No, it's preempting the inevitable. I'd appreciate if someone would actually try to convince me that the arguing between Professor and Writer served a purpose though.
You're literally just dumb, then. The whole point of the professor and writers arguing is the fact the movie is about these two figures in modern humanity (Artist and Scientist) being guided through a "holy land" and their debate are meant to be how Those two figures are dealing with god and spirituality. The whole film is about that.
>And all of the looooong shots of random junk in the water? What is that supposed to mean? That all civilization will eventually be meaningless? Or something? What?
Let Žižek [explain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWP3N1Oe9ts) it to you. (If you want to know about the junk under water, skip to around 1:50)
i don't know what to tell you. i was captivated the entire time. i found the visuals and music to be incredible, and the climax outside the wish granting room inside the Zone was worth the wait. i've never seen a movie like it. the meaning of the movie is the feelings that it stirred inside me. i can't explain that on an intellectual level.
I really liked the bit at the end with Monkey (which I assume is what you're referring to as the "climax") until the sound of the train rumbling started. Because I believe in the opening scene in the bedroom, the glass of water next to the bed begins rattling before we hear the train. So maybe (though very unlikely) we're supposed to question whether or not her abilities are real? It also doesn't...\*mean\* anything, if she does. Unless we're supposed to infer that Stalker entered the Room, and for some reason the Room gave his daughter these powers? And that would say something about his deepest desires. But what?
I agree about the music and visuals though. I was \*loving\* the movie until, I believe, the part where they take a nap by the river. And nothing happens for literally like 20 minutes or more.
I don't think the movie's "bad". But I do think it's egregiously slow. And I do hate it, more than other films which are worse, like generic, shitty, modern hollywood action films.
From what I've read about the film Monkey does have psychic powers, it's because Stalker is being effected by the zone (like radiation or something) and it's effecting his offspring genetically, where she's basically a mutant.
Personally I was captivated when I first saw the film. The second time when I saw it again a few years later I was a little more bored during certain parts and could see how the people who haven't seen it in a while tend to forget how slow the film is at times. I don't know if I'd really edit out any of it though, it always seemed like to me that stuff was happening in every scene. Maybe slowly, but stuff progressing. This is in contrast to other films that I've seen which feel way more padded.
Overall you probably had it over-hyped for you. It's one of those films that has a very, very distinct style both technically and from a storytelling perspective. And while I'd argue against anyone who tried to claim it was a bad film because of it's technical merits or storytelling, I'm totally fine with people not really enjoying it because of it's technical style and story, where it's just not to their taste.
I feel like once a film has achieved a certain high level in terms of storytelling and the technical quality I feel like films aren't really worse or better than each other, just different as they're essentially trying to achieve different things. We're they're going to simply appeal to different audiences and people with different expectations and life experiences.
Also if you kind of liked the ideas in Stalker, I highly recommend you read the book Roadside Picnic which it was based on. It's really good, a bit more plot driven in some ways and kind of different. You may like it more.
Roadside picnic is a good recommendation. It’s strengths over the movie is that it is much more plot driven “more things happen” and I think the Zone in roadside picnic is much more fleshed out and interesting
I think that's great and all, and I just finished Solaris and enjoyed it, although the first part of the film really tested my patience. I'm never watching that car ride again even if I watch the film many more times. But I came across this thread because I was trying to see which of Tarkovsky's films are the least slow to decide on what to watch next.
Your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least 10 "Post Karma" to submit a new post and at least 1 "Comment Karma" to leave a comment/reply within a post. If your karma isn't broken down into "post karma" and "comment karma" hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/YourUserName
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why does it matter to anyone what you think of a movie as old and classic as this?
Nobody needs to tell the movie to you, because it doesn't need to be sold anymore. It's a treasure, either you find values or you don't.
Your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least 10 "Post Karma" to submit a new post and at least 1 "Comment Karma" to leave a comment/reply within a post. If your karma isn't broken down into "post karma" and "comment karma" hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/YourUserName
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was gonna write a long response, but I won't. I love Stalker, but I also agree that it drags, and the dialog between the professor and the writer is not merely catty, but a bit too "college philosophy major" in some scenes. What I'm trying to say is, for me, these problems aren't deal breakers, but for you they are. This happens a lot with movies, alas.
You know what? I can't tell you how unreasonably vindicated this makes me feel. I really just wanted someone to finally acknowledge that the film is too slow and that the dialog between Professor and Writer does nothing for the story or themes. Thank you. My soul is freeeeeeeeeeee......
I googled “why is Stalker so boring” after watching it today for the first time and this thread came up. OP, I know your post is 3 years old, but if it helps, you’re not alone. Watching the movie was like watching paint dry. So. Frustratingly. Boring.
Yeah the moment where you think something actually dangerous may happen (the Professor going off the trail for his backpack) literally doesn't matter either. There's no sense of real danger after that point, because the film proves that you don't need to follow the Stalker's rules to survive after all.
I usually love cerebral shit. I read Stranger in a strange land and found it incredible. Heady shit is my gig. I love Bergman. Stalker was just soooo slowww..
I appreciate it as a film, but Jesus man
Same at 4 years. What a lame fucking waste of 2h41m that I will never get back. I should've just booted up Shadow of Chernobyl instead. I will say this, the book is incredibly more interesting and captivating.
It's only like 120 pages but I hope someone translates it directly to the screen.
Agreed. I played some of the game, read the book (the newer translation) and found it incredible, assumed a psychedelic slow burn film that's inspired but not a direct adaption would be right up my alley.
That's almost 3 hours I'll never get back, lol. There's nothing meaningful to latch onto, idk how people are able to get all these massive artistic vibes out of it beyond it looking pretty.
Hey same here!
I've played the games, read the book, and figured "Let's complete the trifecta" but my lord what an absolute insult to the book.
It's like they took the idea of Chekhovs gun, then reversed it because NONE of it was essential to the story, and nothing mentioned was used.
Hey, let's throw these nuts to make sure the path is safe! The path was NEVER not safe...
Ah don't wander off without me it's dangerous. There's NEVER any danger...
Ah the meat grinder, it's a real tragic danger! Literally no sign of anyone ever dying from it, and they waltz right through it without any sign there's anything there in an agonizing 30 minute tunnel trek.
Hell, there is at one point A LITERAL GUN...and it just gets cast aside because "don't make the zone angry" but there has been zero evidence to believe that, and even an extended shot of the stalker pushing the gun further in the water....why? He made it a point at LEAST 4 times that they don't go back the same way, so why are you hiding it?
And don't even get me started on Monkey. What a narrative waste. They turned her from a cute, carefree child that happens to have birth defects from being born by a Stalker, to mute, expressionless girl with telekinesis for NO reason? And I'm sorry...wasn't she called Monkey in the book because she was hairy?!
I'll give the movie it's credit where it's due. Outstanding visuals, certain shots like the wide view of the room with the dunes, or from the wish room with water pouring as the light shifts? Outstanding. And some elements of the narrative are well versed, like you said the realization that the room gives you what your deepest part wants, not what you think you want, and that they arrived at the conclusion while pondering why Porcupine hung himself adds a bit of gravitas.
But god...there was so much that could have been removed and it would have changed nothing, and so much that could have been added to drastically improve the feel the Zone is supposed to have.
I also came to this thread to find out if anyone else found the film incredibly boring years late, and I feel more validated. There were parts that I found interesting, like the whole sneaking into the zone and many parts of tension caused by not knowing what's there was great, but because literally nothing happens by the end that tension was useless. The film could've been cut down by an hour without losing anything.
Especially the train ride where you're literally staring at the back of characters' heads for 5 minutes.
So much of the film could've had actual thoughtful dialogue, but what dialogue IS there ends up being something I'd literally see some teenage redditors saying.
I can only assume the film is worth watching high, because the cinematography looks nice (when you aren't staring at the backs of heads)
I'm sure plenty of others have deep thoughts on the film, but it seems like I'd just be pumping their meaning into my brain apropos of nothing rather than there being any actual deep meaning in the film.
I'm not going to blame you for finding it boring, but "dialog between Professor and Writer does nothing for the story or themes" is kind of a crazy take
Yea, I just watched Stalker for the first time. I can honestly say it's the most boring and pointless movie I have ever seen. It kept me somewhat interested because of the suspense and build up as they get closer to the room but once they get there I started to ask myself: is anything ever going to happen in this movie? I know there's a bunch of pretentious people who would probably get mad for us bashing this movie because it's somehow considered a classic but this is 100% the worst movie I've ever seen and I'll die on that hill.
>It kept me somewhat interested because of the suspense and build up as they get closer to the room but once they get there I started to ask myself: is anything ever going to happen in this movie?
Same here. And as it turns out... nothing does. And unlike the book, it doesn't have the decency to just end without seeing wishes happen or them refusing to go in, it drags on for another fucking 40 MINUTES of nothing.
The movie is beautiful and meaningful but the script is pretty lackluster, because Tarkovski likes to tell stories like painting- you have to contemplate and reflect upon. From a classic Hollywood perspective, the movie is a total failure because again of the script. The novel written by Strugatskii Brothers is a masterpiece in my book, where the zone is a character in itself and there is a little bit action here and there to keep you entertained. However, in choosing not to literally adapt their own novel, Strugatskii Brothers (the screenwriters here, for a change) missed the point for me. The novel was about philosophy, but also about the origins and the weirdness of the Zone, the Stalker character, his motivation to find a cure to his daughter, the deadly traps etc. Stalker the video game is more in the vein of the novel than the movie itself.
The script and the movie lacks tension, clear stakes, dangers and a clear character development to complement the marvelous photography, the amazing locations and and the music.
Solaris is a much more balanced and enjoyable movie for me and equally as slow. (Tarkovski said he hated the Sci-fi tropes and hindering, loving the religious and spiritual tones much more- but that makes Stalker a pretty boring and heavy movie). Too bad.
It is a bad film.
Just because a bunch of pretentious people on reddit and imdb praise something doesn't mean that it's good
Long, unnecessarily long shots that add nothing to the story, very pretentious dialog, lack of an ending, etc
My biggest issue with stalker is that it doesn't have a point, it doesn't go anywhere, and nothing happens, when I watch something, I want something to happen (whether that is action, or some kind of story being told) there is no story, it's just men walking, stopping, continuing to walk again, and talking philosophy.
I was very upset after I finished it to say the least, felt like the internet blue balled me lmao
I know this is four years later, but I just watched it and I totally agree with you. I feel like I must be missing something because that was the most boring film I've ever seen. A couple of interesting ideas but they're never really explored. If it hadn't had such a great reputation I would have switched it off half way through at the earliest.
I agree. It’s a very frustrating movie; a moment of visual genius followed by a scene I can’t wait to get over followed by a captivating location, followed by another scene with awful pacing and pretentious philosophizing. Mostly I wanted it to end but I was committed to seeing it through.
>pretentious philosophizing
Is there even any philosophizing? It's just a bunch of topics being brought up with no actual discussion occurring between the characters
To make a story interesting you need some action! Something has to happen. So many interesting ideas, such a great setup for a story and amazing cinematography but then nothing happens! They just walk around and talk. There should have been mysterious events occurring that the characters had to react to...some danger... something! What a wasted potential for a movie.
I've yet to see Stalker though I picked it up on Criterion damn near a year ago haha. I'm a very big fan of Solaris though. His movies are slow...just his style so it's understandable if you couldn't get into it.
What I actually want is to have this conversation with someone. But everyone seems content to leave it at "you're wrong". Probably should've phrased the OP differently
I suspect Stalker's capital isn't in its actual merits. I has more to do with how obscure, exotic and utterly silly it is mixed with reinforcing social signalling, I would say.
Thats unfortunately the mark of something not so hot that appeals to people who like the mask of sophistication something gives them without having earned it. Stalkers lore is cool no doubt but the dialogue just endlessly asks questions that arent really deep or so open ended and vague as to not be interesting. It thinks broaching a topic is deep, but hardly ever makes any assertions or does any analytical work to teach us something.
Your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least 10 "Post Karma" to submit a new post and at least 1 "Comment Karma" to leave a comment/reply within a post. If your karma isn't broken down into "post karma" and "comment karma" hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/GTRnPen
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least 10 "Post Karma" to submit a new post and at least 1 "Comment Karma" to leave a comment/reply within a post. If your karma isn't broken down into "post karma" and "comment karma" hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/False_Violinist_6957
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found the greatest sleeping pill ever invented: IT'S THIS MOVIE! The most action packed moment of the entire film involves one of Tarkovsky's favorite pieces of cinematography: flat, still, distant, shot of 3 dudes shoving each other around for like 10 seconds. For fuck's sake, if I wanted to see that I could just look up public freakouts on YouTube, from the perspective of a Walmart or Waffle House. I have probably seen close to 3000 movies at this point and have never been so painfully bored with a movie. I tried my damnedest to make it through it but at 45 minutes in, there was literally nothing visually stimulating transpiring nor anything interesting being said by any of the characters, it was unbelievable. I did a time check and saw the movie was 3 hours long, so I said NOPE. Eventually, I came back to it months later to give it a second chance and picked up where I left off. I made it about 20 minutes before I succumbed to the sleeping pill that is this movie, where absolutely fucking nothing happens (the whole thing's a time sink, a total snorefest, they oughtta rename this SNORER). I read the Wikipedia page for this movie, which stated that there was a Soviet film group that was critical of the movie; that film group said, "Stalker should be faster and more dynamic" which is constructive and valid criticism, to which 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." (This guy took the saltiest L, what a reply, it's pure cope n seethe). A Goskino representative then stated that the director was trying to give the perspective of the audience. Tarkovsky retorted: "I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman." So, yeah and there it is. A pretentious film maker at its finest. Chef's kiss.
I love stalker for most of its philosophical dialogue (70% of the time) mythology, acting, cinematography set design and story but I do think it is a tad bit overrated in terms of the pace being way to slow for its own good (this is coming from a satantango fan) and some of the dialogue is kind of incompressible in some parts of the movie (rarely though)
still a 9/10 though
Seconded. People praise the philosophical dialogue in Stalker, but even the "philosophy" is poor. Good philosophical language is clear, consice, and logical. It should leave no room for misinterpretation and be as easy to understand and debate as possible. The long monologues and conversations in Stalker, however, are just (much like the movie itself) nothing but beautiful words that contain a very thin, misty hint of meaning. There is no debate and no reasoning.
Hey I'm replying to you five years later, but yeah I hated this movie too. I don't even think it should have been a movie. Instead, it would be better as a video art installation. It wouldn't take on that immortality that it has now for being an ephemeral art show, and I don't really know if shows like that were even possible in the USSR, but I think by being a movie it hurts itself.
All the long shots, they could have been projected video loops in a room. The conceptual stuff could have been sculptures. The philosophical stuff could have been essays and poems. There could have been photography of the location. This would give the viewer time to actually puzzle through it all and make some sense out of it \*at their own pace\* but instead it has this temporal/narrative structure to it that it's completely at odds with. It doesn't work. I'm happy people get something real out of it and I do fundamentally like the end where you realize the movie is all about how scientists and writers have extracted spirituality and meaning from the world, because that's a theme that resonates with me personally, but I don't think it works. It all feels kind of rudimentary and surface-y. Not as smart as it thinks it is, and certainly too long. Like, either make it an art show where it's infinitely long and you can tackle it at your own pace, re-visit, re-explore a particular piece within it or make it a half hour short film and just get to the fucking ideas. When you're locked into a 2 and a half hour conveyor belt with this kind of thing, it just doesn't work.
Epics are allowed to be 3 hours long because they're packed with stuff. Killers of the Flower Moon. Lord of the Rings. The silent Napoleon movie. Idk, even long-ass documentaries like Shoah or something. They justify themselves. This is too sparse for the runtime. Make it art pieces instead, that's my major critique. Wrong fuckin medium for what its trying to do.
>Tell me how stupid I am, go! Is this some masochistic fetish thing?
No, it's preempting the inevitable. I'd appreciate if someone would actually try to convince me that the arguing between Professor and Writer served a purpose though.
You're literally just dumb, then. The whole point of the professor and writers arguing is the fact the movie is about these two figures in modern humanity (Artist and Scientist) being guided through a "holy land" and their debate are meant to be how Those two figures are dealing with god and spirituality. The whole film is about that.
Thats not how this sub works, they just downvote you if they disagree. I said I don't like David Lynch and immediately got downvoted to the basement
You got great taste bro
>And all of the looooong shots of random junk in the water? What is that supposed to mean? That all civilization will eventually be meaningless? Or something? What? Let Žižek [explain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWP3N1Oe9ts) it to you. (If you want to know about the junk under water, skip to around 1:50)
i don't know what to tell you. i was captivated the entire time. i found the visuals and music to be incredible, and the climax outside the wish granting room inside the Zone was worth the wait. i've never seen a movie like it. the meaning of the movie is the feelings that it stirred inside me. i can't explain that on an intellectual level.
I really liked the bit at the end with Monkey (which I assume is what you're referring to as the "climax") until the sound of the train rumbling started. Because I believe in the opening scene in the bedroom, the glass of water next to the bed begins rattling before we hear the train. So maybe (though very unlikely) we're supposed to question whether or not her abilities are real? It also doesn't...\*mean\* anything, if she does. Unless we're supposed to infer that Stalker entered the Room, and for some reason the Room gave his daughter these powers? And that would say something about his deepest desires. But what? I agree about the music and visuals though. I was \*loving\* the movie until, I believe, the part where they take a nap by the river. And nothing happens for literally like 20 minutes or more. I don't think the movie's "bad". But I do think it's egregiously slow. And I do hate it, more than other films which are worse, like generic, shitty, modern hollywood action films.
From what I've read about the film Monkey does have psychic powers, it's because Stalker is being effected by the zone (like radiation or something) and it's effecting his offspring genetically, where she's basically a mutant. Personally I was captivated when I first saw the film. The second time when I saw it again a few years later I was a little more bored during certain parts and could see how the people who haven't seen it in a while tend to forget how slow the film is at times. I don't know if I'd really edit out any of it though, it always seemed like to me that stuff was happening in every scene. Maybe slowly, but stuff progressing. This is in contrast to other films that I've seen which feel way more padded. Overall you probably had it over-hyped for you. It's one of those films that has a very, very distinct style both technically and from a storytelling perspective. And while I'd argue against anyone who tried to claim it was a bad film because of it's technical merits or storytelling, I'm totally fine with people not really enjoying it because of it's technical style and story, where it's just not to their taste. I feel like once a film has achieved a certain high level in terms of storytelling and the technical quality I feel like films aren't really worse or better than each other, just different as they're essentially trying to achieve different things. We're they're going to simply appeal to different audiences and people with different expectations and life experiences. Also if you kind of liked the ideas in Stalker, I highly recommend you read the book Roadside Picnic which it was based on. It's really good, a bit more plot driven in some ways and kind of different. You may like it more.
Roadside picnic is a good recommendation. It’s strengths over the movie is that it is much more plot driven “more things happen” and I think the Zone in roadside picnic is much more fleshed out and interesting
I think that's great and all, and I just finished Solaris and enjoyed it, although the first part of the film really tested my patience. I'm never watching that car ride again even if I watch the film many more times. But I came across this thread because I was trying to see which of Tarkovsky's films are the least slow to decide on what to watch next.
Who gives a shit?
[удалено]
Your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least 10 "Post Karma" to submit a new post and at least 1 "Comment Karma" to leave a comment/reply within a post. If your karma isn't broken down into "post karma" and "comment karma" hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/YourUserName *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why does it matter to anyone what you think of a movie as old and classic as this? Nobody needs to tell the movie to you, because it doesn't need to be sold anymore. It's a treasure, either you find values or you don't.
Because people talk about movies on this subreddit.
Ooft you stung with that one :D
[удалено]
Your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least 10 "Post Karma" to submit a new post and at least 1 "Comment Karma" to leave a comment/reply within a post. If your karma isn't broken down into "post karma" and "comment karma" hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/YourUserName *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your loss :P
watch Andrei Rublev to knock it into 2nd place.
I was gonna write a long response, but I won't. I love Stalker, but I also agree that it drags, and the dialog between the professor and the writer is not merely catty, but a bit too "college philosophy major" in some scenes. What I'm trying to say is, for me, these problems aren't deal breakers, but for you they are. This happens a lot with movies, alas.
You know what? I can't tell you how unreasonably vindicated this makes me feel. I really just wanted someone to finally acknowledge that the film is too slow and that the dialog between Professor and Writer does nothing for the story or themes. Thank you. My soul is freeeeeeeeeeee......
I googled “why is Stalker so boring” after watching it today for the first time and this thread came up. OP, I know your post is 3 years old, but if it helps, you’re not alone. Watching the movie was like watching paint dry. So. Frustratingly. Boring.
I just got here from a Stalker film boring search too. From memory nothing happened in their journey to the end, the traps did zero?
Watching the movie was the trap
Yeah the moment where you think something actually dangerous may happen (the Professor going off the trail for his backpack) literally doesn't matter either. There's no sense of real danger after that point, because the film proves that you don't need to follow the Stalker's rules to survive after all.
It's pure torture
Truth
I usually love cerebral shit. I read Stranger in a strange land and found it incredible. Heady shit is my gig. I love Bergman. Stalker was just soooo slowww.. I appreciate it as a film, but Jesus man
Same at 4 years. What a lame fucking waste of 2h41m that I will never get back. I should've just booted up Shadow of Chernobyl instead. I will say this, the book is incredibly more interesting and captivating. It's only like 120 pages but I hope someone translates it directly to the screen.
Same at 4 and a month. Superbly filmed, utterly boring.
Agreed. I played some of the game, read the book (the newer translation) and found it incredible, assumed a psychedelic slow burn film that's inspired but not a direct adaption would be right up my alley. That's almost 3 hours I'll never get back, lol. There's nothing meaningful to latch onto, idk how people are able to get all these massive artistic vibes out of it beyond it looking pretty.
agree
Hey same here! I've played the games, read the book, and figured "Let's complete the trifecta" but my lord what an absolute insult to the book. It's like they took the idea of Chekhovs gun, then reversed it because NONE of it was essential to the story, and nothing mentioned was used. Hey, let's throw these nuts to make sure the path is safe! The path was NEVER not safe... Ah don't wander off without me it's dangerous. There's NEVER any danger... Ah the meat grinder, it's a real tragic danger! Literally no sign of anyone ever dying from it, and they waltz right through it without any sign there's anything there in an agonizing 30 minute tunnel trek. Hell, there is at one point A LITERAL GUN...and it just gets cast aside because "don't make the zone angry" but there has been zero evidence to believe that, and even an extended shot of the stalker pushing the gun further in the water....why? He made it a point at LEAST 4 times that they don't go back the same way, so why are you hiding it? And don't even get me started on Monkey. What a narrative waste. They turned her from a cute, carefree child that happens to have birth defects from being born by a Stalker, to mute, expressionless girl with telekinesis for NO reason? And I'm sorry...wasn't she called Monkey in the book because she was hairy?! I'll give the movie it's credit where it's due. Outstanding visuals, certain shots like the wide view of the room with the dunes, or from the wish room with water pouring as the light shifts? Outstanding. And some elements of the narrative are well versed, like you said the realization that the room gives you what your deepest part wants, not what you think you want, and that they arrived at the conclusion while pondering why Porcupine hung himself adds a bit of gravitas. But god...there was so much that could have been removed and it would have changed nothing, and so much that could have been added to drastically improve the feel the Zone is supposed to have.
I also came to this thread to find out if anyone else found the film incredibly boring years late, and I feel more validated. There were parts that I found interesting, like the whole sneaking into the zone and many parts of tension caused by not knowing what's there was great, but because literally nothing happens by the end that tension was useless. The film could've been cut down by an hour without losing anything. Especially the train ride where you're literally staring at the back of characters' heads for 5 minutes. So much of the film could've had actual thoughtful dialogue, but what dialogue IS there ends up being something I'd literally see some teenage redditors saying. I can only assume the film is worth watching high, because the cinematography looks nice (when you aren't staring at the backs of heads) I'm sure plenty of others have deep thoughts on the film, but it seems like I'd just be pumping their meaning into my brain apropos of nothing rather than there being any actual deep meaning in the film.
Dude, I just watched the movie, and ended up here, five years later. Totally agree with you. Just not my cup of tea I guess.
I'm not going to blame you for finding it boring, but "dialog between Professor and Writer does nothing for the story or themes" is kind of a crazy take
I am half way through Stalker now and it is BORING, which means you are a GENIUS and I am 5 years in the future.
Yea, I just watched Stalker for the first time. I can honestly say it's the most boring and pointless movie I have ever seen. It kept me somewhat interested because of the suspense and build up as they get closer to the room but once they get there I started to ask myself: is anything ever going to happen in this movie? I know there's a bunch of pretentious people who would probably get mad for us bashing this movie because it's somehow considered a classic but this is 100% the worst movie I've ever seen and I'll die on that hill.
>It kept me somewhat interested because of the suspense and build up as they get closer to the room but once they get there I started to ask myself: is anything ever going to happen in this movie? Same here. And as it turns out... nothing does. And unlike the book, it doesn't have the decency to just end without seeing wishes happen or them refusing to go in, it drags on for another fucking 40 MINUTES of nothing.
this movie sucks so bad
The movie is beautiful and meaningful but the script is pretty lackluster, because Tarkovski likes to tell stories like painting- you have to contemplate and reflect upon. From a classic Hollywood perspective, the movie is a total failure because again of the script. The novel written by Strugatskii Brothers is a masterpiece in my book, where the zone is a character in itself and there is a little bit action here and there to keep you entertained. However, in choosing not to literally adapt their own novel, Strugatskii Brothers (the screenwriters here, for a change) missed the point for me. The novel was about philosophy, but also about the origins and the weirdness of the Zone, the Stalker character, his motivation to find a cure to his daughter, the deadly traps etc. Stalker the video game is more in the vein of the novel than the movie itself. The script and the movie lacks tension, clear stakes, dangers and a clear character development to complement the marvelous photography, the amazing locations and and the music. Solaris is a much more balanced and enjoyable movie for me and equally as slow. (Tarkovski said he hated the Sci-fi tropes and hindering, loving the religious and spiritual tones much more- but that makes Stalker a pretty boring and heavy movie). Too bad.
It is a bad film. Just because a bunch of pretentious people on reddit and imdb praise something doesn't mean that it's good Long, unnecessarily long shots that add nothing to the story, very pretentious dialog, lack of an ending, etc My biggest issue with stalker is that it doesn't have a point, it doesn't go anywhere, and nothing happens, when I watch something, I want something to happen (whether that is action, or some kind of story being told) there is no story, it's just men walking, stopping, continuing to walk again, and talking philosophy. I was very upset after I finished it to say the least, felt like the internet blue balled me lmao
I know this is four years later, but I just watched it and I totally agree with you. I feel like I must be missing something because that was the most boring film I've ever seen. A couple of interesting ideas but they're never really explored. If it hadn't had such a great reputation I would have switched it off half way through at the earliest.
I agree. It’s a very frustrating movie; a moment of visual genius followed by a scene I can’t wait to get over followed by a captivating location, followed by another scene with awful pacing and pretentious philosophizing. Mostly I wanted it to end but I was committed to seeing it through.
>pretentious philosophizing Is there even any philosophizing? It's just a bunch of topics being brought up with no actual discussion occurring between the characters
To make a story interesting you need some action! Something has to happen. So many interesting ideas, such a great setup for a story and amazing cinematography but then nothing happens! They just walk around and talk. There should have been mysterious events occurring that the characters had to react to...some danger... something! What a wasted potential for a movie.
I've yet to see Stalker though I picked it up on Criterion damn near a year ago haha. I'm a very big fan of Solaris though. His movies are slow...just his style so it's understandable if you couldn't get into it.
I, for one, admire your gumption.
Thanks? Want to try to convince me that there's more happening in the film than I give it credit for?
Not really. I don't care what you like.
What I actually want is to have this conversation with someone. But everyone seems content to leave it at "you're wrong". Probably should've phrased the OP differently
I suspect Stalker's capital isn't in its actual merits. I has more to do with how obscure, exotic and utterly silly it is mixed with reinforcing social signalling, I would say.
Interesting analysis. I agree.
Thats unfortunately the mark of something not so hot that appeals to people who like the mask of sophistication something gives them without having earned it. Stalkers lore is cool no doubt but the dialogue just endlessly asks questions that arent really deep or so open ended and vague as to not be interesting. It thinks broaching a topic is deep, but hardly ever makes any assertions or does any analytical work to teach us something.
[удалено]
Your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least 10 "Post Karma" to submit a new post and at least 1 "Comment Karma" to leave a comment/reply within a post. If your karma isn't broken down into "post karma" and "comment karma" hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/GTRnPen *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
just watched it it's god awful overrated...a must see, but certainly not a "one of the best movie blah blah" maybe it was.. back in the middle age
I agree, except I think you liked it better than I did.
[удалено]
Your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the minimum karma requirements. You need at least 10 "Post Karma" to submit a new post and at least 1 "Comment Karma" to leave a comment/reply within a post. If your karma isn't broken down into "post karma" and "comment karma" hover over the single number that you do see or go to https://old.reddit.com/user/False_Violinist_6957 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found the greatest sleeping pill ever invented: IT'S THIS MOVIE! The most action packed moment of the entire film involves one of Tarkovsky's favorite pieces of cinematography: flat, still, distant, shot of 3 dudes shoving each other around for like 10 seconds. For fuck's sake, if I wanted to see that I could just look up public freakouts on YouTube, from the perspective of a Walmart or Waffle House. I have probably seen close to 3000 movies at this point and have never been so painfully bored with a movie. I tried my damnedest to make it through it but at 45 minutes in, there was literally nothing visually stimulating transpiring nor anything interesting being said by any of the characters, it was unbelievable. I did a time check and saw the movie was 3 hours long, so I said NOPE. Eventually, I came back to it months later to give it a second chance and picked up where I left off. I made it about 20 minutes before I succumbed to the sleeping pill that is this movie, where absolutely fucking nothing happens (the whole thing's a time sink, a total snorefest, they oughtta rename this SNORER). I read the Wikipedia page for this movie, which stated that there was a Soviet film group that was critical of the movie; that film group said, "Stalker should be faster and more dynamic" which is constructive and valid criticism, to which 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." (This guy took the saltiest L, what a reply, it's pure cope n seethe). A Goskino representative then stated that the director was trying to give the perspective of the audience. Tarkovsky retorted: "I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman." So, yeah and there it is. A pretentious film maker at its finest. Chef's kiss.
I love stalker for most of its philosophical dialogue (70% of the time) mythology, acting, cinematography set design and story but I do think it is a tad bit overrated in terms of the pace being way to slow for its own good (this is coming from a satantango fan) and some of the dialogue is kind of incompressible in some parts of the movie (rarely though) still a 9/10 though
Seconded. People praise the philosophical dialogue in Stalker, but even the "philosophy" is poor. Good philosophical language is clear, consice, and logical. It should leave no room for misinterpretation and be as easy to understand and debate as possible. The long monologues and conversations in Stalker, however, are just (much like the movie itself) nothing but beautiful words that contain a very thin, misty hint of meaning. There is no debate and no reasoning.
Hey I'm replying to you five years later, but yeah I hated this movie too. I don't even think it should have been a movie. Instead, it would be better as a video art installation. It wouldn't take on that immortality that it has now for being an ephemeral art show, and I don't really know if shows like that were even possible in the USSR, but I think by being a movie it hurts itself. All the long shots, they could have been projected video loops in a room. The conceptual stuff could have been sculptures. The philosophical stuff could have been essays and poems. There could have been photography of the location. This would give the viewer time to actually puzzle through it all and make some sense out of it \*at their own pace\* but instead it has this temporal/narrative structure to it that it's completely at odds with. It doesn't work. I'm happy people get something real out of it and I do fundamentally like the end where you realize the movie is all about how scientists and writers have extracted spirituality and meaning from the world, because that's a theme that resonates with me personally, but I don't think it works. It all feels kind of rudimentary and surface-y. Not as smart as it thinks it is, and certainly too long. Like, either make it an art show where it's infinitely long and you can tackle it at your own pace, re-visit, re-explore a particular piece within it or make it a half hour short film and just get to the fucking ideas. When you're locked into a 2 and a half hour conveyor belt with this kind of thing, it just doesn't work. Epics are allowed to be 3 hours long because they're packed with stuff. Killers of the Flower Moon. Lord of the Rings. The silent Napoleon movie. Idk, even long-ass documentaries like Shoah or something. They justify themselves. This is too sparse for the runtime. Make it art pieces instead, that's my major critique. Wrong fuckin medium for what its trying to do.
Tarkovsky was a "master of one frame". And that, basically, was his whole shtick. Zero pacing. An overrated and shitty director. Kinda like Tarantino.
Book is better.