|
I thought it was great because it was visually very rich, but vague on backstory and exposition. Because of this, you can come at the film in lots of different ways. For me, the setting and visuals tell their own story in a really cool non-verbal way. But I could see how someone would be bored out of their mind waiting for some kind of compelling plot to develop.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:There's certainly plenty of room for intellectual explanation but Tarkovsky hated that poo poo and preferred the viewer to just get lost in the mysterious, poetic, experiential aspect. For my money, I think a big reason it's an all-time favorite is that it works beautifully on both levels. Can I change my answer to this?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 01:09
|
|