Sadko

This is a visually splendid film version of an old Russian legend, which was the basis of an opera by Rimsky-Korsakov. The plot has been altered somewhat to enhance its appeal as a film, and , in the English version, the names of the characters and even locations have been completely changed, giving a most bizarre effect! The eponymous hero is now " Sinbad", and he is now a citizen of " Kobasan" instead of Novgorod. Some of the special effects are a little crude, but the art direction is often stunning. The acting style and even the makeup reflect Russian films of the fifties, and show an affinity to operatic style. Even the score borrows liberally from Rimsky-Korsakov. My advice to the viewer of the English version is to turn the sound so low as to be inaudible, and enjoy the visuals !

The original Russian version with subtitles is one you should consider watching than the English dubbed version of Sadko called the ''magic voyage of Sinbad''. Not to say the English version is not worth watching but how can one make more of a masterpiece when it is already an acclaimed masterpiece and doesn't need any salt and pepper (re-dubbed & re-cut) to spice it up. The result can be devastating if you've already seen the original (Sadko 1952).

There are good and bad comments about this film, thanks to the re-dubbed version. I'm sure everyone that has seen the original version (sadko) will give it at least an 8 out of 10.

Someone made a comment that the film is goofy because Sinbad wasn't wet when he visited the great kingdom at the bottom of the sea and how did he manage to hold his breath that long. Well... the film is a fairy tale, not a documentary or reality show...nothing is real and it would have looked goofy if they were wet. As a matter of fact the underwater scenes are a feast for the eyes and a big step in special effects during its time (1952). This film should be treated with more respect. I'm sure if these critics see the original(sadko 1952), their views will be totally different. And I think ''the magic voyage of sinbad'' should not be credited with ''SADKO''. Little is known about sadko while magic voyage of sinbad was well advertised 10 years later. That explains the reason why sadko suffers the bitterness of its good for nothing sequel, magic voyage of sinbad 1962. Like I said, ''SADKO 1952'' is a classic and a masterpiece nothing more or less.

_Sadko_ is a masterpiece of cinematic fantasy - there doesn't seem to be one frame that doesn't enthral, and the recreations of medieval Ukraine and India are unsurpassed by any other historical/fantasy film. The dubbed American version, _The Magic Voyage of Sinbad_, is a bit of a travesty, but I recently saw the complete Russian version with subtitles at a Ptushko retrospective which was going around the country, so it may soon be possible to finally get the real thing on video.

Seldom do I have goosebumps from watching a fun fantasy film as I did with this wonderfully restored Russian FAMILY VIEWING film. I applaud the restorers for doing this timely work (and the translators for the subtitles!). I pray that they endeavor with more restorations of many Russian classics that we American's have not had opportunity to view. I have not watched the other version with the English language dubbing (The Magic Voyage of Sinbad), but I can gather from another user's comments that it had to have been pretty bad. I prefer original language in such films anyway and don't mind reading the movie.

Considering the film was done in 1953 without our cgi stuff and other advanced technology of today, the visuals are absolute gems (well done). I had a flash forward of a Finding Nemo type fish in one of the scenes, which was about the only part that was more of a hokey cheaply done prop filler, which could and perhaps should have been edited out. However, due to the nature of that fishy prop, it was rather unique and funny, and added more to the fantasy theme of the movie.

Even though the acting was somewhat stiffly hokey by mollywood viewers of the Americas, Russians have a certain flair akin only to their culture. It was refreshing to listen to the Russian men's deep voices that we usually associate with ruffians in many movies. And the Russian dancing! Loved it! So, to comments about the acting? Well, methinks ya need to know a few Russians (and their flair), and to turn back the clock in remembering when this movie was made ... without this "acting" this movie would have been the Pitts ... it gave the film that certain further flair of saying, "This is a fantasy flick, so don't take anything too seriously." Excellent family film (as long as the kids can read)!

It's interesting that whether people liked or disliked this film seems to vary depending on whether it was seen in the original Russian, or the English version. It's NOT based on Sinbad, but on Russian folktales.

Did anyone else notice the similarities to "Alexander Nevsky"? Specifically, the hero gathering a band of stalwart Russians (mostly drawn from the peasant or working classes) to defeat a ruling elite. There seemed to be many cinematic homages to Eisenstein as well.