Le tour du monde de Sadko

Based on a Rimsky Korsakov opera, Sadko is a 1953 Russian fantasy film directed by Aleksandr Ptushko, in which the heroic, handsome protagonist, played by Sergey Stolyarov, represents the socialist ideology by seeking to bring happiness to the poor and downtrodden people of his home city, while the evils of the capitalist West are portrayed by the city's selfish, money-hungry merchants. Almost a decade after the film's original release, the always enterprising Roger Corman had Sadko re-edited (by none other than Francis Ford Coppola), dubbed and retitled as The Magic Voyage of Sinbad, making it suitable for an American audience.

I watched the film in its Westernised format, but even though names and places have been changed, I still found it charming, retaining enough of its Russian-ness to make it a unique experience. Sailor Sadko - now called Sinbad - arrives in the city of Kobasan (originally Novgorod) and is dismayed to see the poor folk struggling to live while the merchants only get richer. He decides to set sail on a quest to find the legendary bird of happiness, which will make everything better, but after several adventures - battles with vikings, a narrow scrape in India, and an encounter with Neptune in his underwater kingdom - he learns that happiness was in Novgorod all along.

Don't expect any Harryhausen-style special effects in this particular 'Sinbad' movie - there aren't any. Instead we get rather more basic movie magic, including some very unconvincing model boats, but the cheapness of the visuals only adds to the film's appeal, highlights including the phoenix with a woman's head (actually very effective), the puppet fish and octopus in Neptune's palace (not so effective but very funny), and Sinbad riding a giant seahorse (simply bizarre). The acting is extremely operatic in nature, especially from Stolyarov, whose facial expressions, physical mannerisms and gesticulations are a marvel to behold - he's a master of the 'blue steel and stare into the distance with a wistful gaze' technique. Also expect some impressive dancing from the Kobasan peasants and eye-candy in the form of Sinbad's love interest Lyubava (Alla Larionova) and Neptune's beautiful daughter Morgiana (Ninel Myshkova).

I've heard that the original Russian movie is the superior version, but while that may be the case, I still found Corman's cut to be a fun way to spend 85 minutes.

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 !

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)!

Sadko (not Sinbad, ugh) is a hunk of a poet with a harp. He's got two girls in love with him: one is a nice village girl with a weird pigeon habit, and the other is the Princess of the Sea.... Clearly the thing to do is get out of town quick, so Sadko trades 3 goldfish for 3 boats (they were magic goldfish) and sets sail to find the Bird of Happiness. Along with a small army are Uncle Klepto, Big John, and Timmy the brash young mascot of the group -- these are not their actual names but they might as well be. The heroes are so cliché they're almost iconic.

Sadko and Co. spend the rest of the movie traveling to exotic places and getting into trouble with the locals. They battle Vikings, and play chess with the King of India. They bet a laughing horse for the Bird of Happiness and discover her true nature is not what they thought. They fight and are heroic, and on the return trip a storm threatens to sink the ships, so Sadko goes to the bottom of the sea to soothe an argument between King Neptune and his wife by entertaining them with his harp. Although the Princess loves Sadko she knows he prefers the pigeon girl. She helps him get home again on a speedy seahorse.

This is a very nice looking film. The story is fantastical without being too familiar. There is plenty of Russian flavor to make it semi-exotic to American tastes, and the Russian folk dancing is amazing. The special fx are charming and obvious, like stage tricks. When Sadko lifts a magic fish the light rays emitting from it are actually hundreds of metal wires sticking out of the fish! Most of the exotic locations are drawings, but the India sequence is full of elephants and dancing girls and over the top temples. The Bird of Paradise is satisfyingly surreal in a way that just wouldn't happen now with CGI. The final act in Neptune's Kingdom is a campy delight.

I rate it 8 out of 10. I'd originally seen the Sinbad version and I had to turn the sound down. It was that bad, and obvious the visuals were from a better movie. I'm glad I saw the restored Russian version because the visuals are much clearer and the original soundtrack is pleasant with strong music and the deep serious voices of the men. The story also made a lot more sense. Highly recommend! Would love to see more of this kind of film.

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.