--- title: "Andrei Rublev" year: 1966 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/andrei-rublev" fi1m_id: "andrei-rublev" imdb_id: "tt0060107" tmdb_id: 895 wikidata_id: "Q503046" fi1m_score: 86 critics_score: 80 critics_reviews: 9 published: "2026-09-26T16:51:12.422048+00:00" updated: "2026-09-26T16:51:12.800339+00:00" region: "CA" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Andrei Rublev (1966) Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky · 3h 03m · Drama, History ## Identity Andrei Rublev - **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/andrei-rublev - **Type:** Film - **Fi1m ID:** andrei-rublev - **IMDb ID:** tt0060107 - **TMDB ID:** 895 - **Wikidata ID:** Q503046 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060107/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/895, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q503046 **Fi1m score: 86** · Critics 80 from 9 reviews *In a sentence:* A painter tries to work while everyone else makes that seem an unreasonable ambition > Andrei Tarkovsky’s portrait of an artist earns its demands through the humanity of Anatoly Solonitsyn and the force of Vadim Yusov’s images. Some symbolism remains stubbornly obscure, but we recommend giving it the time and attention it needs. ## Synopsis Andrei Rublev (Anatoly Solonitsyn) tries to make art amid violence and hardship. His story unfolds alongside those of Kirill (Ivan Lapikov), Daniil Chornyy (Mykola Hrynko) and Theophanus the Greek (Nikolay Sergeev). Around them, people suffer while continuing the business of living. Rublev has to consider what his paintings can offer the people whose lives he witnesses, and how he can keep working when those lives give him so much reason to doubt. Making art becomes bound up with a question he cannot put aside: how to live among others when their suffering makes his work seem inadequate. ## Review Andrei Tarkovsky’s *Andrei Rublev* is demanding, sometimes needlessly obscure, and worth the concentration it asks for. Its subject is an artist trying to work amid violence, and it takes that difficulty seriously without making him automatically admirable. At 183 minutes, it gives us ample time to consider how much use painting can be to people who are suffering. It also makes the question uncomfortable enough that we cannot settle for a reassuring answer about the importance of art. Anatoly Solonitsyn is central to that achievement. His Rublev seems vulnerable to what he sees, and the performance keeps the artist’s uncertainty from becoming an invitation to admire his sensitivity. We were moved by his struggle to continue working amid so much suffering, because Solonitsyn makes that persistence seem difficult to justify even to himself. The performance gives us someone to care about through passages where the film’s meaning is harder to follow. Vadim Yusov’s cinematography gives the crowded landscapes room to hold our attention; there is more to look at than the person carrying the story. The compositions reward that wandering eye, and the camera movements make us feel the extent of the world around Rublev. Production designers Sergey Voronkov, Evgeniy Chernyaev and Ippolit Novoderyozhkin help make those surroundings convincing as places where people live. We never feel that the scenery exists simply to flatter the artist. The sheer weight of the images can become tiring, however. Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov’s music sometimes seems to insist on a seriousness we have already understood, adding to that heaviness. This makes the lighter touches especially welcome: the film has room for people to be something other than miserable or significant. They make its humanity easier to believe, and prevent the solemnity from becoming uniform. The larger reservation is narrative clarity. Editors Olga Shevkunenko, Tatyana Egorycheva and Lyudmila Feiginova give the images time, but there are stretches where patience does not bring greater understanding. Tarkovsky’s symbolism can leave us puzzling over what an image means while losing touch with the person it concerns. We do not need everything explained, though the film occasionally leaves us wanting a clearer connection between its images and its people. For all that, the screenplay by Andrei Tarkovsky and Andrei Konchalovsky takes Rublev’s doubts seriously. Artist biographies often hurry to explain a talent, as though a handful of experiences can account for everything a person makes. Here, the question of whether Rublev can keep working is allowed to remain difficult, and the people around him do not exist merely to encourage him. That is a substantial reason to stay with the film when its symbolism becomes less persuasive. We recommend it warmly, with a firm caveat about the concentration it requires. There are passages we admire without fully understanding them, and a few where we would welcome less insistence on the mystery. Set aside an uninterrupted evening; this is not a film to fit around other plans. *Fi1m score 86, published 26 September 2026.* ## What the critics say Most critics respond warmly to Andrei Rublev, with praise clustering around Tarkovsky’s images and his portrait of an artist trying to work amid violence and hardship. The reviews repeatedly single out the compositions, camera movements and crowded landscapes, while also finding humanity, vitality and occasional lightness in a demanding film. Several describe its emotional force as the reward for staying with it, rather than treating its visual qualities as sufficient in themselves. The reservations concern length, difficulty and symbolism, though these usually qualify a recommendation rather than overturn it. Radio Times finds some of Tarkovsky’s symbolism impenetrable despite its enthusiastic verdict. The Los Angeles Times offers the clearest dissent, finding the film overlong and demanding while still admiring its imagery and daring. The spread is therefore wider in enthusiasm than in the assessment of the craft: even the least persuaded review finds much to admire on screen. ## Straight answers **Is Andrei Rublev worth watching?** *Andrei Rublev* is worth watching for patient viewers drawn to demanding historical drama, and we score it 86 out of 100. Anatoly Solonitsyn makes the painter’s struggle amid suffering moving, while Vadim Yusov’s images reward close attention. At 183 minutes, it needs an uninterrupted evening, with some symbolism remaining obscure even when we give it our full concentration. **How long is Andrei Rublev, and what is it rated?** *Andrei Rublev* runs 3h 03m. It is a drama and history film. **Where can I watch Andrei Rublev in Canada?** *Andrei Rublev* is not on any streaming or rental service in Canada at the moment. Availability is checked daily. **How violent or frightening is Andrei Rublev, and is it suitable for children?** *Andrei Rublev* has a UK 15 certificate and contains violence and sustained suffering, making it unsuitable for children under 15. We find its portrait of an artist living amid hardship emotionally demanding, with solemnity that can become tiring. Older teenagers comfortable with difficult historical drama are a more suitable audience than younger viewers. **How does Andrei Rublev compare to The Passion of Joan of Arc?** *Andrei Rublev* is the more sprawling, contemplative choice beside [*The Passion of Joan of Arc*](https://film.one/film/the-passion-of-joan-of-arc), which we recommend more confidently for its immediate human impact. Both make difficult questions of faith personal through a vulnerable central performance. Choose Dreyer’s film for the concentrated pressure of a church trial and exhausting close-ups; choose Tarkovsky’s for crowded landscapes and an artist’s prolonged doubts. **What should I watch after Andrei Rublev?** After *Andrei Rublev*, try [*The Passion of Joan of Arc*](https://film.one/film/the-passion-of-joan-of-arc) (1928, Fi1m 94): Another difficult encounter with faith, made immediate through an exposed human face. Then [*Ugetsu*](https://film.one/film/ugetsu) (1953, Fi1m 89): Another patient account of people trying to live while violence rearranges their lives; and [*Babette's Feast*](https://film.one/film/babettes-feast) (1987, Fi1m 86): A gentler consideration of what making something well can offer other people. ### Reviews we read (9) - **Radio Times**, David Parkinson (5/5): The critic calls it a remarkable, beautifully photographed study of Rublev’s struggle to create art amid violence and hardship. They praise its striking set pieces while faulting some of Tarkovsky’s symbolism as impenetrable. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-m7etjf/andrei-rublev/) - **Slant Magazine**, Jake Cole (4.5/5): Cole praises the Criterion edition as a definitive reissue of Tarkovsky’s magisterial epic. He singles out its restored image and sound quality, along with the extensive bonus features. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/andrei-rublev-bd/) - **The New Yorker**, Anthony Lane (90/100, inferred): Lane strongly recommends Tarkovsky’s film as an extraordinary, transporting work. He praises its vivid, elemental panorama of suffering and vitality, comparing its crowded landscapes to Bruegel. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/mcenroe-in-the-realm-of-perfection-and-the-tennis-star-as-existential-hero) - **The Guardian** (85/100, inferred): The review calls the film one of the best Soviet works and praises its subtlety. It singles out Tarkovsky’s focus on Rublev’s humanity as the key to its convincing portrait of an artist. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/20/andrei-rublev-tarkovsky-arthouse-review) - **Total Film**, Total Film (4/5): The review finds the film difficult to follow but ultimately deeply moving. It praises the finale, when Rublev’s paintings emerge in colour, as wondrous. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/andrei-rublev-review/) - **Empire**, David Parkinson (78/100, inferred): The review presents the film as compelling and enduring, praising Tarkovsky’s majestic vision. It singles out the film’s lighter touches and striking images as what make it such compulsive viewing. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/andrei-rublev-review/) - **Time Out** (70/100, inferred): The blurb treats the film’s length and obscure subject as no reason to dismiss it, signaling an approving verdict. It singles out the prolonged sequence of a boy attempting to cast a giant bell. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/andrei-rublev) - **Los Angeles Times**, ERNESTO LECHNER (50/100, inferred): The critic finds the film overlong and demanding, though visually gorgeous, innovative, and daring. He praises its striking imagery but complains that the DVD commentary explains too little about the film. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-feb-18-ca-9189-story.html) - **Eye for Film**, Keith Hennessey Brown (75/100, inferred): The critic finds the film demanding but ultimately rewarding, and says he would take it despite its uncompromising approach. He praises its compositions, camera movements, performances, cinematography, and the climactic montage of Rublev’s paintings. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/andrei-rublev-film-review-by-keith-hennessey-brown) ## Details - **Director:** Andrei Tarkovsky - **Director:** Andrei Tarkovsky - **Writer:** Andrei Konchalovsky, Andrei Tarkovsky - **Cinematography:** Vadim Yusov - **Editor:** Olga Shevkunenko, Tatyana Egorycheva, Lyudmila Feiginova - **Music:** Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov - **Production design:** Evgeniy Chernyaev, Ippolit Novoderyozhkin, Sergey Voronkov - **Costume design:** Maya Abar-Baranovskaya, Lidiya Novi - **Cast:** Anatoly Solonitsyn as Andrei Rublev; Ivan Lapikov as Kirill; Mykola Hrynko as Daniil Chornyy; Nikolay Sergeev as Theophanus the Greek; Irma Raush as God's Fool; Nikolay Burlyaev as Boriska; Yuriy Nazarov as Grand Duke / Minor Duke; Yuri Nikulin as Patrikey - **Runtime:** 3h 03m - **First release (SU):** 16 December 1966 - **Genres:** Drama, History - **Budget:** $1 million - **Box office:** $24,173 - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1d5FSyMEd8 ## Where to watch in Canada Not streaming, renting or buying in Canada at the last check. ## If you liked this - *The Passion of Joan of Arc* (1928), Fi1m 94: Another difficult encounter with faith, made immediate through an exposed human face. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-passion-of-joan-of-arc.md) - *Ugetsu* (1953), Fi1m 89: Another patient account of people trying to live while violence rearranges their lives. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/ugetsu.md) - *The Colour of Pomegranates* (1969): For the patient viewer who wants an artist’s life told through images. - *Babette's Feast* (1987), Fi1m 86: A gentler consideration of what making something well can offer other people. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/babettes-feast.md) - *Mr. Turner* (2014): A more earthbound painter, with stubbornness and daily work given proper attention. --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/andrei-rublev