Customer Reviews

Barber of Siberia

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

TRUTH lies in the detail. Nikita Mikhalkov knows this. Anyone lucky enough to have seen Dark Eyes and Burnt By The Sun will expect a visual feast. Dr Zhivago was a love story, with an epic backdrop. So was Cyrano De Bergerac. Add to these, The Barber Of Siberia, a tale of honour and passion.
Jane Callahan (Julia Ormond) travels to Moscow from Massachusetts in 1885, masquerading as the daughter of an eccentric inventor (Richard Harris), who needs money to complete the field trials of his monstrous tree-felling machine that will devastate forests and feed the pulp mills of an entire continent.
Her art is seduction and her business to elicit financial support from rich aristocrats within Czar Alexander's court. On the train, she meets a high-spirited group of young army cadets and makes particular friends with one of them, Andrey Tolstoy (Oleg Menshikov), who, over a bottle of champagne, falls in love with her.
Jane's character is ill-defined. She is not exactly a courtesan on a foreign assignment and yet appears, by European standards, to be unusually independent. Her flirtatious charm is hard to resist and yet there is something superficial about her, something lightweight. Being from the New World, her sophistication is affected rather than ingrained and, like anyone who uses flattery as a calling card, she finds it hard to distinguish genuine emotion from false feelings.
Andrey has the courage of a clown. He is not afraid to follow his heart, even if it leads into an abyss. He acts on impulse and with fortitude, often ending in farce, or trouble. He is loyal to the Czar and to the principals of the officer code. Driven by an unconsummated passion for Jane, he allows jealousy to crucify him.
Mikhalkov does not disappoint. Visually the film is stunning, recapturing a sense of wonder, even madness, that incorporates the soul of Mother Russia. The story is told in flashback 20 years on. This North American section is less than successful, not that it detracts from the whole. Moscow in winter at the end of the 19th century has a magic all its own.
The performances are worthy of Mikhalkov's grand vision. Ormond, sadly missed since Smilla's Sense Of Snow, is an intelligent actress, who finds strength beyond beauty. Instead, she finds strength beyond beauty, hinting at the anguish of a duplicitous nature. The film belongs to Menshikov. He is both tragic and hilarious, a foolish boy, a ruined man. Such exquisite acting defies praise. It is enough to be there and experience the unpredictability of a unique and thrilling talent.

P.S. To watch the movie preview video clip you can on russianDVD.com website for free.

Definitely a great epic movie, the Barber of Siberia, brings to the screen the story of Jane, a beautiful cosmopolitan courtesan and Andrey, a young Cadet in the Imperial Army, during the years of Tsar Alexander III in Holy Russia.
The film combines drama, action, and adventure, making it one of the best of its kind, thus, resurrecting interest in historical films after a long dormant period.
Needless to say, Oleg Menshikov, Julia Ormond, and the rest of the cast have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are outstanding to say the least!
The setting, the music and the costumes are all wonderful!
History, Love, Passion, and Honor, are all about.
Nikita Mihalkov has scored his biggest hit yet with the Barber of Siberia!

In short, it is an EXCELLENT movie, guaranteed to shed a tear!

It seems that Russian novels and (sometimes) Russian films
make some of the best epics in history. This movie recreates the grand sweep of Romanov Russia in a story of love, honor, duty, and deception. The plot surrounds a young cavalry officer's infatuation for the daughter of an American inventor; but the father has has other plans for her. Oleg Menshikov - the young officer - is a dream; he is one of the most handsome heroes in cinema. (He also appears in the film East West) Yes, the film is long but with the gorgeous cinematography, you won't notice it. A very unusual treat.

I must say I really love this movie the first time I saw it was on cable and now i'm decided to buy it. this is my fave movie ever, I think it's because it has a beautiful story and the actors are great, somehow I felt like I was in the movie by the way was told. This movie must be a classic. if you haven't seen it, please do it you won't regreat it I assure you.

This is a long, unevenly directed story which really wants to be an epic romance and almost, but not quite succeeds. It is undoubtedly beautiful. The scenery both in Moscow and also in the scenes in Siberia is a suitably breathtaking stage for a tragic story of romance set against turn of the Century Russia. Julia Ormond is also ravishing here, and her performance underpins the success of the movie. Her Russian counterpart, the young Russian cadet Tolstoy (no relation to the author, as he frequently has to explain) with whom she falls in love when he stumbles into her train compartment, played by Oleg Menshikov, is less successful. His performance lurches somewhat heavy handedly from slapstick clown to would be troubled young man with deep feelings.
Richard Harris is wasted and gives an altogether over the top performance as the inventor of the titular machine - a steam driven contraption for chopping down the trees of Siberia, which he nicknames the barber of Siberia. The would be clever part is that Tolstoy plays the barber of Seville in the officers school performance. Robert Hrdy even crops up unexpectedly in one scene as an English language instructor.
The direction goes to lengths in certain scenes to come across as epic and is often beautifully photographed and set up - to the point where it can feel TOO staged - as in the scene on the platform where the cadets looking for their colleague search for him in such a way as their search becomes a dance for the camera. However the overall effect is pleasing enough as long as you can swallow the stageiness, mixed as it is with some truly un-stage-like milieus of Moscow and Siberia.
The dual language here works well. This does not feel like some euro film with too many cooks spoiling the broth - it is clearly a filmmakers vision (Nikita Mikhalkov), where English speaking actors speak English speaking roles and Russian actors the Russian roles, successfully giving the movie crossover appeal from the normal arthouse crowd. In particular, it is a pleasure to see a movie showing this part of history showing the Russians of the time who supported the Tsar as patriots, and the officer cadre as being a chivalrous life.
In summary I would have to say this IS a beautiful movie, worth watching - Julia Ormond is terrific, the music score is suitably melancholic, the scenery fantastic, and the story interesting - if a tad futile come the end. Worth the journey, if not the destination!

My wife and I saw Barber of Siberia in Paris in a theater along the Champs Elysees. I thought the romantic surroundings had tainted my view of the film (I enjoyed it immensely) so I purchased it a few weeks ago and watched again. No dissapointments here --the film remains a favorite of mine.

Rather than a synopsis, let me describe the strengths of the film. First Oleg Menshikov. He is perhaps the best feature of the film, despite an excellent performance by Julia Ormond. Menshikov is charming and expressive in a way I wouldn't expect from a Russian. His charm compares to Roberto Bernini in Life Is Beautiful.

True to its Russian character, the story is as dramatic as a psych patient off their meds. Lost love, comedy, feuding friends, swordplay, passion, and imprisonment are just some of the elements in the film. It is this dramatic range that makes the film so worthwhile. Unlike western films that seem to be either a romance, or a comedy, the Barber of Siberia will entertain everyone.

Russia itself is also a supporting actor in this movie. The beautiful cinematography makes me want to plan a trip to Moscow or even Siberia. The Fair scene alone is a set piece worth the price of admission.

Does the film have its weaknesses? Certainly. It would seem their budget didn't include an editor as the length at times diminishes from the film. But among recent films (the last 10 years) this is one of the best. Also the narrative doesn't allow the major themes of the film to progress from covert to overt.

Taken as a whole, this is an excellent film. Sad that it never made it to the big screen in the U.S. Guys, watch this with your wife and get credit for a romantic film that will entertain you as well.

Wonderful scenery. An unusual plot full of strange events yet still a love story. Odd perhaps but fun and full of unexpected events that are happy, tragic, silly, profound, musical, stupid, in other words rather human. Rarely did I predict the plot.

A bit slapstick once in a while, quite serious as well, sad to watch a woman cause misery in people until she knows love. Like so many women today perhaps.

Pagentry appears here and there, doing no harm, well, unless taken to excess, again a modern problem. Even a Tsar's little daughter can show love for father by doing as he does as all kids will do. Even a Tsar can behave like a father despite all the pompous parading.

Even a monk can be late, an actor off cue, a stern and stately General make himself a terrible fool scorned by his own sled driver. The clever can be so stupid. People are not perfect thankfully.

Perfect people in a perfect world may resent the characters and the plot. I have read the reports of critics elsewhere who throw this movie into the rubbish with clever wordsmithing. One is from a Place called New York. His review seems to me, in my opinion, a portrait of himself as a perfect all knowing expert. Nagging faultfinding reviews of that type make their authors seem a very boring type who find in a movie only what they want to find.

A movie can make fun in many ways even of itself. The greatest human behavior has the ability to be subtle while making a fool of oneself which isn't a popular common skill these days. Being perfect is the popular effort nowadays, in my opinion, resulting in unbearable boredom. As some English person said long ago somewhere, Yanks lack a sense of irony, perhaps that's so.

Both Russian and English are spoken. English subtitles are there for the spoken Russian. The dvd menu seems to be in Russian only but I figured it out. By guessing.

I bought this DVD ("The Barber of Siberia") because I am a huge fan of the director, Nikita Mikhalkov. While I love his other movies (Burnt by the Sun, Oblomov, Dark Eyes, Close to Eden, 12), I wish I had skipped "The Barber of Siberia." If you wish to watch it, I recommend that you rent it instead of buying it.

Overall, "The Barber of Siberia" is very disappointing. While the cinematography in this big-budget (45 million dollar) film is absolutely stunning, the performances by the actors are among the worst I have ever seen. The performances are unnatural, exaggerated, forced, slapstick, and cartoonish. Over the three hours course of the movie, the director does not seem to know if he wants a comedy, a romance, a drama, an exploration of the "heart of Russia," or a political advertisement (to support his real-life political ambitions).

This film is so embarrassingly bad, one would assume at first viewing that it was made by inferior artists. Yet director Mikhalkov has shown in previous films that he is a brilliant director and the principle actors (Julia Ormond, Oleg Menshikov, Richard Harris) have proven in other films that they are quite talented. Therefore, the cartoonish performances must be deliberate. Why? I have no idea. I can only assume that Mikhalkov believed the international audience enjoys such fare. Since this film was very popular, it would seem he is correct.

At heart, this film is supposed to be (or so it would seem) a romance: yet there is no believable, convincing "chemistry" between Julia Ormond and Oleg Menshikov.

While Julia Ormond is one of my favorite actresses, this has got to be her worst performance on film. It is difficult to believe that this is the same actress who gave us such a brilliant performance in "Smilla's Sense of Snow" just one year before making this film. Her voice in the "Barber of Siberia" does not at all sound like her voice in other films; therefore, I am wondering if her lines were dubbed by another actress. This also must be the worst performance ever by Richard Harris. Since they are both gifted actors, I must blame director Nikita Mikhalkov for their third-rate performances in this film.

The one good performance in this film was delivered by Aleksei Petrenko (who plays General Radlov). This is the same actor who played General Ivolgin so brilliantly in the "Idiot" mini-series from 2003.

Some 70 percent of this film is in English. I can only assume that director Mikhalkov wanted this film to be eligible for a non-foreign film Oscar. The English subtitles are excellent.

For the most part, the actors are too old for their parts. The worst case is Oleg Menshikov (a 37-years-old man playing a 20 year old military cadet). Similarly, Nikita Mikhalkov (at age 52) plays Czar Alexander III (who would have been 40 years old in 1885). Julia Ormond's part should have been played by an actress at least ten years younger. Julia Ormond's character is supposed to be older than the character played by Oleg Menshikov, yet Ormond is four years younger than Menshikov is in real life.

A bit of historical nitpicking (just one of many anachronisms): In one of the scenes from the year 1905, an American flag with 50 stars is shown. The American flag did not have 50 stars until 1960: in 1905, I believe the American flag had only 45 stars.

Before you read further I must say that i LOVE Oleg Menshikov as an actor, and I LOVE Mikhalkov's early movies, but this one...
well, after getting an Oscar for "Burnt by the Sun" as a best foreign film Nikita thought that he can get one for the best picture as well... You can feel that the movie was filmed especially to win the prize, not to touch the souls, and that's a pity. Most of the movie the solgers speak English, although French was more popular in Russia at that time, the director shows the picture of the Jesus the Savior Cathedral several times - why? what's the point? To tell people another story of mysterious Russian soul?!
Two scenes in the movie are really amazing (watch the movie!), I have to be honest - the film is very well done, well, with Pavel Lebeshev being a director of photogrphy - it's not a surprise!
but still...
makes me to miss that openness, truth and joy of Mikhalkov's early works...