Il barbiere di Siberia

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.

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.

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...

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 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).