Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Kirpianuscus after its end, the only strange remains the source of his seduction. sure, it is a Mikhalkov film, the meeting between Mastroianni and Smoktunovsky is a happy event, the favorite of Fellini does an admirable job, the old text of Chekov has new nuances but each new explanation is far to be enough. the secret could be the strange status of story. it seems be well known. it could be a story about yourself. the emotion becomes profound scene by scene. the feelings about poor lead hero are ambiguous more and more. the virtue of film - it presents not only a touching story but an expected one. a film about life, errors, hopes and regrets.confession of an Italian full of authentic Russian states of soul. and that is the key - except Mastroianni, nobody can act his character. except Mikhalkov, nobody can give the air of familiarity to a strange story like that. a seductive film. but the roots of its seduction are so profound presented in its viewer experiences....

bklyn-boylan Yes, its story is an old chestnut. There's an excuse for Marcello Mastroianni to tell a story about himself and a Russian woman, and he does it, and there's an aftermath. But the story is so good and so well told (and acted and directed) that the device is like an old friend. This is one of Mikhailkov's best, right up there with Burnt by the Sun. It draws on Heifetz's Lady with a Dog (and Chekhov's short story too, for that matter) and parodies (or pays homage to) Fellini's 8 1/2--both just right for this Italo-Russian piece about Italians and Russians, which I found a pure delight. It revels in both poking fun of and warmly enjoying both Italian and Russian types and moods. For me, there was the additional pleasure of seeing Innokenti Smoktunovsky, who played the title role in Kozintsev's Hamlet, now middle-aged and as fine an actor as ever. Will it ever be released on DVD? It's about time this one is rediscovered.

adipocea There's no really much you can say and analyze about this movie. It's not a movie by itself, it's a piece of art lost in the ocean of mundane cinema of the 20-th century. It's like the great literature, the great paintings of history, impregnated with a mystical and hard to define quality in it's texture. For me this is not simply a "movie", i say it again. Like Nostalghia or Andrei Rubliov of Tarkovsky , here the poetics transcends what we usually call cinema, or a film, because it gets a life on it's own, and becomes independent to critical observation. It's like a tiger in the Siberian forest, that you have to simply admire. A tiger is beautiful because it's a tiger, Oci Ciornie it's beautiful because it is Oci Ciornie. Something divine happened to Mihalkov and to the cast when thy made this piece of art. It was the greatest shame and scandal when the jury at Cannes awarded "Sous le Ciel de Satan" the Palme D'or, but who cares...Time is for the art what is for the wine. The good one gets better, the cheap one gets sour and becomes vinegar.

Yulia (yulenko) It's a movie in the best Mikhalkov's manner: simple but deep; funny and serious; a Russian picture with (this time) Italian colors; and as always, about the deepest depth of a Russian soul. Some may say, Mikhalkov's movies are of universal things - true, but they always touch something deeply Russian. Waiting ... love ... faith ... sincerity. When all that meets in one point, harmony and happiness come; when at least one element is missing, ... Romano comes. With all the consequences. Mikhalkov reminded me again - we live by the consequences of our actions. (i need to add a bit - they asked for the 10th line here :) BUT quantity is not quality!)