Andrei Rublev (Andrey Rublyov) is a 1966 Soviet epic biographical historical drama film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky who co-wrote it with Andrei Konchalovsky. The film was re-edited from the 1966 film titled The Passion According to Andrei by Tarkovsky which was censored during the first decade of the Brezhnev era in the Soviet Union. The film is loosely based on the life of Andrei Rublev, a 15th-century Russian icon painter. The film features Anatoly Solonitsyn, Nikolai Grinko, Ivan Lapikov, Nikolai Sergeyev, Nikolai Burlyayev and Tarkovsky's wife Irma Raush. Savva Yamshchikov, a famous Russian restorer and art historian, was a scientific consultant for the film. Although these issues with censorship obscured and truncated the film for many years following its release, the film was soon recognized by many western critics and film directors as a highly original and accomplished work. Even more since being restored to its original version, Andrei Rublev has come to be regarded as one of the greatest films of all time and has often been ranked highly in both the Sight & Sound critics' and directors' polls.

The film portrays a hidden double meaning- spiritual struggle in the 15th century as well as in the era of the atheistic Soviet Union.

Movies don't get much better. Pick any scene here and marvel at the artistry and framing - every visual choice the director makes is the right one. It's not just about the look though, this movie's got narrative sweep, compelling human stories, settings that spring to life and intense performances. It's got a profound theme, too, that binds the episodic structure together and steers us towards the movie's awesome conclusion. Final thing - I love the way Tarkovsky lets the camera linger. All the great directors do it, but AT is the master. It's like he's saying: 'Look at this. Look deeper. Take your time. Do you see what I see?"

Wow. Finally watched it, the last Tarkovsky movie that I missed. Although I watched it on a nice projector, it was at home, and I hope I get to see it at a real movie theater one day, so I don't get tempted by mundane distractions. But what a beauty. And what an ending. It's like I knew that colors would arrive at the ending. I wonder if Ciro Guerra was inspired by that when he made the ending to Embrace of the Serpent.

While certainly not devoid of beauty and of depth, "Andrei Rublev" seemed to me like a movie that is not in any way interested in telling the story that it chose to tell. It is meandering, stumbling, not coherent. This makes each singular scene strong on its own, as it must shine with its own light, unable to depend on what comes before or after it. But at the same time because of this the whole movie seems somehow to be less than sum of its parts. The overall plot is hard to follow even in scenes where we should know what is going on – while time of each scene is meticulously documented, place is not and some characters are not that easy to identify. I get that this is not the main point here, but this does not work, in my opinion, in favor of said main point, of questions about relationship between faith and creativity. Confusion detracts rather than allows us to focus. But the plot-line about the bell was beautiful. I can easily see it remade into a separate movie of its own.

We should call "The Artist" to this film and not to the 2011 Oscar's winner film. 8/10

dense as shit but relly good

Incredibly grand and surrealistic shots that Tarkovsky is able to pull off in this movie. Those aerial shots are beautiful. This movie has a similar vibe to ‘The Seventh Seal', I'm really digging it. This is a very interesting time that Tarkovsky chose to place the move in. It's kind of like Medieval Russia. Goddamn, Tarkovsky really is the master of patience and slow shots, but ,am are they visually stunning and gorgeous. I mean you can pause the movie at any point and just put it in a frame and hang it up on a wall. I love the dialogue on wisdom between the old Greek guy and the priest when he first arrives at the church. He mentioned in much wisdom there is much grief. And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. They hit extremely hard. Why are these so true? This movie's incredibly interesting because not only does it teleport you to that point in time in history, but it also shows us a world in which we've never ventured to. It's really interesting to see how everyone who was a painter, or wanted to be a painter, was painting religious things solely. Portraits of Jesus, or paintings of angels and Christian symbology. Wow, that pile, or should I say wall of stacked logs was impressive. I've never seen a pile of stacked logs like that before. Lmao! I love that line that Theophanes the Greek said about Foma, "He should be beaten every Saturday, like a dog". That's so random but hilarious. Idk what it was, but it seemed like the Medieval times was a dark time all around the world. It seems like religion had a big part in that. Why is everything so weird and ominous when it comes to Pagans? Lol. That whole sequence with the naked pagans was so ominous, especially with that unsettling music. Very interesting nonetheless. I think that whole experience with the Pagans helped to open up Andrei's mind, helped to broaden it to more possibilities. Wow, that turned dark really quick with that eye-gouging scene with the Turks on horseback. That's so fucked up! They took away the one sense they needed in order to make art. Brutal, that's horrifying! Wtf now there's Mongolians?! What's with all this violence and raid all of a sudden? Dude that whole pillaging sequence of the village and church was crazy as fuck! It reminded me of ‘Come and See'. All the chaos and brutality. Oh my god!! They poured boiling water down his throat and then got dragged by the horse. WTF?!! Damn this movie took a dark ass turn. Wow, that was incredible how they made that bell. And out of silver! All the hard labor that went into it, the planning and then the hoisting of it. I mean that thing was huge! It must've weighed at least equivalent to a pick up truck. All amazing to watch. See, he could have shot it in color! Why the fuck didn't he shoot it in color?! Wtf man?! He probably thought, oh its a dark time and therefore it must reflect visually with black & white. Man fuck that shit lol. This movie surprised me with the amount of humor there is in the beginning. Watching the movie, it almost feels like a dream. It's pretty surreal. We're basically seeing the life of an artist during the 15th century. It's incredible since there's not many movies that do it quite like Tarkovsky. Yeah I'm convinced that Tarkovsky movies are a one and done sort of ordeal for me, unless I'm in the right mood. It kind of turned into a dark, somber sort of depressing movie towards the second act. Yeah, this is one I have no interest in watching again. Maybe I'd use it as reference for inspiration with shots and cinematography but I mean that's about it.

Set in 15th century Russia, Andrei Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev tells the story of a tortured artist as he navigates his way through barren, desolate landscapes as well as his own self-doubt as a creative force. While the narrative can be confusing and the running time is exhausting, the film is filled with visual wonders, typical of Tarkovsky and equaled by no one. Shot in stark black and white, the movie is high-lighted by lengthy takes, long tracking shots, and elaborate crane shots. While Andrei Rublev will undoubtedly confound and puzzle viewers at times, its creativity will reward those patient enough to wade through it.

My favorite film ever. Tarkovsky said "We tried to drown the story in the atmosphere." Well, they succeeded, and I think that's why I've loved this film since I first saw it. If you don't have a taste for that atmosphere you might not like it so much, but I'm mesmerized by it - the steppes, the rivers, the dress, the depth-of-field shots, the slow pans. All the performances are excellent - can't pick one or two but I'll mention Kirill and his deforming envy, the jester (the actor Rolan Bykov gives a clinic), and Irma Raush is very brave in her role. The slow pace and slow development, mainly through dialogue, are part of the attraction for me and not unlike an Ozu film's. I just watched it for maybe the fifth time. The other times I rolled with it, not paying too much attention to the history. This time I did a little homework ahead and now I know the story better; I hope I don't like the movie less next time!

This biographical drama from Andrei Tarkovsky is epic in length, ambitious in its storytelling, and hauntingly beautiful in its imagery. It's an amazing, challenging, complex, visually poetic, impressively filmed, well acted, profound and engrossing exploration of spirituality, faith, religion, humanity, artistic virtue, artistic integrity, intolerance and indifference.

Too damm long but worth it

Some cinema lovers sometimes talk about "movies to end all movies". And you can see the sheer enthusiasm in their eyes, the unabashed passion generated by one single film. Well, Andrei Rublev is precisely one of those films. Volumes are written (and they should be) on this 1966 masterpiece, its production, it's staggeringly epic story, its moral and emotional complexity, all of Tarkowsky's brilliant, incomprehensible vision to create a portrait of the artist and a commentary on faith like no other. And I doubt something more profound to explore Andrei Rublev's themes will ever grace the big screen. Right now I'm at a loss for words, a proper review is on the way, so I'll just say I would give it 6/5 stars if I could.

It feels silly to review a film like this. It doesn't exactly aim to please its audience, but if you love cinema, you might love it anyway. First, there are lots of horses, though I worried about the health of some of them, especially the one that fell awkwardly down the stairs. Second, the images in this movie are beautiful and enigmatic, which is standard for a Tarkovsky picture. In those terms, I would still say this might be the least strange film of his that I have seen. Third, since the structure is episodic, rather than ruled by a narrative thread, it feels natural to like some episodes better than others. Half of them I really liked, others felt like they were there mainly to re-introduce characters (Silence, for example), since all except one are shown in the final episode, about the bell, which funny enough is the only one with any sort of dramatic tension and also my favorite. Fourth, it really pays to read what you can about this film after you've seen it. I guarantee there are things you missed that would deepen your appreciation of it. It's dense with histories, myths, allusions, and everything else.

Andrei Tarkovsky's magnum opus has amazing directing to create one of the most artistic films ever made.

One for the movie critics but not the general viewer. Set aside a Sunday to wade through this. First half of film is particularly turgid and second half improves but still not captivating. A few good scenes though and brings to life the extraordinary brutality that went into producing the ancient masterpieces we see around the world.

Perhaps the most contemplative epic ever made, Andrei Rublev dives into themes of creativity, greed, and the divine vs the individual, building from source material obscure enough to provide Tarkovsky with a virtually blank canvas. Conceived with tremendous forethought down to the last detail, and wonderfully shot. You'll never see horses in the same way again. (4.5/5)

I had seen this film once before on DVD and marvelled at its confidence and its character, but didn't fully click with it; preferring Ivan's Childhood and Stalker, but favouring it above Solaris, Sacrifice and Mirror. Crammed behind two tall idiots with big heads, the movie started as I remembered: slow, muddy, slightly confusing, the print was a beautifully ugly, crackly 35mm and it reminded me of watching films on the old tinny CRTs in the corner of a college classroom. I was tired and the hypnotic quality and languid opening pace of Andrei Rublev put me in a right placid state. I was ready to fall asleep. But. Somewhere around chapter 4, the film just opened up as if the frames around the screen just melted away and I fully and wholly transported into the film, it was the kind of movie magic you only read about and rarely undergo; instead of falling asleep, I woke up into the dream world of Andrei Rublev. I absolutely loved it. There's not a lot I need to say about the film, and its place within Tarkovsky's oeuvre, about his poetry, about the lead actors, the Kurosawa-esque Tartar raid, the incredible segment with the bell, all of this has been written about more elegantly and prosaically than I will be able to do right now. But I will say that when Andrei chose to utter his final words, and the film shifted from black and white to colour, I was almost in tears, sure that I had witnesses something else; the magic of cinema. And I felt that everybody in the packed Prince Charles, there at 2pm on a sunny Saturday to see it, had felt it too.

marvellous and transcendental

Simply a masterpiece. Don't feel myself eligible to review it. A must watch.