The problem with this type of film is that people too readily put it into "cult status" category and from that point on, find it hard to assess it objectively. Sure it looks good, but nothing actually happens in it, and it most defintiely is NOT SF. I SO wanted this to be good, I really wanted to see something in this film that perhaps others might not. I didnt. It is the kings new clothes of film making, and opacity, dullness, length, slow pacing & unfathomable plot does NOT make a good film
As an audio-visual experience, it's unparalleled, and its premise is interesting. Its slow, contemplative pace and the visuals and sounds make it an absorbing experience, but at times Stalker lingers on an environment or a concept for too long, breaking the dream-like state it previously induced. Regardless, if you can make it through all 25 hours, Stalker will make an impact on you - if not for its philosophical musings, for the environments it immerses you in.
I need to see this again. I wish I liked it more, really, but as someone once stated, "Stalker is only as good as what the individual brings to it". "Ivan's Childhood" is probably the most accessible Tarkovsky.
A slow and philosophical adaptation of a russian sci-fi novel written by Strugacky brothers (dir. A. Tarkovsky). A stalker (guide) leads a writer and a scientist into a Zone, a place with it's own rules, abandoned area which is a remain of an enigmatic alien visit, seeking a place that is rumored to grant human wishes. Most of scenes are based on examining motives and characters of these three people and meaning of human life. The movie's setting - a dystopical unknown (post)industrial landscape being reclaimed by nature - add a lot to the it's overall impact.
This film has everything! It's beautiful, actors are great, camera is excellent, plot is brilliant... I don't know if I could find anything what wouldn't deserve superlatives... хорошо труд господин режиссер!
A glorious compendium of faith. An incredibly dense masterpiece with a truly infinite wealth of possibilities. There is never an end to a film by Tarkovsky; they're so uniquely haunting and beautiful that you take them with you into real life. Damn if it isn't my favorite movie ever.
Really feels more like a moving piece of art than a traditional story. Eventually I started to feel like the characters would never reach the room, and if they did, it wouldn't be as "easy" an ending as it sounds on paper. The whole thing moves very slowly, and it gives you plenty of time to soak in all of the imagery, study the landscapes, and appreciate all the detail put into it, including some VERY long continuous shots.
One of the most intensely lonely and dystopic films made, at least on a superficial level. I can't say I was able to pick everything up from the deeper philosophical levels, and it may take not only rewatches but more life experience to understand it all, but you don't need to understand it all to realize that this is something amazing. Those last few takes are absolutely mind-blowing.
Strangely alluring, but maybe that is because of the premise. The actual execution was disappointing IMO. I don't mind that it's long, but more that it doesn't do as much with that runtime as I expected. Like Solaris, Stalker has some philosophical babble that I don't really much care for, but Stalker has heavy religious undertones. I probably shouldn't have been laughing at the ending.