for its wise simplicity. for its touching beauty. and for the high Mkhalkov precision to create the details. a film with an impressive cast - Mastroianni is the first violin but not the one - and example of inspired manner to use the Tchekov spirit and the glamor of a century beginning. a film like a puzzle in which each image, performance or scene is charming like a kind of gem, delicate and illustration of art of a master. a special meeting between art of few great actors and an unique director. and the flavor of a Russia who becomes different in contact with Mastroianni - it is not the only meeting , Sunflower is another , but in this case, far by war or Sophia Loren, the story seems be a precious drink in a crystal glass.for me, one of films who, after its end, proofs than it represents one of movies who you search for without know than it exists.

I wouldn't add anything more than what these brilliant reviewers above have already written about this stunning film.Here are a few words to say that despite incomprehension I have seen in several Western European countries — but Italian — movie theaters, I do think that "Очи чёрные / Occhi neri" is one of the three best films Mikhalkov has ever directed, together with "Utomlyonnye solntsyem" and "Urga" — if I can judge fairly, as I have seen absolutely all (but one: Утомлённые солнцем 2 - предстояние) his films (sometimes in different versions), including the short films he wrote and shot during his studies.And, of course I wouldn't like to forget to mention the performance of those marvelous actors: Innokentiy M. Smoktunoskij, Marthe Keller and Yelena V. Safonova.

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.

At first it seemed a terribly slow start. This was exacerbated by our mistaken notion that "Oci Ciornie" was just another title for "Urga" - we kept wondering when and how they would ever get to Mongolia in that boat!However, once we'd determined the actual story line the dilatory beginning seemed somehow apropos. Did Mikhalkov really mean to show us the emptiness of adultery? Or is he just an astute observer of the human condition? The parallels to the 1960 B&W "Lady with the Dog" (Russian) were striking. Especially the watermelon scene. But "Dark Eyes" takes the story further and carries the theme to its logical conclusion. My daughters hated it - they prefer stories of fidelity. But I did think it was refreshing for a film to come nearer the truth for a change. Adultery is not that fulfilling.