The visuals are kino, the story is heavily influenced by eastern christianity. It's not pseudo, it's a pretty explicit story about a fool for christ taking a couple guys on a spiritual journey.
its a great example of setting up scifi ideas and not paying them off.
the anomalys they are told about are avoided without incident (or costly special effects)
but
it is beautifully composed and shot.
it also got everyone involved exposed to toxic chemicals. A bit like being in a thread with OP
how do you take a story about aliens leaving their dimension warping trash behind and also philosophize about god and human evolution and make it "honest"?
the honest answer is 'frick knows, reality does not have to explain itself"
or "movies are made up and can ring true but never really be in any way be honest"
They could have shown what the dangers were, or that everyone had selfish reasons for going which they realized, over the course of their journey, were a bad idea to actually carry through with in the end. Instead, we got
>I'm a successful writer and I'm mad about it >:( >Another scientist cucked me, better nuke the area >I'm sad! ;___;
None of the people had any reason to be there, and only the Stalker dubiously because he needed money. You wait the entire movie to see what their hidden motivations were behind their embarking on the "dangerous" Zone trip, only to find out their surface-level characterization is the only characterization they'll ever have. That's how you end up with scenes having dialogue like "What's the point of music?" and wallowing in a bog, rather than people coming to terms with their own faults.
>They could have shown what the dangers were
I thought the ambiguity is the whole appeal of the movie, we can draw parallels to religion like miracles doesn't happen everyday but that doesn't stop people from believing in them
very true.
after reading the book it was based off you can see the extra layer of shallow navel-gazing level philosophy that was added.
its a great setting though, perhaps someone will populate it with genuine character someday
Because the point is, we're not actually sure the Zone is a real place that's any special - it could just be any other place on earth that has some scary stories surrounding it. The movie is about human perceptions and desires, not about some special alien magic.
They could have shown the anomalies in a very subtle way that didn't require CG. Something as simple as an object or an animal being there one moment and gone the next. You don't need giant bombastic dubstep hero music blasting while transformer noises echo out in dolby surround sound whenever an anomaly got tripped.
Because people played the Stalker video games they envision something physical and malevolent, which leads them to pretending the lack of activity in the movies is good because it's "already understood". But it isn't understood, because I didn't play those games, and so when a movie says something is ever-present and deadly, but then never shows it, I assume the character/narrator is lying.
As it stands, this film is a crazy guy leading two saps through a swamp and then they go home.
The visuals are good. The rest is pseudo-philosophy thrown against the wall. We're also told the Zone is dangerous, but never shown why.
I recommend watching on fast-forward, muted.
I don't get why they didn't show a single instance of the zone being dangerous, everything felt so weirdly arbitrary, the weird rules they follow but we never see why. They needed to show some actual danger, and by that I don't mean an action scene with expensive practical effects, but SOMETHING
I don't know, the acting and the eerie atmosphere sold it to me. I haven't watched the movie in a while so I don't remember how explicit they are about it but I think it's clear what the Zone can do (I think it's said or implied the Zone can warp space to get you lost if you're not careful at one point. Pretty big deal.).
>"Philosophy and poetry good, people bad!" >"No, only science good" >"You guys are going to make me cry, I'm just a stalker" >45 minute uninterrupted shot of a bunch of broken stuff and religious icons in muddy water
>itt : filtered morons that think movies are just beach reading novels with visuals and plot is the only thing that matters
Hitchwiener or Tarantino might be more your speed. Zero subtext, no allegories, just a story to entertain bored menopaused women.
>I understood this movie, nobody else did. Me me me! I am special and so smart and unique! Let me look down at those plebs from my ivory tower. Hmph! My intellect is unassailable
Your character archetype is so known and predictable.
Perhaps people understood the movie fully and it was just bad. Couldn't accept that though, could you? You need to feel smart. Even when you're not.
I watched this movie with the English subtitles on and honestly I've got to say that if you don't understand Russian the beauty of the film is diminished. Many concepts, especially these very esoteric philosophical concepts, are very difficult to translate effectively and I found myself disagreeing with the translation often. Which is sad, since I love foreign media, so when I watch French/Korean/Chinese/etc kinos I have to accept that I'm losing part of the experience.
I liked it.
The visuals are good. The rest is pseudo-philosophy thrown against the wall. We're also told the Zone is dangerous, but never shown why.
I recommend watching on fast-forward, muted.
>pseudo
You people say this about ANYTHING that’s slightly more thematically complex than “le good vs le evil” or le coming of age.
The visuals are kino, the story is heavily influenced by eastern christianity. It's not pseudo, it's a pretty explicit story about a fool for christ taking a couple guys on a spiritual journey.
Neither was the book
Game was fantastic though
its a great example of setting up scifi ideas and not paying them off.
the anomalys they are told about are avoided without incident (or costly special effects)
but
it is beautifully composed and shot.
it also got everyone involved exposed to toxic chemicals. A bit like being in a thread with OP
It would benefit greatly from a remake with more coherent ideas, and more honesty.
how do you take a story about aliens leaving their dimension warping trash behind and also philosophize about god and human evolution and make it "honest"?
the honest answer is 'frick knows, reality does not have to explain itself"
or "movies are made up and can ring true but never really be in any way be honest"
They could have shown what the dangers were, or that everyone had selfish reasons for going which they realized, over the course of their journey, were a bad idea to actually carry through with in the end. Instead, we got
>I'm a successful writer and I'm mad about it >:(
>Another scientist cucked me, better nuke the area
>I'm sad! ;___;
None of the people had any reason to be there, and only the Stalker dubiously because he needed money. You wait the entire movie to see what their hidden motivations were behind their embarking on the "dangerous" Zone trip, only to find out their surface-level characterization is the only characterization they'll ever have. That's how you end up with scenes having dialogue like "What's the point of music?" and wallowing in a bog, rather than people coming to terms with their own faults.
>They could have shown what the dangers were
I thought the ambiguity is the whole appeal of the movie, we can draw parallels to religion like miracles doesn't happen everyday but that doesn't stop people from believing in them
very true.
after reading the book it was based off you can see the extra layer of shallow navel-gazing level philosophy that was added.
its a great setting though, perhaps someone will populate it with genuine character someday
>They could have shown what the dangers were
thatsthepoint.jpg
Not showing the anomalies was a good idea
for a film with no budget it was the only way.
but is blue-balling your audience a good idea?
Because the point is, we're not actually sure the Zone is a real place that's any special - it could just be any other place on earth that has some scary stories surrounding it. The movie is about human perceptions and desires, not about some special alien magic.
They could have shown the anomalies in a very subtle way that didn't require CG. Something as simple as an object or an animal being there one moment and gone the next. You don't need giant bombastic dubstep hero music blasting while transformer noises echo out in dolby surround sound whenever an anomaly got tripped.
Because people played the Stalker video games they envision something physical and malevolent, which leads them to pretending the lack of activity in the movies is good because it's "already understood". But it isn't understood, because I didn't play those games, and so when a movie says something is ever-present and deadly, but then never shows it, I assume the character/narrator is lying.
As it stands, this film is a crazy guy leading two saps through a swamp and then they go home.
I don't get why they didn't show a single instance of the zone being dangerous, everything felt so weirdly arbitrary, the weird rules they follow but we never see why. They needed to show some actual danger, and by that I don't mean an action scene with expensive practical effects, but SOMETHING
well they do show the girl moving shit at the end, so there's some supernatural shit going on
I don't know, the acting and the eerie atmosphere sold it to me. I haven't watched the movie in a while so I don't remember how explicit they are about it but I think it's clear what the Zone can do (I think it's said or implied the Zone can warp space to get you lost if you're not careful at one point. Pretty big deal.).
>everything felt so weirdly arbitrary, the weird rules they follow but we never see why
DAS THE POINT
No, because in the end the zone truly was a magical place
The zone was the friends we made along the way
>"Philosophy and poetry good, people bad!"
>"No, only science good"
>"You guys are going to make me cry, I'm just a stalker"
>45 minute uninterrupted shot of a bunch of broken stuff and religious icons in muddy water
GENIUS
Accurate. They don't even go into the room that grants wishes.
that's the whole point of the movie moron
Black raven, black raven, circling above the grave
My information might well be of use to you, stalker
I said come in! Don't stand there!
Dammit, if only somebody would help me!
If you don't like Stalker you're a contrarian moron simple as that
Sorry just how it is
Pretty sure you loved the zoomer redditor version anihilation.
No, it was trash too.
annihilation was good and stalker was good
your mum wasnt good either, zoomie.
it was snoozefest but music, visuals and atmosphere were great
>itt : filtered morons that think movies are just beach reading novels with visuals and plot is the only thing that matters
Hitchwiener or Tarantino might be more your speed. Zero subtext, no allegories, just a story to entertain bored menopaused women.
>I understood this movie, nobody else did. Me me me! I am special and so smart and unique! Let me look down at those plebs from my ivory tower. Hmph! My intellect is unassailable
Your character archetype is so known and predictable.
Perhaps people understood the movie fully and it was just bad. Couldn't accept that though, could you? You need to feel smart. Even when you're not.
K mutt.
Out of curiosity, what did you think of that Mutt Pratt series?
tarkovsky arthoused the kino book by the strugasky brothers
the final product is weird and cheap
He even stole the "meatgrinder" from the book, which was immensely kino, but in this movie it's just a tunnel that does nothing.
I watched this movie with the English subtitles on and honestly I've got to say that if you don't understand Russian the beauty of the film is diminished. Many concepts, especially these very esoteric philosophical concepts, are very difficult to translate effectively and I found myself disagreeing with the translation often. Which is sad, since I love foreign media, so when I watch French/Korean/Chinese/etc kinos I have to accept that I'm losing part of the experience.