Tweet
A popular itulip Sci-Fi classic, given the Criterion treatment . . .
High-definition digital restoration Audio essay by Andrei Tarkovsky scholars Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie, coauthors of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue
Nine deleted and alternate scenes
Video interviews with actress Natalya Bondarchuk, cinematographer Vadim Yusov, art director Mikhail Romadin, and composer Eduard Artemyev
Excerpt from a documentary about Stanislaw Lem, the author of the film’s source novel
PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Phillip Lopate and an appreciation by director Akira Kurosawa
May 24 release date.
from an Amazon reviewer:
This film is long, poignant, interesting, haunting, dazzling to the eye, and actually quite scary. While watching it late one night, I found myself alone on the first floor of my house, and I must admit, I kept searching the room in fright after every little noise I heard. It's not a horror movie, but it rolls along at a slow, atmospheric, creepy-crawly pace.
One bonus of the film being so long with big spaces between dialogue, it gives you the opportunity to switch to the informative commentary track, to hear some interesting insight into the film. While most other movies you MUST watch it with the commentary off to be able to take it all in correctly, you can actually get away with switching back and forth without missing too much of the actual film.
I think the scenes on Earth are gorgeous and completely necessary. However, had they not been there like in the book, the movie would have been 2 hours instead of 2 hours and 40 minutes (a much easier time for mainstream audiences to grasp). I wouldn't trade it for a shorter run time at all. Tarkovsky is not a mainstream movie maker and thus the reason for him having these extra scenes on Earth, and he is still able to make a two hour film version of the book after that.
With the exception of Star Wars, many sci-fi films of the 60's and 70's (including Kubrick's 2001) went all out with Sci-Fi special effects, but then seeing them today, they still seem very outdated. Where this film had no special effects budget and minimal sets, I think it still holds up today without looking dated. The scenes on Earth could have all taken place right now, or 30 years from now without anyone doubting it. And the look of the space station's interior, albeit vague and minimal, still looks fresh and definitely wouldn't appear out of place in any current sci fi setting.
High-definition digital restoration Audio essay by Andrei Tarkovsky scholars Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie, coauthors of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue
Nine deleted and alternate scenes
Video interviews with actress Natalya Bondarchuk, cinematographer Vadim Yusov, art director Mikhail Romadin, and composer Eduard Artemyev
Excerpt from a documentary about Stanislaw Lem, the author of the film’s source novel
PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Phillip Lopate and an appreciation by director Akira Kurosawa
May 24 release date.
from an Amazon reviewer:
This film is long, poignant, interesting, haunting, dazzling to the eye, and actually quite scary. While watching it late one night, I found myself alone on the first floor of my house, and I must admit, I kept searching the room in fright after every little noise I heard. It's not a horror movie, but it rolls along at a slow, atmospheric, creepy-crawly pace.
One bonus of the film being so long with big spaces between dialogue, it gives you the opportunity to switch to the informative commentary track, to hear some interesting insight into the film. While most other movies you MUST watch it with the commentary off to be able to take it all in correctly, you can actually get away with switching back and forth without missing too much of the actual film.
I think the scenes on Earth are gorgeous and completely necessary. However, had they not been there like in the book, the movie would have been 2 hours instead of 2 hours and 40 minutes (a much easier time for mainstream audiences to grasp). I wouldn't trade it for a shorter run time at all. Tarkovsky is not a mainstream movie maker and thus the reason for him having these extra scenes on Earth, and he is still able to make a two hour film version of the book after that.
With the exception of Star Wars, many sci-fi films of the 60's and 70's (including Kubrick's 2001) went all out with Sci-Fi special effects, but then seeing them today, they still seem very outdated. Where this film had no special effects budget and minimal sets, I think it still holds up today without looking dated. The scenes on Earth could have all taken place right now, or 30 years from now without anyone doubting it. And the look of the space station's interior, albeit vague and minimal, still looks fresh and definitely wouldn't appear out of place in any current sci fi setting.
Comment