Rating: 
Summary: A Glimpse into Russia's Medieval Interior
Review: If you want to understand medieval Russia, this is a superb place to start. It is as if someone had gotten hold of a wayback machine and taken their cinematographer with them back to the 15th century. Andrei Tarkovski obviously owed some debts to Bergman and to Eisenstein, but he surpasses both masters in conveying medieval atmosphere. This is in part due to the fact that the film is highly accurate, historically. Tarkovski sticks to the primary texts in his depiction of Rublev, and his era. This is in no way meant to imply that the film is some sort of academic exercise, only that it falls within the boundaries of the great tradition of Russian realism. The film takes place in an era when the southern half of Russia was still occupied by Mongol invaders. It was only in Northern Russia that Christianity continued to flourish during this period. The status of artists was not clearly defined. Rublev and his fellow artists were regarded as prizes to be bartered for by the highest bidder amongst the noble boyars. Thus the graphic and violent scene depicting the blinding of a group of artisans leaving one boyar's principality without tacit permission to go to work for his brother in another province. It is a haunting scene, but accurately depicts a type of depotism that unfortunately recurs throughout Russian history. Andrei Rublev is considered by most experts (including James Billington in his marvelous book, The Icon and the Axe) to be the greatest icon-painter and muralist in Russian history. He painted his masterpiece, "Old Testament Trinity," for the monks of the monastery of St Sergius in 1425. One can view some of his most glorious creations by visiting the State Russian Museum in St. Petersburg and the National Museum (Tret'iakov) in Moscow. Icons still hold great importance to the believers in Russian Orthodox Catholicism. Visit any church service in Moscow or Saint Petersburg and you will see believers lighting candles and praying before various icons. To understand the essence of this faith and properly appreciate it's depth, view Tartovski's film and read Dr. Billington's books. In all honesty, the film does require a bit of patience, as it runs over 200 minutes. For viewers disinterested in Russian history and culture, it may prove too taxing. For those who find Russian history fascinating and who wish to better understand the underpinnings of its culture, the time invested will be richly rewarded.
Rating:
Summary: Tarkovsy's finest achievment
Review: Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" is his finest achievement. An epic masterpiece set in medieval Rus, Soviet officials originally butchered it cutting out almost an hour of it's content. Rublev is the cinematic equal to the great novels of our time. The idealism of an artist, then monk, is confronted by the ravages of the era. His response to his environment and his final reconciliation is itself a part of the story. There are so many scenes of beauty, imagery and stark violence that are so well done and so detailed that it will leave the thoughtful viewer wondering what other movie is Rublev's equal. The scene of the slaughter of the pagans is cruel and beautiful at the same time. This is art as cinema and not for every viewer. Tarkovsky relies on the viewer intelligence and on the viewers own ability to make his/her mind up on their own understanding of the film. Like all of Tarkovsky's films he never makes it easy for his viewers. He assumes intelligence and a willingness your part to find meanings. One of the greatest films ever made and very, very Russian.
Rating:
Summary: A perfect film
Review: This movie has everything. The dialogue is intelligent, philosophical and even funny at times. The structure of the narrative is very interesting and original. Tarkvosky uses the camera to create beautiful shot compositions and ingenious camera movements. Also this film presents a very interesting method of presenting a "biography". The viewer is never really shown any of the title character's art until the very end of the film. The viewer is told 'how' Andrei Rublev became a historically significant icon painter rather than presenting his life 'after' his success began. If you don't enjoy this film you have no appreciation for cinema. That's sounds dramatic but it's true. Within the first half an hour this film hypnotizes you and every few minutes Tarkovsky does something that takes your breath away. Whether it's a line of clever dialogue or his beautiful photography of nature something will jump out at you. If any film deserves five stars it's this one.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the worst best movies ever made
Review: Slow moving, ponderous, little character development, with chaotic plot detours to what little plot there is, and the final payoff after 3 hours of this is that you get the "reward" of viewing some static images of Russian orthodox icon art. I realize the film is from a different era, and about a different era and culture. Since there is an authentic feel
to some of the scenes, the film has value in capturing a way of life that has become extinct. And yes, some of the film is quite artfully done. But the reviews saying that this is one of the best movies ever made left me expecting a whole lot more. I was
disappointed spending 3 hours watching this movie from the local Blockbuster (VHS).
Rating:
Summary: A long film but a moving one
Review: Andrei Rublev was one of Russia's most famous icon painters from the middle ages. The director Takovski is a fairly static director so that the film is hardly a fast paced film yet it is strangely affecting. It gives a portrait of the horror of the medival world. A peasant who is a talented comic has his tongue but out because he will not become the jester of a nobleman. A land owner hires some craftsmen to build him a palace and then as they depart he has them blinded so that they cannot make anything as maginficent again. In this cruel world lives the monk Rublev. Towards the end of the film he suffers from disallusion which prevents him from working. However he sees a young boy who is the son of a bell maker. The boy is able to cast a bell for a cathedral and Rublev is inspired to paint. The film is in black and white but in the end it shows his creative work in vibrant colour and one can appreciate his genius. The film is a very long one and it is slow moving. However scene builds on scene and one leaves the cinema somehow impressed at one has seen. It is a film that sort of sneaks up on you. The acting is good, the black and white photography superb and the sets and style of the film are fantastic.
Rating:
Summary: Please watch it
Review: Such a beautiful film. I am speachless, the only thing to say that it explains the purpose of your life.
Rating: 
Summary: Buy the RUSCICO version too ...
Review: This was for me a 5 star edition of Rublev until I watched Ruscico DVD release ... I think Criterion should consider a new and better (anamorphic) edition of this great film.
Rating:
Summary: Sublime Cinematic Magic
Review: I have endured Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev twice now - once on VHS and once on DVD (the 205-minute Criterion Collection version) - and I have yet to penetrate its ultimate secret. The film is audacious and - as many, many will say/have said - epic without the added difficulty of being ponderous. It might simply be that Tarkovsky was a poet and not an intellectual. His work has been mischievously compared with Godard's or Antonioni's but is completely different. The latter two magnificent gentlemen invariably speak to your intellect. Tarkovsky speaks to your soul. Russian (Slavic) soulfulness is legendary, but Tarkovsky is not nostalgic; nor is his work particularly "spiritual" in the usual sense - i.e. moralistic. Andrei Rublev is 1 000 times better than any of Bergman's films and I like Bergman without reservation. To fathom the immense elan of this film one must suspend the expectation for significance imparted to cinema by 10 000 lesser films. Tarkovsky manages something that only the most sublime works of art can "picture" - a panorama of self projected upon world and a complex, associative magic that is irreducible to verbal or critical formulae. Please see this film, if ever you have lamented the porridge poured over our heads by would-be auteurs in the name of cinema. The central conceit of a half-historic, half-fictionalized Russian icon painter of the 15th century wandering about in search of life itself will more than compensate for the cruel gruel of most contemporary filmmaking.
Rating:
Summary: Thank you Criterion
Review: Before this DVD, I last saw a screening of Andrei Rublev back in the mid-90's in San Francisco, during a Tarkovsky retrospective. The notes claim to have restored 40% of the dialog. The print that I watched must have been the one used for comparison. As I recall, the film print started off fairly well translated (or at least appeared that way), but as the film rolled on the translation became more sparse. Whole stretches of dialog summed up in one line. Eventually, the translation pretty much ended and I don't remember any translation at all in the last hour. A tip of the hat to Criterion for the new translation, and all the other work that went into producing this dvd. The film is so visually moving though, that you might want to watch it again without subtitles altogether. The magic of dvd.
Rating: 
Summary: If you liked Titanic, then take a hike. Otherwise...
Review: Tarkovksy's films are not for everyone. He is the Russian equivalent of Kubrick or Kurasawa or Welles, and he is as different from them as they are from each other. If you're expecting a conventional structure and pacing, you'll be dissapointed. Rublev requires patience. Most people consider the film long and slow. The trick is to stop waiting for the narrative to develop and just experience the sequences as self-contained ideas. After a couple of hours you'll see it working up to something you hadn't thought possible at first. And by the two-hundred minute mark, it evolves into a complete emotional and cinematic experience. I'm serious. It's amazing. *This* is Tarkovsky's gift. By his own admission he was always more fascinated with the "poetry" of images than their immediate narrative value. As a result his films deliver an experience which is unique to every viewer. This is no mean feat; today directors strive to make the global audience feel "happy" or "sad" according to a pre-defined and market-oriented narrative structure. It's a cheap manipulation (like "Titanic" and the damn theme music). Tarkovksy doesn't go there at all. He shows you something and lets you feel whatever you want. This isn't a cheap cop-out from an inept director, it's *your* experience. And a dangerous approach in a world where audiences expect to be cued when and how to react. Have you ever noticed how upset people get when left to their own emotional devices? Tarkovsky has mastered the long-take, mise-en-scene, and the wide-screen (2.35) frame, and the Critereon transfer does it's best to present this. There are technical problems with the transfer, but having seen Rublev on a pan-and-scan VHS, the extra bucks are still worth it. And the additional resolution of DVD gives the image more texture and detail. Side Note: One of the tragedies (now being slowly rectified thanks to DVD) of modern cinema is the pan-and-scan VHS. Many lesser works can survive it ("Titanic" again!), but it has ruined almost every one of Tarkovsky's films. He composes very deliberate frames, balanced in a way that only wide-screen can accomodate ("The Sacrifice" was the exception, shot 1.66 I believe). The VHS transfers are claustrophobic and uncomfortable (showing only 60% of the image), but in their true aspect ratio his shots are spacious and carefully composed. The accompanying materials (intervews and commentary) are interesting, but dryly presented by academics. A shame, since this is the type of film that Martin Scorcese could do a fantastic commentary for. And be warned, there are moments of horrific violence and cruelty. Since the Reagan administration came to power, the west has lost track of Eastern European cinema. It had (has) a style and direction as unique as the Japanese or British. Tarkovsky is one of it's gems, and no one who considers themselves a conoseur of film can go without a Tarkorvsky viewing. My personal favourites are "Stalker", "My Name Is Ivan", and "The Sacrifice", and of course "Solaris" -- unfortunately the only one I've seen in it's Wide Aspect is "Sacrifice". But Tarkovsky is one of the greatest directors in history, and "Andrei Rublev" is still an amazing film. Bye the way, If you're not quite ready for the plunge into Tarkovsky, try the documentary "Andrei Tarkovsky Directs", which is an action packed account of the making of "The Sacrifice".
| 
