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

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Admirable film.

There is no film like The Sacrifice; it may be one of the greatest films...it is unique among films. Tarkovsky puts himself into a realm of his own. Filmed profoundly, and exquisitely; it is so pleasing to the eye; a director, at the height of his powers; pure patience, in the frames. There are many frames within frames here; *spoiler*; perhaps this represents the characters isolation? Existentialist Terror/Harmony awaits here. Wise. Profound.Truly, what is greater, than a film of this nature? A director, who creates philosophical examination, unlike any other; meditations, and streams of pure philosophical consciousness; true joy; refreshing; endearing. It is a joy for anyone, who is stimulated by deep, heavy, philosophical life thought. It muses on death, and existentialism. It muses on materialism, but not in particularly buying materialism, but materialism in how we treat the earth; the nature materialism, earth's materialism. It muses on machinery; verses nature; man verses nature. How we may decant ourselves to a high plain, but alas, return to earth, and destroy. How we destroy ourselves, destroy the earth. Disillusionment with life, all. It is truly chilling, and devastating. It is a philosophical piece of lecture; it can be examined many times over. How faith, in a case, can be pursed from self-destruction; loss of self; hopelessness; this is when faith is pursued; when our fears are eternalized, and hope is lost; spiritual belief is lost, that someone may seek out their faith; our primal fears. Tarkovsky is one of the directors closest to capturing philosophy on the screen. The switching between black & white, and color, immortalizes the scenes, and drives them into your subconscious; exquisite. It considers how truth, and knowledge, can lead to existential suffering; though which can lead to profound wisdom; do we find comfort in terror? It is a reflection of ourselves.Some sayings remind me of 'As A Man Thinketh'; a profound, beautiful, and special book. I imagine the actors became wise, from merely speaking their thoughts of the character; profound questions are asked, and it gives you questions, like good philosophy does. It is extraordinary and unique; the levitation scenes, and the one's that follow it...there is nothing like it in cinema; like a steam of memories; of terrifying but profound scenes...truly ethereal. The fire scene is.....something that is not of this world. There are filmmakers/directors, and then there is Tarkovsky; he is a pillar; a person, who, him himself, and his films, seem so unreal as to exist. This film......really makes you believe there is magic in the world; like seeing a Salvador Dalí painting for the first time. Something, which is like a portal, to another world; something that elevates you to a higher, magical, ethereal realm, and fills you with pure joy as to something like this could possibly exist.

It is difficult to watch a Tarkovskij film if you are already tired (having his films only in subtitled editions doesn't help), I actually fell asleep during this at a certain point in the film, had to take a pause, and continue when I got back awake. I also liked other Tarkovskij films better, like Andrej Rubljev or Stalker, but still liked this a lot.Nonetheless, Offret is really a good film, both from a cinematographical point of view, both from the story and the storytelling point of view. It's one of those Russian films where not much happens during the story, some of the scenes might seem awkward to a modern- day audience, but you still feel blown away. This and Nostalghia actually required me to check a few analises to understand better the story. They're way more hermetic than other Tarkovskij films, but no less good. I particularly loved the choice for the setting and the music (Despite it didn't show up much in the film). Anyhow, I suggest to watch Offret twice, and to read a good analisis of the thematics in the film before the second view. It helps a lot in understanding the story, the reason of certain things, and to appreciate better the movie.

Sergei Tarkovsky has an unique cinematic diction: fragmented, complicated, anachronistic, with lengthy shots taken from static positions, long soliloquy, static frames with close resemblance of theatrical stage than a movie. He reminded me of Ingmar Bergman time and again while watching his movie ' Sacrifice', his last directional flick. Perhaps because the locale was Sweden, and the theatrical setting was reminiscent of Autumn Sonata: similar guilt complex, confessional monologues, predominant gloomy shades in shot compositions. The cinematic language is pretty dense, with layered allusions, switching between real and imaginary sequences. The movie starts with the Leonardo Da Vinci's painting Adoration of Magi used as a backdrop, on which the credit rolls, and then the camera pans along the tree stem of the palm tree to mix with the reflection of real foliages. As in Christian concept, the palm tree represents triumph over death and disaster, the movie unfolds the deadly tension of impending Nuclear Holocaust, and a barren tree planted by Alexandar symbolizes the mankind's hope for the triumph over the impending doom. Alexandar, in awe of this utter destruction, promises to sacrifice all his dearest possessions to the God. This is Tarkovsky's depiction of the inner self, truths hidden in apparently routine and mundane activities, expressed through a confessional narrative and studded with visions of the protagonist Alexandar. The visions may be mistaken as dreams, at least there are ample equivocal suggestions. But essentially the strong sense of impending doom, a nuclear holocaust, the fear for the posterity goaded the film maker...when an atheist prays for God's benevolence and eventually sacrifices his dearest mortal possessions to save the world.

The story takes place in an isolated location on the isle of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. Although the island has a long semi-independent history, it has been an "official" part of Sweden for more than three centuries.Many of my reactions to this film are the common ones: this film is "Bergmanesque", a little different from yet not discontinuous with Tarkovsky's others; the images are striking and almost overwhelmingly powerful; the film is long and slow ("stately" to say it positively), so much so some won't have the patience to even finish watching it.I think though the story is more complex and subtle than is often stated. Supposedly the topic is a slightly off-kilter person giving up what he loves in exchange for the salvation of others as a reaction to the specter of nuclear war. After all, his life circumstances look pretty attractive to us viewers: wealthy, respected, private, and comfortable. The ominousness of the opening dialog doesn't seem warranted.But I think it's more than that, or at least more ambiguous than that. The main character isn't just slightly off-kilter, but close to collapsing completely. His life has become unbearable. And his motives are as much about "punishment" (or even "revenge") as "sacrifice".Why do I think that? For starters, how is it that the only people that will come to Alexander's birthday party are his doctor and his postman? That guest list sounds to me like an act of desperation, an admission that he's hit rock bottom. Alexander's wife is so neurotic even her daughter and her lover chide her. His daughter can't grow up in such an isolated place; she never sees anyone else anywhere near her age. And as far as her obvious age-appropriate interest in boys, there's nothing more than a bad joke about the postman being her beau. She flips between acting like she's ten and acting like she's thirty, with nothing in between. Alexander sleeps on the couch in his office rather than in the marital bed , and everyone acts as though that happens all the time. When he bicycles to his servant's house (or at least dreams he does), along the way he sees the doctor's empty car with his wife's shawl; clearly he's aware that his wife is having an affair with his "best friend". His servant's immediate reaction is "something terrible must have happened at home", and it's apparent this isn't the first time she's seen Alexander's home situation become intolerable. And the doctor's plan to move to Australia is a truly momentous, one-in-a-million attempt to escape forever. The doctor's calm, detached, slightly ironic bearing belies the awfulness of the words he speaks about just how dysfunctional Alexander's household is.