[2nd Watch] I don't see this as a masterpiece of any kind but it asks important questions in a manner unlike most; is as much a mystery as it is adventure, fantasy, horror, character study, and [above all] philosophical in tone. There is endless talk of the cinematography but it's the use of silence & sound and those astonishing locations that really create the atmosphere. I'm not entirely convinced of his execution, but Tarkovsky is beginning to grow on me.
I was initially surprised at the lack of any real resolutions, but maybe I was just too interested to discover what the Zone and the Room really were capable of than on the journey of discovery and spiritual change the main characters go through. Has a wonderful sense of foreboding, the long takes and the locations used are simply perfect. Watching this movie was such a unique experience... tense, thought-provoking, depressing and enchanting all at once. Deserves, no, demands a rewatch.
The film is an experience, more than anything. You should let the story take you wherever it might take you and not get stuck on dissecting every single allegory it presents. It's a complex film which you can intrepret in multiple ways. Anyone with even a little bit of concentration should be able to get something out of it.
This is my first Tarkovsky, and other than Bergman and Kieslowski, no other filmmaker has imbued a film with such genuine, sincere, and arresting observations on humanity and spirituality without ever once even bordering on pretension or heavyhandedness. The images and set-pieces jump off the screen, and yet have a beautiful simplicity about them. Stunning and unforgettable.
The fourth-greatest science fiction film of all time, after 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, Tarkovsky's SOLARIS, and SECONDS. Perhaps, in a certain frame of mind, I might think it is even better than that. To some degree an abstracted remake of Solaris. Many years since I watched this: another viewing required.
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
Stalker may have some of the most impressive cinematography that I have ever seen. Quite literally, this is a moving canvas by a phenomenal artist. The story wasn't as jaw dropping as the visuals, but its tough to fault the film for that in this case.
it is rather frustrating that a director who otherwise produces fantastic films stuffs them to the brim with philosophical fluff that expresses far fewer ideas than the number of syllables it takes to dictate them. it is beautiful and intriguing, but lay off the dialogue, man.
One has to remember that a year of work on this film was completely lost. I think this could partly be why it feels so incredibly resigned, and so authentic; I imagine Tarkovsky, who was originally devastated by the set-back, kind of resigned himself to a zen-ish "fuck it" attitude. Visually, the result is probably the most technically perfect film ever. As for the unfathomable 'zone,' what could this be a metaphor for-- if anything? Maybe the artistic endeavor, or for the unfathomable itself.
One of the masterpieces of Tarkovsky. An interrogation of the concepts of art, science, time and the logic, on which the whole Western civilaziton lies. You'll see the mastery of Tarkovsky on film art during the journey of three men to the "Zone". Planting a criticism successfully against the "order of State", Stalker is one of Tarkovsky's "problematic" films .
I respect it for being the inspiration to one of my favorite video games and it has got some amazing cinematography, scenery and photography. But I'm sorry this was just too friggin' boring and I see no reason for it to stretch out for nearly 3 hours. Also the dialogue mostly consists of very heavy handed and inaccessible philosophy and talk of danger that never manifests itself. I will most likely never watch it again
This very film fueled my desire and cravings for cinema. This film evokes so many feelings, understandings and grandeur. For some it's downright breathtaking. For me, it's just visually gripping with profound imagery, scenes and of course photography. On an emotional scale, this is completely over-the-top with so many complex, enigmatic aesthetics. Just plain amazing.