Stalker details
| Format: | PG DVD |
|---|---|
| Starring: | Alissa Freindlich, Alexander Kaidanovsky, Anatoli Solonitsyn, Nikolai Grinko |
| Director: | Andrei Tarkovsky |
| Genres: | Sci-Fi/Fantasy - Sci-fi - General, Thriller, World Cinema - Russian |
| Studio: | FUSION MEDIA |
| Name | Discs | |
|---|---|---|
Stalker |
PG Feature |
DVD Information
| Run time: | 2 hours 35 minutes |
|---|---|
| Rental release: | 22 Apr 2002 |
| Main languages: | Russian |
| Subtitles: | Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish |
Write your own review
Most helpful review
And you thought SOLYARIS was difficult!
By Mike from Spondon, Derby , 12 Apr 2005[Highly rated reviewer]
My dim memory is that Arkady and Boris Strugatski?s book, ROADSIDE PICNIC, which was the inspiration for STALKER, suggested that if aliens were indeed to visit the Earth, whether for a picnic or some other unfathomable purpose, then the debris (tangible or otherwise) they might leave behind would be, above all, utterly incomprehensible to humans.
This is a wonderful science-fiction idea, but the film?s screenplay (also by the Strugatskis) has a completely different emphasis; Tarkovsky creates a multi-layered, philosophical debate between the three archetypal main characters ? Guide, Artist and Scientist ? as they enter the Zone and make their way to the Room. It seems as if he is using them as mouthpieces for his own questions and uncertainties. Politics, religion? who can say what it?s all really about?
The setting, which appears to be an abandoned factory in an industrial wasteland, is as beautifully-filmed as it is ugly. The fact that Tarkovsky can make you believe that aliens have indeed been here, and can maintain the resulting tension for the whole time the three human visitors are there, without a single special effect or indeed any indication that the place is anything other than just what it seems, is a mark of the man?s genius.
And what does the ending mean? Who (if anyone) do the three glasses represent ? the explorers, or the girl and her mother and father? Who is the one who falls off the table? (There ? I don?t think I?ve given too much away.)
There are many parallels with the same director?s other science fiction film, SOLYARIS: the intercutting of monochrome with colour; the emphasis on water; the long, lingering camerawork. Unlike SOLYARIS, however, STALKER hasn?t been ruined by Hollywood ? yet. Perhaps it will remain safe ? after all, the attention span of yer average media mogul surely can?t be adequate to cope with a film of this slowness and complexity?
The verdict on STALKER seems split between the fans of whizz-bang, who were very bored and hated it, and the rest, who loved it, but have great difficulty in explaining why. It is a difficult, complex, challenging, incredibly detailed film, but it does get you thinking in a life-the-universe-and-everything kind of way ? and isn?t this what the best science fiction is supposed to do? I read a review of STALKER which said that great works of art give up their secrets only slowly; I?ll go along with that, and I?ll keep on coming back to this fascinating film.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (59) Yes |
- No (5)
All reviews
(55)Tarkovsky Lives
By LeCritique (6 reviews) from London , 04 May 2013Watching Stalker again after many years confirms the emotive and creative distance between standard Hollywood fare and the language available to creative filmmakers attempting to convey meaning, mood and message in a totally personal and unconstrained way. True, Tarkovsky was a product of the Soviet system which allowed creative talent relative freedom of budget and schedule constraints. Tarkovsky’s problem, though, was that he clearly needed to express his deep misgivings on life in the USSR without alerting his bosses at Mosfilm on what could be deemed subversive. Stalker is deeply subversive. The film is dark, wet with sad characters looking for answers to unsolvable problems only to end up where they started from after a trip into a dreamland of ugliness, desolation and unfulfilled achievements. Tarkovsky allows us, unlike his characters, the freedom to interpret a cipher. A scene at the end: a little magic is allowed – and magic indeed did happen in 1991 some 12 years after Tarkovsky made the film.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (0) Yes |
- No (0)
Grateful to have seen it
By hssapiens (1 review) from Manchester , 11 Nov 2012This film has been a delight for me. I interpret it as a contemplation of intellectual vanity, the desire for success, the desire to change the world and the fear of failure, with truly palpable personifications of these states of mind. I think that it is a genuine work of art from all involved.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (0) Yes |
- No (0)
great mv!
By carlosjlrocha (3 reviews) , 01 Nov 2012Masterpiece!
it is on top of the quality movies of all time.
A lot of respect for this director and for this movie e particular.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (0) Yes |
- No (0)
Lovely atmosphere, too long.
By crudpuppyuk (9 reviews) , 18 Sep 2012It's important to know, before you start, that nothing much happens in the movie, but that it's worth seeing because of the atmosphere and images. I won't be watching it again, but I'm glad I saw it. I think it's overrated, but that's just me. All the other movie buffs think it's great.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (0) Yes |
- No (1)
Good settings; tedious dialogue
By a customer from Hertfordshire , 19 May 2012Fabulous sets and locations are not enough. The movie could have ended without dificulty shortly after the first disk but instead you have to listen to the philosophising of the characters - sometimes, dreadfully, to the camera. A good story gets completely lost but at least it works almost as well on double-speed.- Was this review helpful to you?
- (0) Yes |
- No (3)
