Sibirskiy tsiryulnik

I stumbled on this film one night on TV. I hadn't heard of it, but I got intrigued immediately. It was the long version, so it got quite late.

I didn't regret that one bit. It has a nice story thats seems to fit if you're willing to go along with it (one can always find a stick to beat the dog). It has witty, funny dialogs. Although it is a romantic story, it does not have the crappy all's well that ends well feel.

The 2 main characters are very well developed (in the version I saw), they are not clear cut, one dimensional. It is true that some other characters are bordering on the slapstick, but I feel this is not overdone. Somehow it balances really well.

Need I say more? Excellent entertainment (in my humble opinion).

Most of the critics are saying bad things about this movie, but all of my friends who have seen it are saying that it was really good. I started to like Nikita Mihalkov, when I saw his film 'Burnt by the Sun'. This film is quite different, but very good too. The film lasts almost 3 hours, but you won't lose your attention until the end. Actors are good, even I had some problems with J. Ormond's acting at some places. Alexei Petrenko and Oleg Menshikov are the best. As we see Oleg, we can believe him that he is really a man in his twenties(although we know he is not) and it's not because his make-up. The director of photography has done a good work too. I'd recommend this film to anyone, who likes movies with great pictures, cast, and who likes Nikita Mihalkov. You don't have to be a romantic type to like it.

In its extended version -where the characters are fully developed and the relationships between them fully explored- this movie is incredible. Not just because Oleg Menshikov is a fabulous actor and Julia Ormond does some of the best acting I've seen her do, but because the plot is interesting and well written and the filming is beautiful.

In the butchered and censored short version crucial elements of the story are missing (especially the complete dialogues between Andrei and Jane and the majority of their scene in bed) and the movie is OK but nothing special.

Why would the studio even release such a lame version? Can you imagine a two hour version of Gone with the Wind? Or a 90 minute version of Titanic?

I saw the full 4 and ½ hours extended film in a cinema and no one walked out because it was too long. I saw the short version on the Cosmo channel and I really don't understand why the producers would stab themselves in the back by releasing a watered down and lacking version –presumably for audiences with short attention spans?- but I recommend avoiding the 3 hours one and holding out for the real film.

I went to see this movie based on a suggestion from a good friend of mine. I expected to see a typical love story and was curious about the way this story was developed and directed. I admit that my expectations were very low in this regard. The Barber of Siberia is a work of art, Mikhalkov is surely one of the great movie authors of all times, and I am humbly thankful to my friend for her priceless advice.

The plot may seem like any conventional love story but the fashion in which the story is developed and the performances of all the actors (yes, ALL of them) is really fascinating.

What strikes you most is when Mikhalkov directly compares the life of a military cadet between Russia and the US. There's also a latent comparison between the American and Russian ideals. I leave it to you to discover how and when these comparisons appear on screen.

Mikhalkov magnificently plays the role of the Tzar Alexander III (the father of the recently canonized Tzar Nicholas II). As portrayed by Mikhalkov, Alexander III embodies the grandeur of Russia and sets the standard on the qualities of a ruler. You cannot but compare these standards to those set by Boris Yeltsin (who was in charge in 1998) and you would better understand the passing of power to Putin.

This is one of the rare times I get emotional about a film, and believe me the Barber of Siberia contains a lot of emotions. DON'T MISS IT AT ANY RATE!

I must have an extremely bad taste. Most professional critics have written devastating comments on this film. I just loved it, all 180 minutes of it! Of course, according to the books, you should not mix slapstick and serious drama. Mikhalkov does it and the result completely vindicates him, I feel. Critics should not forget that cinema is about entertainment. Critics blame Mikhalkov because he did not make another high brow artistic film like « Burnt by the sun », but "prostituted" his talent by bowing to the Hollywood taste. I liked both films evenly well, different as they are. Critics say Mikhalkov presented a phony image of old Russia. Of course his billboard image of tsarist Russia is not devoid of clichés and camp, but what a glorious camp it is! Mikhalkov is accused of painting a much too rosy picture of old Russia. But are the Russians (and other people) not entitled to some glimpses of the beautiful Russia that could have been, but somehow never seems able to materialize in this century of gloom ? The critics point out that the film has a lot of formal weaknesses. To the heck with the critics ! The film may not have a very deep message, but I think it illustrates, in a poetic way, the difficulty Russians and Westerners have at understanding each other. Either you love this film, or you ‘d better leave it . When you look at the vote results, you see three quarters of those who voted on this film adore it (scores 8-10), while the others loathe it (scores 1-4). Apparently it is a film you can't be indifferent to.