Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

MissSimonetta It boggles the brain how the 1926 Michael Strogoff has only been released on VHS and so little discussed in the nine decades since its premiere. It only has intelligence, beautiful production values, fluid cinematography, excellent performances, and action scenes which put the over-choreographed slow-mo fests of modern blockbusters to shame.The film is a perfect showcase for the technical dazzle of the late silent era. Jumpy, jittery, broadly-acted flickers these were not: the camera glides through scenes, the editing is as fast-paced as the action, and the acting is restrained.Much has been said of Ivan Mosjoukine's turn in the lead, but for me, the show is utterly stolen by his leading lady, Nathalie Kovanko. Her character Nadia is no fluttering damsel; risking her life to protect her loved ones and even saving Strogoff several times, she is a heroine in her own right.All in all, Kino Lorber or Criterion should jump on this, or at least Grapevine.

briantaves This is one of the most important of the early versions among some 300 adaptations of Verne stories to movies and television that have been produced around the world. To pioneering filmmakers, Verne was a contemporary author of international repute, and his Verne's global reputation was still at its peak. One or two new books had been published annually since 1863, and even after Verne's death in 1905, posthumously issued works continued to appear regularly, with the last original book published in 1919.Verne also knew the power of his novels off the printed page. Verne was also an active playwright, who had adapted such novels as Around the World in 80 Days and Michael Strogoff into phenomenally popular stage productions. Indeed, Verne had predicted the invention of motion pictures in his 1888 novel, The Castle in the Carpathians. Even before Verne's 1905 death, he was probably aware that his stories were proving a source of inspiration for the new medium of motion pictures; several adaptations had already appeared in France. One of the early filmmakers to tackle Verne stories was none other than the writer's son, Michel Verne, who, after his father's death filmed six of his novels in France.Michael Strogoff was one of Verne's best known stories to readers and theater-goers at the dawn of the 20th century. The 1876 novel had been translated into some 20 languages, including Chinese and Japanese. The first three film versions, in 1908, 1910, and 1914, were made in the United States.When the story was next brought to the screen, in the wake of the Russian Revolution, it had acquired distinct political implications. The novel Michael Strogoff had been originally subtitled Courier of the Czar. In the mid-1920s, a story of Czarist Russia by a French writer seemed a perfect film production for a community of white Russian filmmakers, exiled from their homeland and working together in France. The prospective star of MICHEL STROGOFF, Ivan Mozhukin, had been the most popular screen star in Russian films of the Czarist era, and had since won acclaim from French audiences. Mosjoukine wrote the adaptation of Verne's story in collaboration with director Viatcheslav Tourjansky and writer Boris De Fast, who also plays the role of Feofar Khan.Production of MICHEL STROGOFF lasted nearly a year, traveling to Norway for the Siberian exteriors and shooting the battle scenes with over 6000 soldiers of the Latvian army and cavalry. The adaptation followed the novel more closely than any other of the other screen adaptations before or since. Thanks to its scale and enormous popular success, MICHEL STROGOFF was distributed in many countries. In the United States it was imported by Universal Pictures, who, however, cut nearly an hour from its length.Ten years after this version, producer Joseph Ermolieff, another member of the white Russian film-making community, filmed a series of versions of Michael Strogoff in France, Germany, the United States, and Mexico. The director of the 1926 version, Tourjansky, returned to the subject again in 1961 with THE TRIUMPH OF MICHAEL STROGOFF starring Curt Jurgens, a sequel to a version of the original novel made in 1956 with Jurgens.In both of Tourjansky's versions, in 1926 and 1961, he treats Strogoff's journey with an epic sensibility as a tribute to the glory of Czarist Russia. The Czar and his people are shown to be bound together in mutual devotion to the motherland. The concept of class so central to communist thinking in the Soviet Union of the 1920s is completely denied in MICHEL STROGOFF, portraying Czar and peasant as a single entity thinking and behaving alike. Class distinctions are shown to be fluid by the hero's own evolution, and his romance with Nadia.Consequently, for over forty years after the Russian Revolution, exiled white Russian filmmakers in Europe and in the United States made a series of six films of Verne's novel of the adventures of the Czar's courier. Finally, a 1971 version directed by Eriprando Visconti offered a leftist response utilizing a Socialist perspective on the Verne narrative.For years, the 1926 version of MICHEL STROGOFF was believed to be nearly lost, and only a three-reel 9.5 mm. Pathescope version for home distribution seemed to survive. However, in 1988, the Cinémathèque Français restored the entire full-length original French version, in all of its colors and tints. It was first shown theatrically in the United States in 1997, but has yet to be widely seen.

Rosabel This is a gorgeous and visually exciting film, which has held up exceptionally well in the 80 years since it was made. The story is quite fast-paced, considering its length and the absence of dialogue except for the titles. Since silent movies have to depend on much more physical acting to get across the story, moods and personalities of the characters, they can often lapse into sluggish spells, with actors piling up the emoting to get the message over. Not this film. The acting for the most part is very natural, and Mosjoukine is so sensitive and accomplished that he can convey every type of emotion as easily and efficiently as a modern actor, with all the advantages of sound. I really can't say enough about his performance; he does everything - humor, shyness, pride, rage, shame, love - you name it.There's one scene where he's overjoyed that his horse has managed to find him in the midst of a warzone, only for it to be shot dead a moment later by attacking Tartars. The way he goes in a few second from a sort of quiet joy to heartbroken grief over this poor horse is just breathtaking. He was obviously a professional of the highest quality, and it's a pity he's nearly forgotten today. At least this film is beautifully restored, and may introduce people to an actor who deserves to be counted among the great performers of silent film.

hamilton65 A wonderfully exciting and action packed adventure, Michel Strogoff was a big hit in it's time but with the coming of sound was virtually forgotten until this superb restoration returned it to it's proper state. A huge production, easily rivalling Hollywood's biggest, it represents the French film industry at it's most accomplished although ironically two of the prime personnel were Russian émigrés. Directed by Viktor Tourjansky, this film has it all, epic sweep, pulsating action, intrigue, romance and even a little comedy relief. Despite a 3 hour length, the pace never lags and the story is compelling throughout. Technically this is cutting edge 1926-style, with it's use of colour and tinting as well as some dazzling editing of the type associated with Gance and Eisenstein.It left me stunned and exhausted.But what raises this film to true classic status is the incredibly charismatic performance of Ivan Mousjoukine, who draws us effortlessly into Strogoff's mission to reach the Tsar in time to save the empire from the Tartars. From his first appearance Mousjoukine exerts a magnetic hold on our attention. He never overplays, yet conveys a wide range of emotions and thoughts with the subtlest of movements.This is acting on a level with the very best silent cinema has to offer and I found myself longing to know more about this figureThere wasn't much on the web but my friend Henry, who introduced me to the film gave me some more details.Mousjoukine was a major star in Russia until the revolution when he and other Russian directors and writers fled to France. They helped put together Film Albatross productions which also attracted directors like Jean Epstein and Marcel l'Herbier. Mousjoukine also did some writing and directing as well as acting (A film he directed, THE BURNING STAKE, inspired Jean Renoir to switch from ceramics to film!)Unfortunately, in the late twenties Albatross went under. Sound came and Mousjoukine was hampered by his really heavy Russian accent (some of the other Russians didn't even know how to speak French) and his roles became fewer and smaller. He had been a very popular star in France but he was also a big spender and his income quickly dwindled in the thirties. He died of tuberculosis in the charity ward of a hospital.Though this was a tragic and premature end (he was only 50) at least it's possible to experience the power of his acting and appreciate a figure who's overdue for re-evaluation.Come on Film Four or TCM USA, give this magical film the audience it deserves.10 out of 10