Seriously people, a poem? You can't be serious. The film has merits, some lovely shots, some good mood stuff, but I found it utterly painful and pretentious... self conscious and messy. Apparently Tarkovsky stated that the artist himself does not necessarily know the meaning of an image but is compelled to express his vision. What a grandiose sense of self... guided by God, I suppose. Taking a pile of snippets of history and then blurting them out and sticking bits together with an almost invisible narrative does not make "poetry". I didn't mind the occasional sloppy filmmaking, like the sight of the tracks on the right of frame in the last shot, or the microphone shadow in one of the dull dialogue scenes, but really did mind that it was just utterly painful to watch. Perhaps I am not intelligent or deep enough to understand this poem. Or perhaps this is the most over-rated movie in history.

The Mirror is a film that touched me in a way no other film has. The cinematography and overall atmosphere draws indescribable emotion from me and takes my away. I can write an essay attempting to explain why it's a masterpiece and how it's an example of how movies don't have to be books with images to be great but words are just words and I'll fail to explain the emotions this movie makes feel. Just watch it and maybe you'll feel similar or maybe not, it's not for everybody. But for me it's everything I want in a film and more.

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scenes heavily draw on Tarkovsky's own childhood such as the evacuation from Moscow to the countryside during WW2, a withdrawn father, and a mother who works as a proof-reader at a printing press.It may seem difficult to decipher this film at first, because the viewer will likely see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.

The Mirror is said to be a film that is not easy to understand. I say that it does not have to be understood to be enjoyed. This is a very beautiful, cerebral, and emotive film. As with other Tarkovksy films, there is both the natural and the supernatural, but the natural is by far the dominant. The supernatural is like this overflowing of natural spirit (very much like in the STALKER film). The film is highly elemental: watery, fiery, windy, and earthy at different times, and the elements give off energy, and the world feels like this plastic material which one makes art out of. This is very different from the staged feeling of many films. In the Mirror, even the manmade structures feel natural, man feels natural as an expression of life. Even if you are aware it is a film, how can it feel artificial when it flows from a natural source? Aside from the vibe, the Mirror is a great film to look at. The lead actress is quite beautiful, though not in a conventional way, expressive and spirited. The camera-work is really great, gives a great sense of a taking place, love the movement in each scene. If you are the type of person that feels spiritual or meditative at times, or loves to just look at art or watch nature (or people), then the Mirror will be an excellent choice for you.