>nothing happens: the movie
it's literally three dudes walking around and talking. I could barely even follow the dialogue. why does this shite even exist at all?
>le filtered le le !!
you didn't get it either.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
filtered
this
ok incels
filtered
filtered
filtered
Filtered
filtered
filtered
(OP)
filtered
i've avoided this movie for years because i thought it's just a boring extremely slow movie about three drunken katsaps bumbling some pseudo-philosophical crap for three hours
now i've finally watched it and it turned out it's a boring extremely slow movie about three drunken katsaps bumbling some pseudo-philosophical crap for three hours BUT also it was gigakino i loved every second of it
filtered
morons
pretentious lil suburban rat
>it's literally three dudes walking around and talking.
Yeah and it was still more entertaining than saltburn.
filtered
the filtered meme is the best one of all because it's exclusively used by morons who have either not seen the movie at all or only watched it because they were told to, they read somewhere that it's a really important or good movie and, despite possibly not liking it or understanding it, want to fit in. so they pretend they totally get it
Filtered, for not understanding that people will tell you that you were filtered regardless of what you're complaining about. It doesn't even have to be something considered good.
Filtered and coping.
sounds an awful lot like what a filtered person would say
>he still hasn't grown out of this mindset
Ironically, use of the term "filtered" is itself a reverse filter by which normal well adjusted posters can weed out the idiots and pseuds
LYNCHED
How many years have we been having this thread now.
I can no longer remember.
Maybe we've always been trapped here.
I revel in the tears of these plot point smoothbrains where their puny little minds get so agitated by the simple fact that they can't figure out how to process a certain film and why everyone else enjoys it so they fire up their mental midget cope defense systems by saying that the film is somehow the worst film ever made and everyone else is just merely pretending to like it, most of the time with zero actual arguments and just empty overly general statements about their emotions instead of anything about the film itself.
Cry on my dear brainlet friends, wait for that one (You) that has a sort of a similar opinion like you so you get your precious confirmation bias tick in your brain how everyone else is just pretending so you can sleep better.
>precious confirmation bias tick
the literal basis for human civilization
filtered
DISTILLED
only reason i was interested in watching it was because of its loose association with stalker the video game
I read roadside picnic before rewatching Stalker and it really didnt help my understanding of the movie at all. Red is a stalker again for some reason, the monkey is still just as irrelevant to anything since his father isnt there, the traps are gone, and the vulture's sphere isnt even mentioned once. I like the philosophy about what theyre going to do with the "gift" should they finally find it, but there is so little in common with the book despite it obviously playing off of it
Becouse it's not a 1:1 adaptation, it's a film inspired by the story. The traps are there, they just got really fricking lucky. The sphere also got replaced by the room. A lot of this shit is due to the budget and technical limitations.
Tarkovsky said he doesn't give a shit about the book or the sci-fi genre in general. Iirc the only reason he decided to make Solaris was to show up Kubrick
And Lem hated him till the very last day for it. Tarkovsky was a moron and a lot of his stuff is way overrated.
A lot of stuff like this is common when it comes to soviet-made films and them being praised in the west, the overall misery and shittiness of Solaris, Stalker, Siberiade and other soviet "masterpieces" is not due to the directors being artistic geniuses, it's just how Russia was and is.
People saying filtered are pseudo-intellectuals with shit taste. Stalker sucks. Nothing of interest happens whatsoever.
breasts or gtfo
filtered
filtered
I've never watched this movie, I just wanted to be cool and say 'filtered' too.
filtered
go to your local drive-in and see it
literally everyone in this thread is just doing what you're doing
The film is so commonly known and seen by anons that it's in the first level of the "how kino are you?" chart.
>The film is so commonly known and seen by anons
Is it? I don't see many people talking about the movie at all. I just see a lot of spam by NPCs, which is what makes up most of this board. I can only assume the filtered section is horrible, if people are posting in a thread for a movie they haven't seen.
NTAYRT
I have watched it but I honestly have nothing to say about it. I understood frick all. Still, it was a great experience trying to make sense of it with my friends who are just as clueless as I. Pretty images, interesting atmosphere, and thought provoking dialogue. That's the best comment I can make about this film.
>NTAYRT
I have no idea what your Reddit acronym stands for.
>I understood frick all
That's fine, because I explained it here:
I even posted a screenshot, that I took just now, because I both remember and understood the movie. The dialogue at the end explains the movie really well. The Stalker is upset at the end, because he thinks nobody believes, and nobody wants to go. It's quite a haunting movie, considering the director died to make it.
>Not The Anon You Replied To
gb2r
I've actually been here longer than all of you, and I've never seen that acronym. Reply after I filter the thread, and keep in mind the rest of the board is filtered too. Please enjoy each others company, whoever the frick you people are.
filtered
That’s a weird acronym, bro. It’s much more commonly NTA for not that anon.
prefacing your post with any kind of identifying acronym is pure redditry
embarrassing...
I feel like Stalker is posted about pretty often. It's just that nearly nobody cares to explain films or what makes them good to strangers on the internet, so you'll end up seeing low effort posts much more of the time.
I've explained some in depth before and it just ends up feeling like a bother that makes me waste more time on Cinemaphile, especially since there will just be infinitely more threads made by people who have similar questions.
Brother please....
Stalker and the book it's based on (Roadside Picnic) is a huge fricking metaphor for how hellish and how much of a fail state the USSR had become by the 70s/80s.
By the mid-70s, the Soviet Union was a full-on failed state but the communist leadership were still straight up murdering/imprisoning people in gulags if they said it outloud or protested or said/did anything to call out that communism had utterly failed and needed to be abandoned.
The communist leadership instead demanded EVERYONE say everything was going great, creating a notion of "hypernormalization", where everyone had to parrot the lie about the Soviet Union being a first world paradise while knowing it was bullshit and that they were living third world lives of abject poverty.
"The Zone" was supposed to represent the fake reality of Soviet Union where everything is fricked up and horrible and the Stalkers representing the outsider/non-Russians seeing the truth about how everything was fricked up and how insane everyone was acting pretending abject poverty was living the sweet life.
A film can be about multiple things babe
I interpreted it as a dialectic on faith the stalker, the professor, the writer representing different theological grounds.
had the same thoughts, why won't someone explain it to me
>empty overly general statements about their emotions instead of anything about the film itself
emotions are important, they are the point of art
>emotions are important
Woman detected.
>why won't someone explain it to me
Maybe because you're a newbie, and people have talked about Stalker in the past. You should have participated in those discussions, and you would know what the movie is about. I think The Zone is an allegory for Heaven. Does the movie make more sense now? If you think of The Stalker as an angel, then it makes sense. His own wife calls him an angel.
It's really not that difficult to understand. Unspecified crazy shit happened in the past (most likely nuclear related) that created The Zone, an area where weird shit happens and supposedly there is a room that will grant your wish. The Stalker takes the Writer and the Professor there, the Writer remarks "My dear, the world is so unutterably boring. There's no telepathy, no ghosts, no flying saucers. They can't exist. The world is ruled by cast-iron laws. These laws are not broken. They just can't be broken. Don't hope for flying saucers. That would be too interesting." This sentence is key.
When they eventually get to the Room they learn it grants ones true desire, not just any wish you have, though none of them enter the Room I believe it does ultimately grant all of their true desires. The easiest to deduce is the writer's, since at the end of the movie we see the Stalker's daughter has telepathy, ie the world has become the less boring place that he wanted. Ostensibly the professor wants to destroy the room with a miniature bomb, blaming it for all the woes in the world, but for no explicit reason decides not to and spreads the pieces. I believe his true desire was to not destroy the room, though I'm sure it's more involved than that. Finally in the end we hear the Stalker talk about how people no longer have the right faith to traverse the zone or live a good life, yet the three of them all just safely traveresed the zone. I believe this is meant to imply that this is his true desire and that it too has been granted, an optimistic note from which we can infer that people od indeed have the faith to life a good life.
For added context it helps to know that at this point religion was outlawed by the USSR to the point where Tarkovsky fled the country in order to make his movies. So one could certaintly draw a parallel between the Zone--how it requires faith, is being blocked off by the government, etc.--and religion as a whole.
The bit about the guy who's brother dies, goes into the room, becomes rich and then kills himself is key also.
The room grants you your true desire, you may not like what that reveals about you.
Why watch this movie when playing metro is superior in every way?
I'm an adult so I don't play video games
Imagine hearing this and receiving kinographic Tarkovsky visual stimulation and still getting filtered
The film is about a lot of things, but I myself find it to be a continuation of Tarkovsky's "technology vs nature" theme, here it being about nature coming out through a world destroyed by technology. The room that grants wishes is giving people hope in this broken world, but it's possible omnipotency is also highly dangerous. This adds a theme of people mishandling their potential. Tarkovsky does not reject progress here but instead is talking about how people misuse it. Aesthetically it's a transitional point between his earlier more poetic style and later colder, darker, apocalyptic tone. Not everything the characters talk about is actually important as a theme, a lot of philosophical pondering is purely aesthetical itself. It's meant to show a flow of mind, people who are deep in melancholy and therefore spend their time thinking and discussing. The slow pace itself also evokes a melancholic, even tragic tone. Of course I can understand why some if may seem a bit excessive. I myself think the film is not one of Tark's best, it's a thematic retreat, and a lot of talking does get somewhat tiring. It isn't as engaging as in Solaris for example, but that's a personal thing. But the film is still strong, and it shows how really great Tarkovsky was when even something that is on the weaker side of things is still really fricking good.
Is this enough of an explanation to you?
Filtered btw.
>I myself think the film is not one of Tark's best, it's a thematic retreat
Do you think he did end up saying “frick it” for the reshoots and just half-ass it?
It's a fairly straightforward film. what part exactly filtered you?
>It's a fairly straightforward film
>doesn't explain it despite claiming to have understood it
I'm glad people are posting images, because I'll be filtering every single one. It's a real filter, and not whatever you shit eaters think filter means. Please continue posting your npc garbage.
it is pretty straight forward. it's a quest for purpose unfulfilled, it's very well done.
Even twitter gays understand it
Do they? Link to one of their tweets. I'd like to see what they have to say. Not sure if I've ever seen an intelligent person post on Twitter.
It’s too long. The same basic story could’ve been accomplished within the length of a Twilight Zone episode.
Filtrate
I have the new BD transfer from luminere publishing that just came out. It gets rid of the disgusting yellow tone that the criterion release put in without Tarkovsky's permission.
Should I stream it for you guys? I'll put it on RIGHT now.
do it anon, haven't had a good stream in a while
A major point of this movie is how elusive things become once you've limited them by definition. What roles do faith, art, and logic play with who we are and our desires? What do they produce? Where am I? Do I dare go beyond the limits of what's safe and comfortable to maybe find some answer? What does it all mean? Can we understand any of it? Are you high right now? Do you ever get nervous? I heard you fricked your girl is it true? It made me think. Worth re-watching
Let me give you my two cents.
The three dudes stand as symbols for certain themes, the stalker for example is a selfless bringer of hope, the scientist stands for rationalism/objectivism, and so on.
On a different note, there's also the story of porcupine, the stalker's mentor, which works as a parable about the darkest corners of our mind, that which is alien to consciousness. To me it works as a criticism to the prideful, hubristic paradigm that everything can be rationalised, known, studied, etc. This theme is also present in Solaris.
dare I say
reverse osmosis?
Basically only the last 15 minutes matter.
The rest is genuinely nothing happening.
Russians are so braindead that the entry level philosophy spouted by the characters is seen as profound to them.
You forgot long panning shots of dirty water
I thought it was going to be about Chernobyl monsters, do mega letfown
LYNCHED
Purified seven times.
have a go at meditation. after you get somewhere with that, the movie is obvious
yep
what a disappointing pos
every scene looks like the outskirts of any eastern european shithole.
this is the shit ive grown up seeing every day of my life so for me it was very unpleasant.
nah its a pretty shit film. the book is pretty cool if you like stalker
Roadside picnic > games >>>>>>>> flick
Filtered
It’s one of those movies people like just for show.
>if I say I like Stalker I’ll look like a film buff
This is the truth. Ask anyone posting “filtered” ITT to say what they thought the movie was about and they’ll remain silent. Either because they only sat through it to be pseuds or they didn’t watch it at all. It’s a mediocre pseudo intellectual slogfest
why do idiots always project their own limited intelligence onto others? is it so hard to comprehend that ther eare people smarter than you that actually understand and enjoy art you dont? completely baffled at your pure moronation
What kind of man leaves out apostrophes
filtered
Good movie. is english dub good? i only watched ru.
r*ssian Black folk can't make good movies, that much is true anon.
t. regular Black person
tarkovski was a christgay
Didn't know that, I'll now watch his movies
It's not difficult to get but not one of those movies that you should watch before the age of 20
I’m 38 and the movie was dogshit.
filtered
SIEVED
The book was good but the movie sucks dick. How do you even understand the end scene without the book?
I'll be the first one to say that Tarkovsky's filming style reminds me of Lynch and Kurosawa in a lot of ways. Long panning shots, letting the viewer really absorb and consider what they are seeing and reflecting on their feelings. Filming not just for the sake of a by the books screenplay but something intrinsically more. The atmosphere I get when I watch films by these directors is unparalleled.
there are some similarities yeah
What was the point of this film? To show how bleak and empty the lives of slavs are?
>What was the point of this film?
to watch it past the age of 14
You got a bunch of answers the previous time you made this thread, dumb Black person.
filtered
The director gave himself, his wife and half the cast/crew cancer because he insisted on filming around an actual abandoned nuclear plant, keep that in mind as you watch it
Andrei Rublev >> Stalker
Filtré
filtered
Its kino because its atmospheric.
Anyone who grew up where a similar setting has been done to death is not going to enjoy the setting and cinematography of the film. They'll just focus on the story which seems plain.
It's a really good movie, given the resources Tarkovsky had. Literally nothing happens but if you read "Roadside picnic" you'll be on edge the entire fricking film. I was really expecting anything to happen at any time. Literally nothing happens, but I knew that any single one of them could've been physically obliterated and wrung up like a wet rag.
>Literally nothing happens but if you read "Roadside picnic" you'll be on edge the entire fricking film.
I didn't know anything about the book and I still was on edge the entire time first time seeing it. I had just seen Mullholland Drive and it has a scene where a guy walking up to a corner and a homeless lady jumps out. That is perfect in setting the tension up and delivering, Stalker wqs basically an entire movie where I had that tension. I assumed I was just 'watching it wrong' or something at the time.
Here is every Tarkovsky movie:
>guy walks for 20 minutes in dull environment
>40 minute slow zoom in of a crying woman in a doorway
>30 minutes of entry-level philosophy monolog
>woman sitting at a kitchen table for 10 minutes
>slow right pan of a desolate wheat field for 15 minutes
>man slowly dies of unknown causes for 20 minutes
>woman cries for 20 minutes
>Fin (5 minutes of just this word on screen with a few violin stabs every 30 seconds)
Filtered. Stalker is actually very straightfoward with its message.
I think it's the worst movie I have ever seen.
Granted, I was a teenager when I watched it, but I wouldn't want to watch it again.
If you only watch uber depressing artgay shit like Stalker and Come and See, you have no idea about actual Russian cinema
I only like Russian comedies.
I like old war dramas like Cranes Are Flying and Ballad of a Soldier
Some of the best soviet films are adaptations of russian classics, especially Chekhov stories.
This movie and Tarkovski in general is extremely overrated, and I say this as someone who loves "arthouse" stuff like Bergman, Dreyer, Fellini, Herzog, Lynch...
Recently re-watched Solaris and couldn't believe how shite it actually was, my memory of it was much better.
Stalker frankly ruins the Strugatzki's work, the dialogue is full of banal deepities, this director was much less intelligent than he thought he is.
>Recently re-watched Solaris and couldn't believe how shite it actually was
thank you
stalker is a metaphor for modern life.
you walk around, occasionally some boring weird stuff happens(i saw 7 doodles today)
u die
The real wish giver was the friends we made along the way
Shut up.
(it's the ultimate pseud film, they love it.)
It's a dialectic on faith. Watch it again