Stalker

Rating:
Summary: Fragile and beautiful
Review: It's not a sci-fi film. In fact Strugatsky brothers rewrote the script about 20 times so that all this sci-fi nonsense is left out of it! I can't imagine this film being made any other way, by any director other than Andrey Tarkovsky, the godlike genius of cinema!
I can't believe that people still go on about how his films are slow and pretentious, they just don't have a clue! None. Zero. How amazing Solonytsin is in this movie,I'm absolutely mesmerized by his perfomance! Maybe you need to know russian to understand this film better, because the dialogues are absolutely divine, but I highly recommend it.


Rating:
Summary: not a great date movie tho...
Review: Like Solaris - to which this could form a neat earth-bound companion piece - Stalker turns sci-fi conventions on their heads by insisting that our reactions to an alien intelligence may be more interesting than the alien culture itself. But this is where Tarkovsky's insistence ends; his refusal to promote one fixed point of view leaves it up to the viewer to judge the merits of these reactions. It's his provocative ambilvalence which makes him maddening to some and challenging to others. If nothing else, his films provide an antidote to the almost Wagnerian bombast of Hollywood - even the most modest romantic comedy costs $30 mil plus these days, while Stalker looks as if it was made for 2 bob. But if going to see a big-budget blockbuster is like being strapped into a rollercoaster, watching Stalker is more akin to taking your mind and soul for a punishing session at the gym, followed by an eye-wateringly cold shower. Not your idea of fun? Then stay away.
Short on dialogue but long on ideas and lingering images, Stalker tells the story of a Stalker (directly if meaninglessly translated from the Russian) whose job involves smuggling people into 'the Zone' - site of an alien landing which has been sealed off by the military (the country, like the date, is non-specific leaving even more blanks to be filled in). Weary but still evangelical, he shepards a writer and a professor who are willing to risk their lives in order to find out what the Zone has to offer, and the majority of the film tracks their laborious progress. I dont think it would be giving too much away to say that they never quite find what they are looking for (it being Tarkovsky after all; thank God he died before the concept of 'closure' became common currency, his head would have exploded!). Indeed, this film was pitched at me as being about 'some guys who want to get to this place, and they dont know why they're going and they never get there'! To say that the journey is more important than the end point would be simplifying things a little, as well as ignoring the fact that they never quite reach an end-point. This allows the movie -and the ideas behind it - to live on in your mind long after the film ends...I sometimes catch myself thinking about the Zone at odd moments. And yes I do have a full time job and a family!
If you think this all seems a bit internal and philosophical, you'd only be half-right. There are startling moments of action and a major plot point involving that old dramatic stand-by, the cuckolded husband. Tarkovsky makes these moments co-exist with the weightier aspects without comment,and by the end you feel emotionally as well as intellectually involved. Some might say that he regarded emotions every bit as ridiculous as pompous philosophical musings, but I think the final scene -as ambiguous a closing shot as Solaris's - presents yet another aspect and stops the viewer from parsing Stalker and prescribing nihilism. As my friend who turned me on to it said, after watch you dont quite know what you've seen but you're a different person somehow.

Rating:
Summary: like a drone of humanity existing with fears
Review: I keep returning to Stalker, actually the translation doesn't have such ominous overtones, it is simply closer to "guide" or "one who knows". We seem to be drawn to this (is it a film) it breaks the genre, or that is simply Tarkovski's visual language. Fear is the Factor here; what makes one travel to the Forbidden Zone?, this is a very Eastern concept, (that a "place" can be contaminated, places are usually reserved for the spirit,like nature) They say Russia had kept the barbarian hordes from the West and this has shaped its history giving it a function for better and worse. If it didn't have nuclear weapons, it would have been invaded, robbed by the free democracies long ago.

The Stalker himself is unsure,he wants intellectuals to have committment to humanity, simply to be what they say they are,and they are not; the word "pravda" is tossed about throughout the film. But the Writer and the Scientist are simply opportunists. The Scientist is going to the Zone to acquire power,or knowledge.Well that's why you go, but you could return, deformed relatively, (for we are already deformed.) Tarkovski it seems explores this "grayness",opaqueness; neither this nor that paradox I think. The Scientist brought a kiloton bomb with him, to detroy the Zone? Perhaps Not! He was in the Room and phoned his equally opportunist colleague. I guess the phones work in the Zone, but the Flowers don't smell.And one needs to throw these white clothes with a stone enbedded in its head like a dart to see if it is safe to proceed.
The number of shots of the Human Head (turned away from frontal view) while the situation is one of movements/motions are incredible, as in the initial travel to the Zone where all we see is the Writer's Head, and all are on a railcar, we hear only the clickkedy clack of the rails, the pulse of motion.Not knowing where we are going, like traveling on a train with one's eyes closed. And again at the end the Stalker carries his daughter who is deformed without legs, we see only her head bobbling as she rides on the Stalker's shoulders. The price he paid for travelling to the Zone prior, his sperm is infected now.

The slow transformations of colour are also incredible from the darknesses of the opening brwons and greens, blacks and their shadows, to almost full colour. Tarkovski seems to create quite a filmic language with the various horizons is viewed(indoors and outdoors) of the neiboring towns, just enough to get a feel for the serenity that can be part of existence, or the corridors and alleyways in the opening half hour.

The overall grainy-ness of the film is a tension in and of itself, like something that cannot be resolved. Also the"junkspace" of humanity is here before we called it junk, all the detritus of unsaved humanity floating in the contaminated waters of the Zone. We see all this slowly, gently like Mother Earth and all man;s creations do in fact mean something. A reverance/rememberance for the past is suggested.
The black dog that is found in the Zone and brought back was a nice touch of gentleness, our reverance for the non-human world, environmental ethics perhaps.

Rating:
Summary: Stunning!
Review: This review is just to mention couple of things regarding the DVD, the movie itself need no words of intro. Artistic cinema.
As this DVD is similar to Ruscico's version, the following could help if you really want to enjoy the movie in its original form.

* Some versions have Dolby 5.1 remix track which totally destroys the movie mood. look for original mono mix.
* The Region 1 DVD is NTSC which suffers from PAL-speedup as the movie source is PAL.

I'll recommend to get the Ruscico PAL/Region 0 version for best experience and for less price.

5 stars for the movie, but not many stars for DVD.

Rating:
Summary: The force and roughness are the satellits of the death !
Review: Awful words told by the Stalker when he thinks in loud voice when he goes to the Zone .
This film is superb and unique ; vivid and powerful ; sinister and cerebral ; poetic and captivating ; stark and eerie.
Grinko and Solonitsin are the two sides of the coin ; science against humanism exchange its disagreement points of view when they decide to make the journey to the wasteland : the Zone .
The mysterious goes in crescendo till you will find its powerful meaning .
This movie runs slowly ; very slowly and it demands from you all the possible attention , the images run with dyonisiac and majestic flowness ; the visual metaphors are countless : the water as a freedom symbol runs before your eyes and are wonderful mesmerizing .
Stalker is a simple man ; a faith man who decides to carry all the people really interested to know the Zone . The riddle is a very complex puzzle ; but Tarkovsky gives you the clues , but beware with certain requisites you need .
Think for instance in The divine comedy and go to the hell journey ; that film has too many devices that run parallel to this concept . Remember the intense dialogue in the last circle of the hell when in his exhaustive seeking for Beatriz he is forced to see the face of a monster consuming men ; he will have to face the monster face to face and he will watch a sad face with tears in its eyes .
The Zone is a very special place ; there is a desire room which only will give you your most sincere desire ; and that premise is clearly hazardous ; because it is going to reveal your real nature and for many people who still scare to their inner demons is really better deny this challenging proposal .
The crudeness and the overwhelming message against the political opressing in those ages in the ancient USSR meant to Andrei Tarkovsky was exiled from his beloved country . You know ; the Politburo patient reached the limit and this collosal , giant , intelligent and artistic work crossed the forbidden red line. The art , intelligence and the talent have always been subversive in totalitarian regimes . And this was the last soviet opus of Tarkovsky, who was forced to live in Italy .
So think it about the powerful and brave message this film meant .
This is one of the giant films in any age ; because as any masterpiece its deep significance trascends its own time to inscribe in the highest artistic and cosmic levels.
A real triumph of the art .


Rating:
Summary: An interesting monster
Review: I've only seen one other movie by Tarkovsky, Andrei Rublev, and I absolutely loved 3/4 of it, but found that love to be betrayed by the last fourth, which only made me scratch my head. In other words, this review is not put forth by a partisan of the Tarkovsky-esque.
In terms of style, all the other reviewers are not joking. It is very slow, even the movements of the people are slow. I think the first ten or so minutes of the film has no dialogue at all, but just this tip-toeing camera the goes hither, then thither, front, then back, pan left, then pan right. Which is not to say that this is something I personally detested, but it is enough to try the patience of even the most ponderous souls.
The dialogue is abstract enough to be challenging, and the setting itself is abstract, making this a big abstract-fest that, again, will probably off-put many viewers.
The narrative arc is subtle and depends for its interest on the viewer's ability and or willingness to perceive nuance: if you're not the type of person who enjoys relating setting, sound, camera movement, and dialogue, in order to grasp significant points in a film, then Stalker will probably not be your favorite two and a half hours of life.
But perhaps I exaggerate. I, personally, am not one of those people, and when I do look for nuance like that, it is always in addition or complementary to what is given explicitly on the surface (I prefer Kurosawa to Bergman). I found that this film had plenty on the surface, and I enjoyed it immensely. The story, despite its slow pace, is really fascinating, and Tarkovsky makes good use of dropping hints early on about things to be more fully fleshed out later. This was enough to keep me interested. The music is positively haunting--I cannot emphasize how haunting the score is--and during many of the "long takes" where nothing is said and nothing much happens, the score is quite enough to make the scenes gripping. In short, this is a movie that relies a lot on mood and atmosphere, but I don't think you have to be particularly subtle in order to enjoy those things, since, again, they are the most obvious aspects of the film.
Like with Andrei Rublev, the ending of Stalker left me somewhat perplexed, with the difference that, for some reason, I found it kind of appropriate. It moved me in some way, it seemed to "work," even though I couldn't give you three words of explication about its meaning or Tarkovsky's intent.
Potential viewers, I think, should not be scared off by the "heady" nature of the material in Stalker, and unlike some other masterpieces, this one seems to be more of a cup of tea than a philosophical screed pandering to film professors. Personally, I find the ideas in Stalker to be fairly commonplace, and I'd be surprised if anyone, with more or less effort, was unable to get the gist of them. What makes the film compelling is the way the ideas are expressed and dramatized...in a sense, Tarkovsky gives them a mood, an environment, a timbre, and a color.
Give it a shot. At worst, you'll be bored. But at best...in the Zone!

Rating:
Summary: Faithless world
Review: First of all, do not watch this film if you have ADD. There are long, drawn out shots of fields, three men walking, and quirky discussions which many will find boring. I didn't. While this film is about many things at once, I found on reflection that (at least to me) "Stalker" is essentially about the ethical/non-ethical nature of notions like hope, redemption. The 'Zone' as it is termed is really a metaphor for what a human has to reach in his/her life to find metaphysical hope. In the end, that hope is judged (by the most likeable character out of the three) to be invalid, even morally wrong.

The meditative shots of fields alternate with shots of decay, destruction, and a "1984ish" state. These men remind one of some of Beckett's characters, behaving in absurd ways. But, perhaps the point is, this is an absurd world. A masterpiece that demands full attentiveness.