The Barber of Siberia (1998)

So much average

Brilliant and touching

A Masterpiece!

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

While not one of my favorite movies of Mikhalkov, this last review from this what-on-earth-he-think-he-is guy from Bulgaria made me to write something. How can it be a waste of time watching Russian cinema? Only a rat mind can conceive something like this. Anyway, stupidity mixed with pretentiousness is so terrible that you can't even laugh about it. Of course, the movie will seem boring to someone with a such an attitude and such a narrow brain. As I said, I like the more other movies from this author. "Unfinished piece for mechanical piano" is what first come to mind. But anyway, to anyone it's own. I don't know for example why Julia Ormond seemed out of place here, and, someone else noted, the age of the Russian protagonist. But, it's a movie after all and you absolutely enjoy it.

The truth is that films like "Barber Of Siberia" do not need introduction. You can only write one thing about this film and you'll be totally right. So I'll summarize my opinion by writing three words. Fantastic and incredible. Of course I knew that Mihalkov is a great and famous director in Russia but I didn't expect to see such a good film. The settings were really beautiful. "Barber Of Siberia" guides you through the Russia of the 19th Century and the film familiarizes you with Russia of 19th Century. Sometimes I had this feeling of watching a documentary because the dialogs and the settings was so realistic. Apart from this, the scenario is great. I have to say that the story is very good and enchanting. It is not a classic love story but something more. A story of passion, devotion and jealously. But you won't feel sad when you watch this film because it has and its merry moments of course. There are some unforgettable humorous scenes on this work which will make you laugh for sure. The direction was excellent too. Mihalkov demonstrated again his abilities as a director and shows us that he is one of the best directors in the world. I believe that everyone will be satisfied by watching this film and especially those people who love Russian culture.

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.

I am unequivocally a Mikhalkov fan. BURNT BY THE SUN is one of the finest films I've ever seen from any director in any country. It is clearly his masterpiece to date and many of his other films are very fine indeed.It seems unfortunate that so much controversy was generated about BARBER OF SIBERIA based on its budget. Had there not been as much money spent, there would not have been as much hollow publicity and Mikhalkov would never have generated even a fraction of the resentment that swirls around this movie from Russian people. What has clearly happened here is that after all the hoopla and expense, people were expecting something more "important", perhaps something more political or more complex and less charming. What they got was a very old-fashioned and lovely romantic film which treats the "old days" of Tsarist Russia with a forgiving and nostalgic eye.There's no question that this film is more decidedly commercially-oriented than any other Mikhalkov film. But if in its sprawling ambition it doesn't quite have the incisive mastery of balance between beauty and intellect that earmark his best work, it still has plenty to commend it. In this film Mikhalkov seems to intend to use the pageantry of old Russia (both in terms of geography and architecture) as the backdrop to a sweet love story of warmth and humor. It's pretty much a universal story, not at all particularly innately Russian in its basic conception, but told in the context of a myriad of very idealized and elaborate images of Imperial Russia.I can understand how a very serious-minded Russian might feel the film is too light, too forgiving of Tsarist institutions and bureaucracy, too comedic. But Russia is not only Dostoevski -- it is also Gogol or Ilf and Petrov. This film represents a certain love affair with Russia, albeit through the kind of lens a Capra or a Lubitsch gave to America in their films. It starts out as a romantic comedy set against a HUGE tapestry that emphasizes beauty over subtlety -- it deepens as it goes along, and as a result the end result eludes definition.What it is perhaps most like (in this respect) is Welles' THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. Huge attention to detail but a decided point-of-view to idealize the nostalgic time being explored.And sadly, the other apt comparison to AMBERSONS is in terms of running time, as clearly it has been somewhat over-edited for commercial reasons. I've only seen the 3 hour version, but I would willingly see the 4 1/2 hour version, because I trust Mikhalkov enough to suppose that the film would be better at the greater length, as there are a few slightly disjointed or compressed transitions in the 3 hour version which no doubt reflect cuts.What there need be no controversy about are the photography (which is stunning -- this is the most beautiful film ever shot in Russia) and the performances, especially Oleg's. It is old-fashioned movie-making of a type seldom seen these days. It is no ANDREI RUBLEV, but its heart is in a different place.The real crime is that this film was never released in America. I saw it on the big screen in New York a few years ago thanks to a Russian film festival, and I'm grateful I had the opportunity, because it's almost like Americans were prevented from seeing it. All I can say is this: you should see this film in the theater if you have a chance. It's not Mikhalkov's finest film, but it is in certain ways his most ambitious. It is sumptuously beautiful to look at on the big screen, and even Mikhalkov not quite at his best is eminently worth the time invested. He's one of our greatest living filmmakers in the world, and you will not be wasting your time watching this film, even with its slight sense of narrative imbalance and its forgiving nostalgic glow. To most viewers it is a beautiful and endearing film.Not every film can be as devastating as BURNT BY THE SUN. This film is more akin to the diffuse charm of Mikhalkov's DARK EYES, with that earlier film's combination of comedy and tragedy which was clearly Chekhovian. No-one expected DARK EYES to be all things to all people -- were the portraits of the local bureaucrats in that movie not gentle satires as well, and isn't that film a bit about an idealized "Russian spirit" that informs the philandering tragic character which Mastroanni plays? Certainly. But since that film didn't cost a zillion dollars like this one, no one complained about it.Forget the budget. Just see THE BARBER OF SIBERIA and enjoy it on its own terms.