This is film elevated to its highest level as art. It takes its time, but it simply has so much to say.

Andrei Rublev is not a film.

As dull as it is mind-blowing.

Strange episodic film, filled with haunting imagery. Has a lot to say about the position of the artist in society and his impulse to create.

while there are some glimpses of tarkovskys future one of a kind camera work, the plot simply does nothing to intrigue me. actually, ivans childhood was made before this, making the camera work here less fantastic in comparison. overly long would be an understatement. biggest disappointment of tarkovskys entire catalogue.

very strong poetry - visionary and philosophical ! Great opening and twice greater end. The whole "Bell" chapter is like something beyond this world

That was an experience.

balonla uçmak, soytari, rahip, hirs, yetenegi kiskanmak, çiplak ayin, ikona sanatcisi, rölyef sanatcisi, 1408 Moskovayi tatar istilasi, Rusya, ihanet eden prens, ülkesine ihanet etmek, sehir yagmalamak, çan yapimi, ailesini veremden kaybedeb çocuk, meslek sirri (çan yapimi) (Bir sahnede tatarca duyuyoruz. Acik bir Türkçe konusma var.) Film kisimlara bölünmüs. Son kisim ise filmin en keyifli kismi (çan yapimi) çok agir ve seyir keyfi düsük.) SURE UZUN

This remarkable film traces the evolution of Orthodox iconographer Andrei Rublev from budding artist to aged mentor. Tarkovsky's episodic approach highlights the passage of time in Rublev's life, while the final images of the film create at once a sense of transcendence and history. Tarkovsky allows the various sequences to speak for themselves, refusing to draw explicit connections between them. This quality gives the film a poetic quality, and ensures that it will reward repeat viewings.

I watched it at a medieval film course at university. I think this movie was well done, well told, well balanced. Good work.

I'm not very fond of the setting, the characters and the story. It's quite dull too. I liked 'The Bell'-part the most.

43

I didn't find it boring...stunning imaginery, beautiful music, very impressive.

At times insanely interesting, but mostly unrewarding (in lack of a better word).

Extemely rewarding, if slightly muddled approach [christ allegories just seem too easy, and overdone], on oppression, redemption, and the capacity for human suffering.

It was a beautifully shot film with nice cinematography. It's loosely based on the 15th century Orthodox icon painter, Andrei Rublev, and the setting is wonderful. Really convincing medieval scenery. Religious imagery isn't heavy handed. Even if you're an atheist I think you could appreciate it. The movie also asks some important questions, along with examining how an artist deals with the times. Even though I wasn't as entertained by it as I could have been, it's still masterfully done. See it

I felt alienated from the movie despite the amazing imagery and some moments of truth. Neither the characters, not the setting or Tarkovski's very personal reasoning about Rublev was enough to get my anticipation.