If there are any flaws in this film it's that Tarkovsky's characters tend to provide a little too much philosophical and religious exposition at times. In one scene Victor wryly comments about being tired of monologues which may have been Tarkovsky poking fun at himself. The interweaving of religion, philosophy, and fear of nuclear war is interesting too. The masterful use of dreamlike states shows that Tarkovsky never lost his touch right down to the last film.

Highly philosophical film that feels like something by Bergman. Its ability to create beautiful images throughout of a single house is testament to Tarkovsky and the cinematographer. Although the pace is slow the images are fascinating and I found myself in awe of almost every shot. I wouldn't say it's as good as his other work but it's ability to create beauty on a small scale and it's compelling story mean that it's a great film.

412

My only complaint, as with all Tarkovsky films, is the lengthy shots.

"Offret" is pretty-looking, but you probably expected that. It's also self-absorbed, esoteric, alienating and almost mind-numbingly boring. When I was not struggling to make some sense out of the philosophical drooling, I was comatose due to sheer tedium. The premise is intriguing (it's the end of the world... I think), the visuals haunting and there is a nice Bergman feel to it. You may be able to appreciate all that, given that you manage to stay awake, which is highly questionable.

What can I even say? Tarkovsky delivers strong with The Sacrifice, and one should not be surprised. The imagery is absolutely breath-taking, from scene to scene. Tarkovsky's poetic elements of man vs nature, man vs man, and man vs God are nearly unmatched in the world of cinema. All of this is then helped tied together beautifully by strong performances all around.

The definition of tedious. I've never seen a film try so hard to be profound and meaningful before. It's pretty sad actually. The main character is borderline mentally retarded, his actions make no sense, his philosophizing is embarrassing and he constantly baffles you with his banal, trite bullshit. It doesn't overtly manipulate you like a Spielberg film but it tells you how you're supposed to think, which is much more insulting imo.

#346

It's my first Tarkovsky so i don't know. It's either he became senile enough to convince himself that a tree is not a tediously banal imagery, or he's just a decent but average Bergman wannabe.

Well, I really wanted to like this film. I really did. And although I did enjoy a lot of the cinematography and abstract moments, the constant monologues and symbolism for EVERYTHING become straight up annoying. It simply became hard for to care about the characters at all. Just because a film is "deep" does not make it a work of art. Seriously, read the 'Binding of Isaac' and save yourself some time.

Tarkovsky's enigmatic final film, released after his death. Stunning cinematography by Sven Nykvist. Acclaimed, but sometimes slow going; not everyone will appreciate Tarkovsky's visionary spiritualism.

Having watched it only once, I doubt I can glean a great deal of insight from such a dense and powerful work of art, but I am certain that it, like all of Tarkovsky's films, is tapped into some kind of transcendent, paradoxical universe where cryptic imagery and concepts are the only things that make sense.

This film is definitely not for everyone. I am not trying to say that it is only for smart or highly intellectual people, no. To watch The Sacrifice you need to know and love what Tarkovsky did before or, at least, be interested in long monologues about life, love, literature and history. Sacrifice is full of death anticipation which later became a symbolic full stop in director's career and life.

Beautiful film, though it's at once very blunt and very coy about the messages it's exploring. I liked it, particularly the cinematography and Josephson's performance, but by the second half I was quickly losing interest.

Demanding and quite dull.

Tarkovsky's films are a journey to where we don't even dare to look; it's a debate between man and nature, man and God. And while this film does have all common elements of Tarkovsky's filmmaking, it loses interest halfway through (though the ending had quite a strong impact, at least on me). All in all, if you love Tarkovsky's film, you'll love this; if you love them but find it hard to absorb them, like me, you should give it a shot anyway; if you don't love them, stay away from this for good.

Grievous, beautiful and demanding.

# 366

It's a shame that Tarkovsky degenerated from the brilliant complexity of Stalker to this. Visually it's still as well done as one would expect from a director of his caliber, but the straightforward modern Christian parable of the script becomes too overpowering towards the end. That might be acceptable, but the problem is that Tarkovsky fails to make it convincing, human, and/or touching.