Wonderful character development!

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Undescribable Perfection

Absolutely brilliant

ANDREI RUBLEV is another slow and ponderous movie from Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, a man best known in the west for his lengthy sci-fi effort SOLARIS. This one's even less accessible to the average cinema goer, featuring a dense plot loaded with religious content. The story is about a real life Russian painter of the 15th century, told in various illustrative chapters.I admit that I found the subject matter of this film rather off-putting and the lengthy running time even more so. Tarkovsky's film is picturesque and beautiful, yes, but not on the same level as Bergman, for example. I liked the way the story is broken up into chapters but much of the material seems deliberately pious and the mannered performances don't help. The most dramatic part is a Tartar raid around the midway mark, but sadly this moment features some real-life animal cruelty that makes the experience rather repellent.

"Agreed-upon" to be one of the cinema's masterworks, "The Passion According to Andrei" or simply "Andrei Rublev" revolves around the life of Russia's 15th-century great icon painter. The unique and great Tarkovsky carried the idea of this film from the first beginning, even before finishing his first film "Ivan's Childhood". Yet, after a single premiere screening in Russia (Dom Kino) in the year 1966, the film did not get a public release. Tarkovsky's masterpiece struggled for years in the Soviet Union and upon releasing it in December 1971 there were several cuts applied to it, where it was shown in the 186-minute version (the original was 205 min. long). Before that in 1969, the film was requested for Cannes Film Festival where it won the FIPRESCI prize, and from there on it was widely regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time.Rublev's character appears for the first time leaving the Trinity monastery with two other monks to search for work in Moscow. At the end of the movie, Rublev goes back to the same monastery, where he began his journey, to paint his "Holy Trinity". Between this and that, Rublev accomplished his spiritual journey and found his voice (innerself) not between the walls of monastery, but in the harsh circumstances of life back then. The film indeed shows little about Andrei Rublev himself and yet in a way shows a lot. As always Tarkovsky surprises his audience. The biographical film does not tell us about Rublev in the traditional meaning of the word, since he is most of the times a witness of what was going on and a passive observer. Yet, it tells us more about the interaction of this personality with existence, life, and with the conditions and occurrences of his time. In fact, Tarkovsky's psychological stance and spiritual meditation had to do a lot with the result of this film. That is why many regarded it as an allegory to Tarkovsky's own struggles in Russia or with his own-self. It is then the passion according to both Andrei Rublev and Andrei Tarkovsky.The film is divided into eight chapters (with a prologue and epilogue) each with a unique title. The opening scene starts with a prologue of a hot air balloon ride. Some consider this amazing scene as an allegory to our spiritual relationship with the "world of appearances". It may also seem an allegory to the struggles of the innovative, the spiritual, and the human in general with the circumstances life presents. Well, it may also mean both; since Tarkovsky uses powerful images that carry lots of meanings to evoke our emotions and drive us to react to them from our perspective. A horse (to Tarkovsky it resembles life) is seen collapsing. Rublev then is shown leaving the monastery.. the journey begins.Envy, desire, love, betrayal, freedom, faith.. wars and tortures and murders and struggles all of which Rublev feels and witnesses, and so he'd be greatly affected. He becomes disturbed and shaken.. and undergoes a vow of silence until he finds his faith again. Then, after seeing a boy achieve by faith what he was incapable of by knowledge, Rublev finds himself again in a moment of inspiration. Now we're ready to see Rublev's work in detail.. the film concludes with horses standing peacefully (the only scene shot in colors alongside Rublev's frescoes).The film's spirituality offended many officials, its depiction of Russia's history offended many nationalists, and its boldness offended some of the religious. Yet, Tarkovsky was not trying really to take sides or attack or criticize anyone. He was just being Tarkovsky.. the genius.. with his thoughts and emotions. He was presenting from what he deeply felt a piece of art.

An epic that succeeds in all of its three hours (I say this because several versions exist), Tarkovsky's preferred vision stands as one of the greatest Russian movies ever made. Because only little is known of Andrei Rublev's life, a heavier focus is made on the hardships and violence of medieval Russia. In doing so the film can approach themes such as artistic freedom, religion and (Ironically) repressive authority (As the film was banned in the Soviet Union, until a few years later when they released a censored version).Though it strangely begins with an unexpected hot air balloon ride, surprisingly in these few short minutes the film has featured many of the themes that will be present throughout the picture, such as life and creative hopes dashed. Religious icon painter Andrei Rublev (Anatoly Solonitsyn, in the first of many Tarkovsky productions), and other wandering monks seek work as they travel across the fields and treacherous landscapes of 15th century Russia. Ever the observer, Rublev is forced to hear the arrogance and shortcomings of his companions, as well as the locals whose lifestyles can be seen as sinful to others, and will eventually fall to the wrath of Prince's and Tartars. It's a long narrative where more hopes are crushed than realised, but ultimately depicts the violence and hardships of the time effortlessly.I've come to respect that the film's focus switches from Rublev and his surroundings, as the cinematography and shots that Andrei Tarkovsky and Vadim Yusov employ just blend the multiple narratives seamlessly. As for music I can only really remember the last 6 or so minutes of the film, but the hundreds of extra's, set pieces and moments I don't want to spoil has its own kind of musical rhythm. The recurring themes are ever present, and the early moments of Tarkovsky's references to classic paintings start here (Such as "A detail of The Hunters in the Snow" (1565) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, though it features much more prominently in "Solaris", 1972). Of course there is the small amount of infamous animal abuse of a cow and a horse, but I also sternly believe that it was kept to a minimum and handled very well given that the cow was covered in asbestos, and the horse was heading to the slaughterhouse regardless (Trust me, it really isn't all that terrible considering some other movies).Final Verdict: Actions speak louder than words in "Andrei Rublev". Whilst not deeply ambiguous, it certainly fulfils an artistic purpose that never comes off as arrogant. It is as epic and grand as the paintings themselves, and whilst not my favourite of his works it could most definitely be Tarkovsky's masterpiece. 9/10.

This is the second of Tarkovsky's films that I've seen, and on first viewing I can detect deep and very individual stylistic similarities with "Stalker." But "Andrey Rublev" is a still broader and deeper film, and I can also tell on first viewing that I will want to watch it again, and that the opportunity to do so will uncover worlds more. In fact, this is a difficult comment to write because it seems like any attempt to encapsulate the experience of this film in less that it's slow, still, and sometimes turbulent full length would be in vain. This is ostensibly a film about the medieval Russian painter Andrey Rublev, but Tarkovsky has taken the opportunity to make it a film that is really simultaneously a stunningly full portrait of the both loft and low Russia of his day, and a meditation on the nature of power, art, and religious faith.It moves at a deliberately very slow pace, but in every long, still shot where life is allowed to play out without the boundaries imposed by quick cuts, something subtly and revealingly fascinating goes on. We follow a half-nonsense peasant dance, for example, for longer than we would ever expect in a film, and that length is at once uncomfortable an very revealing. It's beautifully photographed, and must have had lavish resources behind its simple-looking recreation of a rural Russia of centuries ago. It's easy to see why the Soviet government was divided and eventually changed its mind on the release of such a beautiful film, honoring a national hero, but showing Christianity favorably in contrast to the invaders and questioning art's subservience to authority. I know I'll be rewarded again by letting the scope of this film wash over me, and letting the various elements making up the conversations on its thematic elements work against each other in my mind in new ways each time. In that way, it is, though much more laconic, reminiscent as some have observed of Dostoevsky.