Some poor films can make you laugh. This is so bad you'll just end up shaking your head and reach for the remote to skip all the boring scenes that make no sense.
commissarmanul
Well, where should I start? Burnt by the Sun: Fortress is definitely better then Burnt by the Sun: Exodus, which was total insanity. I found myself interested in the storyline involving Kotov finding and coming to peace with his family. The acting is not always over-the-top and much more subtle, though we get a lot of ham. There are still a lot of unintentionally funny and rather impossible scenes: for example, the whole take-the-fortress-subplot is pretty silly, cause it is built like a medieval castle etc. Overall, it's an improvement, if you cut out all the wacky scenes, or re-shoot them in a more believable way, you'll get a good movie. Not yet, Nikita, better luck next time.
iamkoan
It reminds me of Apocalypse Now. Both Kutz and Kotov live through the horror of war. Yet Kutz succumbs to it, turns into an animal and has to die. The beauty of this film is in the character of Kotov, who in spite of the "burns" remains a human being. Just like in Part 1 "Exodus", here the pictures, the scenes and characters are wonderful. This is not a historical drama nor is it an action film. In those categories film does not rate. But as an art of cinematography this is a masterpiece. For me part one "Exodus" as well as "Apocalypse Now" is a study of how we the humans face and make inhumane action of war. Part Two "Citadel" is about how we the humans win the war by remaining human.
Costin Stucan
I don't understand why Mikhalkov's own people are being so unfair with this "celovekh". They want to smash not only his fingers but also his lifetime work which is impossible.This final chapter is brilliant. All the pieces are put together by a master painter. The light in the dacha contrasting with the light in the same "dacha" from the first movie, the torment suffered by the characters, the joy and the sadness of the people touched or mutilated by the war and finally the immense Russian light blue sky...all contribute to an amazing picture.I don't judge this movie historically even if I have read over a hundred books about the terrible war on the Eastern Front. I love the very soul of this movie. Mikhalkov does not created another sequel, he managed to create another movie which cannot be measured in IMDb stars...So ignore the rating and enjoy the ride...on the back of Kotov's horse.
AD
