Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites

Anatoli Solonitsin, Ivan Lapikov, Nikolai Sergeyev, Nikolai Grinko, Nikolai Burlyayev ... see more see more... , Irma Raush , Yuri Nazarov , Yuri Nikulin , Rolan Bykov , Nikolai Grabbe , Mikhail Kononov , Stepan Krylov , Andrei Tarkovsky , Anatoli Solonitsyn

Widely recognized as a masterpiece, Andrei Tarkovsky's 205-minute medieval epic, based on the life of the Russian monk and icon painter, was not seen as the director intended it until its re-release o... read more read more...ver twenty years after its completion. The film was not screened publicly in its own country (and then only in an abridged form) until 1972, three years after winning the International Critics Prize at the Cannes Film Festival. Calling the film frightening, obscure, and unhistorical, Soviet authorities edited the picture on several occasions, removing as much as an entire hour from the original. Presented as a tableaux of seven sections in black and white, with a final montage of Rublev's painted icons in color, the film takes an unflinching gaze at medieval Russia during the first quarter of the 15th century, a period of Mongol-Tartar invasion and growing Christian influence. Commissioned to paint the interior of the Vladimir cathedral, Andrei Rublev (Anatoli Solonitsyn) leaves the Andronnikov monastery with an entourage of monks and assistants, witnessing in his travels the degradations befalling his fellow Russians, including pillage, oppression from tyrants and Mongols, torture, rape, and plague. Faced with the brutalities of the world outside the religious enclave, Rublev's faith is shaken, prompting him to question the uses or even possibility of art in a degraded world. After Mongols sack the city of Vladimir, burning the very cathedral that he has been commissioned to paint, Rublev takes a vow of silence and withdraws completely, removing himself to the hermetic confines of the monastery. Rising quickly out of this mire, the film's final section (a short story in its own right) concerns a boy named Boriska (Nikolai Burlyayev) who convinces a group of travelling bell-makers that his father passed on to him the secret of bell-making. The men take Boriska along, mostly because they pity and are amused by him, but they are quickly enthralled by the boy's ambition, determination, and confidence that he alone knows how to build the perfect bell. Boriska is soon commanding an army of assistants and peasant workers, and, indeed, his fierce temperament and refusal to accept anything but the best possible work and materials from the men fools the viewer -- possibly Boriska himself is fooled -- into thinking that he does in fact possess the secret, and that on the appointed day when the silver bell is lifted from the ground and its mallet set in place, it will ring. Amid this maelstrom of activity and confusion, Rublev appears; at first standoffish and mistrustful of the boy, he finds himself drawn to Boriska's courage and unselfconscious desire to create. Moved to put aside his vow of silence, Rublev serves finally as the boy's confessor, and he finds that, through Boriska, his faith, and art, have been renewed. ~ Anthony Reed, Rovi

Flixster Users

94% liked it

8,917 ratings

Critics

93% liked it

15 critics

Unrated, 3 hr. 5 min.

Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky

Release Date: January 1, 1973

Invite friends to see

DVD Release Date: February 2, 1999

Stats: 693 reviews

Your Rating



clear rating

Flixster Reviews (693)


  • March 10, 2012
    Tarkovsky's art is pure poetry, and it carefully lingers for over three hours through the dominions of faith, brutality and mainly the role of the artist in the world. A true masterpiece that should be seen and revisited many times by those who appreciate works of art.
  • October 7, 2011
    Tough going but definitely worth it with a slew of indelible images and scenes. Full review later.
  • April 16, 2008
    I can't say I understood it, but I found it enthralling.

    I'll be able to write a more in depth review after a few more viewings...maybe
  • March 29, 2008
    masterful russian epic about the trials of a medieval icon painter. at 3 1/2 hours it's an investment in time but well worth it. mesmerizing!
  • August 26, 2008
    I may not be religious but just as with Dies Irae,Rublev comes like a shocking rocket in its stillness and illuminates the cinematic horizon.Provoking and a tremendous onslaught to the social turmoils against it,a film with skepticism and serenity.
  • January 11, 2007
    This film may be 3 hours long but it is filled with very interesting cinematography and, incredible representation of Russians struggling for their survival. Considering that the story takes place in the 15th century, we see how the religion has an major impact on the people. A f... read moreilm to see but only if you're able to appreciate great art and religion blend in one film.
  • July 3, 2010
    Although known as a masterpiece, this movie for me was way to drawn out and I didn't feel like I learned much about the life of the Russian painter except that he lived in a very rough and dangerous time.
  • August 20, 2009
    F*** your 185 minute version, I watched the 205. Do I regret that? Not exactly, but I mean come on, it's hard for me to pay attention to anything that long so, no, I didn't watch it one sitting, and yes, I fast forwarded a little bit, but I didn't miss any dialogue and could st... read moreill see all the mongolians burning down Russian stuff. That was the point, right? IT WASN'T?!!?!?
  • June 8, 2008
    a wonderfully shot film by andrei tarkovsky. certainly a film this deliberately paced and lengthy (3 and 1/2 hours) is not for everyone but certainly worth it. andrei's journey is about crises of faith, brutality, the transcendence of art, and the need of the artist to be a parti... read morecipator, not simply a spectator, of history.
  • April 24, 2008
    Well, if you've ever wanted to see real animals get tortured way before PETA was a forethought, you are gonna see some sh*t in this movie. I mean, a live cow on first running around. A horse falling from a flight of stairs that gets stabbed. A dog beaten close to death. Feuda... read morel Russia was not a fun place to be if you didn't have a soul.

    This is my second Tarkovsky movie. I fell in love with Solaris and appreciated the overly long shots invovled in that movie. I mean. there was no question about how people got from point A to point B in Solaris and that really worked. Sure, the runtime was just almost unbearable, but I thought that had to be a one-time thing. Not so much. This move (I'm ashamed to say!) took me a week to watch with a three-and-a-half hour runtime. Understandably, my birthday fell this week and was followed by some of the most stressful times of my life right behind. But this movie, once again, shows you everything. It is slow as molasses, and one of my most favorite movies recently was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, so that's saying something. I mean, we didn't take the shortcut on anything.

    Even thought I went to Ukrainian School on Saturday's for almost half of my life, I had no idea tha Andrei Rublev was a real dude. It would have helped to watch the timeline on the special features to get a general gist of what was going on at the time, because I had to wonder why Andrei Rublev takes this backseat in a story that bears his name. I mean, Rublev does play a heavy role in this movie, but not compared to most titular characters. Really, there are just long stretches of time where we don't get to see Rublev at all. Heck, no one's even talking about him. They're off making a bell or raping a village. Nothing to do with Rublev directly outside of the fact that he remotely knows these characters.

    But once again. Tarkovsky suckers me into liking his movies by his visuals. I guess that's pretty important when you make a movie about a famous monk icon painter. There are just these breathtaking moments where the slowness of the movie just fades away. My personal favorite shot is the man with the arrow in the back by the stream. Sure, Tarkovsky spends forever showing how that one dudes is getting away and he makes it out to the woods only to get shot in the back. He was one dude out of an entire village. Why show him? EXACTLY! (That was the most artsy I will ever be.)

    The switch to color caught me off guard. Yeah, almost none of the actual movie is in color, but it really was striking. I also appreciate that no credits were rolling over these images. They really grounded the whole thing considering that we almost never see Rublev actually paint. I won't understand some of the choices in the movie, and I think that's alright. I admit that I'm not the smartest guy in the world. That's not my job. My job is to write extensively long reviews on a website that will never pay me for doing this. I do this for my own gratification.

Critic Reviews


Vincent Canby
May 9, 2005
Vincent Canby, New York Times

Since there always seems to be more going on in the head of the film's director than in the head of the man playing Andrei, the system did not work for me. Full Review

Jonathan Rosenbaum
April 9, 2005
Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader

Stuns with the sort of unexpected poetic explosions we've come to expect from Tarkovsky. Full Review

Ken Hanke
July 13, 2011
Ken Hanke, Mountain Xpress (Asheville, NC)

A difficult, long, sometimes brutal work that truly justifies the term 'epic' -- not in the overused sense that has come to mean big and loud -- in both vision and execution. Full Review

Emanuel Levy
February 1, 2007
Emanuel Levy, EmanuelLevy.Com

Restored to its original cut (180 minutes), Tarkovsky's glorious masterpiec, an epic yet personal tale about the conflict between artists and society, is justly considered as one of the most important... Full Review

Jay Antani
August 19, 2006
Jay Antani, Cinema Writer

A strange and most challenging film Full Review

Dennis Schwartz
February 13, 2006
Dennis Schwartz, Ozus' World Movie Reviews

One of the best films about an artist, if not the best. Full Review

Dan Jardine
February 17, 2005
Dan Jardine, Cinemania

A virulent assault on all that is wrong with Mother Russia, both past and present. One of the most significant movies of its (and all) time. Full Review

Steven D. Greydanus
October 27, 2004
Steven D. Greydanus, Decent Films Guide

The notion of art as a 'religious experience' is sometimes bandied about too freely. Tarkovsky is one of a handful of filmmakers for whom this ideal was no cheap metaphor. Full Review

Jamie Russell
July 3, 2004
Jamie Russell, BBC

Perfection lingers in each frame as Tarkovsky crafts one of the finest films ever made, an ecstatic story about art that has little interest in the artist himself, but in the power of art to transcend... Full Review

July 3, 2004
Empire Magazine

It's Tarkovsky's lighter touches, coupled with his majestic vision, that makes Andrei Rublev such compulsive viewing some 25 years after its original release. Full Review

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

More Like This


Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • Il Decameron (The Decameron)
    Il Decameron (The Decameron) (50%)
  • Tijuana Makes Me Happy
    Tijuana Makes Me Happy (100%)
  • The Last Temptation of Christ
    The Last Temptation of Christ (80%)
  • Ironclad
    Ironclad (100%)

Facts


No facts approved yet. Be the first

Andrei Rublev : Watch Free on TV


Movie Quizzes


No quizzes for Andrei Rublev. Want to create one?

Video Clips


No video clips yet. Want to upload one?

Recent News


No recent headlines. Got one?

Recent Lists


Most Popular Skin


No skins yet. Interested in creating one?