gilesdereis
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
blentus
Saw it today (3 hour version), and loved it. Although I didn't expect much, I was pleasantly surprised with both the picture and the story.Quite many people gave bad reviews based on their 'political perception' of Russia in that period of time, but since movie was made like a fairy-tale comic tragedy, at no point of time did I even think "Is this true image of Russia from that time?" At the end of the day, this is not a documentary (nor was it intended to be) about Russia at the end of 19th century - it is just a story, and should be watched like a story.Acting was fantastic (I even liked Julia Ormond very much), shots were great, and altogether, this is a movie worth seeing.At least, you will experience emotions after you see it. You'll either like it, or hate it.
johnyzero_2000
I guess I'm an odd one for using the word "fun" to describe this movie but it's the only word I could think of after viewing the Barber of Siberia. BOS isn't the typical period piece, it's not stuffy like the English ones and it's not heavy handed like in your standard Russian flicks. It has something that a lot of period films lack, HUMOR! The movie doesn't take itself too seriously and it goes along at a very brisk pace. Julia Ormond is one of the most beautiful and talented actresses of all time and this is an excellent vehicle for her. I will say this isn't the movie for serious film snobs, it's very light and audience pleasing. I would recommend Barber of Siberia to anyone looking for something different.
gytkaz
Wonderful movie! This is one of the best love story movie I have ever seen.Story is very good made. The end of 19 century ant the beginning of the 20 century was very difficult for Russia - many people were poor and even very hungry. But Tzar and his "squad" were very rich and powerful. This was the main reason for the Revolution to begin. It was very sad to see a movie ending. But - thats life and this is not a type of Hollywood movie - this is something different and veeeeery special. Enjoy it !!!
AD
