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.
81 Reviews
Another good film after Burnt by the Sun
mozibuzi4 September 2000
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.
A very nice movie
radlov11 September 1999
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.
fabulous
jogrant7 September 2004
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.
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.
Wow!
Gergy29 August 2000
I went to see this movie based on a suggestion from a good friend of mine. I expected to see a typical love story and was curious about the way this story was developed and directed. I admit that my expectations were very low in this regard. The Barber of Siberia is a work of art, Mikhalkov is surely one of the great movie authors of all times, and I am humbly thankful to my friend for her priceless advice.
The plot may seem like any conventional love story but the fashion in which the story is developed and the performances of all the actors (yes, ALL of them) is really fascinating.
What strikes you most is when Mikhalkov directly compares the life of a military cadet between Russia and the US. There's also a latent comparison between the American and Russian ideals. I leave it to you to discover how and when these comparisons appear on screen.
Mikhalkov magnificently plays the role of the Tzar Alexander III (the father of the recently canonized Tzar Nicholas II). As portrayed by Mikhalkov, Alexander III embodies the grandeur of Russia and sets the standard on the qualities of a ruler. You cannot but compare these standards to those set by Boris Yeltsin (who was in charge in 1998) and you would better understand the passing of power to Putin.
This is one of the rare times I get emotional about a film, and believe me the Barber of Siberia contains a lot of emotions. DON'T MISS IT AT ANY RATE!
The plot may seem like any conventional love story but the fashion in which the story is developed and the performances of all the actors (yes, ALL of them) is really fascinating.
What strikes you most is when Mikhalkov directly compares the life of a military cadet between Russia and the US. There's also a latent comparison between the American and Russian ideals. I leave it to you to discover how and when these comparisons appear on screen.
Mikhalkov magnificently plays the role of the Tzar Alexander III (the father of the recently canonized Tzar Nicholas II). As portrayed by Mikhalkov, Alexander III embodies the grandeur of Russia and sets the standard on the qualities of a ruler. You cannot but compare these standards to those set by Boris Yeltsin (who was in charge in 1998) and you would better understand the passing of power to Putin.
This is one of the rare times I get emotional about a film, and believe me the Barber of Siberia contains a lot of emotions. DON'T MISS IT AT ANY RATE!
Grrrrreat
sasuffie17 February 2006
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).
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).
Unforgettable
fox-946 May 2000
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.
beautiful
Kirpianuscus11 October 2015
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.
Definitely viewable, warts and all
JuguAbraham22 October 2001
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...
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...
Do you know why the film has not been released in the USA?
messerschmitt-18 January 2007
Do you know why "The Barber of Siberia" has not been released in the USA? After watching the film, the committee, which approves the foreign films for being released at the American movie theatres, said: "It's impossible for an American sergeant not to know who was Mozart! The film reveals the American officers as morons, so it is not suitable the film to be shown at the theatres". That's the explanation, which Nikita Mikhalkov gave by himself for the lack of releasing of "The Barber of Siberia" in the USA during his guesting of a popular Bulgarian talk-show. That reminds me of a line from the RAMMSTEIN's famous song called "Amerika": "Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen..." In English:"The Freedom is playing at all violins..." (the song aims to show the "freedom" and the "non-censorship" in the USA) By the way the broadcasting of that song at any American television is forbidden.
an explosion of all kinds of pretentiousness
rabbits88829 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The thing that I REALLY like about this film is the story and the poetic way in which it wants to develop. But I can't get past the bad thing, which is that it fails at making it convincing.. and both the comedy and the drama are extremely cheesy.
I'm Russian and I don't like Mihalkov because of his vanity, it all seems like some sort of local thing between him and himself. For example, in this movie, there are several scenes that have nothing to do with the story and do not serve for comedic purpose (because were not in the least funny), and could have easily been left out. It is obvious he for some reason liked them and felt it was right to put them in the final cut. The comedy is BAD. The way comedy develops in a Mihalkov film, is usually by trying to have this sort of crazy mess at the beginning, lot of characters, goofy scenes that don't really have much to do with the main plot, etc. This has worked amazingly cool in many films because the trick is when it's done in an uninterested matter. But this film fails miserably at it, because it all seems SO extremely obvious and forced. The scenes last so long they become a desperate attempt at basically forcing you to laugh and have a good time.
In the tragic aspect the film fails as well, not because of the story itself, but because it basically comes from nothing. Mostly because the 2 main characters, apart from having no chemistry between them, are both quite unlikable. I could not see anything appealing about Jane, she seemed totally ordinary and there was nothing beautiful or mysterious in her for which some young guy would fall. The scene where she meets Radlov is painful to watch, the script in that scene is idiotic. Andrei was simply too stupid. I love Menshikov but I kept feeling bad for him in this film, him playing a cadet at 38 it's ridiculous, all he did was constantly acting like a guy with some mental issues in order to appear younger. And his character becoming a mad man for Jane and feeling the most brutal adoration towards her makes no sense, not because he doesn't know her but because she isn't in the least interesting, and later she randomly jumps in his bed, right after telling him she was no good for him, managing to become even less interesting, plus skanky. On top of that, they both mess up with a character that was clearly there to make this sort of "villan" for the story. But actually, the Radlov character never did any harm to anyone and had no intentions of it, through the movie, Jane continued to make an idiot of him in order to use him for her business purposes, and Andrei egoistically puts him in an awkward position when he goes to propose to Jane. Then, Andrei publicly hits him with a stick and of course that ends badly for Andrei and Jane. Well, what did they expect?
Bottomline, bad film, although it does have a romantic story even if it's not convincing.
I'm Russian and I don't like Mihalkov because of his vanity, it all seems like some sort of local thing between him and himself. For example, in this movie, there are several scenes that have nothing to do with the story and do not serve for comedic purpose (because were not in the least funny), and could have easily been left out. It is obvious he for some reason liked them and felt it was right to put them in the final cut. The comedy is BAD. The way comedy develops in a Mihalkov film, is usually by trying to have this sort of crazy mess at the beginning, lot of characters, goofy scenes that don't really have much to do with the main plot, etc. This has worked amazingly cool in many films because the trick is when it's done in an uninterested matter. But this film fails miserably at it, because it all seems SO extremely obvious and forced. The scenes last so long they become a desperate attempt at basically forcing you to laugh and have a good time.
In the tragic aspect the film fails as well, not because of the story itself, but because it basically comes from nothing. Mostly because the 2 main characters, apart from having no chemistry between them, are both quite unlikable. I could not see anything appealing about Jane, she seemed totally ordinary and there was nothing beautiful or mysterious in her for which some young guy would fall. The scene where she meets Radlov is painful to watch, the script in that scene is idiotic. Andrei was simply too stupid. I love Menshikov but I kept feeling bad for him in this film, him playing a cadet at 38 it's ridiculous, all he did was constantly acting like a guy with some mental issues in order to appear younger. And his character becoming a mad man for Jane and feeling the most brutal adoration towards her makes no sense, not because he doesn't know her but because she isn't in the least interesting, and later she randomly jumps in his bed, right after telling him she was no good for him, managing to become even less interesting, plus skanky. On top of that, they both mess up with a character that was clearly there to make this sort of "villan" for the story. But actually, the Radlov character never did any harm to anyone and had no intentions of it, through the movie, Jane continued to make an idiot of him in order to use him for her business purposes, and Andrei egoistically puts him in an awkward position when he goes to propose to Jane. Then, Andrei publicly hits him with a stick and of course that ends badly for Andrei and Jane. Well, what did they expect?
Bottomline, bad film, although it does have a romantic story even if it's not convincing.
What feelings of provoked.
Doc-12518 June 1999
"The Barber of Siberia" was actually the first Russian movie shot during the past 8 years which made me proud that I am Russian. After the stream of low-rated films about mafia, prostitution and 'hard life', most of which were brilliantly void of any thought or idea, "The Barber" managed to persuade me that not everyhing's lost for Russia yet.
Too bad that the mix of drama and slapstick didn't really work very well.
philip_vanderveken26 April 2005
I've seen movies from all over the world, a lot of them was American of course, but several of them came from Europe and Asia. But I can't remember ever having seen a Russian movie before. This was the first one and I must admit that it was quite surprising, although it wasn't an undivided success in my opinion.
The movie tells the story of Douglas McCraken, a foreign businessman and inventor who wants to sell a new and experimental steam-driven timber harvester in Siberia in 1885. But not everything goes exactly as planned. To make sure that his machine is accepted by the Russian government, he'll need the help of his lovely assistant Jane Callahan. While she is on her way, she meets a young cadet and falls in love with him. But the lovely Jane has more admirers and after an incident, the love of her life is exiled to Siberia...
Not everything worked, but overall I must say that this was a quite enjoyable movie. The main problem that I had was that it sometimes didn't seem to take everything very serious. The mix of drama and slapstick didn't really work very well and even annoyed me from time to time. Nevertheless, I must admit that there was some nice humor in it as well. For instance the sequence with the American drill sergeant who proves that he doesn't know anything about classical music, but who's too proud to admit that, is excellent. But still I think it would have been much better if there was less humor and more realistic drama in it.
Overall I would say that the acting in the movie was good, although I wished to see Richard Harris in a bigger role. Now it just felt like he was in the movie because of his name, not because of his talent. I would like to end this review by saying that this is an enjoyable movie, even though it sometimes didn't feel right. I give it a 6.5/10. Perhaps even a 7/10, but certainly nothing more than that.
The movie tells the story of Douglas McCraken, a foreign businessman and inventor who wants to sell a new and experimental steam-driven timber harvester in Siberia in 1885. But not everything goes exactly as planned. To make sure that his machine is accepted by the Russian government, he'll need the help of his lovely assistant Jane Callahan. While she is on her way, she meets a young cadet and falls in love with him. But the lovely Jane has more admirers and after an incident, the love of her life is exiled to Siberia...
Not everything worked, but overall I must say that this was a quite enjoyable movie. The main problem that I had was that it sometimes didn't seem to take everything very serious. The mix of drama and slapstick didn't really work very well and even annoyed me from time to time. Nevertheless, I must admit that there was some nice humor in it as well. For instance the sequence with the American drill sergeant who proves that he doesn't know anything about classical music, but who's too proud to admit that, is excellent. But still I think it would have been much better if there was less humor and more realistic drama in it.
Overall I would say that the acting in the movie was good, although I wished to see Richard Harris in a bigger role. Now it just felt like he was in the movie because of his name, not because of his talent. I would like to end this review by saying that this is an enjoyable movie, even though it sometimes didn't feel right. I give it a 6.5/10. Perhaps even a 7/10, but certainly nothing more than that.
A story of love, friendship and honor, not a reality quest!
nikapell8 February 2003
I've seen this movie a lot of times, and loved it every time. Surely it is not very truthful story from the historical point of view. It also isn't very realistic and probably it wasn't made to be one. Who says that every movie nowdays should be? Sometimes you want to see something more fairy-tale like. Though you should remember, this is not one of those happy ones. From mine point of view the main idea of this movie was to show the emotions of youth in those days in Russia. Friendship, love and honor were the virtues that were truly valued. Every one of those emotions were shown in the best possible way. The things I didn't like in that movie, were the overplayed roles of some characters and too long scenes showing the russian passion for drinking(???). But those shouldn't be that big obstacles for not loving everything else. If you didn't like the story of this film, you should watch it at least because of the incredible performance of the russian actor Oleg Menshikov, which dimmes everyone else appearance, even the fabulous Julia Ormond. He plays with such passion that even the fact that he plays much more younger character than himself is not noticeable. I think that everyone who is looking for real emotions on screen, should give this movie a chance, and maybe in the end you will be suprised how much you really enjoyed it.
As good as a movie can get!
vampirock_x30 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It's one of the most bumpy emotional roller coaster that I've ever ridden in a movie.
If it's fictitious, why don't we make it dramatic to the utmost? Most likely Nikita Mikhalkov shares this view with me. This is a story of fate. The film didn't bother to conceal the cruelty of fate, instead it planted seeds on the most barren soil and nourished leaves and flowers, even though they are only ironies or self-satisfying jokes on war, hierarchy and fusty disciplines, which at least managed to inspire people, if not causing a revolution.
It takes too much to fall into an innocent youth. For a love of a Russian boy as innocent as Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray, an ill-fated American widow had even more to pay, which I admire so much. **(spoiler) It's really ironic while the reason for their acquaintanceship was the soulless machine with a poetic name of "The Barber of Siberia", André Tolstoi actually became one at last.** It's not only his tribute to his first love, but also his revenge on his fate by instilling meanings into a shallow notion called faith.
It's funny. It even seems too hilarious for a theme of sad love. I occasionally laughed from the utmost of my heart, which I never did during watching "Borat" several days ago, and I knew perfectly that I would have to pay for that as the story unfolded. I did. It's easy to resist the temptation of either happiness or sadness, but it's quite another thing to deal with both at the same time.
Judging from my own cinematic experience, "slippery floor" and "proposal" are two of the most dramatic scenes I've ever seen and the fat ignorant American officer who didn't give a damn about Mozart is among the most comedic characters. I found it surprisingly funny because they're not sheer jokes. They are actions which involved courage, optimism and reasons. And that's why even more tears were shed **(spoiler) when the mask boy played Mozart for our ignorant officer in an incredible harmony and the officer was finally convinced and shouted, "Mozart is a great composer".** The very idea of understanding and believing overwhelmed me.
Need I bring forward the attractive acting, artistic cinematography and gorgeous score? I mean...it's Russian. It features beautiful landscape, American beauty, Russian cute guys and, of course, a bittersweet story of love and friendship, changes and fate.
As the movie told, in the day of forgiveness, strangers beat each other black and blue and then begged for forgiveness, and they were serious. Relating to that, I recalled the friendship between André and Polievsky. **(spoiler) They fought a fencing duel and hurt each other**, but Polievsky was the most devoted one through the whole film that went great length to help and protect André.
When the boy eventually took off the mask and kept on running along the coast, I'm convinced that life can be ill-fated sometimes, but it will be worth it if you took it on with courage and sincerity.
The last time I've heard Mozart's Piano Concerto no. 23 was in Alexander Sokurov's "Spiritual Voices", in which Mozart was also specially mentioned. And then this one came. Now to me Mozart seems to become a tag for Russian films --- though the two of them are excellent in its own way.
Thanks to my friend's recommendation, this film adds an extraordinary color to my complex of Russian cinema.
If it's fictitious, why don't we make it dramatic to the utmost? Most likely Nikita Mikhalkov shares this view with me. This is a story of fate. The film didn't bother to conceal the cruelty of fate, instead it planted seeds on the most barren soil and nourished leaves and flowers, even though they are only ironies or self-satisfying jokes on war, hierarchy and fusty disciplines, which at least managed to inspire people, if not causing a revolution.
It takes too much to fall into an innocent youth. For a love of a Russian boy as innocent as Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray, an ill-fated American widow had even more to pay, which I admire so much. **(spoiler) It's really ironic while the reason for their acquaintanceship was the soulless machine with a poetic name of "The Barber of Siberia", André Tolstoi actually became one at last.** It's not only his tribute to his first love, but also his revenge on his fate by instilling meanings into a shallow notion called faith.
It's funny. It even seems too hilarious for a theme of sad love. I occasionally laughed from the utmost of my heart, which I never did during watching "Borat" several days ago, and I knew perfectly that I would have to pay for that as the story unfolded. I did. It's easy to resist the temptation of either happiness or sadness, but it's quite another thing to deal with both at the same time.
Judging from my own cinematic experience, "slippery floor" and "proposal" are two of the most dramatic scenes I've ever seen and the fat ignorant American officer who didn't give a damn about Mozart is among the most comedic characters. I found it surprisingly funny because they're not sheer jokes. They are actions which involved courage, optimism and reasons. And that's why even more tears were shed **(spoiler) when the mask boy played Mozart for our ignorant officer in an incredible harmony and the officer was finally convinced and shouted, "Mozart is a great composer".** The very idea of understanding and believing overwhelmed me.
Need I bring forward the attractive acting, artistic cinematography and gorgeous score? I mean...it's Russian. It features beautiful landscape, American beauty, Russian cute guys and, of course, a bittersweet story of love and friendship, changes and fate.
As the movie told, in the day of forgiveness, strangers beat each other black and blue and then begged for forgiveness, and they were serious. Relating to that, I recalled the friendship between André and Polievsky. **(spoiler) They fought a fencing duel and hurt each other**, but Polievsky was the most devoted one through the whole film that went great length to help and protect André.
When the boy eventually took off the mask and kept on running along the coast, I'm convinced that life can be ill-fated sometimes, but it will be worth it if you took it on with courage and sincerity.
The last time I've heard Mozart's Piano Concerto no. 23 was in Alexander Sokurov's "Spiritual Voices", in which Mozart was also specially mentioned. And then this one came. Now to me Mozart seems to become a tag for Russian films --- though the two of them are excellent in its own way.
Thanks to my friend's recommendation, this film adds an extraordinary color to my complex of Russian cinema.
Incredible!
smotosmotani12 December 2004
Master piece, incredible, magnificent, marvelous. Most probably English language doesn't have enough suitable words which I would use when trying to share my emotions about this movie. I watch it over and over and I still cannot believe that we lost that feeling somewhere along the line... Oleg and Julia had never lost it and they will always remind everyone that the only right decision is the one coming from the heart. Magnificent movie, full of life as thge life is, full of unforgettable moment, excellent screenplay, great director, great actors...Movie full of love, life and everything that we almost forgot that exists. Thank you Oleg, Julia and Nikita for this movie!!!
a 10 for 1 of my favorite movie.
went9 July 2006
I like a lot of movie's , but The Barber of Siberia is to me a 10+ movie! An epic romance about lost love, betrayal and the human spirit.It is Nikita Mikhalkov's most ambitious film and first film shot in English. It's one of my favorite, absolutely brilliant, movie.Hertbreaking love story with Julia Ormond (as Jane) always in movement like a waltz that sometime turns into a polka and sometimes into a french cancan. Oleg Menshikov played the lead role in 17 films and worked with the most talented Russian directors.Oleg was born on November 8 1960 in Senpoukhov, Moscow.In 1981 he graduated from Chtepkine Drama School and started to perform on various stages, playing in The Idiot and Caligula(for which he was named Best Actor at Moscow Theatre Festival in 1991).In 1998 he accepted the Russian National Prize for his entire work in film.
I visit Moscow ,special to see the shooting-location.The bridge over the Yauza (krasnokazarmennaja pl),the prison on misjudge per,Faleevskij per, the small street near Kremlin.Also Novodevitsje(the lake). For your interest; on DVD by RUSCICO, wildscreen.180 min, 16:9. Specials +++. also PAL. all region.
I visit Moscow ,special to see the shooting-location.The bridge over the Yauza (krasnokazarmennaja pl),the prison on misjudge per,Faleevskij per, the small street near Kremlin.Also Novodevitsje(the lake). For your interest; on DVD by RUSCICO, wildscreen.180 min, 16:9. Specials +++. also PAL. all region.
incredible
boikoblagoev10 March 2003
About beauty, love, values and lost ages
Vincentiu4 January 2009
A beautiful film. In fact, a travel in the heart of Russian spirit. Love, traditions, drama and memories. The subtle past, the gloomy present, gestures at pieces of an old mirror and drops of a old rain. A film about an age. Age of everybody with different nuances but warm ashes, with secrets and words transfigured in memory waters, with resignations and desires and snow of a personal past. It is easy to say: a splendid film. A film of Mihalkov. Good, precious and real. But it is more. It is the discover of yourself. It is a drama. It is a comedy. It is a kind of Proust's madlene. The director as the czar, Menshikov as the young cadet and Osmond - the foreign lady, who discover the roots of reality. A movie without public because each man, each woman is a character of this masterpiece about beauty, values and lost ages.
Visually stunning, but...
Shelly739 March 2001
Mikhalkov succeeded in creating a film that is visually stunning - one of the most beautiful I have ever seen.
That said, Sibirskii Tsir'ulnik is a sentimentalist piece, designed to pull at the heartstrings, and make the viewer wish for a Russia past that never really existed. Mikhalkov makes the Russian monarchy look benevolent, and the Russian peasants seem jolly in much the same way that Gone With the Wind made American viewers believe that there was something romantic and good about a society built around slavery.
I left the theater enamored with the visual images I had seen, and touched by the story of Ormond and Menshikov's romance, but with a pit in my stomach because Mikhalkov had managed to draw me in.
Watch the movie, enjoy it, but realize that it is not an accurate historical piece.
That said, Sibirskii Tsir'ulnik is a sentimentalist piece, designed to pull at the heartstrings, and make the viewer wish for a Russia past that never really existed. Mikhalkov makes the Russian monarchy look benevolent, and the Russian peasants seem jolly in much the same way that Gone With the Wind made American viewers believe that there was something romantic and good about a society built around slavery.
I left the theater enamored with the visual images I had seen, and touched by the story of Ormond and Menshikov's romance, but with a pit in my stomach because Mikhalkov had managed to draw me in.
Watch the movie, enjoy it, but realize that it is not an accurate historical piece.
The best Russian movie for the last 10 years.
Loka27 February 1999
Well... I was really sure, that Russian cinema is dead. But this $30.000.000 Mikhalkov's movie proves that I was mistaken. This is not a true story, sometimes it seems that the picture was taken only to please a viewer's eye, but the character story and fight is beautiful. Plus all Russian exotics - caviar, vodka, blini, bears, drunk Russian army officers etc. This is a movie you must see.
big flop from director of "Urga"
suvakovs7 July 2002
What a disappointment from the director of "Urga". I agree with the comment that Mikalkov went after big bucks. The story about stubbornness and Mozart was ridiculous, and then Mikhalkov himself as czar... Really hard to comprehend. I hope Mikhalkov would find back his soul because he is a great director. But after this movie there is little to expect.
A great movie.
BigBaba20 June 1999
Although this movie is suffering from a shaky script, Sibirskij tsiryulnuk makes for a very entertaining movie. The pretty face of Julia Ormond, the beautiful camera work of Franco Di Giacomo and Pavel Lebeshev, the terrific classical music and the story, that is nothing more than a spiced up love story, combine to something that is much, much more than the sum of its parts. The Barber is an entertaining, very funny cinematic ride that doesn't bore for any one of its 180 (yep it's that long) minutes.
Julia Ormond is Jane Callahan, coming to Moscow to help her father out in obtaining funding for some technical project he is working on. Nothing more than a framework to accommodate the love story between Jane and Andrei Tolstoy (no connection to the writer) as played by Oleg Menshikov. Oleg, already an actor since 1981 (!), is doing a very good job as the tormented lover caught in-between his love for Jane and the military academy he's studying at.
There are some bad voice oversee, some of the acting isn't fully up to par and some scenes or part of some scenes are totally unnecessary. But, the rest of the movie easily makes up for the minor mistakes made here and there. Halfway through the movie, Jane and a Russian general she is trying to convince in sponsoring her fathers project, visit a Russian carnival. Having a hard time in trying, she convinces the general, who doesn't drink, in taking a vodka. From there on, its 15 minutes of Hilarious fun, where the general turns out to be an alcoholic, tries to conquer Napoleon and almost joins in a staged fist fight between some 75 half naked men.
I expected a bit more of a classic in the making when I went to see the Barber. Something more of an epic. I definitely didn't get what I was expecting. But the movie is nice to watch, being funny and entertaining. Yes, the script leaves some strings untied, but still, worth a screening.
Julia Ormond is Jane Callahan, coming to Moscow to help her father out in obtaining funding for some technical project he is working on. Nothing more than a framework to accommodate the love story between Jane and Andrei Tolstoy (no connection to the writer) as played by Oleg Menshikov. Oleg, already an actor since 1981 (!), is doing a very good job as the tormented lover caught in-between his love for Jane and the military academy he's studying at.
There are some bad voice oversee, some of the acting isn't fully up to par and some scenes or part of some scenes are totally unnecessary. But, the rest of the movie easily makes up for the minor mistakes made here and there. Halfway through the movie, Jane and a Russian general she is trying to convince in sponsoring her fathers project, visit a Russian carnival. Having a hard time in trying, she convinces the general, who doesn't drink, in taking a vodka. From there on, its 15 minutes of Hilarious fun, where the general turns out to be an alcoholic, tries to conquer Napoleon and almost joins in a staged fist fight between some 75 half naked men.
I expected a bit more of a classic in the making when I went to see the Barber. Something more of an epic. I definitely didn't get what I was expecting. But the movie is nice to watch, being funny and entertaining. Yes, the script leaves some strings untied, but still, worth a screening.
The Great Imperial Nostalgy
oxana7 April 2001
Well, I am Russian and I was looking forward to see the movie, especially since I used to respect Nikita Mikhalkov quite a great deal. Unfortunately, recently he turned to be some outdated sort of "russophil", dreaming of the long gone days of the Great Russian Empire, ruled by the Good Tzar. Not surprisingly, he modestly plays the Tzar's part himself, and in general, his much politicized opinions got reflected in the movie. There's no plot, no action, but a bucketful of tears and sobbing, vodka, bears and other aspects of supposedly wonderful life back then. That's what is caled "lubochnaya kartinka" - a simplified, though fancy and attractive, picture on wood, sold at fairs to kids.
The film is spectacular, the takes are great, and technically there's nothing to complain about: it's a visual pleasure. The idea that everybody speaks their proper language in the original version is really great (shall I mention that in the Russian version, Mikhalkov himself speaks over the original voices, attempting to re-enact all the actors, which is utmostly annoying). Julia Ormond is fine, and so is Richard Harris. Oleg Menshikov tries his best to portray a 20-years old, although it was difficult to believe that he is younger than 30 (err, how old is he indeed? 40?). Alexey Petrenko I never admired, although he is considered as a very good actor in Russia. In this movie he plays a caricature of a true Russian general - I guess, the way Mikhalkov sees it. Well, everything in this movie is a caricature, and one should keep in mind that it's not the way life was going in Russia those days, not the way Russians were or are, and ultimately this all is just a peculiar nostalgic fantasy by Mr. Nikita Mikhalkov.
The film is spectacular, the takes are great, and technically there's nothing to complain about: it's a visual pleasure. The idea that everybody speaks their proper language in the original version is really great (shall I mention that in the Russian version, Mikhalkov himself speaks over the original voices, attempting to re-enact all the actors, which is utmostly annoying). Julia Ormond is fine, and so is Richard Harris. Oleg Menshikov tries his best to portray a 20-years old, although it was difficult to believe that he is younger than 30 (err, how old is he indeed? 40?). Alexey Petrenko I never admired, although he is considered as a very good actor in Russia. In this movie he plays a caricature of a true Russian general - I guess, the way Mikhalkov sees it. Well, everything in this movie is a caricature, and one should keep in mind that it's not the way life was going in Russia those days, not the way Russians were or are, and ultimately this all is just a peculiar nostalgic fantasy by Mr. Nikita Mikhalkov.
Take the money and run
Koschey22 May 1999
I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.
I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:
·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.
·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).
·Outdoor panorama shots.
·Ormond talking through the keyhole.
·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.
·Fencing sequence
Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.
The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.
They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.
If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.
I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:
·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.
·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).
·Outdoor panorama shots.
·Ormond talking through the keyhole.
·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.
·Fencing sequence
Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.
The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.
They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.
If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
