Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

TheNabOwnzz As with most of Tarkovsky's movies, this one is a slow, psychological, colourful movie with a lot of relevant deep themes. While the cinematography is brilliant ( Most of the shots themselves can be seen as moving paintings ), the music is excellent as usual in a Tarkovsky film, it misses a crucial element in filmmaking. Storytelling.If not for the description here on IMDb i would have absolutely no idea what this movie is about. It's just a bunch of random scenes put together in which Tarkovsky expects the audience to see the point. While the cinematography and the brilliant use of colour and camera angles make it stand out as a piece of art, the art of storytelling, compelling characters & character development seems non existent. The same actress is used for the mother and the wife of the main character, and it was difficult to see which one she was in a particular scene due to Tarkovsky's lack of storytelling. Same goes for the protagonist's son and himself when he was younger, the same actor, which only makes it confusing. There is also a weird mix in photography from black and white to colour to ( I presume ) show which timeline it is, but that still wasnt very clear, so it seems like an irrelevant addition. The protagonist is never shown and can sometimes be heard mumbling nonsensical poetry, but there is no character development to speak of at all in the film. While there were some unforgettable scenes ( or, more like images ), a movie is never complete without characters or storytelling, which leaves my verdict about The Mirror (1975) very mixed.

Riley Porter It's actually sort of amazing to me that this film is only an hour and forty seven minutes. After watching it I felt like I had witnessed a four hour long saga detailing the history of a great many people and years. I don't mean to imply that the film dragged on or was overburdened with with frivolous details. What I'm trying to convey is that there is a lot to digest after witnessing this work of art. This film has a sort of contradictory nature. On one hand, it has a very particular perceptive, that of a man reflecting on his past. On the other hand, it speaks to the Russian experience, and, I suspect, the experience of mankind as it pertains to the modern age. Clearly much is said about the past and how it affects the experience of the present, as well as the nature of reflection and hindsight. The true scope of this film however, is difficult to determine with certainty. After all, as with all film, the viewer must endeavor to connect all the disparate pieces of the work in order to understand its true meaning. Of course that is where things become especially difficult with The Mirror. How does one reconcile the deeply personal experience of a man's relationship with his mother as a child with the trials of the Russian people during the 20th century? Beats me. I understand how someone could become frustrated in reading this review. It almost seems as though I'm cautioning people from watching this film given the challenge of it. That challenge of course, being the question of this film's meaning and the mission of uncovering it. Why would any audience want to waste their time with a challenge like that given the possibility of failure in this instance? That's a fair question I suppose. The answer of course is that this film is beautiful in a way that only a work of Tarkovsky's is. It has an ethereal quality which is difficult to appreciate fully without witnessing it. This film at once captures both the serene aspects of the natural world and the cruel nihilism of the human experience without putting either at odds with the other. As pretentious as that may sound, it is frankly the best way I can describe what I think makes this film, and other's by the director, unique and worth experiencing (For those concerned, so far as the obligatory review checklist of directing, cinematography, score, acting, etc is concerned, it's all fantastic).The main take away from this review, I hope, is that you understand that it's okay to not have all the answers to this film after watching it the first time. For my part, I'm very excited at the prospect of what I may discover in repeated viewings. If you approach this film with patience and an open mind, you will be greatly rewarded. Check it out. It's bananas.

Brian Berta Tarkovsky is a great director for people who prefer to watch challenging films. A lot of his films have deep meanings behind them, and they can inspire a lot of discussion. I like to describe him as the Russian Kubrick. Like Kubrick, he would often tell simple, yet grand stories in his films. As a result, many of his films would seem like an astonishing feat. However, I'd actually say that "The Mirror" is the easiest Tarkovsky film to interpret. It has a simple, yet impressive meaning.A dying man named Alexei remembers different events from his past in pre-war, WW2, and post-war times. These events seem unconnected, and they don't appear to follow a particular storyline of any kind. This is also, arguably, his most personal film as many of its scenes heavily draw on Tarkovsky's own childhood such as the evacuation from Moscow to the countryside during WW2, a withdrawn father, and a mother who works as a proof-reader at a printing press.It may seem difficult to decipher this film at first, because the viewer will likely see no connection or storyline whatsoever in the events from the film. However, I feel like this is the easiest Tarkovsky film to interpret. Its plot is actually much more simple than what it seems like. If you were to think back to your first memories as a young child, you likely will only be able to remember a select few of them. You also might not be able to tell which events came first in your life. If you were to write it down on paper, those memories would not seem to follow a specific storyline or plot. It likely wouldn't make any sense if another person were to read it.This is exactly what is represented here. Alexei isn't able to clearly put the events from his life in any chronological order so what he does is he tries to remember whatever he can. We are basically getting a glimpse into this man's life seconds before he dies. I also feel like the camera is alive. I've seen people say this about many other movies in the past, but I think it applies to this film the most. I think that the camera is Alexei's eyes observing his memories as they go on. He appears in the film as an invisible, ghostly figure who sometimes gives narration over the scenes as he's reacting to what's going on. Further evidence which backs up this explanation is that near the end of the film, we see him resting in a hospital bed. That is him on his death-bed. Once you're able to figure that out, the movie becomes pretty easy to follow. Like all other Tarkovsky films I've seen so far, he's able to give this film a unique and creative meaning. If you think about it, its plot may seem simple at first, but Tarkovsky is able to handle the plot with so much excellence that the film feels very unique. He did this with a lot of his films. This is another one of the many reasons why he's such a great filmmaker.The cinematography in this film is brilliant. Tarkovsky usually does really good with the visual aspect of his films. It is almost dream-like. The mix between color and black and white makes for an impressive assortment of shots. Tarkovsky also used a mixed film stock in several segments in "Stalker". That film is still the most beautifully shot film that he's made. However, this one doesn't fall too far behind it. Several shots show stunning images of nature. Also, some of the black and white shots give out a bleak feeling to them. Also, the black and white images of war give a haunting feeling to the film. The film was pretty interesting, with its different visual styles.Also, its use of long takes helps to immerse us with the world around the characters from the film. They give us a lot of time to get used to the environments in the film, and they also show impressive scenery at many different angles. Several of the long takes stick out, but the most notable one is clearly the barn burning scene. It can be sometimes difficult describing why it works so good. It could be the nice lighting, the great shots that it focuses on, the bottle which falls down from the table, or the unnerving feeling that the scene gives you. It is a really immersive scene which is one of the most memorable scenes from the 70's. Tarkovsky nailed the visual aspect of this film as well.In conclusion, this movie does a very good job at representing Tarkovsky's talent in filmmaking. Its confusing story structure may seem confusing at first, but it is actually a lot simpler than you think. However, Tarkovsky handles it in a way where it stands out a lot. Also, the visuals are beautiful. I liked "Stalker" a little more, but I was not disappointed by this film. It may not have given me a feeling that I couldn't have enjoyed it any more than I did, but it's still a visually impressive, unique film. To be fair though, it did take me a few viewings to really love "Stalker". This film could grow on me a lot as well on subsequent viewings.

gavin6942 A dying man in his forties remembers his past. His childhood, his mother, the war, personal moments and things that tell of the recent history of all the Russian nation.Tarkovsky is probably the greatest Soviet / Russian director of his generation. Indeed, who else even comes close? If you were to list the top Russian directors of all time, Tarkovsky would be right near the top, perhaps only beaten by Eisenstein.He has a science fiction and fantasy way to look at the world, and even in more realistic films like this one, that sense of wonder comes through. Few other directors would "paint" their scenes like this, out of order and in different colors (or lack of color). He is someone who ought to be studied, and surely is.