Il barbiere di Siberia

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.

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 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.

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.

Even if most of the reviews were devastating I decided to go and see the most expensive and discussed Russian movie. And the truth is that I enjoyed every minute of it. For me absolutely the best movie of the year. For a long time no movie impressed me like this one. You can find everything in it - passion, desire, fight, love and hate, tiers...Watching some scenes you laugh and others you cry. Excellent actor performances and a beautiful music make the movie unforgettable. So forget everything you have heard or read about and better go and see it with our own eyes.