Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Tgrain Tarkovsky: you either love him or hate him. It's imperative to understand that Tarkovsky is more about mood and imagery than strong driving narrative, although it's untrue that this film lacks narrative (unlike Mirror which is simply a collection of scenes). The story is there in Nostalgia: the characters are all real and fight for their needs and wants - there is conflict. But Tarkovsky is more interested in the feeling of the story rather than clearly communicating plot information and keeping you locked into classical narrative structure.VERY few filmmakers can do this well, and countless filmmakers try to imitate Tarkovsky and miserably fail, partly because they don't understand that there is a real story happening here - it's just presented in a way that is highly allegorical. This is definitely not 'lazy' filmmaking, or style covering for a lack of technique (Tarkovsky was a highly literate man who could run circles around most Hollywood scriptwriters, and he had the services of Antonioni's screenwriter for Nostalgia). He is simply one of the very few filmmakers who can make a good film without adhering to classical narrative film structure.As is traditional for Tarkovsky, the actors are all top notch, the cinematography is divine, the sound design is intentional and the music is very judiciously chosen. Nothing is left to chance. And yes, of course there is plenty of water, as with his other films! Would I have enjoyed a more traditional narrative format for a film like this? Yes, which is why I gave this film only seven stars. Tarkovsky could have done a bit more to keep us involved in the story without compromising the mood he was building. But I still gladly accept this film for what it is - it has some absolutely magical, brilliant moments that forever stay in your mind.If you're new to Tarkovsky, it's probably a better idea to start with some of his more accessible films, such as Ivan's Childhood and Solaris.

mvanhoore Before making an art house film check the following ingredients:A lot of camera movements behind pillars, columns and walls Add a lot of fog and smoke to create a mystic mood During dialogue film the person speaking on his back or don't show people at all Don't forget a little bit of nudity from the leading female character but not too much to avoid vulgarity Make sure there is a plot but don't use it during the film And of course the madman who turns out to be the wisest man on earthNostalghia is the kind of film that uses this and other clichés of art house in such a way that the movie is boring as hell. The plot is about a Russian poet looking for traces of a Russian composer who lived in Italy some centuries before. We learn nothing specific about the poet and the composer except that they both suffer from homesickness. And of course the director projects his own longing for Russia on his protagonist and the object of his study. The only thing that saves the film is the talent of Tarkovsky to shoot beautiful scenes. There is a camera movement from an arcade to a healing pool that is absolutely breathtaking. The scene where the poet is in the house of the madman and the rain is pouring through the roof is gorgeously filmed. And I never will forget the scene where the madman is standing on the statue of a Roman emperor and his horse (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the name of the emperor) and shouting his thoughts to an apathetic crowd. Those scenes are worth it to watch over and over again but you have to suffer all the other endless scenes with static camera where absolutely nothing happens or nothing interesting is said.One of the strangest incidents taking place is the suicide of the madman. I missed the clue why this should be in the script completely. Except for that Tarkovsky would show us how people are manipulated and used for other people's agenda. But it has nothing to do with the main theme which is the longing for your home ground. The final scenes where the poet is fulfilling a promise to the madman and finally collapse because of a failing heart are beautiful. A lot had been said about the final scenes were the poet is shown in front of his house in Russia which is placed in the ruin of an Italian cathedral. His love for both worlds are united here as he reached his heaven.Tarkovsky showed us a lot of things in this film what made him a unique director. For its screenplay (also by Tarkovsky) this movie is much less successful. I was left with the feeling that a chance of a masterpiece was missed here.

kurosawakira Tarkovsky's my first real love. This man's films felt as if they were drawn directly from my own soul, image form given to my own dreams. His camera-eye is marvelously free, even here where mostly it moves so geometrically to put Greena-way to shame, or then just observing, silently and without moving. This isn't like "Andrei Rublev" (1966), which deep down I still cherish more than anything, and where the eye moves much like Malick likes to move it nowadays: here there's apparent discipline, kind of theoretical rumination in all the eye does and perceives, but it's of such beauty I dare one to ignore it. One may see this in how he sees small, every day things either up close or far away — light paints and shadows frame the action, which usually consists of us gazing upon a scene far in the distance. Surely the poet mirrors Tarkovsky and what he does. It's Andrei (Gorchakov, the poet in the film) who carries the candle the distance but it's Andrei (Tarkovsky, the director) who carries it for us to see.The famous forced perspective shot in the end is worth its reputation, but for me the interiors are the most breathtaking shots. This is great to see before "Offret" (1986) but especially after "Zerkalo" (1975). The former has, over the years, been unable to elicit the kind of reaction Tarkovsky usually does (it's his most difficult film for me for that reason, by no means reduced in mastery) so this kindles its flame. The latter, however, is as perfect as it gets, and stretches out to this as well, annotating, amplifying, extending.

hassan-sahili I've read comments written before, And I'm surprised how some people are criticizing the movie,and I think that they have to read some good deep poetry before trying to criticize the film, and I'm sure that they will not understand it too! This man is a poet, he writes images and metaphors, so he can make poetic films too! So If you are not interested in poetry you can simply don't watch the movie !And If you are interested in such thing ! You can enjoy hundreds of metaphors ,allegories, and symbolical images, You can see clearly then the philosophy of Andrei..And you can Enjoy that depressed view(most of the times) about Life , Children , Love , and that reaction toward the people who always deal with him like a stranger... But Is he really a stranger ?? Or people are the real strangers ?? and that lead to a question ,that if he is a real stranger , does that mean that he is wrong !??And We can't forget his reaction toward leaving his country , and how he feels uncomfortable , like living in a high place where there is less oxygen ! That place which he can't never find real own peace in!