AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Sanjeev Waters A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

bostonfilmfan The film is a very poorly executed attempt at an artistic biography by E. Riazanov (one of Russia's best and deservingly beloved directors of the Soviet era). I praise the director for the very attempt to tell the story of the great Danish storyteller who does not often gets to be portrayed in film. The very first problem with this film in my view is that Riazanov regrettably borrows freely from many other films, both Russian and foreign (to name a few, Amadeus, The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover, Anna Pavlova, Fanny and Alexander, etc.) The borrowings ca be seen in both artistic means and the content details. The result can hardly be called an artistic revelation. In fact it is an eclectic mixture of episodes which struggle to stay together. The director (who was also the producer) was able to engage talents of many exceptional artists for this production. One should mention the charming and warm music by A. Rybnikov, which evokes memories of the classical era of the Soviet film romanticism. However the music quality is compromised by the amount of singing episodes. They seem awkward and out of place. (I should mention that in his earlier films Riazanov was able to tactfully and skillfully include songs in his films. Unfortunately this is not how it was done this time.) Another great involved in the production was Vladimir Vasilev, the choreographer. Unfortunately, his efforts were wasted. The episode with the dancing Scholar and his Shadow looks awkward and strikingly not cinematic, and too long. In general, the artistic license is being taken by the director too far in many instances. Just to mention one, the director spices up the tale Swineherd with the prince making the princess pay him for the musical toy with sex instead of just the kisses. The scene is accompanied by the dialog of the court ladies which is so trivial it could be written by a high school freshman. In fact most of the film's dialog is trivial and poorly written, each idea of the filmmaker is being beaten to death in dialog instead of being expressed by other means. From the technical point of view, the film's sound quality is very poor: it is a very "studio" sound, which, especially in the outdoors scenes is annoying. The spoken sound rarely matches the mouth movements and the emotions expressed by the actors. This makes it very hard to appreciate the acting. The main character is being portrayed by Sergei Migitsko, a great theater actor, who would be perfect for an episode but falls flat as the lead. In general the film leaves an impression of an unfulfilled wish. One can make out what the director was attempting to say, but unfortunately the task had not been accomplished. It is a heart-breaking task to criticize the work of a truly great director, but in the name of the fairness it had to be done.

Niffiwan This two-part film is fantastically-made, beautifully-acted, and has a wonderful musical score. But more than anything else, it is eye-opening and heart-breaking. The unbelievably difficult life that Andersen led is portrayed here in the form of long flashbacks; the film moves back and forth in time, more or less chronologically, between Andersen as a kid, as a teenager/young man, and as an adult/old man. Sometimes, Andersen's fairy tales take on a life of their own and seem to intrude into the real world. There are sequences where Andersen's shadow comes to life, where a prince comes to a princess in the form of a pig-keeper, and where Andersen himself is transported into the future. In that sense, it goes a tiny bit beyond being a biography. But as a biographical film, it is brilliant.What is most impressive here is the acting - the actor portraying Andersen does a painfully, amazingly good job of portraying the "ugly duckling" that the real historical Andersen was. For those not acquainted with Andersen's biography, it may be a real eye-opener. A lot of the time, it is not an easy film to watch. But it is clear that the people working on it worked with the highest level of artistry. I think that it's an extremely fitting tribute to Andersen's legacy, and a very faithful retelling of Andersen's life story - not getting every single detail right, but exactly on the mark in the general feel.The film is not for everyone, though - first of all, it's absolutely not a family film, strange as that may sound. There are some disturbing scenes and female nudity. Also, bullies (whether kids or adults) will think the film stupid and annoying, just as they thought Andersen when he was a child. If someone finds horrifying the thought of seeing a film about a very awkward, "ugly duckling" of a person, and laughs at weird people rather than sympathising with them, this film is not for them.If you want to see a film which is true to the spirit of Andersen, however, you're in for an amazing delight. While it is often a sad film, it is also a very colourful one and a very good one.