At Home Among Strangers, a Stranger Among His Own

Should really be recognized as a Western classic, or at least world's best "Eastern" - Mikhalkov follows the rules of the genre impeccably, easily weaving in 1920's Russia setting, revolutionary romanticism and "cool" charismatic bad guys, a rare thing in Soviet cinema. Cast is superb - probably the best combination of young actors of the decade, including Mikhalkov himself as Yesaul.

I'm very fond of this film, albeit with some misgivings about its one sided version of history (see later). It is basically a film about a group of friends who have just been demobbed from the Russian Civil War, and who are trying to get themselves back into civilian life, when one of them is framed for a gold robbery, and has to fight to prove his innocence.

Like many Soviet films of the time, it switches from colour to black and white at the drop of a hat, but in this film that works quite well. The music has a cheesy 1970s charm to it, and it reminds me of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" in a positive way. In fact, this film reminds me of "Butch Cassidy" in more ways than one. They both have the same feeling of sad nostalgia to them, and friendship.

I count myself lucky to have seen it in the cinema, since it is hardly ever shown in this part of the world. The action sequences are excellent, with the exception of the assault on the bandits' camp, which we don't see at all.

Of course, the one thing I am uncomfortable with is the revision of history in the film and the political aspects. At times, the film lards you with Communist propaganda, and completely ignores the fact that the famines in the Soviet Union at the time were partly because of the government. The Cheka is presented as an entirely benevolent force (we know from the Soviets' own records that it was often brutal and barbaric, and arrested innocent people.). There is a bit of stereotyping in the film as well - one of the Muslim characters is portrayed as a complete idiot.

However, if you're willing NOT to let that get in the way, it is a brilliant film. If you get hold of the DVD, I recommend watching it with English subtitles, rather than with the English dubbing (I have watched both versions), because that version is much better.

1920s, a small town in the south of Russia. The civil war is over, but the complete victory of the Bolsheviks is still far away. A group of bandits from former white officers rob a train with gold, with which they had to buy bread for the hungry, and five friends - former red fighters - engage in a deadly battle with them. Suspicion of treachery falls on one of them, and, having escaped from his comrades, he must return the gold to prove his innocence.

An easy-going movie that mixes black-and-white cinematography with the colour one and comedy elements with high-power drama. The only thing I feel sorry for in this film is the absence of widescreen. The film would be so much better visually in widescreen.

The scenes which represent Brylov's dreaming are quite funny and strange. Brylov's manners are ridiculous and weird too: he looks like a man out of this world, a loony criminal with "refined taste".

I cannot compare it to any other movie. It's done in a very unique way (hectic bizarre clipping, grainy picture mixed with fine colour scheme, freaking behaviour of the baddies and goodies, deep adult emotions flavoured by some childish spontaneity all through the film, erratic close-ups of the characters blended into the picturesque shots of wide valleys, etc.). "Beloe solntse pustyni" (1970) was completely different and to say the truth I never liked it much. As to this one, it's the only Nikita Mikhalkov's movie I really enjoy.

It's a festival of human emotions without unnecessary scenes (sex, bloody brawls, endless gunfighting) so frequent in action cinema. An action film can be like this: humane, captivating, tough, and emotional. Even a small child can see it and enjoy, learning a lesson or two about life...

If only it were in widescreen... Still, 10 out of 10. Thanks for attention.

a Nikita Mikhalkov. with each of elements who defines his work - humor, heroism, sacrifice, justice, melancholic crumbs. a kind of Eastern on the young Soviet Union construction. but out of political circle. because it is only a story. about duty, trust, friendship and profound truth. and not that bricks are fundamental but the manner to present it. with subtle irony, delicacy and a fine Russian style. a film about justice and a hero with has not ambition to be more than a common man. an interesting performance and few splendid images. and special atmosphere. is it enough ? is it too much ? it is just a pure Mikhalkov movie. ant this fact is only essential.