Damn it some one answer me! This is the kind of thing that turns people into crazed killers!
ooh, boiled egg. sorry Eggman, haven’t seen it yet.
Eggman – get it by all means. I have the Criterion edition and it is great. Don’t hesitate!
I look forward to answers on this. I was about to buy this edition and have read good things about it, Egg. I watched some clips from it on google video and the print looks great. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare5/andreirublev.htm
I just came back to post the same link but Mark beat me to it. It’s a helpful overview of the different editions and basically argues that the european edition has some pluses and the CC edition some pluses as well as far as images since they’re from different prints. The CC edition is the only one that restores all the original footage. I find if I’m divided on which edition to get I’ll google the title along with ‘dvd review’ and I’ll often get a couple of sites like that one that provide a good comparison.
i SAY WAIT I have the criterion also but it is not anamorphic and I believe there is a more complete European DVD which easily accessible. This is a title Criterion will surely revisit soon enough to upgrade it for BD. Wait Eggman, let me see if I can find where that other version is from. Waiiiiiiiiit!!!!
see comparison here and make an educated choice; http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare5/andreirublev.htm
Rent it if you need to watch the film right now.
Don’t buy anything until the Criterion re-release (most likely on blu-ray) which is coming at some point, hopefully this year. It’s been an announced re-release for a while now, so who knows when it’s actually coming.
Its awesome. its also the longest version that you will find of the film.
I have only seen the Criterion version so i do not know. What i do know is Andrei Rublev is probably one of my top 5 films of all time. However it is not a very good transfer and i would love to find a better one.
Yes go for it, there is no better version out there from what I know….
Sorry I just read Brandon’s post and would recommend waiting for the blu-ray which could have more features….
blu-ray or DVD, the movie is sure gonna knock the yolk out of you Eggman :))
I have no plans to get blu-ray. Technology will never make a tv viewing experience equal that of a theater, so since I’m resigned to watching most of my films at home anyway, I’m happy with the clarity I have now. They’re just going to make blu-ray obsolete in six months to a few years anyhow.
Andrei Rublev is #34 in the Criterion Collection. That tells you a lot about how good the film must be.
A wonderful brilliant beautiful film that really is in DIRE NEED of remastering from the folks at Criterion. As noted the current DVD is not anamorphic. The transfer was quite good when it was first released, it was by far the best available, they can do so much better now that they really should just drop everything and do it. I mean really, LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD gets priority over ANDREI RUBLEV?
I dunno; The King of Comedy, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and The Cars that Ate Paris are on the line. Shouldn’t I just wait for an Andrei Rublev re release.
Where exactly is this information regarding a blue ray release that you all keep quoting? I’m pretty well versed in CC information, and I’ve heard nothing about any plans to blue-ray this one. I have heard a RUMOR (albeit 2 years ago) that this would be re-released in the near future, however there seems to still be no definitive information on that. And what exactly is the fixation with anamorphic? I think CC does a fantastic job on each of their transfers and you should really be happy to have the ability to own this title rather than squabble over all these extraneous technical details.
I spend a whopping amount of time on this forum and I can’t help but notice a trend to complain over transfers; regardless of what CC releases, it’s never enough and it’s never good enough for all you elite film scholars. I have a phd in film, an mfa in film history and work for CC collection myself and you guys are incredible. I’m just happy to have the chance to own these films. CC restores everything to the best possible transfer, so I’m always content with each new release. Then again, I’m not there anxious and waiting to pick it apart from the cover art down to the layout for the enclosed booklets. Gripe Gripe Gripe. It’s amazing you have time to actually watch these films.
“extraneous technical details”
???
Cinesnag. You call not being an anamorphic transfer an extraneous technical detail? I think you should watch it on a 16×9 tv and see if you think it looks good. It may look fine on a standard 1973 Victrola RCA POS, but it’s going to look awful on any modern widescreen tv. Hopefully that’s not asking Criterion for that much is it? There is a huge difference. The studios have been releasing pretty much all dvds as anamorphic since the early 2000’s, and if there is any chance that it’s coming out in the near future, I’d say rent it until then.
I myself have three editions of the movie – by Mosfilm, by Russian Cinema Council and this one by Criterion. First of all i must say that this is exactly one of those rare cases when “longer” doesn`t mean “better”. It was not strict soviet censors who cut the movie, it was Tarkovsky himself who cut it according to his own decision and he strongly recommended watching the theater version as you may see from the interviews he gave. I have a great respect for people in Criterion for all their fantastic work they do restoring movies but this copy of the film that was transferred into digital form was also very far from perfection so i think that one should wait untill they re release the movie in blu ray or in dvd using other copy of the original.
@Justin (and anyone else who still prefers traveling by carriage over Concord):
Bloody studios, always trying to increase the quality of our viewing experience! Fight the power, brother!
Blu-ray has transformed me into a miserable snob. I literally can’t even watch a film anymore unless the bitrate is over 15 Mbps.
Stay inside the Matrix. Ignorance really is bliss!
I’ve been watching vhs tapes for almost a year now because I only recently replaced my broken dvd player. I’ll watch anything as long as I can see the picture, if it’s something I want to see or if I need a movie. All the bitrates in the world will never replicate the movie theater experience in your living room, I’m sorry. You’re really better off saving your money and watching something again and again, however many times it takes, to get as full as possible an experience of it.
Justin-If I used you’re rationization I might as well listen to a symphony on a transistor radio. I mean, why bother with a good stereo system if you can’t replicate the sound of a concert hall in your living room. VHS tapes look and sound terrible and are usually in full screen.
Well, Steve you might be stuck today with a limited, poor man’s tech system (god forbid) and then what do you do? Give us watching or listening entirely? For me that wasn’t an option. And in spite of Scorsese’s anal-retentive crusade against pan and scan, a reasonably attentive viewer can follow the film without missing much. I maintain this. It’s like one of the heinous questions they used to ask in that evil game Scruples — If you absolutely had to choose one or the other, would you rather be blind or deaf? Well, neither one of course, but then again, there are worse handicaps than full screen. Now, having said, now that I’ve got my new flatscreen tv w/dvd player I am more picky about what I buy and watch. I avoid scuffed up used dvds so as not to damage the lens. I prefer things as new or pristine as possible. So I’m kind of a snob myself. But would I give up movies altogether just because I can’t afford the latest blu-ray gimmick — which, trust me, is already as planned-obsolescent as the laser disc? Hell no. If you don’t get that, then maybe you’re just not the movie junkie I am.
Anyway, where will you find Dishonored, Shanghai Express, Blonde Venus, The Devil is a Woman, The Devil Probably, Cruel Story of Youth, Johnny Guitar, The Addiction, Two Small Bodies, Little Boy Blue, Shadow of Angels, Despair and a whole host of other phenomenol films except on vhs? I am still not giving up my vhs player even though I do want to take a break from the neck and eye strain from a long while, as I wallow in the beautiful h-d pic of my flatscreen.
Final note, many classics were made prior to the widescreen ratio, so it almost doesn’t matter there. A silent film, a film from the 30s or 40s, you’re not missing anything really. A lot of pre-60s films are monaural. It is what it is. I’m not anal-retentive about stuff like that — in a great film, there’s so much to absorb and pay attention to, that it keeps me busy enough.
For the love of the children, Justin, please stop embarrassing yourself.
I’ve become slightly spoiled by blu-ray as well, to the point where dvd transfers that looked fine to me a few years ago are now distractingly bad.
However, as a true lover of cinema, like Justin is saying above, I’ve watched and enjoyed countless great films in all manner of horrible condition. It’s the price you have to pay when you’re digging through the attic of film-history to find things that aren’t currently (or never will be) released in 1080p, anamorphic, 7.1 deluxe editions.
I also currently have a VCR connected to my hdtv, alongside the more modern marvels of technology.
Samuryan, please keep snideness out of this discussion. Is it really so heretical what I’m saying? If you are so locked into the latest gadget, then I think that’s an embarrassment, a conspicuous consumption that has nothing to do with art. UNLESS YOU ARE WATCHING THESE FILMS IN ACTUAL MOVIE THEATERS, YOU WILL ALWAYS BE MISSING SOMETHING. The compromises I’ve made have yielded numerous published film essays which shows I’m hardly wanking off in a void here. God save me from bitchy comments that have neither backbone nor anything in particular to say.
Sometimes I think many of our members aspire to be Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones) in Oliver Stone’s JFK, supercilious as an oil slick, coveting the “best things in life” even while missing out that life is about being human first and foremost. Listen to Rock and Roll by the Velvet Underground —
Jenny said when she was just five years old
there was nothing happening at all.
Two tv sets with blu-ray dvds,
well baby they won’t help you at all.
Then one fine morning she watched L’Atalante by Vigo,
she couldn’t believe what she saw at all!
She fell in love with all those fine fine images,
her life was saved by not being high-tech anal!
I’m sorry if I’m coming off as snide, that really isn’t my intention, Justin.
Cinema is a visual art. What you call “conspicuous consumption,” is actually an earnest effort to preserve film in its truest form; the form intended by the artists who created it. It’s called “respect,” mate. People like you are sending a message to studios that it’s OK to have their way with the art as long as we get the sloppy seconds.
Oh, I have no doubt that you cherish cinema. Kind of like Chris Brown cherishes Rihanna.
(And don’t get your knickers in such a bunch, mate, I’m just having a laugh. Mostly.)
Arrrrrggggghhhh! Who wants it?!! It goes only to the highest bidder!
It’s that “mostly” that bugs me. And whose knickers are in a bunch here? I don’t recall initiating this debate. What did I ever do to you Samuryan? Am I too brash, too definite in my opinions? What? You’ve really been needling me — I’m the wife beater of cinema, I am in a state of blissful ignorance, I’m embarrassing myself, and I’m the retarded janitor bopping to a scratchy transistor. What gives, Samuryan? Please be a little more straightforward with me, since I appreciate that a lot more than these sarcarcastic, over-the-top, and yes, snide hit-and-runs. You know, and please don’t take this the wrong way, but “being bitchy” does not equal being clever or intelligent.
I’m sorry, Justin. I honestly did not mean to go after you, but in reviewing our recent “conversation,” I’m definitely coming off as a bit “bitchy.” I warned you at the outset that blu-ray had turned me into a miserable snob.
My apologies, brother. Especially for my petty jests implying that you dishonour the cinema. Indeed, I have enjoyed many of your comments and insights here at The Auteurs, and know that you are as pure a cineaste as one is likely to find in these forums.
And poor Eggman just wants to know whether or not to pick up the damn film. It seems that our disagreement may, in fact, provide him with the answer.
If you want a masterful transfer, hold off.
If you want a masterful film, what the hell are you waiting for?
I’ll sell you mine if you want it. The disc has scratches, and it comes in a Blockbuster case without the liner notes, though.
Eggman
I hear this DVD (Andrei Rublev) is a substandard Criterion outing and technically inferior to other versions. If I buy it I can’t buy anything else. I have never seen it but I hear it is fantastic. Should I buy this or compromise it over some of my favorites?