Tarkovsky is incredible

[Zipper]

I could go on and on about bad movies..., which I was doing.  

You serious? Get outta here! They are good movies. They even have official approval from the Russian "Required Watching or Else" Department. Ha! Bet you feel REAL stupid after hearing that.

They are truly puzzling for the layperson and layered with language barriers as well. Like a lot of art, they have a tendency to meaninglessly revel in themselves with superficial dialogue, narcissism, haughty trickery, silly pretending and untranslatable narrative. I can see why a viewer would score upon that.

Interestingly, for a Soviet (and later defector) filmmaker, there's little direct mention of government. You'd expect the hammer and sickle on every other scene under that environment. On the other hand, we tend to do that a lot in our own films - lots of stars and stripes. What can we learn? Great film doesn't need a flag.

[RCMerchant]

I said it was bad and boring. Nothing to do with politics.
Why are you so upset that I don't agree about a film or films?
I'm sure many folks find VAMPYR (1932) to be pretentious and boring. I myself, love it.
I just don't like endless naval gazing in films.

[Allhallowsday]

Yes and no. The viewer may understand Tarkovsky's point, but simply not agree that it is rewarding or worthwhile. I think the pacing makes it obvious why the masses don't appreciate Tarkovsky.

Hmm, again if one would use the phrasing "pacing", it's curious if they are on the same page. ...

I haven't looked at much of TARKOVSKY, but I'm liable to now.  I have always found certain films what I call "motionless" which of course they're  not.  I like 2001, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, ENDLESS SUMMER, BARRY LYNDON... all films that have long sequences of viewing that are hypnotic.  I often like films that others find boring. 

[Rev. Powell]

Yes and no. The viewer may understand Tarkovsky's point, but simply not agree that it is rewarding or worthwhile. I think the pacing makes it obvious why the masses don't appreciate Tarkovsky.

Hmm, again if one would use the phrasing "pacing", it's curious if they are on the same page. ...

I haven't looked at much of TARKOVSKY, but I'm liable to now.  I have always found certain films what I call "motionless" which of course they're  not.  I like 2001, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, ENDLESS SUMMER, BARRY LYNDON... all films that have long sequences of viewing that are hypnotic.  I often like films that others find boring. 

You should definitely see SOLARIS and STALKER. Sci-fi classics in their way. SOLARIS was billed as Russia's 2001, Tarkovsky didn't appreciate the comparison, though.

[Allhallowsday]

Yes and no. The viewer may understand Tarkovsky's point, but simply not agree that it is rewarding or worthwhile. I think the pacing makes it obvious why the masses don't appreciate Tarkovsky.

Hmm, again if one would use the phrasing "pacing", it's curious if they are on the same page. ...

I haven't looked at much of TARKOVSKY, but I'm liable to now.  I have always found certain films what I call "motionless" which of course they're  not.  I like 2001, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, ENDLESS SUMMER, BARRY LYNDON... all films that have long sequences of viewing that are hypnotic.  I often like films that others find boring. 

You should definitely see SOLARIS and STALKER. Sci-fi classics in their way. SOLARIS was billed as Russia's 2001, Tarkovsky didn't appreciate the comparison, though.

I think TCM broadcast SOLARIS last year, I didn't see it. 

[chainsaw midget]

I think I tried to watch Solaris one time and lost interest.  It didn't leave much of an impression on me. 

Just because it's art doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Allhallowsday]

I think I tried to watch Solaris one time and lost interest.  It didn't leave much of an impression on me. 

Just because it's art doesn't mean I have to like it.

As I pointed out, SOLARIS was on TCM and I saw a few minutes.  I wasn't in the mood and it left no impression.