User Reviews

Georgiy Daneliya surely must have seen some French films at the time, and the music which is charming reminded me a little of the Italian Nino Rota. It is no masterpiece, but it is a film that deserves a wider viewing. Fortunately YouTube is showing it in widescreen with English subtitles and despite just a touch of propaganda and small reminders of Soviet life it has a free wheeling charm that carries the viewers along. And now I may be a bit controversial. I watched it with a Gay/Queer eye and there is a lot of male eroticism in it. There is even a shower scene which almost opens the film which is a Gay trope in so many Gay films. And as much as I do not respond to Nikita Mikhalkov and his work as a director he makes a handsome lead. But it is Aleksei Loktev who really steals the eye and no doubt the hearts of many as an aspiring Siberian young writer who comes to Moscow to talk to a famous writer. If he had been French he would have brought a lot to French cinema. Along with Evgeniy Steblov as a hesitant young man timid about marriage this makes for a good looking trio with gentle male on male touches ( all of course in the name of comrade friendship ) but if you pause for stills as I did there is a slight romantic edge there. That is my opinion anyway, so any gay person reading this see what you think! There are young women of course and romance there as well, and yet it is the guys who take up most of the film. There is a song at the end when Mikhalkov is in the metro about the undisputed charms of Moscow that could have come out of a Francois Ozon or Christophe Honore film in its male charm. As for the filming it is as good as many a Nouvelle Vague film of the time, and the camera probes and captures the spirit on location of Moscow as it was then. And there is a gentle comedy that pervades the whole scenario that had echoes of certain moments in Louis Malle's ' Zazie dans le metro. ' I will watch this film again as it touches the heart, and there is no rigid formalism, but a lightness of touch that is remarkable and I had the feeling that everyone in it was trying to forget politics and just enjoying what seemed to me a great deal of freedom of life. Not quite a masterpiece, but a very good film.

I am curious so few comments here …this is truly great film and became classics.

The movie portraits Soviet 'ottepel'' period but is not about politics-

It is about Moscow, sincere human relations, freedom, youth, idealism, great actors' play, great song - 'A ya idu shagau po Moskve i ya proiti eshe smogu!…'.

I like the spirit of the movie (freedom) which has been copied thousands of times in other Russian movies but neither succeeded.

So, honestly, find and see this movie!

My rating: 10/10.

"I Am Walking Along Moscow" aka "Ya Shagayu Po Moskve" (1963) is a charming lyrical comedy directed by Georgi Daneliya in 1963 that was nominated for Golden Palm at Cannes Film Festival. Daneliya proved that it is possible to create a masterpiece in the most difficult genre of romantic comedy. Made by the team of young and incredibly talented artists that besides Daneliya included writer/poet Gennady Shpalikov, composer Andrei Petrov, and cinematographer Vadim Yusov (who had made four films with Andrei Tarkovski), and the dream cast of the talented actors even in the smaller cameos, "I Am Walking Along Moscow" keeps walking victoriously through the decades remaining deservingly one of the best and most beloved Russian comedies and simply one of the best Russian movies ever made. Funny and gentle, dreamy and humorous, romantic and realistic, the film is blessed with the eternal youth and will always take to the walk on the streets of Moscow new generations of the grateful viewers.

I would place it on the same level as Fellini's Roma or Woody's "Manhattan" - yes, I think it is that good and I see it as the love letter to the magnificent city on the Moskva River which used to by My city, too. It is about spring in Moscow of 1963, (in more ways than one), about youth, first love, smiles, sudden meetings and inevitable goodbyes. It takes place on the streets of Moscow, in its parks, subway stations, and movie theaters. It follows the "Moskvichi" and the guests of the city, young and middle-aged, romantic and tired, friendly and suspicious, happy and disappointed, wise and naive in the series of short vignettes and it introduces us to the characters whom we get to meet, to like, and to follow on their journey in the course of one long sunny rainy spring day.

There is some kind of hackneyed opinion in the world that Moscow is a city of almost everlasting winter. Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in such words: we live in cold and rather dark city for 5-6 months a year. But if you'll come to Moscow in May or maybe in last April, it is most likely that you'd fall in love with this city. The film of G.Danelia brings you this delightful and intoxicating scent of spring Moscow, a fresh and brilliant scent of youth, beauty and first love.

I think it is a best role of well-known Russian actor and director Nikita Mikhalkov - and it's of no doubt the most sincere work of him. And I also should say about sparkling supporting role of Vladimir Basov - his clever Floor polisher is really wonder :))

Film critics and viewers familiar with Russian cinema know about Nikita Mikhalkov as the brother of director Andrei Konchalobsky who has directed successful films in Hollywood, a leading director who has brought tremendous success to Russia as a major film making nation. He has also been noticed as a remarkable actor in films made by himself and other directors. Walking the Streets of Moscow is one of his early films with a youthful appearance. It was directed by Georgiy Daneliya who has an amazing of repertoire of charming comedy films. For this film, Daneliya chose to film Russian realities in a light manner. For example: serious issue of war has been briefly discussed in order to concentrate more on things which have an everlasting effect on youngsters. As there are many good views of Moscow, Walking the Streets of Moscow appears as an unofficial tourist guide of Russian capital. Russian youngsters of the sixties emerge as the true heroes of this film as one day in the life of a young soviet citizen who has come to Moscow is meticulously portrayed in order to reveal that Russian youth too was interested in flirting, learning English and buying LP records of classical music.

for the admirable portrait of freedom. for the young Nikita Mihalkov, doing a great role. for the touching portrait of Mosow, youth, friendship, love and innocence. for the status of slice from a period spirit. because it is a beautiful film, remembering the air of a time, the talent of young actors, the force of a good director, for the delicacy and realism of a world, almost magic, surely - unique. a film about a city and about a splendid age. that is all. and it is enough. to see it time by time.

It seems as though people generally see this movie as a symbol of hope and freedom in the Soviet Union. This would make sense judging by the western music that the characters listen to and the somewhat rebellious nature that they have. I'm writing this because it's important to establish that I wasn't alive in the Soviet Union and that I didn't watch it with any kind of nostalgia. I also feel it's important to establish that I am aware of how people feel about the film and the film's historical context as a symbol of hope and freedom in a totalitarian state, before they shrug off my review by saying that I missed the point. The movie sees a group of late teen to early 20s friends all reunited in Moscow. It's a pretty basic story and while it can be done well I don't think it was particularly well executed here. They just sort of go around Moscow with their own ambitions, sometimes getting into trouble, and try to meet women. The film also plays in a series of vignettes, vignettes that only sometimes go somewhere. I didn't find the story particularly engaging nor did I relate to any of the characters. It's only an hour and 18 minutes but it felt longer than that. There are things I like as well. The cinematography was excellent and there are a lot of really good shots of Moscow to boot. The music's also good too. But generally, I just found it kind of boring.

"Walking the streets of Moscow" is a cultmovie in Russia but not in the rest of the World.

The film was made in the period of the cultural thaw after the deat of Stalin. In this period much was possible leading to films that are also cult in the rest of the World, like "Soy Cuba" (1964, Mikhail Kalatozov) from the same year.

Much was possible, but not everything. Just like in the West in the first half of the '60s a post Second World War generation grew up and raised his voice. Screenwriter Gennady Shpalikov wrote a script about this generation featuring friends returning to Moscow after their military service. The script was not received warmly by the censors although it ultimately became the film "I am twenty" (1965, Marlen Khustsiev).

"Walking the streets of Moscow" is the more innocent version of "I am twenty" written by the same screenwriter. Its protagonists are younger (17-18 years of age) and their rebellion more innocent. Helpful too would have been that Moscow is portrayed at his most advantageous side. Look at the metro stations, the GUM department store, Gorki park and the brandnew airport.

"Walking the streets of Londen" is about two boys and a girl doing exactly that what the title describes. Apart from the rebellion of the post war generation it is also about a love triangle. Comparing it with Western counterparts as "A hard day's night" (1964, Richard Lester, rebellion of the post war generation) and "Jules and Jim" (1962, Francois Truffaut, love triangle) we understand why the film never became a World-wide cult movie.

The movie contains an iconic scene in which a girl walking barefoot in the rain is accompanied by a boy cycling next to her and trying to hold an umbrella above her head. Comparing this iconoc scene with for example the scene from "La dolce vita" (1960, Federico Fellini) in which Anita Ekberg is wading in the Trevi fountain there is again one word that comes to mind: innocence!

Why did the film became cult in Russia? I think one explanation is that the cultural thaw disappeared in the Brezhnev years and that there is a lot og nostalgia connected to the early sixties.

The film is a well-executed attempt to record the transient youth impressions of the aging generation of the Soviet baby-boomers. Or rather the inevitable fantasising about them 20+ years later. Not that it makes it any different from any other generation which has ever lived.

Just as in the end of a news hour, there's a 60 second feel-good segment, in every generation, there's its own feel-good story. The scrutiny of how realistic those dreamy fantasies of the past are is beyond the point. Relaxing in the backyard's arm chair with a glass of well-deserved glass of wine reflecting on the past is of course a part of the drill.

In the end, this patriotic narcissistic drivel could have been "Ya shagayu po Berlin (1964)" or "Ya shagayu po Hiroshima (1964)" full of love, spring vitality and romanticism. Which is of course fine as the life obviously goes on.

And perhaps it's fine. It depends on the viewer's outlook. But for some, the film will be clearly interspersed with visual and conceptual references aggrandising and beautifying what the country has gone through in the preceding 50 years. A sort of the Soviet Union of Amnesia that is. A common propaganda "feel-good" trick in a wide range of other tricks in the toolboxes of various Ministries of Truth across the globe.

One thing is for sure: this is a movie done by the power which won the war, so history is written accordingly. Small but curious detail.