Rating: 
Summary: profound and beautiful cinema
Review: the sheer breadth and scope of this movie is hard to put into words. it is structured as several interrelated short or extended episodes, extending in time across almost a decade, each related in some way to a medieval russian icon painter. some are almost vignettes (the opening sequence of a balloon flight), and others are complete stories in themselves (the concluding bellmaking episode). the violence, disorder, superstition and solemnity of medieval russia are in the background, but the focus is on a handful of characters who search for the meaning of life on earth. the film is surprisingly open ended, punctuated with beautiful and sometimes repeated symbols, emotionally rich, and ultimately ambiguous. it is quite long -- i needed three sittings to finish -- but also worth viewing more than once. next to "solaris," this is my favorite tarkovsky. the supplementary materials are valuable and it's delightful the publishers could pack everything on a single disk.
Rating:
Summary: What they said.......
Review: I thought about this review for a while. I like this film, yet the thought of explaining Tarkovsky (I like all of his films) to someone who has never experienced Tarkovsky seemed like a daunting task. After reading the other reviews, I decided to cast my lot with them, as even though no one can say it all, the combination paints a good picture. Buy Solaris and Stalker as well. One round through the three will condition you to Tarkovsky's unique window on the world, and turn future viewings into interactive technicolor adventures.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning epic from master Tarkovsky
Review: Andrei Tarkovsky is one of cinema's greatest directors, and this is his largest, most ambitious work. Released in 1966, it was banned by the Soviets. The film tells the story of Russia's greatest icon painter Andrei Rublev, through episodes of different periods in his life. The film is very experimental, and molds philosophy, religion, art, and politics together for over 3 hours. Needless to say, this film is not for everyone. While there are quite a few scenes of harrowing action, and battles, there are an equal amount of introspective scenes, that will bore the hell out of impatient viewers. The film demands multiple viewing, for maximum appreciation. A masterpiece, 5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest films of all time
Review: I believe Andrei Rublev will be seen as one of the greatest films of all time, if it is not already. It is not easy to sit through its 3hrs 25mins length, because it follows no sequential plot -- a-la-Hollywood blockbuster! It passes rather through several apparently unlinked episodes in Rublev's journey that ultimately gel both for us and him as he finds his proper role in life -- to uplift through painting of churches and icons.
From the outset there is a picture of medieval life in Russia -- though it could have been true of many European countries at that time (1400-1412) -- that is so realistic, so convincing and so shocking that one's grasp of that era is immediate and forever. One sees the stabilizing role then of religion, the horror of unchecked oppression, the miserable condition of the peasant, and also the humanity that emerges from total degradation and hopelesness. I couldn't help thinking how lucky we are today and how we really ought to better value and defend the good institutions and the many contributors to our modern societies. Much of what we see in Andrei Rublev is surely not unfamiliar to what people in many Third World countries have to bear in our own era.
Andrei Rublev is clearly a film so vast in its life view and so uncommercially put together that Hollywood could not conceive of it were it not already in existence. It would be pointless and immoral to copy such a real work of art. The realism of the characters, the story on every face, the fine acting that is beyond acting are not part of Hollywood's cinematic tool box. Directing this film must have been both a self-destructive and also uplifting experience on a par with Andrei Rublev's own artistic burdens. And I can only describe the exceptional camera work by saying that if the film were stopped at any moment, each image would be a masterpiece of still photography. The lighting, the contrast, the shapes and structures leave one breathless.
Need I add that I approve of this film and am grateful to Tarkosvky for putting it together under such unlikely Soviet circumstances. I first saw it 30 years ago and now again just last Friday. It has lost nothing of its impact and value to us all.
Rating:
Summary: Rent this unless you know you're ready for it
Review: Andrei Tarkovsky's 1966 masterpiece _Andrei Rublev_ is slow going and mighty strange. If you're prepared for it, it may well revolutionize the way you view the world.Like Dreyer's _Passion of Joan of Arc_, the film uses the conventions (and the enormous budget) of historical epic in order to tell a story which is quirky, personal, and contemporary -- in short, it's anti-epic. But it didn't conform to Soviet ideology, and it simply baffled American producers. Between the two superpowers, the film was cut by nearly a third. Video and audio transfers are not great on this DVD, but they're adequate. For Soviet film of the '60s (especially one as mangled as this), that's quite an accomplishment. The extras are academic but not dry; film professor Vlada Petric's audio essay is especially good. Unless you know what you're getting into, rent first.
Rating:
Summary: Art and the Question of Good and Evil
Review: Art critics consider Andrei Rublev, a monk who lived from 1360 to 1430 AD, to be the finest icon painter of Medieval Russia. Both he and Theopanes the Greek (also depicted in the movie) are
categorized as members of the "Moscow School", distinguished
from prior schools within the Byzantine tradition by its humanism Though few details are known about the historical Rublev, the film accurately portrays his environment: internecine warfare among princes, Tartar invasions, suffering peasants and a corrupt
Orthodox church. The tension between this turbulent environment
and Rublev's optimistic nature spurs the protagonist along a path of spiritual evolution, during the course of which he deliberates
on humanity, evil, and the role of the artist. Rublev begins as an outsider: he does not take part of the common people's suffering and joy, or, at least, he does not get involved in "the world". Nonetheless, he is sympathetic to them, as evidenced in his conversation with Theophanes in the episode,"The Passion According to Andrei". Theophanes views mankind pessimistically and is more concerned with the "Last Judgement" than with worldly affairs. Rublev's opinion of people, especially the peasants, seems relatively optimistic and concerned with their plight. This
is an important moment in the movie, setting the stage for
Rublev's spiritual tribulations: Is man good or evil? Should we
resist evil? How is one to act in the world? In later episodes, Rublev does participate in the world: carnal pleasure, violence, hope and disillusionment. Having killed a man himself, he takes a vow of silence and stops painting. He appears weary of the world. However, he gains hope once more when he sees a young
man, Boriska, cast a bell for a village. Despite all of the horror and wickedness, the villagers have seen, this work of art brings them happiness. In the end, Rublev seems to conclude that
the act of creation can bring us moments of joy (and this rejoins the opening prologue where we see a peasant joyously flying a balloon) and it is the role of the artist to lift men out of their turmoil. This revelation inspires Rublev to speak to Boriska, telling him to look at the happiness he has brought. He then invites the bell maker to go to the Trinity Monastery with him where they will paint and make bells. The film to this point has been shot in a dismal black and white.
However, the final scene, intended to underscore Rublev's revelation is a long sumptous color shot of the full image of Rublev's famous painting, "The Three Angels of the Old Testament". -Thomas
Rating:
Summary: give it time, it'll take it
Review: Insanely overlong, maddeningly opaque, visually striking but bleak, violent, stark--this would be a very easy movie on which to let the tiger out of the cage. But it also has a great reputation, both among cinephiles in general and among conservatives and the religious. So one is willing to give it more chances than it might otherwise deserve. And if you do stick with it until its final third or so, the rewards are bounteous. Andrei Tarkovsky tells the story of the great 15th Century icon painter, Andrei Rublev (Anatoli Solonitsyn), in a series of vignettes. The film opens with a famous scene of a man being dragged aloft by an escaping hot air balloon. He soars overhead beckoning the people bellow to follow him, but they can't or don't. Much of the rest of the film is taken up with Rublev's wanderings about Rus (old Russia) during a time of paganism, plague, poverty and marauding Tartars. Rublev is so disturbed by what he sees and by one violent reaction of his own, that he retreats into silence and gives up his artistry. But the final episode that he witnesses, which really makes the film, restores his faith and revives his desire to create art. In this last story a young man, the son of a bell maker, convinces a noble's men that he can cast a great bell for them, that his father has handed down the secrets of the trade to him. But as the work progresses the boy, Boriska, makes missteps and squabbles with the workmen who served his father. At one point he is in desperate need of clay to fortify the mold for the bell, but can't find earth of the right consistency anywhere. Then fate intervenes and, chasing a lost shoe, he slides down a hill into a muddy patch of just the right kind of clay. Insisting that he be given a precise mix of precious metals, teetering on the edge of exhaustion, Boriska drives himself until the bell is done. Amazingly, when freed from its mold it proves beautiful and the tone it produces rings true. Only then does the boy reveal how truly miraculous it is that such beauty has arisen from the mud because his father died with the secrets unspoken and Boriska was actually learning as he went. In the end he got by on little more than faith. Rublev, who in this section as in most of the others is more a spectator than a player, goes to the boy and breaking his silence urges the boy to come with him and cast church bells while he, Rublev, will paint icons to adorn the walls. In particular, Rublev has been asked by Abbott Nikon of Radonezh of the Holy Trinity Monastery in Moscow to paint an icon commemorating the prior abbot, St. Sergius of Radonezh. All that has gone before is in black and white, but in the last images of the film Tarkovsky shows color details of Rublev's greatest work, the Icon of the Holy Trinity (1410), based on Genesis 18, when the Trinity is understood to have appeared to Abraham : 1: And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2: And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground,
3: And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant.
And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
6: And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes
upon the hearth.
7: And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
8: And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree,
and they did eat.
9: And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
10: And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. . Obviously the director is telling us that the themes he has been exploring in Rublev's life, about which little is actually known, have come together in this magnificent artwork. As always with Mr. Tarkovsky, it's difficult to impose precise meanings on his narrative, but some of the ideas we can trace include the idea that the artist, though he must get down in the muck and experience life, must at least in his art rise above and lead the rest if humanity. The Trinity with its mysterious unity may also represent the necessary unifying of the various strata of the society that Rublev encountered--the wealthy nobles, the impoverished peasants, the churchmen who uneasily occupy the middle ground, perhaps even the Tartars. The painting and the film are certainly both invitations to us to join with the Trinity in the unity of love that they offer. On a more personal level the struggle of Boriska to create a bell on his own, without access to his father's wisdom, apparently represents Tarkovsky's own belief that each generation must discover artistic truths for itself. On all these levels, and many more that I'm sure eluded me, the film communicates its fascinating and beautiful ideas to us, so long as we've the patience to let it unwind to the end. GRADE : A
Rating:
Summary: Tarkovsky's Masterpiece
Review: Andrei Tarkovsky was a man of excess...excessively self-preoccupied, excessively self-indulgent, and excessively brilliant. Andrei Rubalev is his masterpiece and it's a masterpiece of excess...long, slow and hypnotic. The film was shot in black and white, except for the final footage of icons, which is stunning. It is not, as might be supposed, actually based on a biography of Rubalev, not much information has comes down from that time period. Rather, each segment of the flim is a meditation on huge themes, Art, Sex, Belief, War, Doubt, and finally Redemption. As such, this is not a movie that you should watch as you watch other movies...for plot. Rather, the brilliance in the movie is in the images and textures...in the associations that Tarkovsky points out and in the symbols that burn into your brain. Tarkovsky is a master of the unbelievably long shot. Some shots in his movies last for upwards of five minutes. Often, during these shots, nothing seems to happen. But if you pay close attention, the shots have their own inner motivations...they point out the symbols and have the appearance and function of dreams...watching Andrei Rubalev is like entering a vast slow dream. Once you get accustomed to the pace, it is haunting. See this film, if you like the work of Bergman or Kurosawa. Tarkovsky ranks up there with this pantheon of filmmaking.
Rating: 
Summary: 205 minutes of snail crawling fun.
Review: Do you like to watch paint dry for hours and then talk about what a visually stunning and spiritually meaningful experience you've just had? You're either zonked out of your minds on drugs or you're an Andrei Tarkovsky fan. In this one, the greatest Russian director since Eisenstein treats us to Ansel Adams type photos that move and lots of mist. There's also murdering Mongols who mercifully liven things up a bit. I have a soft spot for Tarkovsky, even if all of his films have the same theme: The story of a director in love with his camera. What the hell, he's the the best answer to MTV. In Andrei Rublev subplots consist of making a bell in ancient Russia. Good flick if you are very, very patient. Pass the vodka.
Rating:
Summary: A "Movie Of Substance"
Review: In my opinion, this movie is not about Andrei Rublev, but about the events that were affecting him (and HE affecting the events) as he journeyed from place to place to practice his art of painting, mostly, religious icons in churches, cathedrals and walls. I believe this to be true because we don't see his paintings at all until the very end (in color) and you can see that most of the paintings are nearly lost. I do not profess to be an art critic, but I found the color film montage of his paintings the least interesting of the whole film. I believe Tarkovsky knew this to be the case and concentrated mainly on the story of his life and most intensely on the brutality of humankind at this morbid time in history (although, who are WE to so smugly think that we've evolved past these atrocities?). This is an epic film, no doubt. I did NOT feel I had to "endure" it, au'contraire, I was overwhelmed, memmerized. Tarkovsky sometimes will allow a scene to go 2-5 minutes without dialog AND without "action" - such as the scene when the priests enter the barn to escape the heavy rain. The peasants that were having a leisurely break from the drudgery of every day life become very quiet and uncomfortable with their new guests. The camera pans around the whole room, very slowly, allowing each person to project an emotion, including children. YOU, start to feel their uncomfortableness, but then, the soldiers come in and smash the jester (who, previously, was entertaining the peasants) over the head and load him on a horse, I assume, to take him back to the King or Prince he "belongs" to and nobody, including the monks lift a finger to help. When the monks finally get up and leave, you feel relief. You can't make films like this anymore (watch the interview with Tarkovsky) because films are driven by greed and not art.
As Tarkovsky states (and I paraphrase): "If film is creativity, then it is art. But film, unlike art, is judged on how much money a film makes to determine what is "great". To judge a "great" painting on how much money it sold for would be ABSURD! and so, it should be with film too." You never know how long a "Criterion" release will be available so I would advise to purchase this historic epic before it disappears (again!).
ENJOY!
|
