I stopped talking to Cinemaphile (one person) about this movie after anons expressed disappointment that little to no overt science-fiction bullshit appeared in it. Maybe it would be largely praised here if Zach Snyder directed the film.
because any movie that requires even an ounce of historical context to understand is just too much for the averaged moron (aka Cinemaphile poster)
hey frick you, I love Stalker and all Tarkovsky movies and some of Snyder's stuff too, dont be a small brain and make generalizations like the other moron
The whole movie involves the golden sphere, and is more of a philosophical meditation on various things building up to the confrontation with the sphere. The ending features a pretty good exploration of the idea of the sphere and the meatgrinder. I quite liked it. Id say it's even more in depth than the book
It doesn't. Red reaches the sphere, makes a wish and that's it. THE END. It's not confirmed that the sphere grants wishes at all, not even speaking about such profound changes in the universe.
This movie is so fricking boring. The best way to tell someone just says titles to sound smart is with this picture. The absolute pointlessness is befuddling. Tarkovsky punished his audience on purpose. He wants the mundanity and silence to be unwatchable. No wonder this film killed actors who worked on it. The toxicity of its contrarian entertainment was palpable.
Here come the morons yet again. I can't imagine actually discussing good movies/shows on this fricking awful board, just poke your head in, prod the morons and leave again
completely boring and uninteresting. there are slow pace atmosphereic movies I enjoy(rainbow, under the skin, field in england, hard to be a god etc.) and I've sat through and enjoyed several ozu flicks so it's not attention span. stalker is just a boring fricking movie.
midwit
Dumbass.
Go watch marvel films homosexual
a stalker DVD is sitting on your vanity shelf between 8 1/2 and eraserhead
There's nothing wrong with Stalker, 8 1/2 or Eraserhead. But, Eraserhead > Stalker > 8 1/2 but all are also masterpieces. 8 1/2 is even more annoying in its incessant chitchat bullshit than Stalker in its navel gazing somnolence. Eraserhead is pure kino all around.
>8 1/2 is a masterpiece
I can understand why impressionable teenagers who haven't seen many films would find cheese like stalker or eraserhead a "masterpiece", but I have never and will never see what these kids are seeing in 8 1/2. it's about as entertaining as a play written and performed by a college drama troupe.
lots of crazy shit actually happens in the book; some more bizarre and mysterious, as well as more overt stuff like what you see in the s.t.a.l.k.e.r games like the burner anomalies, gravitational stuff, vortexes, walking dead etc.
the concept art for the canceled roadside picnic tv show is bretty cool
pretty sure they made a pilot episode for it and they made reds wife a Negress and gave him a mutt daughter then canceled it and never even aired the pilot episode
>The peak of Soviet sci fi is a boring ass movie about guys walking around in the woods.
Meanwhile in the west the same year we get pic related. In case you ever need a reminder that capitalism>communism.
the only people who say this are those that didnt actually understand Stalker since Solaris is easier to understand, but no Solaris has terrible pacing issues
>pacing issues >tarkovski
his entire filmography is an apology of pacing issues. if you like tarkovski its impossible you give some credit to pacing. the guy is really bad with rythm.
Shit editing. >Upon its release the film's reception was less than favorable. Officials at Goskino, a government group otherwise known as the State Committee for Cinematography, were critical of the film. On being told that Stalker should be faster and more dynamic, Tarkovsky replied:
The film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.
>The film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.
He just said that to get the G-men off his back.
>The film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.
He just said that to get the G-men off his back.
No one will respond and if they do, it's going to be variation of > Don't think about it bro, it's just an acid trip maaaaan. Watch it while high dude. > It has no meaning dude. It's just a pure audio-visual experience.
I really enjoyed stalker because I thought the zone was really suspenseful even though with hindsight you can see it was the way it was for budgetary reasons.
The wife at the end gives you an anime level "I'm spelling the point out now" lecture.
It's not exactly oblique.
A lot of people watch it thinking it will be like the STALKER videogame and get upset when it's actually a profound meditation on the nature of desire.
This film was my first dive into mindfulness as a teenager. Before this I had only watched action movies and stuff.
I love this movie, but it's not for everyone and I can understand why many people think it's boring.
Some people don't ever experience a desire for adventure, wanderlust, or strong desires beyond having sex or getting rich. The film speaks to people who are terrified of a mundane existence, which is ironic considering how generally mundane the film is.
Garland's visionary Annihilation is much better. More SciFi elements and action and coherent plot
I'm sure someone will call me a pleb, but you all know it's true
>The film was initially filmed over a year on film stock that was later discovered to be unusable, and had to be almost entirely reshot with new cinematographer Alexander Knyazhinsky.
Is there any info available about the original footage that was lost? I wonder how different it was compared to what we got.
One problem I have with the movie is that we never see any of the weird shit that's supposed to happen in the zone that the Stalker is talking about. Why is throwing those ropes with the construction nuts attached? For the most part it's just an uneventful journey through a bunch of abandoned areas. The philosophical questions are interesting, but that's not enough. Still a very good movie.
>we never see any of the weird shit that's supposed to happen in the zone that the Stalker is talking about.
To maintain the possibility that it's all just made up superstitious garbage. It strengthens the philosophical angle when all supposed threats remain psychological.
If Tarkvosky wants to lecture us on philosophy, he could write a thesis or simply deliver a lecture. >It strengthens the philosophical angle when all supposed threats remain psychological.
There's no ambguity here. We are TOLD it's supernatural but shown nothing. That's just frustrating not intriguing.
I'm ordinarily a film pleb and even I didn't get filtered. It's legitimate kino. Something by Lanthimos can filter me in that I can recognize it's a good work on some level but I find it boring and it flies over my head.
Tarkovsky and Bresson are very similar con-artists. However, Ivan's Childhood, A Man Escaped and Pickpocket are good films. The rest is utilitarian, nihilistic trash masquerading as transcendental cinema. The fact that they're so venerated is a testament to hollowness of cinema criticism and the audience that they gaslight.
The people who worship Bresson and Tarkovsky also worship open sociopaths like Godard, Jodorowsky, Paul Thomas Andreson. It's not that surpising, really, the "95% are hylics who can't see what's right in front of their eyes" rule also applies to cinema.
Tarkovsky and Bresson are very similar con-artists. However, Ivan's Childhood, A Man Escaped and Pickpocket are good films. The rest is utilitarian, nihilistic trash masquerading as transcendental cinema. The fact that they're so venerated is a testament to hollowness of cinema criticism and the audience that they gaslight.
I'm suspicious of anything especially "slow arthouse cinema" being peddled as transcendental/spiritual these days. The people who make these are obsessed with portraying themselves as intellectual more than anything. Such petty minds cannot create transcendent art.
Because Cinemaphile is moronic
I stopped talking to Cinemaphile (one person) about this movie after anons expressed disappointment that little to no overt science-fiction bullshit appeared in it. Maybe it would be largely praised here if Zach Snyder directed the film.
because any movie that requires even an ounce of historical context to understand is just too much for the averaged moron (aka Cinemaphile poster)
hey frick you, I love Stalker and all Tarkovsky movies and some of Snyder's stuff too, dont be a small brain and make generalizations like the other moron
fippy bippy
no, but the trust fund dumpster band certainly did!
https://vocaroo.com/1iQIGVsWQJoJ
haha
the book had a good ending, did it do it justice?
ending is different than the book of course but i quite liked it. certainly the best part of the film
ill give it a watch
The whole movie involves the golden sphere, and is more of a philosophical meditation on various things building up to the confrontation with the sphere. The ending features a pretty good exploration of the idea of the sphere and the meatgrinder. I quite liked it. Id say it's even more in depth than the book
i prefer the film, but then again i think it's one of the best kinos ever made
It doesn't. Red reaches the sphere, makes a wish and that's it. THE END. It's not confirmed that the sphere grants wishes at all, not even speaking about such profound changes in the universe.
tarkovsky dont even attempt a single fx in this movie
why he did an ok set of fx for solaris but not for stalker ?
This movie is so fricking boring. The best way to tell someone just says titles to sound smart is with this picture. The absolute pointlessness is befuddling. Tarkovsky punished his audience on purpose. He wants the mundanity and silence to be unwatchable. No wonder this film killed actors who worked on it. The toxicity of its contrarian entertainment was palpable.
Here come the morons yet again. I can't imagine actually discussing good movies/shows on this fricking awful board, just poke your head in, prod the morons and leave again
You're a fricking idiot
completely boring and uninteresting. there are slow pace atmosphereic movies I enjoy(rainbow, under the skin, field in england, hard to be a god etc.) and I've sat through and enjoyed several ozu flicks so it's not attention span. stalker is just a boring fricking movie.
a stalker DVD is sitting on your vanity shelf between 8 1/2 and eraserhead
There's nothing wrong with Stalker, 8 1/2 or Eraserhead. But, Eraserhead > Stalker > 8 1/2 but all are also masterpieces. 8 1/2 is even more annoying in its incessant chitchat bullshit than Stalker in its navel gazing somnolence. Eraserhead is pure kino all around.
>8 1/2 is a masterpiece
I can understand why impressionable teenagers who haven't seen many films would find cheese like stalker or eraserhead a "masterpiece", but I have never and will never see what these kids are seeing in 8 1/2. it's about as entertaining as a play written and performed by a college drama troupe.
Tell me a great masterpiece then oh kinomeister
Not the same anon, but I would put up Wings of Desire
Why would S be before E, idiot?
Couldn't think of another popular arthouse film?
midwit
Dumbass.
Go watch marvel films homosexual
Does anything supernatural happen in the book or do they just walk around hinting that crazy things could potentially happen if they aren't careful?
lots of crazy shit actually happens in the book; some more bizarre and mysterious, as well as more overt stuff like what you see in the s.t.a.l.k.e.r games like the burner anomalies, gravitational stuff, vortexes, walking dead etc.
the concept art for the canceled roadside picnic tv show is bretty cool
a shame it never got made
While I appreciate Stalker, it's a shame this show got cancelled. Seemed like it was going to be pretty book accurate.
They were gonna make a show?
pretty sure they made a pilot episode for it and they made reds wife a Negress and gave him a mutt daughter then canceled it and never even aired the pilot episode
>Red's daughter is some strange, dark-eyed hairy mutant which he affectionately calls "monkey"
>cast a mutt
wew
because you love suckling big donkey dicks
It's the best movie ever made
That film ruined my life.
too slow, as a oneiric experience it's remarkable, I never saw the whole thing because I always ended up asleep
>The peak of Soviet sci fi is a boring ass movie about guys walking around in the woods.
Meanwhile in the west the same year we get pic related. In case you ever need a reminder that capitalism>communism.
Solaris is much better
the only people who say this are those that didnt actually understand Stalker since Solaris is easier to understand, but no Solaris has terrible pacing issues
>pacing issues
>tarkovski
his entire filmography is an apology of pacing issues. if you like tarkovski its impossible you give some credit to pacing. the guy is really bad with rythm.
get out of here stalker
get out of here stalker
get out of here stalker
иди oтcюдa cтaлкep
иди oтcюдa cтaлкep
иди oтcюдa cтaлкep
it didn't it's amazing one my favourite films
Shit editing.
>Upon its release the film's reception was less than favorable. Officials at Goskino, a government group otherwise known as the State Committee for Cinematography, were critical of the film. On being told that Stalker should be faster and more dynamic, Tarkovsky replied:
The film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.
>The film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.
He just said that to get the G-men off his back.
The main action is its cerebrality.
>cerebrality
What's so cerebral about it?
No one will respond and if they do, it's going to be variation of
> Don't think about it bro, it's just an acid trip maaaaan. Watch it while high dude.
> It has no meaning dude. It's just a pure audio-visual experience.
I really enjoyed stalker because I thought the zone was really suspenseful even though with hindsight you can see it was the way it was for budgetary reasons.
The wife at the end gives you an anime level "I'm spelling the point out now" lecture.
It's not exactly oblique.
It's spiritual stuff bro....whoa!
Are you fricking moronic anonymous? There's no vaguery in my post telling you to read what the wife says at the end word for word.
I like it
It's boring and too long. It does look good though
Tarkovsky is the Hideo Kojima of cinema, a complete midwit hack who huffs his own farts way too much
Give me one good reason to keep this over the Wizard of Oz.
A lot of people watch it thinking it will be like the STALKER videogame and get upset when it's actually a profound meditation on the nature of desire.
Did Russian take the word from English?
This film was my first dive into mindfulness as a teenager. Before this I had only watched action movies and stuff.
I love this movie, but it's not for everyone and I can understand why many people think it's boring.
Some people don't ever experience a desire for adventure, wanderlust, or strong desires beyond having sex or getting rich. The film speaks to people who are terrified of a mundane existence, which is ironic considering how generally mundane the film is.
Garland's visionary Annihilation is much better. More SciFi elements and action and coherent plot
I'm sure someone will call me a pleb, but you all know it's true
extreme satire detected
watch it, it's pretty great. maybe the best film from 2018
Portman has a sex scene with a black man
annihilation is just dumbed down, girl power stalker
Because it takes the book's premise and changes its message to something much lesser.
>The film was initially filmed over a year on film stock that was later discovered to be unusable, and had to be almost entirely reshot with new cinematographer Alexander Knyazhinsky.
Is there any info available about the original footage that was lost? I wonder how different it was compared to what we got.
One problem I have with the movie is that we never see any of the weird shit that's supposed to happen in the zone that the Stalker is talking about. Why is throwing those ropes with the construction nuts attached? For the most part it's just an uneventful journey through a bunch of abandoned areas. The philosophical questions are interesting, but that's not enough. Still a very good movie.
>we never see any of the weird shit that's supposed to happen in the zone that the Stalker is talking about.
To maintain the possibility that it's all just made up superstitious garbage. It strengthens the philosophical angle when all supposed threats remain psychological.
If Tarkvosky wants to lecture us on philosophy, he could write a thesis or simply deliver a lecture.
>It strengthens the philosophical angle when all supposed threats remain psychological.
There's no ambguity here. We are TOLD it's supernatural but shown nothing. That's just frustrating not intriguing.
Don't bother. It's exceptionally lazy filmmaking but it'll be defended because The Sigh and Sound Polls told them it is great.
>We are TOLD it's supernatural but shown nothing
That is ambiguous. You don't just trust things people say, anon.
Anime did it better
I’ve seen it twice in the movie theatre and all I have to say is
Original >>>>>> updated sound
I'm ordinarily a film pleb and even I didn't get filtered. It's legitimate kino. Something by Lanthimos can filter me in that I can recognize it's a good work on some level but I find it boring and it flies over my head.
Tarkovsky and Bresson are very similar con-artists. However, Ivan's Childhood, A Man Escaped and Pickpocket are good films. The rest is utilitarian, nihilistic trash masquerading as transcendental cinema. The fact that they're so venerated is a testament to hollowness of cinema criticism and the audience that they gaslight.
The people who worship Bresson and Tarkovsky also worship open sociopaths like Godard, Jodorowsky, Paul Thomas Andreson. It's not that surpising, really, the "95% are hylics who can't see what's right in front of their eyes" rule also applies to cinema.
You don't even know what sociopath means
I'm suspicious of anything especially "slow arthouse cinema" being peddled as transcendental/spiritual these days. The people who make these are obsessed with portraying themselves as intellectual more than anything. Such petty minds cannot create transcendent art.
booooooring
too slow for most audiences.
Also they don't really explore the universe they are in.
So many possibilities with anomalies, mutants, the army etc.
So which fricking edition is accurate?