Rating: 
Summary: an epic of 15th cent. Russia
Review: The first time I saw this, I was so exhausted after 30 minutes I turned it off...I had never seen Tarkovsky before...I was baffled. Because of my admiration for Rublev's work (and after seeing Solaris & The Stalker..2 films that are "easier") I gave it another try, and became caught up in this magical world of flowing images and passionate soul. The love and faith in this film is overwhelming. Anatoli Solonitzin is wonderful and so real as Rublev. In black and white, it turns to color at the end when showing Rublev's extraordinary work (Trinity is my favorite piece of art).These images somehow put the suffering of the hunger, cold, and war shown in the the film into perspective, and gives us a joyous celebration of God's love through art...this film is a masterpiece !
Rating:
Summary: The Presence of Nature in Andrei Rublev
Review: To me, this film is, above anything else, an exploration of the possibility of telling history. But this is too general in itself. I mean by this, that 'Andrei Rublev' only names a mode of historical representation; one that complicates any naive representation of 'the past' by a filmic discourse of nature. This consists in recurrent images (horses, long-takes of water, forest detail...) of nature whose presence cannot be accounted for in terms of the human action.They are simply there, and made emphatic as such by their physicality (the burning cow, the horse that falls from a height and breaks is hind legs, the rotting bird on the forest floor...). The eponymous artist is a synecdoche for this mode of experiencing history, and so is only partially present during the film's events. Also, there is a pervasive reference to the cinema itself by way of these images. Its probably significant, therefore, that my Russian edition of the videotape bears the original title which, literally translated, is:' Reflections on Andrei Rublev'.
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece
Review: There's not much to say about this film that hasn't been said by everyone else. The cinematography is beautiful, the interviews and timelines that Criterion have included are very helpful, and the film itself is wonderful. It is NOT for the casual observer-it takes a few viewings and maybe a little research on Tarkovsky and/or Rublev, but it is well worth it. This film is a wonderful portrait, not only the artist Rublev, but of Russia and the environment in which he created his pieces of art. For the first time viewer, I would even recommend watching the film with commentary on-it is not very obtrusive and may help a little to begin to sort things out. Definitely worth owning!
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely, unbelievable.
Review: I write specifically about this Criterion DVD version of the film. The other cuts simply do not do the film justice. Some of the films most beautiful and most powerful shots are cut in half, and some of them are removed entirely in the 185 minute cut that is available on video. Although other cuts were endorsed, this is 204 minute version is how the film was originally meant to be seen, and I feel that it makes a big difference. The photography and pacing of this film is breathtaking. It is an epic in every sense of the word, but not at all in the sense of the traditional Hollywood notion of 'epic'. This is a fragmented, episodic story, where some of the episodes don't deal with the protagonist of the film at all. In some of them he is merely an observer, in others he is left out entirely. These scenes serve on a metaphorical level, not a physical one. Ultimately though, it all culminates to express the same basic thing: the need for the artist to trascend the earth, the natural world in order to reach something beyond to material, beyond the physical. And it is often about the artist's failure to do this. I recommend alongside this, Jacques Rivette's film 'La Belle Noiseuse'. They are very different films, but they both deal with the same essential themes. And both are extremely important works of cinematic art.
Rating: 
Summary: news for the animal-conscious
Review: in maya tourovskaya's book on tarkovsky, the animal cruelty issue was raised in an interview with tamara ogorodnikova, who produced 'andrei rublev': "my god, mayechka, it is only a movie!" she explicitly stated that no animals were harmed in the filming process, and that the burning cow sequence was achieved through special effects and asbestos. the cow scene never made the 183-minute cut because tarkovsky felt it looked unrealistic. acceptance of this disclaimer is your prerogative, but disclaimers are all most of us ever really have. o, and the film? it doesn't sound great and the stock doesn't seem to have aged well, but tarkovsky's intensely poetic vision and vyacheslav ovchinnikov's unforgettable score cannot be denied. like literary counterparts dostoevsky and tolstoy, tarkovsky has a sweeping, epic vision that can seem daunting at times (203 minutes is pretty long). while some may find it interminably and excruciatingly slow, i like to think that tarkovsky has enough respect for the audience to take his time and allow the viewer to settle into the experience. it's not just a great visual and audio document or merely a powerful story - 'andrei rublev' is a gestalt experience, requiring and rewarding total immersion on your part. watch it alone or with someone who's comfortable enough with you to shut up for a few hours. you'll be glad you did.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning, but animals horribly abused in the making of this
Review: This film was undoubtedly extraordinary in a number of ways, but I felt compelled to write this - there are two distrssing scenes in the film which depict two animals genuinely, unmistakably being brutalised in ways that could never have been faked, especially back in 1964 when the film was made. In one scene, a cow is running around, on fire, the flames licking its hide. In another scene, a horse falls from a wall to the ground fifteen feet below, and clearly breaks its leg, unable to get up. You can talk about Tarkovsky's humanity all you want, but obviously animal life was cheap in Russia. You can't have humanity and a blatant disregard for animals' lives at the same time. Anyone who loves animals should be warned of these truly distressing scenes.
Rating:
Summary: Being Andrei Tarkovsky.
Review: The first time I saw Andrei Rublev I fell asleep after the first fifteen minutes. The second time I saw it I stayed wide awake for the entire viewing. I was impressed by its visual grandeur and its message so much that it is one of the five best films that I have ever seen. It is one of the first films to convince me that that excellent films can be extremely challenging to watch. Despite some of the most disturbing scenes I have ever scene, I no longer view film as a diversion but as an exploration. It is atmospheric, heavenly, gothic, spooky, dreamy, frightening, and thought-provoking. The definitive 205-minute version released by Criterion does an excellent job in restoring some very important scenes which add to the flow of the film and make it easier to understand. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Life is a painting
Review: In this movie Tarkovski paints several small paintings, like Rublev paints icons. They all are linked together yet have no direct link. They depict life in Russia and the works of men and God through Orthodox Church. Tarkovski is Rublev. The movie as surely inspired some main directors, such as Emir Kusturica, as the night bathing nude scene of the pagans is very close to the dreamy wedding scene in Time of Gypsies. The movie is slow and sometimes difficult to reach the links (as for the long 30 minutes scene of the manufacturing of the huge Bell) but is Hypnotic and soulful. Rublev is a humble and pathetic character as he refuses the world, but doesn't attempt to change it. He's the weeping voice in the face of the crualty of the world.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant color of the original movie is missing
Review: I was very disappointed to discover that this DVD contains black-and white copy of the movie. I have seen this movie back in Russia in color and can tell that color is very important for this movie as a language. It looks almost like something significant of the original movie is lost.
Rating:
Summary: please see this film!
Review: This film seems to be one of those which no one I meet has heard of, and yet it is a masterpiece, a real masterpiece. It still surprises me to no end that I discovered it in a Blockbuster -- and if I hadn't seen it there, I probably would never have come upon it in my life. As stated in the synopsis, the movie tells the story of the title 15th-century painter of icons and his struggle to accept his vocation in the face of the stupidity and savagery of his era. The structure is somewhat like Joyce's _Dubliners_ (except with greater narrative continuity) in that it consists of a series of episodes, each with a particular focus, and concludes with a piece that could stand alone as a very powerful short. Beautiful, hypnotic imagery, and, as in all the great Russian writers, a profound love for Mother Russia, despite its harsh elemental forces, and an ultimate sympathy for its people who have had to endure so much for so long.
|
