Sibéria

Flat script, flat directing, flat acting. Ingredients that made this film slow, boring and for only viewing it in fast forward mode. I don't know why Mr. Reeves accepted to participate in it. I guess for paying some bills. A complete flop.

Siberia (2018), starring Keanu Reeves, has several strong elements, but also several significant problems. The film is about 40% romance, 30% crime thriller and 30% moody, brooding scenes that move at a glacial pace. The romantic interest is played by Ana Ularu, who played the ruthless and remorseless assassin in Inferno (2016).

Ularu is more of a chickflick heroine than a Bond girl. She's attractive in a girl-next-door sort of way, not like a fashion model or femme fatale. Feminine, but not voluptuous or statuesque. Young (32) but not so young that a romance with Keanu Reeves (53) seems scandalous. She has a look that women can admire without feeling threatened. If the role had been cast with an actress resembling a young Jane March, still 19 from her role in L'amant (The Lover) (1992), the dynamic would have been entirely different. Sammy Sanchez described Jane's look thusly, "Jane radiantly rocks this effortless belted neutral shift with a pair of braids and a classic straw boater hat for a classic combination that is both timeless and Lolitaesque without being for lack of a better word, hobaggish." By contrast, Ularu's Katya is initially seen in frumpy, oversized men's work clothes and boots, although she later appears in full flash and glitter for an ugly duckling / swan transformation. The audience can instantly understand the fascination and obsession that Jane March's unnamed young girl inspired in L'amant, and Rose incited among various characters in The Color of Night (1994). By contrast, the filmmakers did everything possible to make Katya seem ordinary, unappealing and standoffish, even giving her a fiancé and an overly protective brother with several very large friends. For Keanu's Lucas to put his marriage on the shelf, ignore his perilous circumstances and his partner's recent defalcation, defy Katya's imposing and threatening extended family and the exigency of his business in Siberia, he needs a compelling reason to find Katya more than attractive and truly fascinating. Instead, we get mildly provocative unexpected one-liners. Do you think I've never seen a penis before? If I asked you to sleep with me, would you?

Perhaps this is the fate of celluloid romances in an era dominated by #MeToo, the PC Gestapo and feminazis. Characters once played by Mae West, Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Brigitte Bardot and Raquel Welch are considered politically incorrect. Barbarella's Jane Fonda has become an outspoken feminist. Self-anointed experts, who apparently don't consider Zulu Chief Shaka a real warrior, complain that real warriors don't dress like the Amazons in Wonder Woman (2017). Lucas is expected to fall hopelessly in love with Katya because she is a strong, independent woman, who doesn't need to dress sexy to attract men, and decides if and when she will have sex. There are several sex scenes, although most are more-or-less fully clothed, including a slightly kinky bros-before-hos scene with four participants and several casual observers.

For various reasons, the romantic story never seems credible.

Unfortunately, the crime thriller doesn't make any more sense than the romance. There's two MacGuffins - one real, the other fake. It's not clear who has the real one or what financial impact it has on Lucas or why the gangsters are ready to kill him and others for merchandise they haven't paid for. Understanding the plot would probably require viewing the movie about three times, but it isn't sufficiently interesting to warrant a second viewing.

Performances are good, particularly by some of the supporting cast. Production design is more than adequate to make Canada look like Siberia. Some of the cinematography is quite good, while many shots are marred by reliance on jiggly-cam, which shatters the willful suspension of disbelief and constantly reminds the audience they are viewing the action through the lens of a camera. The film often drags. Motivations are unclear. Consequently, the characters are not very interesting or sympathetic.

I hate anticipating a film based on the trailer, and then getting a totally different experience when watching the film. The movie is nothing like the trailer portrays it. The plot is never flushed out, characters aren't developed, tons of loose ends throughout the film, and an awful ending. There were some things that kept me intrigued enough to stick with it to the end, but then I was thoroughly disappointed, as the story really never went anywhere.

My wife and I watched this at home, it was free from our public library. We like Reeves, he has been in many good movies. In this one he was also a Producer, in the DVD "extra" he even praised the script.

Well we disagree, the script is mediocre and the execution is mediocre. It is never very clear what all is going on and who all the players are and what their motives are. Plus a couple of seemingly incongruent sex scenes are thrown in.

My best guess is Reeves plays a man who deals in criminal diamond trades, has some legitimate blue diamonds and some fakes that can only be identified using a spectrometer. In Russia he has to deal with various guys who in the end seem to want him dead.

So while I can't say it was a complete waste of time we certainly expected something better. The movie is flat, obscure, and dull most of the time.

The screenplay destroyed any potential this film may have had.

The story is absolutely useless and unnecessary from start to midpoint. The remainder of the scenes where convoluted (especially the ending) and so dragged out - especially the lame sex scenes.

I had to fast forward most of the long scenes as I was losing my interest and patience. What were the writers thinking? A 5th grader could have written this better.

This film suffered an identity crisis; what is soft porn? what is a romance? was it a thriller? was it spy film? There was certainly no action or suspense. There where so many plot issues and more holes than in Swiss cheese.

The cinematography was the main highlight, then the acting, and finally the directing was fairly decent, although the director should have demanded this film be edited down - especially the dragged out useless scenes to perhaps a short film. 104 mins was waaay too long for the pacing that was so ridiculously slow. The score was also annoying.

As a huge fan of KR, this was a big disappointment and he should have passed on this one. A 3/10 from me only for the very few positive traits.