Vladimir Putin on a visit to the movie set in
Leningrad Oblast on 13 May 2008 (see the video below). The film received mostly negative reviews from both Russian and western critics. It was panned for historical inaccuracies,
retconning, bad acting and other failures. It was criticized for abruptly breaking with the continuity of the first film, including mysteriously resurrecting characters presumed dead and changing their ages. For example, according to the first film, Nadia would have been 11 in 1941, but she is portrayed as an adult. Critics panned many provocative episodes, such as a German pilot defecating on a Soviet ship, or Kotov's dipping Stalin into a cake. The Russian media reviews were especially hostile to the film, because of its revisionist portrayal of Soviet army and Soviet leaders. As web publicist
Dmitry Puchkov noted, "like any other nation, Russians don't want to see their fathers portrayed as shit." Western critics were mostly negative as well. However, the Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt felt that, while Russian critics attacked the film for "sticking too closely to the Kremlin's approved version of World War II and for its promotion of
Orthodox Christianity," it was a "much, much better film than its Russian reviews indicate." He likened its portrayal of the madness of World War II to the American
Joseph Heller's
Catch-22. The film was screened at the
2010 Cannes Film Festival and was allowed to compete for awards, although it had premiered before the festival. At Cannes it received a
standing ovation, but no awards. The Russian opposition activist
Valeria Novodvorskaya said that despite her complete disagreement with the political views of Mikhalkov (who expresses support towards Putin) and despite the film's being "artistically ungifted", she believed it is a good depiction of the first stages of the war against Germany. According to her, it shows how badly the
Red Army was prepared for war because of Stalin's poor strategic skills. ==References==