Watch Andrei Tarkovsky’s Films Free Online: Stalker, The Mirror & Andrei Rublev

The stench of Vladimir Putin and his inva­sion of Ukraine should­n’t taint every­thing Russ­ian, espe­cial­ly some of its finest cin­e­ma. So we’ll give you this heads up: Mos­film, the largest and old­est film stu­dio in Rus­sia, has post­ed sev­er­al major films by Andrei Tarkovsky (1932–1986), on its offi­cial YouTube channel. Above, you can watch Stalk­er, which we’ve cov­ered amply here on Open Cul­ture. Below, stream The Mir­ror, Andrei Rublev, and Ivan’s Child­hood.

The Mir­ror

Andrei Rublev

Ivan’s Child­hood

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon. If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Mas­ter­ful Polaroid Pic­tures Tak­en by Film­mak­er Andrei Tarkovsky

Tarkovsky’s Advice to Young Film­mak­ers: Sac­ri­fice Your­self for Cin­e­ma

Andrei Tarkovsky Calls Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey a “Pho­ny” Film “With Only Pre­ten­sions to Truth

Slavoj Žižek Explains the Artistry of Andrei Tarkovsky’s Films: Solaris, Stalk­er & More

Watch Stalk­er, Andrei Tarkovsky’s Mind-Bend­ing Mas­ter­piece Free Online

Andrei Tarkovsky’s Mas­ter­piece Stalk­er Gets Adapt­ed into a Video Game


by | Permalink | Comments (110) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (110)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • pedant says:

    This is great news, and many thanks for doing it — but what’s with the mis­spelling of Tarkovsky’s name in the URL?

  • Thornton says:


  • Fan­tas­tic news! Tarkovsky’s my favorite — so glad to know I can watch his films any time. Also glad that there are at least three oth­er human beings aware of his work!

    Won­der­ful blog, as well!

  • Chris says:

    Am I miss­ing some­thing, or are these sans sub­ti­tles?

  • Some Guy says:

    Hate to tell you but these are NOT pub­lic domain or Cre­ative Com­mons licensed. In the US or Rus­sia. I wish they were, but no.

    And some even have Cri­te­ri­on logos. Cri­te­ri­on is not some mega­cor­po­ra­tion and does the film world great ser­vice in pre­serv­ing such films. Their prof­itabil­i­ty and sus­tain­abi­ity mar­gins are not wide. Things like this do their oper­a­tions harm.

  • zwgraphiki says:

    I appre­ci­ate this direc­tor so much espe­cial­ly cause I dis­cov­ered him by chance (in my uni’s library) and I spent so many hours in the library watch­ing again and again Rublev I even remem­ber quotes (in Russ­ian too). Saba­ka!! (the jeal­ous monk to the dog before he kills it…).Not to men­tion how many scenes are stuck in my mind from that movies (the fire, the young bell mak­er yelling, the poor jester in the rain, the finale with the ortho­dox icon mon­tage..). I have watched doc­u­men­taries about him cause I was curi­ous. He died young but he left us with so much to dis­cuss and think and he did have a voice of his own that I see oth­er direc­tors sort of copy now, dare I say (espe­cial­ly the cin­e­mat­ic poet­ic device of one scene in slow motion, I think Tarkovsky was one of the first to use it). To me he seems to delib­er­ate­ly urg­ing the craft against any ‘log­i­cal’ sequence of sto­ry­telling but not cause he wants to appear cool like some todays direc­tors, it was his own gen­uine way of think­ing and prac­tic­ing art. And he seemed relaxed about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of not being ‘per­fect’ (he did­nt like his Solaris film). I know nobody alive direc­tor who is that down to earth and hon­est about his own work and cin­e­ma in gen­er­al (Tarkovsky said it is very expen­sive art). His advice to young direc­tors was ”do not dif­fer­en­ti­ate your work from the kind of life you have”. Tarkovsky’s best movies are about issues he him­self under­stood well (the dying direc­tor, the immi­grant life, the search for some­thing ‘else’, the reuni­fi­ca­tion with loved ones, so many themes he knew from his own bio). But today you see direc­tors mak­ing movies with­out know­ing their sub­ject well, only tech­ni­cal abil­i­ties and no intel­lec­tu­al input (talk­ing about con­tem­po­rary new­er Ger­man cin­e­ma, to give an exam­ple). The far east cul­tures are the only ones pro­duc­ing now any fresh looks on cin­e­mat­ic art.

  • Lars says:

    These films are ripped direct­ly from Cri­te­ri­on DVDs — you can clear­ly see the logo and this is nei­ther pub­lic domain or CC prop­er­ty. Peo­ple have noti­fied Cri­te­ri­on so I trust they will get in touch with Film Annex and have them removed. In the mean­time I think this post should be removed too — adver­tis­ing ille­gal rips is sure­ly not the mes­sage you’re look­ing to pro­mote?

  • Erik says:

    It’s with­out sub­ti­tles?

  • Don Alex says:

    Hey, Lars and the Some Guy — gosh­ers, you both must be keen­ly proud of your­selves for your obses­sive con­cern over the pro­tec­tion of Cri­te­ri­on’s copy­rights. We sure would­nt want any­one watch­ing a 45 year old film for FREE when they should be pay­ing stu­dio suits for that priv­i­lege. God, we just admire the HELL out of you both!!

    Are you both feel­ing proud enough yet, fel­las, or should we send you both ros­es in grat­i­tude for your crack detec­tive work? Ahh well, Im sure youre already on your way to scan­ning YouTube for videos to report, so dont let me stop ya, kids. Try not to get your super­hero capes caught in your pant zip­pers, k? ;)

  • David says:

    Thanks for post­ing this. Does any­one know where or how can we get at least Eng­lish sub­ti­tles for Stalk­er? I want­ed to under­stand any­thing from what they are say­ing the the movie does not have sub­ti­tles at all…

  • RichofSpirit says:


    Oh, please. Give me a break. “Wah! Free isn’t good enough!” You nig­gling lit­tle infant.

  • kn33ch41 says:

    That’s great!!!

  • Eren Gulfidan says:

    David, are you look­ing at the right videos? Stalk­er does have Eng­lish sub­ti­tles. Part 1: and Part 2:

  • Maila says:

    its nt work­ing =(

  • Brad RZ says:

    Don Alex- Cri­te­ri­on are a SMALL, inde­pen­dent com­pa­ny, unaf­fil­i­at­ed with any stu­dio, that focus­es almost exclu­sive­ly on cost­ly restora­tions of niche releas­es that would oth­er­wise be under-rep­re­sent­ed or ignored by the mass mar­ket.

    As an ear­li­er poster said, their oper­at­ing expens­es are high, and their prof­it mar­gins are low. There’s actu­al­ly more expense involved in pro­duc­ing a high-qual­i­ty trans­fer of a “45 year old film” than most would imag­ine.

    They count on the sales from a hand­ful of pop­u­lar licensed titles to cov­er the costs of releas­ing films that they believe are cul­tur­al­ly impor­tant, but unlike­ly to turn a prof­it.

    To brand Cri­te­ri­on as “stu­dio suits” or rep­re­sen­ta­tives of “cor­po­rate Amer­i­ca” is igno­rant and mis­in­formed. They are any­thing but.

  • David says:

    Yes, the new post­ed links with Stalk­er split in two, have sub­ti­tles. This morn­ing’s one big file (no split) came with­out sub­ti­tles.

  • Marc says:

    This is a great resource, assum­ing it’s legit or can be made so. Cri­te­ri­on (as well as the oth­er com­pa­nies dis­trib­ut­ing these films in the US) do dif­fi­cult, expen­sive work keep­ing this sort of stuff in cir­cu­la­tion, and this sort of dis­tri­b­u­tion needs to be approved by them. At the Cri­te­ri­on-asso­ci­at­ed web­site, there are hun­dreds of inter­na­tion­al cin­e­ma clas­sics, avail­able to watch, some for free. I’m assum­ing they’d want these films avail­able for that pur­pose, but if they’re cool with film annex’s post­ing them, all the bet­ter.

  • zwgraphici says:

    Per­haps ‘Cri­te­ri­on’ will agree the screen­ings online are for the ben­e­fit of all par­ties involved. Real­ly Cri­te­ri­on does a great job and I have pur­chased Waida’s ‘Kanal’ from them and am very thrilled with the qual­i­ty. You know for us old cin­e­ma lovers qual­i­ty is every­thing cause many times these movies come with bad qual­i­ty whether in cin­e­ma or tv… Here is Cri­te­ri­on’s web­site

  • FD says:

    Per­haps Cri­te­ri­on would like to make avail­able a Pay­Pal dona­tion page for vol­un­tary fund­ing for their work.

    Does any­one know if they have one? Per­son­al­ly, I would like to donate some mon­ey, after hav­ing watched one of these films.

  • FD says:

    I say that because I would like look on the work they do as a pub­lic good, and as a ser­vice to the intel­lec­tu­al com­mons. It is a great shame that they have to oper­ate on a com­mer­cial mod­el in order to do what they do — there should be arts fund­ing avail­able for the restora­tion and preser­va­tion of our world’s film her­itage.

  • PJ says:

    Giv­en the oth­er con­tent on their site, and the fact that most of the Tarkovsky stuff has already been tak­en down, I would be shocked if Film Annex actu­al­ly had any rights to show these films.

    And as for those who would like these films and all art to be avail­able for free, I’m all for it, so long as you give me free use and enjoy­ment of your house, car and bank account first.

  • Proman says:

    Tarkvsky might have been the best known sovi­et direc­tor but call­ing him the best would be a huge injus­tice to all the oth­er great sovi­et film­mak­er such as Ryazanov. Peo­ple who make such claims know noth­ing about Sovi­et cin­e­ma.

  • Anna says:

    A Bank account and a house can­not help with appreciating/discovering direc­tors like Tarkovsky and what they thought of cin­e­ma. Per­haps the only thing that can help on a free basis is a video­tape library (that’s I found about about Tarkovsky like I said). Sim­i­lar­ly Film Annex or online sites with films serve like libraries with FREE access where one can explore cin­e­ma. Even if some­one has a non offi­cial copy of a movie pro­duced by Cri­te­ri­on, with the Cri­te­ri­on logo every­where on it and the prob­lem find­ing good ver­sions of old movies, even a ‘pirate’ would con­sid­er it best to buy a cri­te­ri­on dvd than get more ille­gal copies… Cri­te­ri­on, besides, caters for the minor­i­ty of movie goers and dvd shop­pers (the ones who care for old cin­e­ma„ which aren’t as many as those who care for lat­est Hol­ly­wood) and there­fore ANY sort of pro­jec­tion of ‘old’ clas­sics would help the pub­lic know about them and become Cri­te­ri­on’s clients… Hence, even if it is ille­gal, Cri­te­ri­on still ben­e­fits and it would have been actu­al­ly a shame for Film Annex to show them online with­out Cri­te­ri­on’s logo (they give cred­it). It’s all good and for the ben­e­fit of Cri­te­ri­on and such com­pa­nies in a way…

  • FD says:


    That’s pret­ty imma­ture. There are viable mod­els com­ing into exis­tence for the dis­tri­b­u­tion and mon­e­ti­za­tion of con­tent which don’t rely on the prop­er­ty anal­o­gy.

    For movies that would oth­er­wise be out of cir­cu­la­tion, like this one, the mod­el can be a bit dif­fer­ent again to the ones that try to incen­tivize the pro­duc­tion of con­tent.

    Bank accounts, cars and pri­vate prop­er­ty can­not be mul­ti­plied recur­sive­ly and dis­trib­uted at almost zero cost. There are cer­tain­ly hard prob­lems to be solved in the future with how to con­tin­ue to incen­tivize the pro­duc­tion and preser­va­tion of con­tent, but anti­quar­i­an atti­tudes and smar­tass rhetor­i­cal points don’t address that at all.

  • Mike says:

    FD, that’s absurd. The con­tents of a bank account can indeed be mul­ti­plied recur­sive­ly and dis­trib­uted at almost zero cost. It’s called coun­ter­fit­ting. Copy­right hold­ers are not the only ones who store the val­ue they build up dur­ing a life­time of labor into “arti­fi­cial­ly scarce” instru­ments. Every­one who has ever toiled at a job in exchange for a pay­check has done pre­cise­ly the same thing. More­over, there is noth­ing “arti­fi­cial­ly” scarce about the allot­ment of time, health, and cre­ative ener­gy that is grant­ed by nature to each per­son who pro­duces cre­ative work. The fun­da­men­tal issue here is not “incen­tivi­sa­tion.” It is the ques­tion of jus­tice: If one man or woman invests time and labor to cre­ate some­thing of val­ue, is it just for some­one else to take it for free, sim­ply because they can?

  • FD says:

    The fun­da­men­tal issue is incen­tiviza­tion. The jurispru­dence of copy­right law jus­ti­fies the grant of a com­mer­cial monop­oly in an intel­lec­tu­al work explic­it­ly in order to incen­tivize the pro­duc­tion of intel­lec­tu­al works. That is the whole rea­son we have copy­right law.

    There is no robust case in favor of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty that relies sole­ly on jus­tice. Jus­tice only comes in grant­ed that there are com­mer­cial actions being per­formed on intel­lec­tu­al works.

    The argu­ment goes (went):

    IF there is going to be com­merce in intel­lec­tu­al goods THEN it is just that the author has a monop­oly on those goods.

    But if there is no longer com­merce in intel­lec­tu­al goods, there is no pur­chase for an argu­ment for fair­ness or jus­tice. Peo­ple can­not have an arbi­trary pri­ma facie right to police the actions per­formed on intel­lec­tu­al works after they are out of their hands. We could arbi­trar­i­ly stip­u­late an infi­nite num­ber of pos­si­ble rights besides copy­rights that authors might have been giv­en over their works if the con­di­tions in which copy­right was born had been dif­fer­ent, and lament the “injus­tice” that they do not present­ly have those rights. The only rea­son peo­ple are dis­posed to think of this issue as a ques­tion of jus­tice is because we are used to the idea of hav­ing a copy­right.

    If peo­ple can have no com­mer­cial expec­ta­tion from the sale of their works, because of the changed nature of the econ­o­my of infor­ma­tion, then they prob­a­bly should­n’t accrue costs in time health and ener­gy doing unpaid work. Con­trary to your por­trait of the per­se­cut­ed author, any­one who con­tin­ues to have an expec­ta­tion of finan­cial gain from intel­lec­tu­al labour in a world where copy­right law has become (much more than today) utter­ly inef­fec­tu­al, is being fool­ish and irre­spon­si­ble. It is sim­ply finan­cial­ly unwise. And if it’s finan­cial­ly unwise, most peo­ple won’t do it. So it real­ly does come down to incen­tiviza­tion. Such a world would have only those artists that can sup­port their cre­ative endeav­ors them­selves.

    Thank­ful­ly, that’s not where we’re head­ed, and it’s not what I’d sug­gest. I think the land­scape will prob­a­bly change a lot, and copy­right will become less inte­gral to a busi­ness mod­el based on intel­lec­tu­al works, but it’s pret­ty obvi­ous that there are still ways to mon­e­tize this stuff very effec­tive­ly, and remu­ner­ate authors, there­by incen­tiviz­ing their labour. It’s like­ly that there’ll be a dig­i­tal age ana­logue of copy­right, which grants rights to shares of a pub­lic fund pro­por­tion­ate to the pop­u­lar­i­ty of a work. It would be ben­e­fi­cial to try and imple­ment a mod­el like this soon­er rather than lat­er. The con­ser­vatism of the con­tent indus­tries is delay­ing that.

    So in answer to your final ques­tion, besides it being ille­gal, and there being a moral oblig­a­tion to obey the law, I do not see any pri­ma facie injus­tice in the infringe­ment of copy­right.

  • twiddledum says:

    The file-shar­ing debate is here­by buried. When we talk about file-shar­ing from now on it’s as one of many ways to copy. We talk about bet­ter and worse ways of index­ing, archiv­ing and copy­ing, not whether copy­ing is right or wrong. Win­ter is pour­ing down the hill­side. Make way for spring.

  • Mike says:

    More absur­di­ty. By your log­ic some­one could crank up the coun­ter­feit­ing machin­ery to full steam and there would be no “pri­ma facie injus­tice” in deflat­ing the life sav­ings of peo­ple who had toiled for decades to save the cur­ren­cy in a bank account or under a mat­tress. Rights exist to pro­tect indi­vid­u­als from the tyran­ny of the mob. Your insis­tence on fram­ing the issue through the con­cept of “incen­tiviza­tion” is a clas­sic exam­ple of the men­tal­i­ty of the unjust: You treat peo­ple as a means to an end (in this case, the means of pro­duc­ing the cul­ture­al works you want to con­sume) rather than an end in them­selves.

  • FD says:

    There is con­sid­er­ably more jus­ti­fi­ca­to­ry weight behind the main­te­nance of a nation­al econ­o­my, and the pro­hi­bi­tion of forgery, than there is behind the defense of copy­right. Soci­ety does not grind to a halt if artists are no longer giv­en an incen­tive to pro­duce work.

    Your anal­o­gy is false, but to it I offer anoth­er one. The out­look you pro­fess would have us pro­hib­it the avail­abil­i­ty of the elec­tric light­bulb because jus­tice demands that the chan­dler is owed a liv­ing.

    The tra­di­tion­al jurispru­dence of copy­right law, and indeed patent law too, frames the law in terms of incen­tiviza­tion. I’m not choos­ing to frame it that way. That’s the way jurists have since the Statute of Anne. If you have a con­cep­tu­al prob­lem with that, it is entire­ly yours.

  • Mike says:

    A per­son of con­science is mind­ful of the lives of any­one affect­ed by any trans­ac­tion. The fact that you would con­scious­ly deny eco­nom­ic jus­tice to a group of peo­ple whose prod­ucts you enjoy is con­temptible. My anal­o­gy of cur­ren­cy coun­ter­feit­ing was right on the mark; the rea­son peo­ple don’t stand for coun­ter­feit­ing is that cur­ren­cy val­ue affects vir­tu­al­ly every per­son on the plan­et, while only a minor­i­ty are pro­tect­ed by copy­right laws — a minor­i­ty vul­ner­a­ble to exploita­tion by the major­i­ty who are con­sumers. Your anal­o­gy of the can­dle maker/lighbulb is a pure idio­cy, and expos­es an inabil­i­ty to rea­son. We are not talk­ing about a group of peo­ple whose prod­ucts have become obso­lete by a new tech­nol­o­gy; we’re dis­cussing the rights of a group of peo­ple whose prod­ucts are still very much in demand and can now be read­i­ly stolen due to new tech­nol­o­gy. I can for­give stu­pid­i­ty, FD, but not the will­ful denial of jus­tice to peo­ple oth­er than your­self. This con­ver­sa­tion is over.

  • FD says:

    I don’t deny eco­nom­ic jus­tice to any­one. I think the equa­tion is clear. If there is no hope of remu­ner­a­tion for the pro­duc­tion of cul­tur­al items — if that expec­ta­tion is unjus­ti­fied, don’t both­er mak­ing them. Find some oth­er way of earn­ing an income. That’s the best way not to be exploit­ed. That’s how a free mar­ket works.

    Just to punc­ture your hys­ter­i­cal rhetoric: copy­right infringe­ment is not theft. Theft is a crime. Piece­meal infringe­ment is a tort. Tort is addressed not by pros­e­cu­tion but by lit­i­ga­tion. It is a civ­il mat­ter.

    Ignor­ing the tech­ni­cal­i­ties for a moment, it isn’t a theft in com­mon­sen­si­cal terms either. It is not an “unlaw­ful tak­ing” because it isn’t tak­ing. It’s copy­ing. Nobody gets deprived of the item on which the infringe­ment is per­formed. It’s impor­tant­ly dif­fer­ent from theft, and those dif­fer­ences speak to the very ori­gins of copy­right law, its involve­ment in the eco­nom­ics and meta­physics of intel­lec­tu­al works, and the dif­fi­cult sit­u­a­tion we find our­selves in now. To ignore them is to risk being whipped up by indus­try pro­pa­gan­da into a moral­is­tic fren­zy. Clear­er think­ing here is what is need­ed, and the license to con­sid­er the top­ic from as many angles as pos­si­ble, and not to rule out inno­v­a­tive ways of think­ing about it as “stu­pid,” indica­tive of a lack of “con­science,” “con­temptible.” That’s just an imma­ture way to have any dis­cus­sion.

    Final­ly, I can hold my breath for your for­give­ness. Your for­give­ness for hav­ing enough respect for you to dis­cuss an impor­tant issue with you over an inter­net com­ment stream. You have to for­give me because I dare to dis­agree with you, and speak my mind about it. LOL

  • kert says:

    Cool. I wish “Test pilota Pirxa” was avail­able some­wher as well.

  • visible says:

    I doubt there is no prob­lem for Cri­te­ri­on hav­ing these free to view online. The main point of their DVD releas­es is the qual­i­ty & often excel­lent extras. This online stuff does­n’t come close to the qual­i­ty of the DVDs. This is great ref­er­ence mate­r­i­al & might pull a few peo­ple new to these films who should go & buy the DVDs to see them in their full beau­ty.

  • aSinc says:

    La ques­tione dei dirit­ti d’au­tore è inevitabil­mente cen­trale nel­la cir­co­lazione delle opere audio­vi­sive ed entra pre­po­ten­te­mente in gio­co quan­do un’­opera supera i con­fi­ni del pro­prio baci­no lin­guis­ti­co. Dovrebbe essere la polit­i­ca cul­tur­ale a occu­par­si di risol­vere il nodo del supera­men­to delle bar­riere lin­guis­tiche attra­ver­so il doppi­ag­gio e/o il sot­toti­to­lag­gio des­ti­nan­do risorse adeguate in modo da favorire lo scam­bio cul­tur­ale tra i pae­si.

  • stumpy says:

    now its not free. epic fail.

  • Fleissenstein says:

    Con­sid­er­ing Tarkovsky’s been push­ing daisies for a damn long time, I think it’s pret­ty fun­ny to see peo­ple argue which team of lawyers should reap the ben­e­fit of work they did­n’t do, and are prob­a­bly younger than most of the films by Tarkovsky. Bunch of necrophil­i­acs.

  • Jason says:

    There are some works that should def­i­nite­ly be able to be viewed by every­one with­out cost. Tarkovsky’s films are impor­tant and time­less works of art that should be expe­ri­enced. I’m sure Cri­te­ri­on will be fine, even with these avail­able to watch online for free.

  • His work is mes­mer­iz­ing and dis­turb­ing. Thanks for the post.

  • Hi,
    I ordered the DVD awhile back from Ama­zon though it’s not meant to be avail­able until August. Is this the same release? The rea­son I ask is that if you fol­low the reviews on Ama­zon, you’ll see that a lot of peo­ple were very upset with the qual­i­ty and the fact that the movie had been bru­tal­ly edit­ed. BTW, it’s being sold by ‘Indi­go Starfish’, is this same release?


  • Mike says:

    Made dur­ing Com­mu­nist USSR era. No Copy­right. State owns it all. But dis­trib­uters may have rights to inter­na­tion­al dis­tri­b­u­tion.
    These would be akin to all the art and media owned/made by the U.S. gov­ern­ment. It is not copy­right­ed (all U.S. cit­i­zens own it) but, the Smith­son­ian, LOC, etc. may give the right to dis­trib­ute work. This is why you will see pho­tos and posters of WPA pho­tog­ra­phers for sale. Any­one can just down­load a high res­o­lu­tion TIFF of the same image and send it off to be print­ed at Cost­co for a few bucks.

  • Murtaza Ali says:

    Sounds real­ly awe­some. Tarkovsky has been a great ser­vant to Cin­e­ma, one who sin­gle-hand­ed­ly changed its face for the bet­ter. I myself have been a great fan of his oeu­vre and he’s been a great source of inspi­ra­tion behing my movie-review blog ‘A Pot­pour­ri of Ves­tiges’. Please fol­low the link to check­out my review of Stalk­er:

    A Pot­pour­ri of Ves­tiges’ Review of Stalk­er (1979)

  • Eric says:

    Just hope it’s going to stay there long enough.

  • CJ says:

    Thanks for mak­ing these avail­able. I was hop­ing to watch Nos­tal­gia, but the sub­ti­tles are in Span­ish. Is there not one with Eng­lish Sub­ti­tles as well? My Span­ish is not much bet­ter than my Ital­ian.

  • Arkadiusz Żelazny says:

    Anoth­er “good Russ­ian” with pol­ish ori­gins. That’s the way the cook­ies crum­bles.

  • TheMillionMen says:

    FD argues that copy­right is a null idea in terms of get­ting artis­tic labour paid for. It seems that if (in the present day) artists choose to work for noth­ing (because their out­put will not be paid for) then they are being social­ly irre­spon­si­ble. These argu­ments may well be log­i­cal­ly con­sis­tent (per­son­al­ly, I reserve judge­ment) but why should we desire a soci­ety based only on log­i­cal con­sis­ten­cy?
    Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any his­tor­i­cal exam­ples which demon­strate one of FD’s stat­ed, under­ly­ing premis­es: that soci­ety will not col­lapse if artists cease mak­ing art.
    It’s iron­ic that FD is able to demon­strate such self-impor­tance pre­cise­ly because of the per­sis­tence of art and, thus, those parts of the blo­gos­phere ded­i­cat­ed to it.

  • LeKevbo says:

    Con­sid­er this: I val­ue the work of Cri­te­ri­on in mak­ing impor­tant films look their best. I own sev­er­al of their DVDs. Now, I cur­rent­ly have no way to see Tarkovsky’s films but by the links pro­vid­ed (when they were func­tion­ing and fee-free) and I haven’t the dis­pos­able funds to just buy his films on DVD sight unseen. I’m many years out of film school and live where there are no art hous­es or video rental shops. 85 to 90 per­cent of the time, I buy DVDs only if I have pre­vi­ous­ly seen and enjoyed a film through some oth­er means. Take away the oppor­tu­ni­ty for some­one like me to see films like these for free and I more than like­ly will nev­er be buy­ing DVDs of those titles in the future. No mon­ey will ever go to any direc­tors, lawyers, stu­dios or Cri­te­ri­on at all. An oppor­tu­ni­ty for prof­it is lost due to short­sight­ed pun­ish­ment of choosy/frugal poten­tial cus­tomers and the web­sites they favor.

    tl;dr: Self-appoint­ed copy­right snitch­es may be doing every­one a dis­ser­vice despite their inten­tions.

  • Cri­te­ri­on or Not: the YouTube ver­sion linked to is in no way equal in qual­i­ty or def­i­n­i­tion to the DVD, has no sub­ti­tle or lan­guage menus, hence it serves as an induce­ment to go to your friend­ly neigh­bor­hood Pub­lic Library and Make You Own Rips!!!

  • Harold Coat Hanger says:

    Tarkovsky was scrupu­lous that his films be watched in a cin­e­ma — this is a pret­ty poor way of watch­ing them. If you want to watch great films you should get a pro­jec­tor and a screen (or project them on a wall) — dead cheap these days, I have had one for years. The box set was only £12 (cheap­skates could find oth­er means).

  • Jeremy says:

    ^As if you can’t hook up your pc to your HDTV. It’s what a do, but I nev­er usu­al­ly watch films on youtube unless they are uploaded at the high­est qual­i­ty avail­able. Hell, I’ve seen videos on youtube that look bet­ter than cer­tain videos on Net­flix. It’s ridicu­lous.

  • Wow- what an amaz­ing site.
    Thanks for you ded­i­ca­tion to con­tin­ude learn­ing. thank you

  • T S Dhakshinamurthy says:

    With­out join­ing the dis­cus­sion on free-screen­ing vs the inter­ests of Cri­te­ri­on, I only wish to say that Tarkovsky’s access to and mas­tery of sub-con­scious­ness is astound­ing and for me he is the best film-mak­er ever in my life time.

  • benc says:

    Just watch his films you hyper­bol­ic wankers

  • Svetlana says:

    I am so hap­py! My list of favourites: Tarkovsky first, then 9 emp­ty places, then every­body else!!!

  • Noah says:

    Great thing putting this online, it’s a must see for every­one, his films car­ry so much raw emo­tion­al pow­er and intel­lec­tu­al depth at the same time.

    You do seem to have for­got­ten “The Sac­ri­fice” though :)

  • Astor says:

    Jeezas! I had no idea these were avail­able for legal­ly like this! Awe­some. Many thanks!

  • Claire says:

    I’ve always want­ed to check out his work. Now I have no excuse. Thanks!

  • Simon Wigley says:

    What’s inter­est­ing is that Cri­te­ri­on, for fair­ness, should be com­pen­sat­ed even though they don’t hold the copy­right! The fact is that copy­right — not the right to asso­ciate one’s name with one’s work, but the right to treat a cre­ative work like a side of beef — is non­sense, and has results counter to those which I’m sure *all* par­ties to the debate want, that cre­ative peo­ple should feel reward­ed for the work they do, that a good liv­ing be had, but at the same time their work get to the com­mu­ni­ty as cheap­ly and wide­ly as pos­si­ble. Copy­right was a cyn­i­cal his­tor­i­cal acci­dent. Per­haps we could con­sid­er oth­er mod­els. How, for exam­ple, are aca­d­e­mics reward­ed?


    • Pavel Axentiev says:

      There was no copy­right in the USSR, because every creator/author/performer (at least those who were accept­ed by the sys­tem) was receiv­ing a pay­check from the gov­ern­ment. In the mod­ern world, peo­ple some­how seem to expect that most artists should pro­duce their work for free. That’s sim­ply dis­re­spect­ful. The main prob­lem with copy­right, as I see, was/is that most of the rev­enues were received by those who had way less to do with the pro­duc­tion of the work than the artists them­selvs — such as RIAA, etc. The elec­tron­ic media now offer a vari­ety of means to pro­mote one’s work, such as indie labels, per­son­al web­sites, etc. If you want, you can put out your work for free using a cre­ative com­mons license or what have you. But I don’t think one should be shamed if one choos­es to sell one’s work and pro­tect one’s copy­right, if one wants to.

  • Ruth says:

    Hmmm, Nos­tal­ghia is still that span­ish sub­ti­tled ver­sion on youtube. I am dis­ap­point.

  • Rafa Ga says:

    Oh my god! 2 year has passed and every­one writes “Tarkovsky” and is Tarkovs­ki… (yeah, I know, it´s just a Y instead of a I, but, comme on! hes like my father) xD

    • Ben says:

      Both ‘i’ or ‘y’ are accept­able pho­net­ic trans­la­tions for the Russ­ian u0438u0439 (u0422u0430u0440u043au043eu0301u0432u0441u043au0438u0439), pro­nounced ‘ee’.

  • movie says:

    Andrei Tarkovsky (1932–1986) firm­ly posi­tioned him­self as the finest Sovi­et direc­tor of the post-War peri­od. But his influ­ence extend­ed well beyond the Sovi­et Union. The Cahiers du ciné­ma con­sis­tent­ly ranked his films on their top ten annu­al lists.

  • Demet Yüksel says:

    Tarkovs­ki in the Andrei Rublev char­ac­ter make feel us most of the themes that he has always pas­sion. Andrei Rublev is an unfor­get­table char­ac­ter about free­dom and search­ing himself(includes loos­ing and finding),reaching com­pe­tence in the art with matur­ing of soul, inter­ro­gat­ing him­self with con­sum­ing all the pos­si­bil­i­ties and liv­ing the spir­i­tu­al sat­is­fac­tion. He’s a com­pli­cat­ed soul/On the way of wis­dom he nev­er eas­i­ly escape and he car­ries all his life the mot­to of”KNOWLEDGE BRINGS SADNESS”. He’s an exi­c­it­ing char­ac­ter that you will under­stand his deci­sions on his own way are very fit­ing and poet­i­cal.

  • Miles Bader says:

    Stalk­er is not watch­able on a ipad; the error mes­sage says some­thing like “not view­able on a portable device” and rec­om­mends you put it on your to-watch list and lat­er wach it on a com­put­er … Of course, sound does­n’t work on my com­put­er… ><

    What the hell is the point of such a restric­tion?!

  • no says:

    The point of said restric­tion is that it’s a dis­grace to watch his work on a ipad. It is no one’s fault but your own that the sound on your com­put­er does not work. Watch it the way it was intend­ed rather than on a fuck­ing ipad.

    • nate says:

      on an ipad! oh no!

      • Doc Strange says:

        with high qual­i­ty head­phones a reti­na iPad is great way to watch movies. In a dark room, the prox­im­i­ty and def­i­n­i­tion equate a larg­er screen fur­ther away. Try it. A great film is still great seen this way. It takes only a few sec­onds to get lost in the world.

    • Andru says:

      Snob­bery sucks. Also, the “way it was intend­ed” was on a freak­ing cin­e­ma screen, not a tele­vi­sion, so I’d be sur­prised if you’re not already falling foul of your own douchebag­gery.

  • Johanna says:

    It’s say­ing: an error occured please try again lat­er.
    Is it still online?

  • Wee Gee says:

    Last night I could watch Solaris on my iPad … and now sud­den­ly I can’t … … WHAT HAPPENED?!

    * (BTW — ‘no’ … nei­ther you nor your ‘fuck­ing’ soap-box will be required for this one … Xx

  • Simon says:

    Re: The point of said restric­tion is that it’s a dis­grace to watch his work on a iPad.

    I can’t think why. It is quite pos­si­ble to get a bet­ter visu­al expe­ri­ence from a good qual­i­ty dig­i­tal source, viewed on a recent (high­er res­o­lu­tion) iPad, than from many of the prints shown in cin­e­mas. The same is true of the sound.

    Between the whin­ing about the pre­sumed copy­right infringe­ments, the hand-wring­ing over the fate of Cri­te­ri­on, and the dik­tats about how one ought to view his films, I’ve almost been put off watch­ing any­thing by Tarkovsky again. What a pre­cious bunch of peo­ple.

  • baotzebao says:

    Great New. Tx

  • Daniella says:

    Great­est direc­tor of all time.

  • Sergey Malovatov says:

    It is a great film, indeed!nnnAndrei Tarkovsky (1932 — 1986), who had firm­ly posi­tionednhim­self as the finest Sovi­et direc­tor of the post-War peri­od, incor­po­rat­ed the most trag­ic moments of his life expe­ri­ence into a stream-of-con­scious­ness-like man­ner of nar­rat­ing a sto­ry of his life, which he him­self increas­ing­ly viewednas devoid of any mean­ing­ful nar­ra­tive of a sto­ry, in a film, which he called a nightmare.nnnThe Mir­ror is a film about the final hours of the author u2013 a dying man in his for­ties u2013 that are being spent in hal­lu­ci­na­tions about his child­hood and his moth­er, about him­self as a child and a grown man, and about his lover. nnnThe bright­est moments of his life weren­float­ing across his mind where he could no longer dis­tin­guish between him­self as the child and as the father. He could no longer dis­tin­guish between his moth­er, his wife, and his lover. All became one. Every­thing was inter­min­gled­nand con­fused.

  • hetty says:

    I could not get the subtitles…but Tarkovsky was top class when it comes to film­mak­ing, and I do not think he would mind one bit that his films are out in pub­lic domain for ‘free’. He was quite sim­ply a genius.

  • damian says:

    Too bad the subs in The Mir­ror (maybe even in all films) are poor. A lot of words are skipped. Is this so on the orig­i­nal DVD as well?

  • Meghnad kulkarni says:


  • john pacheco says:

    Están sub­ti­t­u­ladas al español ???

  • says:

    I am also very inter­est­ed to know if they are sub­ti­tled in Span­ish. I know it’s not the same than see­ing and lis­ten­ing in the orig­i­nal lan­guage, but I need span­ish sub­ti­tles until I learn a lit­tle more Eng­lish :)
    Thanks in advance!

  • tito2015 says:

    افضل شركات نقل الأثاث بالرياض
    شركة كشف تسربات المياه
    شركة عزل
    تخزين اثاث بالرياض
    شركة نقل عفش بالرياض
    شركة ترميمات عامة بالرياض
    شركة تشطيبات بالرياض
    شركة مكافحة حشرات بجدة
    شركة نقل اثاث بمكة
    شركة تنظيف بمكة
    شركات تنظيف منازل بجدة
    شركة كشف تسربات بجدة
    شركة مكافحة حشرات بجدة
    شركة عزل خزانات بجدة
    شركة نقل عفش بمكة
    شركة عزل خزانات بجدة
    شركات مكافحة حشرات بجدة
    شركة تنظيف خزانات بجدة
    شركات نقل عفش مكة
    شركات تنظيف منازل مكة
    شركات رش المبيدات حشرية مكة
    شركة عزل أسطح بالرياض
    شركات العزل الحراري
    شركة عزل مائي
    شركة عزل بالرياض
    شركة عزل اسطح بالرياض
    شركة عزل خزانات بالرياض
    شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض
    دكتور جراحات السمنة
    بالون المعدة
    عملية تدبيس المعدة
    عملية تصغير المعدة
    عملية تكميم المعدة
    عمليات تدبيس المعدة
    عملية المرارة بالمنظار
    شركة رش مبيد بالرياض
    شركة مكافحة البق بالرياض
    شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض
    شركات مكافحة القوارض
    شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
    شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض
    مكافحة حشرات الفراش
    شركات ابادة الحشرات الرياض
    شركة الصالحي تخزين اثاث بالرياض
    شركات كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض
    شركات نقل اثاث الرياض
    شركة عزل السطح بالرياض
    شركة تخزين عفش الرياض
    شركة تنظيف بيارات الرياض
    شركة تنظيف بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة رش مبيدات بالمدينة المنورة
    مكافحة حشرات بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة تخزين عفش بالمدينة المنورة
    نقل عفش بالمدينة المنورة
    غسيل خزانات بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة تنظيف شقق بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة تنظيف بجدة
    كشف تسربات المياة بجدة
    شركة تنظيف خزانات بجدة
    نقل عفش جدة
    شركات مكافحة الحشرات في جدة
    شركة تنظيف بجدة
    شركات رش المبيدات الحشرية بجدة
    نقل مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
    شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض
    كشف تسربات المياه
    شركة تنظيف بالرياض
    شركة تنظيف بالرياض
    شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض
    شركة نظافة فلل بالرياض
    شركة تخزين عفش بالرياض
    ابي وايت صرف صحي بالرياض
    شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالمدينة المنورة
    شركة عزل خزانات بالخبر
    شركة كشف تسربات المياة بجدة
    شركة رش مبيدات بالدمام
    مستعمل اثاث
    شركات تنظيف خزانات بالدمام
    شركة تنظيف منازل بالخرج
    شراء اثاث مستعمل الرياض
    شركة تنظيف خزانات بالخبر
    شركة تنظيف فلل بالأحساء
    شراء اثاث مستعمل في الرياض
    شركة تنظيف فلل بالخرج
    شركة نقل عفش ينبع

  • Mark says:

    is there an email list to sign on to ?

  • Gueorgi says:

    Where is Offret?

  • Sanja Plavsic-Brandt says:

    u0445u0432u0430u043bu0430 u0431u043eu0433u0443 u043fu0430 u0440u0430u0437u0443u043cu0435u043c u0438 u0440u0443u0441u043au0438…u043au043eu043bu0438u043au043e u043du0435u043cu0430u0458u0443 u043fu043eu0458u043cu0430 u043eu0432u0438 u0437u0430u043fu0430u0434u045au0430u0446u0438 !! the mas­ter, tarkovsky, final­ly online. all of it.

  • notthatdave says:

    That’s patent pro­tec­tion. Copy­right pro­tec­tion pro­tects cre­ative works like films and books. Patent pro­tec­tion pro­tects inven­tions. They’re very dif­fer­ent.

  • Eve says:

    Where is The Sac­ri­fice?

  • CRAP! says:

    Please this is NOT the way to expe­ri­ence any of Tarkovsky’s work.

    The only way is on the big screen or at least a Blu-Ray copy if pos­si­ble.


  • Maga says:

    Haha, I guess that those who will watch those movies only because they are free will be dis­ap­point­ed.

  • Ivan R says:

    A moron who can’t get a link right. True cul­ture!

  • Douglas Bowker says:

    Copy­right issues aside, the qual­i­ty and res­o­lu­tion offered here is even less than stan­dard DVD, let alone HD or Blu-Ray. A pret­ty poor way of view­ing such mas­ter­pieces…

  • Zemira says:

    Yes, very dis­ap­point­ing.

  • Kem says:

    Bore off and let every­one enjoy Tarkovsky.

  • Ieva says:

    Tarkovsky lived in Sovi­et Union, but he was nev­er a sovi­et film direc­tor.

  • sergio says:

    Four :)

  • Thomas Bulté says:

    i’ve wait­ed too long and now they’re all gone! but at the cor­ner of my street is a library and i know they own a copy of solaris. so maybe stalk­er is avail­able there too. i must watch this film, because my girl­friend said so. will put on my shoes for the intel­li­gen­tia and have me a stroll towards the pub­lic library soon. then i will eat a pra­line from neuhaus.

  • Pavel gromnic says:

    I have nev­er recov­ered from the cir­cum­stances of my ear­ly life as a poor, igno­rant, fearful,and repressed indi­vid­ual. I feel pret­ty strong­ly now that these dis­ad­van­tages dis­abled me from growth as a knowl­edge­able per­son. I have strug­gled to com­pre­hend the world around me. And now, at almost sev­en­ty years old, I feel at last com­ing to peace with the con­fused world around me. Open Cul­ture and oth­er very help­ful, gen­er­ous sources have been a great con­so­la­tion to me. The only work I have now is to find a peace­ful death.

  • lena savic says:

    Thank you for your offer and work. Can you please tell me how I can actu­al­ly watch Tarkovsky free online? Where are links?
    Best Regards,

  • David Kantor says:

    Are Tarkovsky’s films all in the pub­lic domain? Do I need to get per­mis­sion to use short clips in a doc­u­men­tary I’m pro­duc­ing?

  • Stan says:

    All of these (bar Ivan’s Child­hood) have been tak­en down and are now paid for films on YouTube.

  • Rose says:

    Hey, it looks like the links lead to videos which have been tak­en down!

  • Richard says:

    Hey, yes, the links have changed over time. You can find the cor­rect ones at

  • Pietro says:

    Hi. 10 years lat­er all those films are pri­vate. :(

  • Mischell says:

    Pornog­ra­phy is free but Tarkovsky’ and Bergman’ movies you have to pay for — this is what our world has come to. Shame ..
    Who gets the mon­ey for Tarkovsky’s movies Maybe his fam­i­ly ? Nope
    Freak­ing stream­ing giants thieves such as Ama­zon

  • milan says:

    “The stench of Vladimir Putin and his inva­sion of Ukraine shouldn’t taint every­thing Russ­ian…”

    Was this real­ly nec­es­sary? Because the stench of the White House Sex Preda­tors is matched only by Vat­i­can.

  • milan says:

    I don’t know, one would think, with the name “Open Cul­ture”, they would be open-mind­ed and with an accent on cul­ture.

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.