The first film in the 'Last Warrior' franchise was naive but fun. The second tried to explore the characters' backstories. The third simply undid the achievements of the first two.

What's the film about?

Ivan Muromets (Viktor Khorinyak) and Vasilisa (Mila Sivatskaya) are preparing for their wedding. But their dreams of a happy family life will have to wait, because Galina (Elena Valyushkina), backed by a mysterious black knight, kidnaps the bride.

Now Ivan must search for his betrothed in modern-day Moscow, and he'll be helped by his faithful friends: Baba Yaga (Elena Yakovleva), Koschei (Konstantin Lavronenko), the Water Spirit (Sergey Burunov), the wizard Svetozar (Timofey Tribuntsev), and Kolobok (Garik Kharlamov).

Problems with graphics, props, and makeup

First, let's scrape the bottom of the barrel... that is, skim the surface. Because the visual aspect of the 'Last Warrior' franchise films, thanks to collaboration with Disney, has always been quite good and inventive.

So what do we see here? Kolobok's face, which in one scene can't center itself on the 3D model and bounces from edge to edge like a mad thing. The horribly made Firebird (the person who oversaw Filipp Kirkorov's acting performance has a special place in hell reserved for them). Painted backdrops that look far more convincing even in an average American TV series. And that's just about the poor animators, who are carrying so much else on their shoulders that they simply can't handle the workload.

Makeup and costumes/props also deserve a special mention. The rubbery, lifeless hands of Baba Yaga and Koschei start to distract from the very beginning. The presence of a scene where Koschei turns in profile so that his prosthetic nose becomes translucent in the sunlight is baffling. The sword-kladenets looks simply plastic and not even remotely like metal.

Structural problems

'The Last Warrior' is the most obvious example of a three-act film. Historically, the second act, leading to the climax, is the longest, but if the setup gets an absolute minimum of time, that's abnormal. We haven't even had time to properly remember the characters, and they're already hanging Chekhov's guns and shoving important plot flashbacks at us.

So it turns out that the film almost entirely consists of the second act, which represents the 'fish out of water' concept, where heroes from one world find themselves in another, alien and unfamiliar one. And we've seen this millions, billions of times – starting with 'Ivan Vasilievich Changes Profession' or the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, and ending with 'Enchanted' or 'The Smurfs'. Hell, even the first 'Last Warrior', where Ivan ended up in Belogorye, was about the same thing, just in reverse!

Nadezhda Vasilyeva

Find 15 Easter Eggs: How 'Back to the Future' Became Zemeckis's Nostalgic Song

Familiar films sound new if you know how to spot filmmakers' Easter eggs. We invite you to recall the references in one of the most exciting franchises of the 80s — 'Back to the Future

Open material

Did the authors have anything new and relevant to say? Not really.

Thematic problems (secondary)

So quietly and imperceptibly, we've approached fundamental things. Because problems with visuals or act length can be overlooked, but the main themes and motifs should at least be interesting.

So. We have one main storyline and several secondary ones. One of the secondary lines concerns the relationship between the Water Spirit and Baba Yaga, which was developed over the previous installments. This line (or rather, the description of the nature of their relationship and the distribution of roles in the couple) is written mostly for adults who will take their kids to the cinema during the New Year holidays, and presents an extremely unflattering spectacle with a bad lesson for the younger generation.

And it's not about moralizing. It's that it's not only a bad example to follow, but also simply not funny. So why is it even needed, if this branch doesn't affect the main plot, doesn't make adults laugh, and isn't useful for children? Why?

By the way, this is a problem with a large portion of the humor in this film. A seven-year-old child cannot (at least shouldn't!) understand jokes about Game of Thrones or about the differences between 'comfort' and 'economy' taxi fares, but parents have heard them so many times that they've simply stopped being funny. On the other hand, it's not all bad, is it? When the film tries to build jokes on absurdity or based on the characters themselves, you can chuckle a couple of times.

Thematic problems (main)

And now – to the main storyline of the film 'The Last Warrior: The Messenger of Darkness'. Which has a problem. A big problem. A huge problem.

Firstly, the plan of the main villainess Galina, which is revealed to us at the end, depends so heavily on a set of coincidences that no one (including Galina) would have had any chance to predict them.

Secondly, the film contains a small plot twist that, on the one hand, is guessed almost immediately, and on the other hand, completely loses its meaning when you think about it for more than three minutes.

Thirdly, purely from a plot perspective, it turns out that the entire middle of the film can be safely removed – and nothing would change, so little does it affect the course of events. Yes, they try to somehow justify what's happening, but again, everything falls apart after the first argument from a savvy viewer.

And fourthly, the film's ending is so bad that you want to howl. Without unnecessary spoilers, it's worth noting only that it completely devalues all the events of the previous films. That is, you and your children watched all three films for nothing. Live with that now.

Is it worth watching the third part of 'The Last Warrior'?

It's foolish to say that this film won't appeal to children. It probably will. After all, I too, as a child, used to like films and cartoons that now only evoke an all-consuming sense of shame. 'The Last Warrior' is bright, something is constantly happening in it, and many actors are trying very hard.

But it's definitely not a good film.