Sadko

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.

This is an update to my comment which I wrote on April 28, 2005: This film (the original Russian film) has been completely restored by Mosfilm and is available on DVD in North-America from the Ruscico label, in most major outlets. The film restoration is incredible, the colours are vibrant and not a single frame is missing from the original elements. Furthermore, the Rimsky-Korsakoff music has been re-recorded in stereo and the sound is in 5.1 Dolby with lots of atmospheric surround effects. It comes with many extras, including two interviews with Stolyarov's son, who is not too kind to Francis Ford Coppola. I knew there was a masterpiece under all that grime and that bad sound. It just needed a lot of work. It's just too bad the release of the original did not receive one fifth the publicity of the Coppola atrocity ("The Magic Voyage of Sinbad"). By the way, the illustration on the IMDb "Sadko" page is not of this Russian film but of the opera version of the same name.

This is my original comment of a year ago:

I first saw 'Sadko' on television in French-speaking Quebec barely four years after it had been honoured at the Venice Film Festival. I was six years old at the time and the film was in French and in black and white. In those days of the Cold War, the French had no compunction about distributing Russian films and translating them into French and Canadian television had no compunction about showing this one to the very impressionable children it was meant to be shown to. This film was Russia's attempt to create a children's colour classic that would be on a par with 'The Wizard of Oz' and 'The Thief of Bagdad'. I think they succeeded admirably even though there is no denying its profound 'russianness'. 'Sadko' is based on a Russian fairy-tale that also inspired the opera of the same name by Rimsky-Korsakoff and it incorporates the opera's ballets and melodies in its action. The acting is exemplary of the Romantic operatic tradition somewhat tempered by the more realistic method acting of Stanislavsky. The hero is the very prototype of the rugged yet sensitive and (extremely)handsome peasant-poet who wants to bring happiness to the people of his city despite the active opposition, greed and selfishness of the fat, rich merchant capitalists who run the city of Novgorod. To achieve this, he goes searching for the legendary 'bird of happiness' but only finds, after many adventures, an Indian 'bird of forgetfulness', religion being the opium of the people, as Marx would have commented. He eventually comes to the same conclusion Dorothy comes to, 'There's no place like home'. The only way Americans have ever seen this film, for the most part, is through the emasculated version called 'The Magic Voyage of Sinbad' which, for purely exploitative reasons, turned this art film intended as a goodwill gesture for the world's children into a commercial adventure film by robbing it of its context (Sinbad was substituted for Sadko and Arabia for Russia), of its moral (all political speeches were mollified), of its characters (the love story was truncated), of its poetry (through a very bad translation) and of most of its glorious establishing shots. The original runs for 85 minutes and the Russian songs, music and acting make even the 'octopus's garden' scene palatable for adults. I thought I would have to spend a lifetime retracing this film in order to relive a very precious childhood memory. It took me months just to find out what the film's Russian title was and years to get my hands on two very bad VHS copies of 'The Magic Voyage of Sinbad' which have been bootlegged from television and which are offered by quite a few American distributors of offbeat cinema. I would recommend to anybody who is seriously interested in getting to know this film to do what I did. I made inquiries in the Russian gift shops of my city (Toronto) and eventually found a Mosfilm-approved PAL-to-VHS transfer of the original in Russian only without subtitles. This is no great loss in itself as the images and the music speak for themselves and the Russian speeches have a charm all their own. The strangeness of watching a Russian film without subtitles is also very liable to recreate in the viewer the very sense of wonder which children were supposed to experience when they first see this film. Unfortunately, even this 'official' video version is a poor transfer (although infinitely better than the American bootlegs), especially lacking in definition and solid colour and its hi-fi soundtrack suffers from a continual hiss. It suggests that the original could probably use a major (and costly) restoration. But it also shows that this film can boast great direction, magnificent composition, photography and lighting, elaborate art direction, impressive handling of crowd scenes, great costumes, evocative special effects (the bird of forgetfulness is a particularly powerful and memorable image) and a general poetic tone that is its reason for being and the first casualty of its American 'adaptation'. Here's hoping that it makes its way to a decent DVD transfer one of these days, and, why not, even a Criterion edition.

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.

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 !