Le barbier de Sibérie

beautiful landscapes. and seductive story. clever mixture of humor and drama. a bitter love story. and Russia in a splendid portrait about past, tradition, image about world, love and duty. Oleg Menshikov does one of that characters who are essence of a state of soul. the science to explore the emotions of young Tolstoy, the madness of gesture from profound love, the dialog with Jane, the search of sense in an absurd universe, all as embroidery of significant details. Julia Ormond gives a special aura to her character. and that is not a real surprise. the film is about evolution. the evolution of lead characters. the evolution of Russia itself. an admirable scene - the presence of Nikita Mikhalkov as Alexander II . a not great film. but, surely, a beautiful one.

I must have an extremely bad taste. Most professional critics have written devastating comments on this movie. I just loved it, all 180 minutes of it! Of course, according to the rules, 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. They blame Mikhalkov because he did not make another high brow artistic movie like « Burnt by the sun ». I liked both movies equally 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 movie has a lot of formal weaknesses. To the heck with the critics ! This movie 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 movie, or you ‘d better leave it . When you look at the viewer voting results, you see that three quarters of those who voted on this movie adore it (scores 8-10), while the others loathe it (scores 1-4). Apparently it is a movie you can't be indifferent about.

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.

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).

This is not Mikhalkov's best film. Yet a Mikhalkov film is one that presents a story with a twinkle in the eye. His films come very near to the black comedy genre. Take his swipe at the average American not understanding Mozart's music--if it is taken literally, it will cloud the Mikhalkov perspective of life through cinema. That perspective is poles apart from the filmmaking of his half brother Andrei Mikhalkov Konchalovsky, who is serious and quite a bit of a perfectionist (he worked with Andrei Tarkovsky on his earlier movies), e.g. "Runaway Train" and "Shy People" made in Hollywood or "Siberiade" made in the former USSR.

Mikhalkov makes serious scenes seem light and a lark: the deportation to Siberia marked with opera singing; the dangerous duel that ends with a hero lying wounded in a Quixotic manner; a very tall Czar Alexander (the director) who puts down his queen with a most 'unroyal' remark. Mikhalkov and his half brother are great visualizers and have good ears for music--which is why the film is a treat to watch--natural splendors of Siberia, recreating a "Dr Zhivago" milieu with more authenticity than Mr Lean (who did a great job considering he could not shoot his film in the USSR).

I am a great admirer of good Russian cinema: especially the works of Tarkovsky, Kozintsev, Eisenstein, Konchalovsky, Talankin in that order. Mikhalkov is not the best but all his films are worth a view. But I have one suggestion--never take his films as what appears for there is a layer underneath the obvious--that needs to be seen tongue in cheek. And unlike Konchalovsky--the quality of direction is never consistent in Mikhalkov's works--it varies from the brilliant to the almost stupid.

But Mr Mikhalkov, what a pathetic waste of Richard Harris' talent to merely advertise his name in the credits for an insignificant role in a long movie...