Does it really matter that the characters that have implicitly died in the first part somehow come back to life in this sequel? This happens in films a lot, doesn't it? Jason and Michael Myers always get killed but they keep returning again and again, so why can't General Kotov (Nikita Mikhalkov) do that? I don't have any problem with this, really.
Secondly, although the events in the sequel take place only approximately seven years after the events of the first film, the characters seem to be at least 15 years older. However, this is not a problem either. In "Curious Case of Benjamin Franklyn" Brad Pitt's character kept changing every single minute and no one complained about that, and, moreover that film has even won several Oscars.
The real problem of the film is that it lasts almost 3 hours, during which a lot of things seem to happen, but at the end you realize that almost nothing has happened. The same story could have been told and shown more efficiently in 1 ½ hours. The film has no integrity. It is rather many small films with nothing or very little in common (in terms of style, spirit, pace, genre). In fact it has almost nothing in common (in terms of style, spirit, pace, genre) with the first part which is by all means a much better film. On the other hand each (or almost each) little episode is executed quite well, and perhaps a better editing could bring these little films together more successfully into one good film (insted of the messy and uneven movie that it is now).
Too many famous actors have cameo appearances, and this is the case where quantity does not necessarily mean quality. Some of these appearances do work well (another great performance by Evgeny Mironov) while others are disastrous (Maria Shukshina).
Finally, one of the main reasons why the film fails to be a good film is uncertainty of the director in taking the decision regarding the genre he wants to fit his film in. At times the film is a war drama on the edge of corny melodrama (influence by Saving Private Ryan is noticeable) turning from time to time into an epic tragedy (Schiendler's list influence) and all of a sudden turning into Inglorious Basterds (influence by this Tarantino film is evident). This could have worked had Mikhalkov not taken his work so seriously. Too much pafos is not good, but could be bearable. However, pafos mixed with comedy is something awkward and indigestible.
The final scene with a dying soldier wanting to have a look at girl's breasts before he passes out, was probably meant to be dramatic, thought provoking and tear jerking. However it is utterly ridiculous.
Overall, a great film by Great Nikita Mikhalkov. Not.
Secondly, although the events in the sequel take place only approximately seven years after the events of the first film, the characters seem to be at least 15 years older. However, this is not a problem either. In "Curious Case of Benjamin Franklyn" Brad Pitt's character kept changing every single minute and no one complained about that, and, moreover that film has even won several Oscars.
The real problem of the film is that it lasts almost 3 hours, during which a lot of things seem to happen, but at the end you realize that almost nothing has happened. The same story could have been told and shown more efficiently in 1 ½ hours. The film has no integrity. It is rather many small films with nothing or very little in common (in terms of style, spirit, pace, genre). In fact it has almost nothing in common (in terms of style, spirit, pace, genre) with the first part which is by all means a much better film. On the other hand each (or almost each) little episode is executed quite well, and perhaps a better editing could bring these little films together more successfully into one good film (insted of the messy and uneven movie that it is now).
Too many famous actors have cameo appearances, and this is the case where quantity does not necessarily mean quality. Some of these appearances do work well (another great performance by Evgeny Mironov) while others are disastrous (Maria Shukshina).
Finally, one of the main reasons why the film fails to be a good film is uncertainty of the director in taking the decision regarding the genre he wants to fit his film in. At times the film is a war drama on the edge of corny melodrama (influence by Saving Private Ryan is noticeable) turning from time to time into an epic tragedy (Schiendler's list influence) and all of a sudden turning into Inglorious Basterds (influence by this Tarantino film is evident). This could have worked had Mikhalkov not taken his work so seriously. Too much pafos is not good, but could be bearable. However, pafos mixed with comedy is something awkward and indigestible.
The final scene with a dying soldier wanting to have a look at girl's breasts before he passes out, was probably meant to be dramatic, thought provoking and tear jerking. However it is utterly ridiculous.
Overall, a great film by Great Nikita Mikhalkov. Not.