MovieChat Forums > Offret (1986) Discussion > Touching, yet boring

Touching, yet boring

posted 17 years ago by Trouter2000
12 replies | jump to latest

The Sacrifice was a film I had been wanting to see for some time, and when I found it for 50% off I knew I couldn't pass it up. So I bought it, and put it in the next day.

I was amazed at the depth of the film; pared with its stunning cinematography. The beauty alone sets it apart from almost anything coming out today. The plot I found was quite touching on some levels, yet not so moving on others. It worked with me, but not as well as it worked with some other people. I sort of found that in my youth it was hard to relate to Alexander's character completely, and though I felt plenty of sympathy, I lacked the empathy to be truly moved by the picture.

I am really glad I had a chance to see it, and will at some point view it again. I liked it quite a lot, but there were parts that frankly bored me a bit. Tarkovsky isn't easy, but I find that I can work well with ambiguity and symbolism, given I am in the right frame of mind. I look forward to getting a chance to see Stalker and The Mirror.

What is everybody else's take on The Sacrifice? Thumbs up or down, or maybe a bit of both like me?

[–] guidofellini 17 years ago

It gets better with each viewing.

- Who is God ?
- When you close your eyes and make a wish, God is the one who doesn't care about.

[–] Apollinaire 17 years ago

Trouter, Guidofellenis post sums it up; The Sacrifice is probably AT´s least entertaining film. I love it, but the first time I saw it I respected it, but was bored with it, just like you. Now it is possibly my favorite film.
See Stalker too! I´m blessed because I haven´t seen Mirror yet, and the experience is still ahead of me.

sdfvfdvnkdnv

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mjensen-3 17 years ago

How was this boring?? It went by very quickly for me. The only Tarkovsky film that nearly bored me, was "Andrei Rublev." But now I love that film, after two more viewings with the 205 minute version(Criterion Collection). So you should give "The Sacrifice" another viewing. I didn't find it boring at all. I related to the protaganist, and I do ask some of the questions that he presented. The performances were damn near perfect. The paceing was very smooth, and it is probably the most beautiful film that I have ever seen.

This film is a 10/10 in my book.

Last Films seen:
The Sacrifice(1986)- 10/10
3:10 To Yuma(2007)- 9/10

[–] Trouter2000 17 years ago

It was my first Tarkovsky and I saw it quite some time ago, so I feel differently now, after being accustomed to Tarkovsky.
I guess my initial reaction to the film was unexpected, because I had never before encountered Tarkovsky's cinema and didn't know what to expect of him. It was easily one of the most profound films I had ever seen, but it had a quality I was not used to.

I've since watched it and it becomes better and better with each viewing. Definatly not Tarkovsky's best, but a masterpiece regardless. I found it to be deep, meaningful and ultimately redemptive. One of the greatest films to top of one of the greatest careers in the history of cinema. Having seen all of Tarkovsky's films with the exception of Nonstahlgia, I can quite honestly say I think he is second greatest or greatest the world has ever seen.

If I could rank his films I would say:

Andrei Rublev
Stalker
Solyaris
The Sacrifice
The Mirror
Ivan's Childhood

All masterpieces in every respect.

Last film seen: The Mirror 9/10

[–] mjensen-3 17 years ago

I think my preparation for Tarkovsky, came from Terrence Malick. I was already use to these type of films, that use images as a protaganist, while letting the characters give the audience a connection. And the slow pace of most of Stanley Kubrick's films, were also a big help for my preparation. His films might be slow, but they are always rewarding. The only film that bores me to tears, is Peter Jacksons "King Kong." I don't know why that film bores me, while Tarkovsky's films excite me. I have no answers for that. The only Tarkovsky film that tested my attention span, would have to be "Andrei Rublev." But that's funny, because the 205 minute version was able to keep my attention span, and I loved every minute of it. I did not move, yawn, or get annoyed at all. That's kinda weird, because I could barely stay awake during the shorter cut. Why??

Last Films seen:
The Sacrifice(1986)- 10/10
3:10 To Yuma(2007)- 9/10

[–] Trouter2000 17 years ago

I think my preparation for Tarkovsky, came from Terrence Malick. I was already use to these type of films, that use images as a protaganist, while letting the characters give the audience a connection.

I saw half of the Thin Red Line before the satellite went out, and from what I saw I liked. A very well made war film, different then Saving Private Ryan, but perhaps even better. I will at some point watch it fully, as well as Badlands and The New World. I love Tarkovsky, so I think Malick will be a great discovery .

And the slow pace of most of Stanley Kubrick's films, were also a big help for my preparation. His films might be slow, but they are always rewarding.

Kubrick's films are certainly not fast-paced in respect to filmmakers like Woo or Cameron, but their are slower directors out there. Robert Bresson and Jean Renoir are very slow paced (a lot of French cinema is), though less rewarding then Kubrick.

The only film that bores me to tears, is Peter Jacksons "King Kong."

King Kong really was one I was glad to see at the cinema, otherwise it would have probably ended up being a simply boring exercise in CGI. Still 7/10 for the effects and nod to a classic seemed fair to me.

I think some of the most boring films I have ever had to sit through were probably John Wayne's early 1920s films. They're just horrible, and he hadn't even developed into a real actor at that point.

The only Tarkovsky film that tested my attention span, would have to be "Andrei Rublev." But that's funny, because the 205 minute version was able to keep my attention span, and I loved every minute of it. I did not move, yawn, or get annoyed at all. That's kinda weird, because I could barely stay awake during the shorter cut. Why??

Well if you see a film twice with a fair amount of time in between its fair to say that your taste could change through other films. I initially didn't like Goodfellas, but when I watched it again I really liked it and upped my rating quite a bit. The best films get better and better with multiple viewings . It could have a lot to do with picture quality as well, I think a lot of what I disliked with Blade Runner was the poor picture quality, and the same may apply to you and Rublev.

Last film seen: The Mirror 9/10

[–] mjensen-3 17 years ago

<<<<I saw half of the Thin Red Line before the satellite went out, and from what I saw I liked. A very well made war film, different then Saving Private Ryan, but perhaps even better. I will at some point watch it fully, as well as Badlands and The New World. I love Tarkovsky, so I think Malick will be a great discovery>>>>

You should also check out "Days of Heaven." It's more conventional than "The New World", but it is a flawless gem.

<<<<King Kong really was one I was glad to see at the cinema, otherwise it would have probably ended up being a simply boring exercise in CGI. Still 7/10 for the effects and nod to a classic seemed fair to me>>>>

I saw it at the theatre as well, and nearly fell asleep during the first hour. It had some intensity, but no excitement at all. I gave it a 4, or a 5/10. I liked the visuals, Noami Watts, and Andy Serkis, but it was just an attempt at boredom. And I didn't like the classic that much either. I gave that one a 6/10. I'm just not a "King Kong" fan.

<<<<I think some of the most boring films I have ever had to sit through were probably John Wayne's early 1920s films. They're just horrible, and he hadn't even developed into a real actor at that point>>>>

Really?? I'v heard better things about those films, than from what I'v heard about "The Searchers." But then again, I don't really care about John Wayne. So thanks for the heads up.

<<<<Well if you see a film twice with a fair amount of time in between its fair to say that your taste could change through other films. I initially didn't like Goodfellas, but when I watched it again I really liked it and upped my rating quite a bit. The best films get better and better with multiple viewings . It could have a lot to do with picture quality as well, I think a lot of what I disliked with Blade Runner was the poor picture quality, and the same may apply to you and Rublev>>>>

You're probably right. Because I saw the shorter version of "Andrei Rublev", on VHS. Which was very poor quality. The film is also very unconventional, so I wasn't ready for that either. Tarkovsky does not focuse too much on the protaganist, he just focuses more on Russia, and it's people. Andrei Rublev is mostly talked about, and this is not usually done in epics. I wasn't prepared, and the quality of the VHS sucked balls. So during my second viewing, it was with the 205 minute version, that is also the Criterion Collection. The quality is astonishing. You can see everything. The cinematography is so perfect. You can see that Tarkovsky knew what beauty was, because "Andrei Rublev" looks like a f ucking diamond on Dvd. I hope his other films will get in the Criterion Collection. I like KINO, but they could be better IMO. And maybe you're right. Maybe my taste has grown since my first viewing, but I just think it's funny, that I wasn't able to take my eyes off of the longer cut. While getting bored with the shorter cut. Strange.

But you should definity see "Blade Runner" in the best possible way. Whether at the theatres, or on Blue Ray. Just get a good television, a good sound set, and watch the film in all it's glory. Watch it at night, and turn off the lights. That's what I do. I never watch "Blade Runner" at night.

Last Films seen:
The Sacrifice(1986)- 10/10
3:10 To Yuma(2007)- 9/10

[–] Trouter2000 17 years ago

You should also check out "Days of Heaven." It's more conventional than "The New World", but it is a flawless gem.

I'll add it to my rental list .

I saw it at the theatre as well, and nearly fell asleep during the first hour. It had some intensity, but no excitement at all. I gave it a 4, or a 5/10. I liked the visuals, Noami Watts, and Andy Serkis, but it was just an attempt at boredom. And I didn't like the classic that much either. I gave that one a 6/10. I'm just not a "King Kong" fan.

It was certainly a poorly paced film (part of why I was shocked to hear of an extended director's cut), but I think visually it represented the best of what modern CGI is capable of. Its not LoTR, but it has its moments.

The original is a classic in every sense, basically the first big monster movie. It looks a little silly in the modern age, but I found it tasteful within its context (1933).

Really?? I'v heard better things about those films, than from what I'v heard about "The Searchers." But then again, I don't really care about John Wayne. So thanks for the heads up.

Your probably thinking of his films AFTER Stagecoach, when him and John Ford began a collaboration. When I talk about seriously bad films I'm talking films when he was basically a nobody. Ever hear of these?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0026273/

http://imdb.com/title/tt0025373/

[url]http://imdb.com/title/tt0024516/[/url

Just awful in every respect. Avoid them if you can.

If you want a really good John Wayne film that has a very different flavor then The Searchers try The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. I think you'll like it a lot better .

You're probably right. Because I saw the shorter version of "Andrei Rublev", on VHS. Which was very poor quality. The film is also very unconventional, so I wasn't ready for that either. Tarkovsky does not focuse too much on the protaganist, he just focuses more on Russia, and it's people. Andrei Rublev is mostly talked about, and this is not usually done in epics. I wasn't prepared, and the quality of the VHS sucked balls. So during my second viewing, it was with the 205 minute version, that is also the Criterion Collection. The quality is astonishing. You can see everything. The cinematography is so perfect. You can see that Tarkovsky knew what beauty was, because "Andrei Rublev" looks like a f ucking diamond on Dvd. I hope his other films will get in the Criterion Collection. I like KINO, but they could be better IMO.

I think it is because Tarkovsky looks less at Rublev, and more on the harshness of the times, he is able to make the film so easy to love. Its about the artist, but it goes past this, its about everyone's individual need of making sense of things in a harsh world, and to use what they have to glorify God. Its so deeply moving because it is able to offer real sense of life. Life isn't always conventional and moving in one direction, it takes place in episodes we remember later on in life. Sure its straightforward on the surface, but what we do that really matters takes place in episodes, it doesn't all happen at once. I think because Tarkovsky is able to show these memorable episodes of defeat and redemption without sticking to a conventional plot, shows that he had a real sense of what he was doing. Each image offers a deep philosophical point, each episode offers another, and in the end the film offers its own message. Its as if a hundred pieces of wisdom and beauty were woven together to celebrate art itself.

I like criterion as well; I own about 45 of their titles (including boxed sets), and I always look forward to getting my next one. Their certainly my most expensive hobby . Kino has great picture quality, but often I find the menus and setup annoying, and their subtitles can be somewhat off kilter. Still I'm glad they're around to release stuff like Tarkovsky that Criterion hasn't gotten around to. I just wish one of these guys would release Nonsthalgia sometime soon!

But you should definity see "Blade Runner" in the best possible way. Whether at the theatres, or on Blue Ray. Just get a good television, a good sound set, and watch the film in all it's glory. Watch it at night, and turn off the lights. That's what I do. I never watch "Blade Runner" at night.

I'll get my chance when they are re-released. Not sure which version I should rent, probably the director's cut, though I have heard debate on which version is better. I will give it another go when I can get a hold of a good copy.

Last film seen: The Mirror 9/10

[–] mjensen-3 17 years ago

<<<<I've since watched it and it becomes better and better with each viewing. Definatly not Tarkovsky's best, but a masterpiece regardless. I found it to be deep, meaningful and ultimately redemptive. One of the greatest films to top of one of the greatest careers in the history of cinema. Having seen all of Tarkovsky's films with the exception of Nonstahlgia, I can quite honestly say I think he is second greatest or greatest the world has ever seen>>>>

I agree.

Last Films seen:
The Sacrifice(1986)- 10/10
3:10 To Yuma(2007)- 9/10

[–] Kinematico 17 years ago

I wouldn't call it boring, but certainly it's hard to follow.
Some critics have said that Tarkovsky not only borrowed the facilities and crew (even part of the cast) from Ingmar Bergman, but also his gloomy vision.
I am not sure about it since I am relatively new with Tarkovsky's films, having watched only a few of them: The Mirror, Solyaris, Voyage in Time and this one.
In the other hand I know much better Bergman's works and certainly there are some similarities in the tone and feeling of the movie with some of Ingmar's works like The Seventh Seal or Skammen.
Tarkovsky maybe follows a different path but seems to be also in a constant quest for the spiritual side of the human being, and depicts the war like a sword that is pending eternally over our heads threatening with destroying civilization.

But I have to watch more Tarkovsky's films in order to understand him and his philosophy better. For what I've seen, it's hard to understand his world, precisely because it's HIS world. Filled with his dreams, memories, ideas and feelings.
Watching this movie made me feel like a guest invited by a generous host who nonetheless remains as a complete strange for me. I hope to frequent more often Tarkovsky's world from now on.
Few directors are as Tarkovsy himself said: "poets". He is one of them. No doubt about it.

Boring? not at all, hard to follow and puzzling? yes (although not as puzzling as "Zerkalo")

[–] munspel 13 years ago

"But I have to watch more Tarkovsky's films in order to understand him and his philosophy better. For what I've seen, it's hard to understand his world, precisely because it's HIS world. Filled with his dreams, memories, ideas and feelings.
Watching this movie made me feel like a guest invited by a generous host who nonetheless remains as a complete strange for me. I hope to frequent more often Tarkovsky's world from now on.
Few directors are as Tarkovsy himself said: "poets". He is one of them. No doubt about it."

This is exactly how I feel too.