Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
yersi
Dec 21, 2004

by Fistgrrl
Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky
Starring: Aleksandr Kajdanovsky, Anatoli Solonitzyn, Nikolai Grinko

I came home from Russia two weeks ago with nine DVDs I'd bought over there. In Russia, pirating is not illegal, and so vendors hawk DVDs for about $5 each in the streets and subways. I was able to track down most of the things I wanted, including this masterpiece. The copy I got had no subtitles, and I eventually gave up trying to make it work with some subtitles I downloaded from the net. What I resorted to doing was printing out the subtitles and reading them along with the movie. It was quite an experience.

Stalker takes place in the future, in an unnamed country. We're told that an area called the Zone has appeared, and is closely guarded by the authorities. To get into the Zone, ordinary people employ the services of stalkers, psychically gifted guides who in exchange for money can lead persons in and out of it. The area is said to be extremely dangerous for those who don't know the way, but holds the promise of the Room, which can fulfill your innermost wishes.

You never learn the names of the three protagonists. The Stalker is a man in his thirties, nervous and twitchy. He has a handicapped daughter and a wife who's just about had enough of his constant journeys to the Zone. His clients, the Writer and the Scientist, are both in their forties, one disillusioned and cynical, the other quiet and resolute. All three experience an existential crisis during their journey into the Zone, and it is this crisis that forms the basis of the movie. I won't reveal too much, but the Zone never makes itself known in any way. It seems to be there in the background, observing, making notes to itself.

Stalker alternates between black/white and color, the industrial wastelands of the area outside the Zone being monochrome, expanding to lush greens and blues when they enter the Zone. This being a Tarkovsky film, the pace is extremely slow, but the camera is almost always in motion, zooming/panning or moving physically. We also get somewhat of an oddity in the beginning: a Tarkovsky action sequence, which has some of the most ingenious handling of camera angles that I've ever seen. The film is pretty heavy and I guess it will require several viewings to appreciate it fully, but the cinematography can be enjoyed by anyone with taste. There's almost no music except for one cue (quiet drone with some string instrument) that is repeated several times throughout Stalker (the FX track is very good though). As for all the symbolism, philosophy and psychology this movie is packed with, I won't even dare to try explaining it.

This movie is an audiovisual treat unlike any other, but it also functions as a multilayered allegory on man's spirituality and religion. I've never seen, and I guess I'll never see, an artwork just quite like it.

RATING: 5.5

PROS: Haunting visuals, good acting. Filled to the brim with mood and atmosphere but, most importantly, with depth and detail.
CONS: Slow as time itself, though in this case, it's not necessarily a bad thing

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Phullish
Sep 28, 2003
This is my favorite movie of all time. I like everything about it, but i can't find a single place to buy it. I really can't think of anything bad I want to say about it. I'm currently going through the few other movies I can find by Andrei Tarkovsky and can't wait to see more.

Rating: 5.5

balistic
May 3, 2002

note: greencine.com has this movie for rent, if you can't find it anywhere else.

Stalker is definitely a film that rewards patience. Beautifully-shot, it feels damp, and lush, and foreboding. My second-favorite Tarkovsky film, after Solaris.

If you liked 2001 and Solaris, I'd definitely recommend giving Stalker a try. Most mainstream audiences won't have the patience for it, but if you're a fan of movies that don't rush things, you might just like it.

5/5

sonatinas
Apr 15, 2003

Seattle Karate Vs. L.A. Karate
Stalker illustrates why you don't need time travel, the future, space ships, and aliens to make a science fiction movie.

You can find text to the book "Roadside Picnic" online. It's a cool story.
5.5/5

killaer
Aug 4, 2007
After playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and reading up on where the developers got the inspiration, I found this movie.

Being a native speaker of russian, I may have gotten a bit more out of it than some others. But wow, it was an incredible film. I've never seen any of Tarkovsky's other works, and this has to be one of the most unique movies I've ever seen.

It takes a lot of patience. A LOT of patience. I know that I felt like skipping ahead during a few scenes, it's an extremely slow paced movie, one that many people are probably going to overlook. However if you sit down to really appreaciate some of the shots, like when the 3 men are on the tram into the zone, you really get a true appreciation for the movie.

I loved it. The shots were beautiful, the zone looked awesome, and it's just a very relaxing movie overall. Oh, and wow, the music, when it came up, absolutely awesome. A really unique theme song, and it fits perfectly. The writer was deffinitely my favorite character, I really liked the dialog between the 3 men, especially when they get into the inner room of the zone. The dialog and excellent acting carried the movie well.


The only downside I can really point out, and I realize that it was an intentional part of the movie, I didn't really like how in the end the zone remained such an ambiguous thing. Not much is really told about it, I know it's supposed to be this mystery given to mankind that grants your wishes blah blah blah. The movie leaves you wondering in the end, and I don't really like that. I wish it was all spelled out :(

Anyway, it's an excellent movie. If you can get past the idea that there are scenes 10 minutes long where nothing at all happens, and try to appreaciate it, you'll like it. Or you might think it is a boring peice of poo poo, who knows.

4.5/5

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

markehed
Jul 17, 2009
I first saw it when I was studying film at the university. That might have affected me so that it had an even bigger impact, this because I was so used to "arty" movies. But I've seen it a few times after that and I still love it.

It's the probably the the best looking movie I've ever seen (Blade Runner might have something to say about that tho.). It just kicks so much rear end. If this move had been done by another director they would probably have used a lot of props for the zone (which is a strange deserted area filled with junk). Here it is all so subtle, it all looks real an believable. The actors do a marvellous job in much the same way.

My absolute favourite moment in the movie is when the stalker is having some kind of monologue and is fumbling with some twigs. It isn't until he actually finishes that you realise that he has made a crown of thorns. Brilliant!

5/5

  • Post
  • Reply