Good start, but then it gets ruined

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

I watched this under the title FRIEND AMONG STRANGERS. It's a mixed bag of a film, light-hearted in some places and rather heavy in others, with the usual Russian mix of masculine attitudes and heavy emoting. The story, set during a civil war in 1917, is about a group of buddies who decide to rob a train, and the fall out that subsequently ensues.I found it quite a middling film despite the best intentions. The movie itself looks good when it's in colour, but it does swap to cheap black and white for certain crucial scenes. The cast is okay and the actors do fit their parts pretty well, but nobody really stands out as a sympathetic character. A debt of inspiration seems to have been paid to BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, but this is a far cry from the quality of that movie.

Set in the 1920's shortly after the end of the Russian civil war and released on 1974 during the Brezhnev era, at home Among Strangers, Stranger at Home is an action film that lives up to its genre and also manages to develop a more complex storyline than other action films that just focus their attention towards gruesome fight scenes. The scenes in which fighting did occur were much less graphic but still just as affective on eliciting the same level of excitement that is characteristic of an action film. During these scenes the movie is very reminiscent of American action films which depict western cowboy lifestyle.The story itself deals with the character Shilov who is accused of treason after a precious shipment gets stolen under his watch and he gets framed for it. From the very start, the films images were particularly striking both cinematically and psychologically. The different settings of this intro which included a countryside (common for this point in time) and a small living area, all captured my attention immediately. The intro alone initiated a large list of questions with its seeming randomness. Such as why are they yelling and dancing? Or Why did they just push that carriage down the hill? What is strategically communicated through this intro despite the lack of dialogues is the character's deep bond with each other and their emerging friendship. There are many other scenes later on in the movie that may seem random but serve a purpose to further convey these ideas of forged bonds. One such scene is when the train robbers are all jubilant after having stolen the gold. Through the different uses of genius cinematographically placed supporting scenes this film ended up being more than just a plain action movie. The character development was phenomenal and the action scenes ended up being one of its main attributes.

Nikita Mikhalkov's 1974 At Home among Strangers, a Stranger Among his Own was a truly enjoyable "Eastern," a Soviet parallel to the American "Western." It did a great job in glorifying the Socialist Revolution and its ideology, while at the same time preserving the advantageous, "badass," gun-slinging attitude that audiences loved in the Western. I feel like contemporary viewers of this film would have savored it—a dramatized, heroic account of Soviet values set in the "wild east" would seem like the perfect soothing remedy for a disillusioned Soviet citizen during Brezhnev's period of stagnation.Our Soviet western hero is Shilov, who was tasked with defending a large Cheka shipment of gold for the starving citizens in Moscow following the Russian Civil War. Naturally, the plan is quickly ruined as assassins kill everyone on board the train carrying the gold to steal it, drug Shilov, and let him loose in the town street, hence framing him for being the inside man for giving up the gold. As Shilov sets out to recover the gold and clear his name, the plot further thickens as the assassins get killed and bandits take the gold! The leader of the assassins, Lemke, lived however, and joined up with the bandits to try and discover where their leader, Brylov, was taking the gold. Shilov ends up killing Brylov and recovering the gold, and denies all of Lemke's pleads and temptations to share it with him and escape. Shilov maintained adamant in his Socialist position of giving up the gold, claiming that "even God taught us to share."All of this activity is surrounded by recurring themes of train robbery, horseback chasing, rafting and mountainside firefights. Even the soundtrack emphasizes moments of male camaraderie as Shilov's name is mentioned among his Civil War friends with majestic trumpet solos. As Shilov returns to his wartime friends with the gold, they rush to him, barely holding back tears as they greet their "western Soviet" hero. The film shed some positive, adventurous light upon the Soviet values of collectivization and honor over corruption and private enterprise.

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.