Andrei Rublev (1969)

[T.H.]

I don't know if I have ever been this disappointed with a film in my entire life. I comprehend its message, an abstract portrayal of an artist lost in a bleak world, but it did absolutely nothing for me. This movie is more hollow than 2001, which makes the latter great and AR void of all life, emotion. It's almost an amalgamation of Bergman, Eisnenstein and Kurosawa that falls completely flat. Characters enter in and out of this film at will, without any characteristics or personality traits separating a genius artist from a peasant. When I watch a Tarkovsky film, I want to see Tarkovsky, not whatever this should be classified as.

The cinematography was great at times, very murky and clumsy at others. The score was good-ish but not properly used. I would call AR pretentious, but it doesn't even care enough about itself most of the time. The abstract form is nice in art, but has no place to dominate a 3hr plus narrative film. complete.waste.of.time. Is this first hour even necessary, better yet, was this film necessary? ugh! Maybe if I watch this again, I will praise it calling it a film shot and paced like the movement of a brush, but I highly doubt it. I am shocked that I despised this movie so much. Now, SLWB, tear me a new one.

[dave jenkins]

The 1966 version, which is 205 minutes long, is better.

[titoli]

I forced myself to watch it but didn't make it beyond 1\2 hour. I understand this is his masterpiece. Actually it must be: Nostalgia I couldn't make it beyond 5 minutes.

[T.H.]

The 1966 version, which is 205 minutes long, is better.

I believe that's the version I watched. I will eventually give this another viewing...someday.

  Good one, titoli.

[dave jenkins]

AR probably is Tarkovsky's best film. I find Stalker, Nostalgia, The Sacrifice almost unwatchable. The others are enjoyable in parts, but AR is the one I can enjoy all the way through. I say that, though, having only watched it on video. The different segments make it possible to go through the thing in easy stages. I don't know if I could actually go into a cinema and watch the 205 minute version all in one go.

[titoli]

I don't know if I could actually go into a cinema and watch the 205 minute version all in one go.

You should starve yourself for 2-3 days and get there armed with a solid menu based on lasagna and assorted pasta, good sparkling wine and the rest. What a go that would be! You might even end up liking it and willing to try the experiment on Nostalgia.
With a different menu, though.

[dave jenkins]

You should starve yourself for 2-3 days and get there armed with a solid menu based on lasagna and assorted pasta, good sparkling wine and the rest. What a go that would be! You might even end up liking it and willing to try the experiment on Nostalgia.
With a different menu, though.

You can do this in Italian cinemas? I'm moving to Rome!

[titoli]

You can do this in Italian cinemas?

Only in the cinemas where AR is shown (none, in the last 30 years). Bon Appetit. 

[titoli]

Andrey Rublyov (1966) Tarkovskiy's movies are famous all over as a surefire remedy against insomnia. But this movie is probably the only exception. It starts slowly but then it grips you and the last episode ("The Bell") is very moving. 8\10

[dave jenkins]

Andrey Rublyov (1966) Tarkovskiy's movies are famous all over as a surefire remedy against insomnia. But this movie is probably the only exception. It starts slowly but then it grips you and the last episode ("The Bell") is very moving. 8\10

Yeah. Tarkovsky's one great film.

[dave jenkins]

https://vimeo.com/274160443

[PowerRR]

Will probably be a blind buy for me. Excited to watch this for the first time, even though all I've seen is Mirror and it was boring as hell.

[dave jenkins]

This one is boring too, but it's Tarkovsky's least boring picture. What helps is that it is chopped up into episodes, so, if you find one bit dull, just wait for the next one. And as titoli points out, the last chapter with the bell is the most interesting, so you go out on a high note (and get some final color images as well).

[PowerRR]

This one is boring too, but it's Tarkovsky's least boring picture. What helps is that it is chopped up into episodes, so, if you find one bit dull, just wait for the next one. And as titoli points out, the last chapter with the bell is the most interesting, so you go out on a high note (and get some final color images as well).

Less boring than Ivan's Childhood? I just watched that one. It wasn't exactly exciting but I found it much more tolerable than Mirror and certainly not the most boring movie in the world. If Andrei Rublev is around the same level I'll do just fine.

PS: Anyone else recently have a weird view of SLWB? There's no formatting options when typing up posts, and it's got kinda a distracting white border. I've noticed this on a couple different computers.

[Kurug3n]

I was reading David Mamet's A Whore's Profession where he mentions that because the Russian film school didn't have the available resources to actually produce and make films, that they spent most of their time just theorizing about film and digging philosophically about the idea of film. It doesn't answer all the questions regarding film making from that region but it does make some sense. Or at least applying it to these type of films.

I haven't had a chance to see this film but I do love Stalker. It might be from the fact that I enjoyed the game first before the movie but there is just something there in that movie that's just amazing. This reminds me that I should get around to watching the copy of Solaris I have. I saw the Soderbergh version and enjoyed it, didn't think the inclusion of the George Clooney buttshot was a necessity.

PS: I think I know what you mean Power. Is THIS what you mean by the white borders?