I love this movie so much

You won't be disappointed!

Simply Perfect

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I have never seen a film so visually beautiful. However, it is devoid of plot. My review can't contain spoilers as there's nothing to spoil. Just watch the incredible cinematic beauty.

Before making an art house film check the following ingredients:A lot of camera movements behind pillars, columns and walls Add a lot of fog and smoke to create a mystic mood During dialogue film the person speaking on his back or don't show people at all Don't forget a little bit of nudity from the leading female character but not too much to avoid vulgarity Make sure there is a plot but don't use it during the film And of course the madman who turns out to be the wisest man on earthNostalghia is the kind of film that uses this and other clichés of art house in such a way that the movie is boring as hell. The plot is about a Russian poet looking for traces of a Russian composer who lived in Italy some centuries before. We learn nothing specific about the poet and the composer except that they both suffer from homesickness. And of course the director projects his own longing for Russia on his protagonist and the object of his study. The only thing that saves the film is the talent of Tarkovsky to shoot beautiful scenes. There is a camera movement from an arcade to a healing pool that is absolutely breathtaking. The scene where the poet is in the house of the madman and the rain is pouring through the roof is gorgeously filmed. And I never will forget the scene where the madman is standing on the statue of a Roman emperor and his horse (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the name of the emperor) and shouting his thoughts to an apathetic crowd. Those scenes are worth it to watch over and over again but you have to suffer all the other endless scenes with static camera where absolutely nothing happens or nothing interesting is said.One of the strangest incidents taking place is the suicide of the madman. I missed the clue why this should be in the script completely. Except for that Tarkovsky would show us how people are manipulated and used for other people's agenda. But it has nothing to do with the main theme which is the longing for your home ground. The final scenes where the poet is fulfilling a promise to the madman and finally collapse because of a failing heart are beautiful. A lot had been said about the final scenes were the poet is shown in front of his house in Russia which is placed in the ruin of an Italian cathedral. His love for both worlds are united here as he reached his heaven.Tarkovsky showed us a lot of things in this film what made him a unique director. For its screenplay (also by Tarkovsky) this movie is much less successful. I was left with the feeling that a chance of a masterpiece was missed here.

Italy is a very attractive place for filmmakers, because of its art, architecture, the lighting, and also film history. Many filmmakers go to Italy and immerse themselves in the people and the culture, the light and the atmosphere. Tarkovsky goes to Italy and he makes it as dank, dark, and unpopulated as he makes Russia. And, while in Italy, he has a few things to say about Italians--to explain Russia."Then you can't understand Italy, because you're not Italian." A poet goes to Italy to research into the biography of a Russian composer who stayed there for two years, and his life parallels that of the composer. Just so, Tarkovsky's life parallels that of the main character, who is also called Andrei: left in Italy surrounded by so much "beauty it's sickening", he becomes haunted by flashbacks of his family in Russia. Trying unsuccessfully to communicate with his translator (get it?) and striking a metaphysical relationship with a local mystic, Andrei the character struggles with the typical Tarkovskian themes of faith, fire, personal loss, and water, among others.Tarkovsky is up to some well-rehearsed tricks here. Long takes with an impossibly smooth floating camera dedicate the viewer's eyes to the imagery. The weather is under the same amount of control. A character enters a new space (here it's Italy; in Stalker it's the Zone; in Solyaris it's the space station; in Andrei Rublev it's the society outside the church), and only through intense emotional and philosophical struggle can he prepare himself to return to where he's come from. Thresholds stand tantalizingly around, but don't often get passed (Andrei can walk through a door that leads nowhere with no problem, but can only cross a pool with a candle with immense physical struggle). Spaces are separated by black and white and sepia tones. God is always there but never for you.There's some new tricks, too. Tarkovsky plays with light a lot in this one, and frames that seem to sink into pure black suddenly illuminate hidden images and icons. A compelling sonic disturbance is created in flashbacks to Russia that sound like a table-saw grinding away at wood; "The Music" the mystic speaks of is warped and fragmented vinyl.Nostalghia, I feel, is not the Tarkovsky movie you want to see first. First see Stalker, or Solyaris, or Mirror. Nostalghia removes the transition from Russia to Italy and so the feeling of transition and change is a lot more dependent on the symbolic and abstract sensibilities, and previous knowledge of Tarkovsky's imagery will help to interpret it. For fans of Tarkovsky, however, Nostalghia is a sweet and personal return into his dense and foggy mind (or house, as Chris Marker calls it), the world that only he was able to fully explore.--PolarisDiB

First of all, please use this link: http:// www.criterionforum.org/forum/ viewtopic.php?p=142178&highlight=&sid= dd58cd36ffe474e7bd315c810cb708e6. It will lead you to a hilarious forum "discussion" about this very comment! I'll also use this opportunity to say "thanks" to Cold Bishop and the other morons for taking my texts so seriously - and making me laugh very loudly!Secondly, let me explain the high 7.9 rating on IMDb. Only around 2,000+ people voted, and they're mostly film students who FORCE themselves to like movies like this, and other pretentious boredom-seekers who find thrills in watching grass grow. "Nostalghia" is the IDEAL film to fall asleep to. I speak from experience.I absolutely loved "Solaris" and "Stalker", two brilliant, intelligent sci-fi dramas. On the other side of the Tarkovsky spectrum, I was utterly confused by "The Mirror" - which had zero story to tell (though occasionally visually very nice), I was mostly bored to tears by "Andrey Rublev" (nearly 4 hours!), but thought "The Sacrifice", his last movie, was okay (in spite of being in Swedish, an unpleasant language).Tarkovsky's two sci-fi films are based on (good) novels, and this may be the crucial point. It seems that he is pretty much lost when doing his own material. He gets bogged down in his dull poetry and philosophy, not bothering to inter-connect various parts of the two in a cohesive manner, failing to focus on the essentials. Hence all his other (non-sci-fi) movies are not much better than all the other pretentious European crap from various Godards, Bunuels, Bergmans, Triers, and other overrated, lazy "geniuses"."Nostalghia" is an overly pretentious non-story that is far too self-indulgent even for a European director. If you make movies just for your own "artistic" pleasure then why even bother releasing them? This two-hour snooze-fest could have been EASILY cut down to half that length - and it would still not be fascinating. Watching the main character walk around endlessly without saying or doing anything is just GARBAGE film-making. Lazy, and made/written by someone who overestimated himself a tad.The positive side to this movie - apart from the fact that it made me fall asleep - are some visually stunning scenes. Especially the long shots of water, which are pleasant, if a little sleep-inducing because they may be TOO pleasant. Tarkovsky seemed to have some kind of an almost-fetish for "aqua", because he filmed it in all its visual and audio glory in nearly ever movie he made.My advice to those who consider this a masterpiece is to stop lying to yourselves about your own intelligence, hence to quit being in denial about how you TRULY, honestly, perceive certain movies. Writing about a movie such as this being a "stroke of genius" is just one of many ways some people deal with an inferiority complex.Erland Josephson, as uncharismatic as he has been in all his Bergman movies, is a poor choice for the insane man. Besides, what was the point Tarkovsky was trying to make? That he is sane and the rest of us are the insane ones? What a cliché idea! So trite. And how about that last scene (a 250-minute scene, it seemed) of the Russian character carrying the candle for the insane man? Was this symbolic of something? Trying to save the world? The world needs saving from very pretentious, boring movies.Erland's character locked up his family for seven years. Hence he is not only insane, but should be put away for life. End of story. What can we possibly learn from Erland? His impassioned, idiotic left-wing "back-to-the-caves" speech was just dumb. It's something a 17 year-old manic-depressive idealist would write.Besides some nicely photographed scenes, there was a pleasant scene where the blonde actress bares one of her breasts.Tarkovsky portrays Italy as a gloomy, dark, depressing place. I have no idea why. If Italy looks like this, what should he do with Russia or Finnland??(Sick and tired of Euro-trash "classics", i.e. bad, overrated dramas? E-mail me if you want to read my totally altered subtitles of Ingmar Bergman's "Autumn Sonata", "Cries & Whispers", or "Passion Of Anne", but also the non-Bergman "Der Untergang".)