Product DescriptionChallenging, provocative, and ultimately rewarding, Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker is a mind-bending experience that defies explanation. Like Tarkovsky's earlier and similarly enigmatic science fiction classic Solaris, this long, slow, meditative masterpiece demands patience and total attention; anyone accustomed to faster pacing is likely to abandon the nearly three-hour film before its first hour is over. On the other hand, those who approach Tarkovsky's work in a properly receptive (and wide awake) frame of mind are likely to appreciate the film's seductive depth of theme and hypnotic imagery. Set in what appears to be a post-apocalyptic future (although the time-frame is never specified), the eerie and unsettling story focuses on the title character, Stalker (Aleksandr Kajdanovsky), who leads characters known only as the Writer (Anatoli Solonitsyn) and the Scientist (or Professor, played by Nikolai Grinko) into a mysterious region called The Zone. Tarkovsky films their journey as a long odyssey, or religious pilgrimage, and center of The Zone--said to be under an alien influence--is where each of these men hopes to find a kind of personal transcendence. Despite obvious parallels to The Wizard of Oz, Tarkovsky's film is devoid of special effects or any fantastical elements typically associated with science fiction or fantasy. Instead, Stalker makes astonishing use of sound and bleak-but-beautiful imagery to envelope the viewer into the eerie atmosphere of The Zone and the dank, colorless landscape that surrounds it. And while the film's glacial pacing may be off-putting to some viewers, there's no denying that Stalker has a mesmerizing power of its own, including a thought-provoking and highly debatable ending that propels the film to a higher level of meaning and significance. --Jeff Shannon - Actors: Aleksandr Kajdanovsky, Alisa Frejndlikh, Anatoli Solonitsyn, Nikolai Grinko, Natasha Abramova
- Director: Andrei Tarkovsky
- Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
- Format: AC-3, Black & White, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, DVD-Video, Subtitled, NTSC
- Language (Original Language): Russian
- Language (Subtitled): English
- Language (Subtitled): French
- Language (Subtitled): Spanish
- Language (Dubbed): English
- Language (Dubbed): French
- Release Date: 2006-11-07
- Running Time: 163 minutes
- Theatrical Release Date: 1979
Customer ReviewsReviewed on 2008-07-07  
The Emperor has no clothes
This is a long, BORING movie. It's just unbelievable how self-indulgent the pacing is. I cannot figure out how people can enjoy this film. (I have a suspicion why they praise it, though -- see the title above.) Even if you like serious films (as I do), don't subject yourselves to this boredom. The whole point of the movie could have been made in 30 minutes. Instead, we have to endure nearly 3 hours of endless shots. Just an example: There are three men in a field. The first man walks toward the viewer, slowly. The whole trip takes perhaps 2 minutes -- just walking. Then the second guy starts walking -- another 2 minutes. Then the third... And then there is a cut, finally. Next scene: the first man starts walking again, this time shot from the back -- 2 more minutes. Then the second -- another 2 minutes. Then the third... Did you enjoy reading this verbose description. If so, then perhaps you may like this film. Normal viewers, beware! |  | Reviewed on 2008-06-14
No Word Exists to Describe This Movie
STALKER is truly an amazing movie. It's one of the greatest movies ever made and if not number one in my list, then in the top 3. The title is a little lost in translation, most of us thinking it means 'to stalk.' The Russian word for stalker, can be translated many ways, including guide, angel, pathfinder, and demon. Any and all of these translations apply to Stalker, but it just depends on your point of view which translation you use. Likewise, there are many different ways to describe The Zone and The Room, and each one makes sense.
This movie requires your full attention. Sure, it is over 3 hours long, but it feels like 1.5. | | Reviewed on 2008-05-27
Yawner
I am too simple a person to understand anything that happened. I forced myself to finish it. Boring action, boring dialog. | | Reviewed on 2008-05-01
cinema is an art form, not an exercise
After seeing the masterpiece 'Ivan's Childhood' by Tarkovsky I was determined to find his other films on DVD. 'Stalker' which, if my memory serves me, is photographed by Tarkovsky, but not directed by him; it's a film that lacks the subjectivity of 'Ivan's Childhood'. Tarkovsky's 'Ivan's Childhood', is a wonderful piece of cinema that places the audience within its' frames and reigns you through a devastating story and not rob you of essential and hypnotic moments, 'Stalker' tends to do the opposite. Even if this was a novel, I can't believe that there would be moments in the story where the reader and in this case the viewer would be toyed like this until an important surprising moment in the film arrives, with no foreshadow or even a slight forboding in its' narrative... an approach this intense story would have deserved ... so it just lays an egg.
Why would you make a film with stunning photography and moments of incredible mood, with an interesting, compelling story, a wonderfully written script with great actors and rob us of the experience?
My review will not give away any details and my disappointment is not generally about pacing; I love slow moving art, but there are some slow moments that mean nothing in this movie. It takes away the experience of cinema, yet expects us to enjoy it as cinema. I do not highly recommend this movie, but for cinema buffs, when it gets it right, it's worth at least one viewing. To be specific, when it does succeed we are reminded of Kubrick and Hitchcock, so don't look for originality in camera shots but look out for the great photography; there are sublime moments.
If you are wanting to see a Tarkovsky masterpiece, see 'Ivan's Chilhood' one of the greatest films I've ever seen! | | Reviewed on 2008-03-13
Very Simple: Boring
I was tempted to make a joke and say this movie is very Rachmaninoff (whom I think is way over-rated) -- that is, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. But no, the movie is not even that. Not only is there nothing to signify, there is no sound nor fury. In short the movie is BORING. Need more? OK: the movie should last the duration of time it takes to read the single sentence synopsis of its idea. I imagine some 5 to 8 seconds is all that's required. The movie lasts longer than 8 seconds though. And there's not only no idea, no sound, no fury, there's not even any good cinematography. Don't even buy this to satisfy any curiousity you might have: you'll merely waste your time and money. | |
|
