What wonderful cinematography! The colors are great. The whole cast is well photographed. The sets are lovely to look at. Even the US Army camp is made to look like a resort.Julia Ormond glowed, and warmed the screen with her smile.But the storyline dragged. Actually, "dragged" suggests movement, which is at time the opposite of what happened. The story just came to a complete stop at times. You found yourself in two minute scenes which lasted fifteen minutes, but seemed more like an hour. And these halts did nothing to advance character development, plot or anything visible.The director can't blame the writer, or vice versa, because they were one and the same person.You could back a very large truck through the holes in the plot and not touch their sides.In addition to a sputtering storyline, whose idea was it to make the Russian cadets 30+ years old, but act as if they were 16? Is there such a shortage of young actors in Russia? I knew that their national demographics have gone to hell, but I assumed that there were still enough presentable Russian 20 year olds to play 16 year olds to cast one film. Except for the lead, they didn't even have to say anything much, so they could have rounded up a bunch of eastern European catwalk models from D&G.Also, I got the feeling that there WAS supposed to be a big age difference between the principals. In fact, the 38 year old actor who played the romantic lead is referred to as a "boy" several times. Its just that he wasn't. And to avoid this being too obvious, they made all of his friends the same age.The Tsar in 1885 is clearly Alexander III, but looks like a portly Nicholas II, and has a son seen with him - the Crown Prince - who could not possibly be the next Tsar (that would have made Nicholas about 30 when WWI began, rather than the actual 45 he was). Why bother to play with history like this? It just makes the film clang with dumb anachronisms.Too bad, because there was some real talent on show here. 5/10

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.

This movie is a good work for export sale. Collection of some widespread (among foreigners) myths about Russia: the way Russians drink vodka, the way they "have rest", "bears in the street" and so on. In addition the movie has some slip-ups like Soviet lampposts near Kremlin, stars over Kremlin towers, 50 stars on American flag of early 20th century et al. On the other hand, perhaps, Mikhalkov tried to show Russians' good sides for the foreigners who only know those myths and he did it the way they could understand. Girls cried for the love story, they loved the movie. Funny thing: the movie was produced by Mikhalkov himself, but "supported" by State Committee of Cinema, then the movie was shown on TV – hey, tax-payers! ;). Wow, "The Barber" became the really profitable commercial project. So, summary. You can watch this movie one time or another but remember: you will see authentic scenes, dresses and surroundings as well as the usual "Russian myths" made for export, quite beautiful picture and quite predictable love story.

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.