Sibéria

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.

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.

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.