Siskel & Ebert bventertainment... The Sacrifice (Swedish: Offret) is a 1986 film, and the final film by Russian film director Andrei Tarkovsky, who died shortly after completing it.
I love Tarkovsky - for me the greatest artist in film, and one of the great artists through time, but to an extent I do agree about Sacrifice being uneven. I don't think it has the flow of comparatively even Nostalghia, though of course there is plenty of Tarkovsky genius and beauty to the film. Tarkovsky's films aren't above criticism - for instance he wasn't happy with Solaris - that there is an awkwardness to the movement of plot to the film, & that marks The Sacrifice to a degree also.
@stalkek
10 жыл бұрын
***** I'd have thought Ivan's Childhood to be far more accessible than Solaris, much more straightforward in terms of story - and actually a better film. I'd also much prefer Andrei Rublev & Stalker to Solaris.
@stalkek
10 жыл бұрын
***** Not that I need someone else's opinion to validate my own but for what it's worth, Ingmar Bergman considered Tarkovsky the greatest filmmaker. Tobh no one else even comes close for me - his peaks are so far beyond everyone else.
@rekisrax7344
6 жыл бұрын
stalkek m
@KinchStalker
11 жыл бұрын
The picture quality is creepy...watch Ebert's face. RIP Roger & Gene
@JohnSmith-cw1lf
4 жыл бұрын
And the mask comes off
@tidesofthemoon
3 жыл бұрын
Perhaps it's the secretion of mankind's evil.
@Biggvs_dickvs
3 жыл бұрын
It's like the camera dropped acid.
@laika25
2 жыл бұрын
Haha, i saw that too
@laika25
2 жыл бұрын
Just saw this movie (on mubi, no pun, hehe) and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT!
@PJVids83
6 жыл бұрын
Ebert praises a film like The Sacrifice and suddenly he's one of the most thoughtful and articulate film critics who ever lived. Ebert dislikes a film like Blue Velvet and suddenly he's an empty headed bore that's far too sensitive to understand good art. Popular opinion and overall consensus are fickle at best.
@zachgoff7796
3 жыл бұрын
So you call him an “empty headed bore” whenever he disagrees with you. I think that says more about you than it does about Ebert.
@papachewie1280
3 жыл бұрын
@@zachgoff7796 🤦♂️
@TheStockwell
12 жыл бұрын
That was the beauty of those two. They took turns "not getting it." Sometimes, it was obvious Ebert just didn't LIKE a film while Siskel knew it was a masterpiece. Listening to them, you could pretty much figure out what what a film was, based on what they agreed or disagreed about.
@jondstewart
5 жыл бұрын
I thought Tarkovsky was multilingual with his direction of this movie, but the fact was he didn’t speak Swedish and barely spoke English, using a translator when he directed it.
@thenumbdave
8 жыл бұрын
Siskel looks like one of the aliens from They Live! in this. Conform!
@spurtfather
14 жыл бұрын
I was getting ready to laugh this out of town but your guy in the glasses makes a valid point about how Tarkovsky uses time, he's got a good tone of phrase. Don't agree with the other guys point that the other characters aren't worth bothering with, the postman is a great character!
@chopin65
7 жыл бұрын
This is why Ebert was the better critic, because he pointed out one interesting aspect of cinematic and artistic experiences in general when he mentions the demands made on a viewer. Really great art challenges our intelligence and not simply our emotions. It is easy to manipulate emotions in art, and to stop at that level of the aesthetic experience turns a work of art away from its higher functions. On many occasions I have been unable and unprepared to open myself up to a book or film because I WAS NOT READY for the story, hence the problem existed in me. The work of art demands something of my intelligence or is so shocking that I have no way to respond to it. But I almost always go back at some later time and find I enjoy the art which I was bored by or offended by. Siskel was a good critic, and I am not suggesting Ebert was perfect, but a certain wisdom can be found in Ebert's writing that I find lacking in a lot of inexperienced critics, which is to say that they frequently rely on their intelligence to the point that they begin to believe it will never fail them, and that they are above being fooled by their emotions. No one is that perfect. Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky is one arts greatest cinematic masters. He got that way by continually challenging form and content. He demanded as much from his art as he did from his fans. I earnestly believe that Siskel was not ready for the movie. That being said, I do sympathize with him. I recently went to see "Get Out" and walked out offended. I am still working on it. I am not sure where I am, and that is telling me I was like Siskel after he watched "The Sacrifice", which is to say, not ready to sacrifice myself.
@BIadelores
6 жыл бұрын
Tarkovsky's films are meant to speak to emotions above all else. He himself said that he believed that emotions should be the prime focus of every cinematic experience which is why he didn't like stuff like 2001 A Space Odyssey, because he felt it was too cold, calculated, with no emotion in it despite the fact that it was clearly an intellectual film that challenged its audience to interpret it as they please. I'm obviously not saying his films weren't intellectual (he did clarify that he thought art by itself is intellectual by nature because art isn't meant to be understood by everyone, which lead him to say things like Steven Spielberg's films weren't art), I'm saying it's more important to look at his films analyzing not what the frames in it mean as a narrative device (They rarely have any concrete meaning, because that would be symbolism and Tarkovsky thought symbolism was too narrow), but more what the frames in it told you as you watched it, how they affected you, why did these seemingly nonsense images continue lingering in your head.
@DolefulLions
14 жыл бұрын
@GoblinGirl I've never been bored watching a Tarkovsky film.
@frankszendzielarz6350
9 жыл бұрын
Quite intelligent and interesting commentary from the guy with the glasses. His counterpart there didn't really belong in that kind of discussion - his suggestion of editing the film struck me as sheer boyish arrogance and impatience.
@Mr.Goodkat
5 жыл бұрын
It is a very slow and long film where very little at all happens, Ebert even said it's doing the opposite of entertaining you well to me that statement means it's boring you. I found the movie excruciating, cryptic, laborious and a chore to sit through, I learnt nothing from it accept don't watch Tarkovsky.
@Mr.Goodkat
3 жыл бұрын
@Peter Kelner What a load of croc! your comment sucks worse than the movie.
@46metube
Жыл бұрын
"I gat inoo it I gat outta it." Only an American can make a Tarkovsky film sound like a bank job.
@poopoopeepee1017
8 ай бұрын
always weird hearing people discuss Tarkovskys films without mentioning his faith in Jesus Christ which is pivotal in almost all of his films especially this one
@TheStockwell
3 ай бұрын
The review is less than four minutes long - there's barely enough time to describe the film, much less give a detailed examination of Tarkovsky's themes and their significance. Best wishes from Vermont 🍁
@Vesters1
13 жыл бұрын
Tarkovsky is a much better director than Bergman. I hate when people are saying "this was almost like a Bergman film" and so on, because this was indeed the most Tarkovskyan of all Tarkovsky's films. And in my opinion his best one and one of the greatest pieces of art of the 20. c. Comparing Bergman to Tarkovsky is just stupid, Bergman was an atheist pessimist, Tarkovsky was a mystic.
@michaelbozas
4 жыл бұрын
It's not easy comparing Tarkovsky to Bergman. You can argue that Bergman did not fully reach the artistic perfection of Tarkovsky's greatest films, but Bergman has been I think more influencal than Tarkovsky. Plus when you go to that guy's filmography, you can find many more amazing movies than the 7 Tarkovsky made. Obviously they are two different directors that were aiming for different things, and thus it's hard to compare them. But no-one should ever underestimate Bergman's importance to cinema and comparing to him even a master like Tarkovsky should count as the highest form of compliment. Edit: I just noticed that the comment was from 8 years ago.
@kovvvas
8 жыл бұрын
Ebert might not have been a Jonathan Rosenbaum, but he was still more sensible and thoughtful than Siskel who was embarrassing as a film critic.
@chopin65
8 жыл бұрын
Yes. And here in Chicago they treat Siskel like a saint. It's crazy.
@gustenhr
5 жыл бұрын
Thank God he wasn't a Rosenbaum.
@rustyshackelford934
4 жыл бұрын
Siskel basically just ignored what Ebert said, lol that’s part of tarkovskys films. Instead of breezing through something, he wants you to exist with it, in his world, thru the mundane and the excitement, the ups and downs of the reality of life, basically like Ebert said. He says he gets it, but I’m not sure he really “gets it” lol or hey I guess he just doesn’t appreciate films of the sort as much. Siskel can be fairly harsh on more experimental films.
@nelg70
3 жыл бұрын
What is happening to that guys face and only his face?
@adamarens3520
4 жыл бұрын
I’ve seen Andrei Rublev, Solaris, and Stalker, and now The Sacrifice. The first 3 were amazingly and beautiful and all the things people say about Tarkovsky. But I agree with Siskel on this one. This felt uneven and needs to be re-edited maybe, not for length but content. I love Bergman movies too and this felt like a marriage of the two film makers, for obvious reasons. But it didn’t make the movie better, and I had high hopes. It’s premises and plot are interesting but the execution felt flat in many parts. I’m still gonna see the other three Tarkovsky films for sure.
@19megamustaine85
4 жыл бұрын
its his weakest film but still good,his other films the first five are great movies ,nostalgia is not great, but its little better then the sacrifice.
@adamarens3520
4 жыл бұрын
György Hirschléger thanks for the reply. Now as the months have past I’ve seen the other Tarkovsky films and I agree with you. The Mirror and Ivan’s childhood were fantastic. My favorite overall was Andrei Rublev. The candle scene is the best part of Nostalgia I think. Tarkovsky and Kubrick are my favorite directors.
@1luarluar1
9 жыл бұрын
editing?....by who?....nonsense....if someone edits our life, probably our life would last barely a couple of months...nonsense...
@juliusaugustino8409
10 жыл бұрын
I've only seen two Tarkovsky films so far. I loved Stalker and I really liked The Sacrifice. I think they're quite right
@chugg159
2 жыл бұрын
This review must've taken place in the 'They Live' universe.
@FrancoisDressler
5 жыл бұрын
Major warning for those with trypophobia like myself.
@MacaulayFergusson
4 жыл бұрын
exactly I was in agony during it 😂
@infinityplusone-1
2 жыл бұрын
Why ?
@Myndir
Жыл бұрын
@@infinityplusone-1 Trypophobia = fear of being on a trip. The quality is so bad that it's like an LSD trip.
@shiladitya1991
12 жыл бұрын
Tarkovksy would have slapped this guy if he had seen the video..its rubbish...
@nl3064
5 жыл бұрын
I just realized, the clip @ 0:35 was spoofed at the beginning of R.E.M.'s "losing my religion" video.
@chocolatefrogs1992
3 жыл бұрын
Good catch!
@sclogse1
9 жыл бұрын
Lot of mysticism in older Russian films. Usually related to the land, culture, and history. Bunch of men eating in a cabin, then only later do you realize they have a live bear in the next room...nothing unusual. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors was amazing, and Solaris hit you sideways...the culmination of scenes produced a revelation...unspoken in the film...only for you to have. That makes a film unforgettable. Oh... kzitem.info/news/bejne/sX5t3JidcZ9qgI4
@matr__
10 жыл бұрын
Editing? Who the hell is this guy?
@chopin65
9 жыл бұрын
A dead critic. Long live Tarkovsky!
@menachtv6522
Жыл бұрын
is ebert melting in front of our eyes? jeez
@wormswithteeth
3 жыл бұрын
Um...Roger you okay?
@josipartukovic9785
3 жыл бұрын
This is disappointing and it displays American ignorance. It is almost vulgar even.
@doughenry4172
Жыл бұрын
they just had to talk really fast because of the tv format back then. they were talking about other movies too. fit everything into a half hour episode but with commercials so even less time than that. it would never work like this today
@sirulas
12 жыл бұрын
Hahaha funny stupid hollywood they jumped directly to the nuclear scene they say that the film is long, has unimportant supportive characters and needs editing. hahaha Ebert you got the message i sure. there is no message in tarkovsky movies Ebert. he does not use semiotics so there is no bunch of signs, messages and indicators. he creates dream time in his movies thus his movies is not boring just they are not synchronous with your time. he transforms world odd to wake you up. that is it.
@ClarenceDoskocil
7 ай бұрын
Great film. Is this an early form of AI fucking with us (film distortion)?
@jpastuch
14 жыл бұрын
Oh wow, thanks for this. So weird that I find these things just as they're uploaded.
@Muonium1
3 жыл бұрын
jesus, missing key-frames much?? terrifying! this must've been encoded by one of the early bad divx codecs or something
@TheUlysses22
11 жыл бұрын
I don't think he was comparing. It seems fruitless to compare them in this way, as each are searching and commenting on different things. I think what he was trying to say was that while Tarkovsky has much to say on aestheticism as it relates to us, and Bergman on the human condition, that in this particular film he transcends into Bergman's territory. I don't see Bergman as a pessimist. If anything I feel optimistic about his films and how they simplify complex ideas to their purest forms.
@AlonsoMartin
14 жыл бұрын
This is terrible. Hollywoodise Tarkovsky? Obviously, you have to be joking.
@zaroffhound
6 жыл бұрын
Hilarious. Yes, lets corrupt some Bach, Beethoven, Mozart while we are at. Maybe reduce the less impressive areas of Rembrandt, Michelangelo... These critic dudes are deluded. A minute of Tarkovsky is worth their entire output.
@monwhooperinvasive8064
6 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@wethole
14 жыл бұрын
@GoblinGirl Transformers 2, Sex and the City 2, and Karate Kid are as long as this film :|
@flaccidusminimus2170
Жыл бұрын
2:00 - "I got into it and I got out of it and I got into it." Rompin' Stompin' Film Criticism 1986.
@MrAkashvj96
9 жыл бұрын
Isn't this 4 hours long?
@yoitsmattrosario
4 жыл бұрын
For some reason google says 4 hrs 15 mins. I double checked and breathed a sigh of relief. Gonna see it for the first time tomorrow
@awl7788
4 ай бұрын
@@yoitsmattrosariodid you enjoy it?
@andrewlankford9634
6 жыл бұрын
Couldn't stand the Sacrifice. Liked his other films.
@spiritalight
11 жыл бұрын
reptilians lol!
@matkagrogan5251
Жыл бұрын
Yanks trying to get Tarkovsky : ) Mission impossible indeed !!
Пікірлер: 87