--- title: "Andrei Rublev: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/andrei-rublev/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/andrei-rublev" critics_score: 80 critics_reviews: 9 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): what the critics said Critics' score 80 from 9 reviews: 8 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative. 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. ## Radio Times — David Parkinson Rating 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 the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-m7etjf/andrei-rublev/) ## Slant Magazine — Jake Cole Rating 4.5/5. 18 September 2018. 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 the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/andrei-rublev-bd/) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 24 August 2018. 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 the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/mcenroe-in-the-realm-of-perfection-and-the-tennis-star-as-existential-hero) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 16 August 1973. 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 the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/20/andrei-rublev-tarkovsky-arthouse-review) ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 4/5. 2 July 2004. 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 the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/andrei-rublev-review/) ## Empire — David Parkinson Fi1m's normalised score 78/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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 the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/andrei-rublev-review/) ## Time Out Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 15 March 2012. 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 the review](https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/andrei-rublev) ## Los Angeles Times — ERNESTO LECHNER Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 18 February 1999. 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 the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-feb-18-ca-9189-story.html) ## Eye for Film — Keith Hennessey Brown Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 28 February 2002. 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 the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/andrei-rublev-film-review-by-keith-hennessey-brown) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/andrei-rublev.md