We stepped in the same water. As you know, twice in the same flowing water can not step. However, the creators of the initial film of this kind of film diology- "Baybars" - made such an attempt, removing a sequel to the theme - "Sultan Baybars". Very strange (but doesn’t mean bad or bad!).
To understand what this is about, first look at Baybars and read reviews of it (including mine), and then take on Sultan Baybars. This will be logical and correct, and many questions will either disappear or, conversely, appear. Just like me.
Let me remind you: in both films, released in the same year, 1989, tells about the fate (according to the wonderful writer-historian and co-writer of the script Maurice Simashko) of a real historical character - a native (noble family!) from the Kipchak (Kazakh) steppes of Baybars, who, by the will of fate, by the end of his life became a powerful and respected sultan-lord of the country of Misr (Egypt and extensive “enies”). And if the action of “Baybars” ends with the coming of the ex-mamluk to power and strengthening it, then “Sultan Baybars” is dedicated just to the time of his reign, where he appears before us no longer as a fearless, honest and decent warrior (agree, the rarest combination of qualities for that, and for the present time!), and besides, wearing the most talented, if not brilliant head (in general a rarity!!!), but as a wise, far-sighted ruler who cares about the welfare of his subjects. But it is the visionary gift and the deep, analytical mind that haunt his soul. "The main thing is to leave in time..." And Sultan Baybars is leaving! Why and where the film is about.
More precisely, half of the film (which is why some questions arise), for the other half is a repetition (and far from complete) of “previous events.” And here is the main question: “So what is the Sultan Baybars?” "Baybars' Second Series, Sequel, or a Completely Independent Movie?" It seems that the creators of both pictures did not find the answer to this question, which is definitely bad for them and for us, the audience.
Judge for yourself. If we have a kind of “second series” (film), it would be enough to capaciously remind the audience of the “content of the previous series” and calmly engage in the development of the sequel, and not duplicate the shown, sometimes inserting “from there here” ready-made footage and wasting time, resources and film. If we accept the Sultan Baybars as a relatively independent creation, then it would be necessary to compactly (in the form of the Sultan’s memoirs) add his early biography here, and everything would fall into place and become clearer. Alas, neither was done. As a result, we look at what we see. By the way, in my opinion, it is worth, between watching the first and second films, to allow a small time distance: in a row, “slug” to watch them – the described “inconsistency” will worsen and the perception of much will worsen.
In my opinion, Sultan Baybars is more psychological and serious than Baybars, which is basically situational-adventure. It is like a person: the stormy events of youth, in general, the first half of life and a thoughtful, slow analysis of it and the probable future of the second, mature half. So this is all right. And wrong already mentioned repetitions and intolerable abuse of the cheap special effect of “reproduction of the picture on the screen”.
... According to the now popular version, the Russian Emperor Alexander I did not die “in time”, but quietly “went into the world”, gloss over sins and look for himself, “another”. Judging by our film and Simashko’s novel, he had an equally famous predecessor, who was drawn to his roots.
7 out of 10