Order by:

Add your comment

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Comments 16 - 30 of 49

dyin2live's avatar

dyin2live

Best explanation I found online for the division of opinions on this film:

"Two men stood before a picture-frame mounted on a white wall. Within the frame there is only utter white.

The first man is an art student and is gushing with praise, citing the insight, the profound and bold statements the artist is making, the depth of his vision and the social commentary the artist is Obviously making.

The other man is an interior decorator, and is shaking his head in bewilderment, wondering how on earth someone got paid so much for sticking a nail in a wall and hanging a frame on it.

Their argument is eternal: Which one doesn't 'get' it?"

I had not trouble interpreting the film in my own light. However, I am more inclined to be agree with the "interior decorator." Why take nearly 3 hours? What am I supposed to be interpreting during the facial close-ups? If we were supposed to interpret the dialogue why did it move so quickly? Wouldn't it be better to have them speak longer and allow me to interpret after the credits role? These are the reasons why I am inclined to agree that this film is pretentious.
11 years 3 months ago
ChrisReynolds's avatar

ChrisReynolds

The lensing of the desolate 'Zone' is the greatest strength of the film, holding a stark beauty. The script is another matter with the characters mouthing existentialist platitudes which reminded me of the 'Theatre of the Absurd' movement, however, after two and a half hours the film had failed to convey anything of any interest to me and I was just waiting for it to end.
12 years ago
Siskoid's avatar

Siskoid

Andrei Tartovsky's Stalker is a real head trip about a guide taking two men, a writer and a scientist, into a mysterious "Zone" where the laws of physics do not apply, in the quest to find a room where all of one's wishes are granted. I know Tartovsky's languorous shots are boring to many, and may not seem necessary to modern audiences. What he's actually doing, here as much as in Solaris, is allowing you to think not AFTER the film, but DURING. Because there is a lot to think about. The films is open to multiple interpretations to the point where it DEFIES interpretation. A perfectly posed philosophical film about unhappiness, at its broadest, it is about anything the unhappy person takes refuge in. Relationships, work, greater principles, democracy (if you see the film as a critique of Soviet communism), venal ones, drugs, violence... the imagery and plot support them all. The most striking, however, is spiritual enlightenment, with the two travelers representing two sides of the atheist's coin and the Stalker as prophet/apostle. Allusions to the the New Testament abound. And while it may seem like enlightenment is impossible, and the Stalker often feels like a failure - the crux of HIS unhappiness - I do believe he succeeds, in a way he doesn't understand. But see what you think; there's no one simple answer. None of Tartovsky's films are easy to sit through, but this one, at least, has a powerful look and a host of strange locations; additional viewings to get more out of the allegory will benefit from the cinematography.
6 years ago
BigAwesomeBLT's avatar

BigAwesomeBLT

Woody Harrelson and his two mates sod about on some train tracks, then in a field, and then in a tunnel. Nothing else happens.
8 years 7 months ago
armyofshadows's avatar

armyofshadows

A terrific work of great spiritual art
10 years 9 months ago
I-M-Pulsive's avatar

I-M-Pulsive

I know how the writer & scientist must've felt. It was very promising. It kept me interested until almost at the end. All I had left then was just an idea of how it should be, and the disappointment of how it was.
11 years 8 months ago
sureup's avatar

sureup

I really liked it, but I don't really get what it's trying to say, if anything at all. But that isn't necessary a bad thing.

Great movie!
12 years 3 months ago
jhhayes's avatar

jhhayes

In all honesty, I didn't expect to enjoy this film. At all. All I can say is that it had me hooked from the get-go. I was spellbound to the point of literally losing all track of time. The runtime of nearly 180 minutes ticked by in the blink of an eye. I don't even know what it was that enthralled me to such a degree. Maybe I'll have more answers upon a second or third viewing? 4/4
6 years ago
Groovy09's avatar

Groovy09

After seing Solaris, I said to myself that i will never watch another Andrei Tarkovsky movie ever again, since I found Solaris so dull and boring that I allmost turned it off. It had alot of interesting ideas and themes, but like I said it was dull and boring. So for some odd reason i decided to give Tarkovsky one more chance since I thought he had potential as a director. So going into this movie I expected the same boring and dull experience like Solaris. After seeing Stalker I can easily say that I was pleasantly suprised.

This is a very haunting, beautiful and often poectic film about a group of three men who sets out for a room that can grant your deepest desires known as 'The zone'. And what follows is a very surreal and dark journey into the subconscious filled with a lot of philosophical quenstions about life, the human condition, science and religion.

Andrei Tarkovsky's directing is absolutely stunning. It gives it a certain feel and atmosphere that I can't really describe unless you have seen the film. And unlike Solaris, Stalker had in my opinion a very well executed story, great performances, interesting and deep characters and very well written dialog.

Now this film will not be for everybodys tastes. The way it's directed may put some people of, since it uses a lot of slow panning shots and a little amound of editing, that will make the film seem slow for a lot of people. And since it's running time is 2 and a half hours, you have to go in with caution, because if you're not going to be as pulled in by the films atmosphere and directing like i was, you will have a very painfull experience. But if it does draw you in, you will probaly have one of the most unique movie-experiences in a long time.

Personally I was absolutely facinated by it and to my suprise, those 2 and a half hours went by a lot quicker than I expected. And when that happens, it only proves that the movie has sucked you to it's world.

So, I highly recommend Stalker, but i cannot promise you that you will love it, you might even hate it.
8 years 9 months ago
KloVero's avatar

KloVero

I got physically involved watching this movie. Tarkovski is undoubtedly the best to create ambience. I never saw anything like this.
9 years 9 months ago
V012's avatar

V012

Wow. Now that's a film
11 years 2 months ago
Cassiodoro's avatar

Cassiodoro

Far too cerebral for me now. I will understand that riddle in a few years.
11 years 11 months ago
Paper_Okami's avatar

Paper_Okami

I liked it ,but I prefer Solaris by faar.

I need to re-watch this eventually though.
13 years 11 months ago
captain canuck's avatar

captain canuck

Tartosky’s Russian Sci-Fi about 3 characters going to a place called THE Zone where all of one’s deepest desires are filled. A great looking/composition film using the ‘Wizard of Oz’ effect (black and white to color). Not a ‘traditional’ science fiction movie but a deep meditation on human desire. One of the best movie about ‘ideas’ I have seen. Hypnotic and dense as a perogy.
3 years 11 months ago
the3rdman's avatar

the3rdman

Beautiful and mesmerizing. Definitely warrants a re-watching. I still prefer Solaris though.
12 years 6 months ago

Showing items 16 – 30 of 49

View comments