Featured Audience Ratings

• Bob S

  
  My least favorite Tarkovsky thus far. So talky, so ambivalent, so... dull. I really should afford this a second and third chance as I was stuck reading the subtitles most of the first viewing. I do not relish the thought.

• Coxxie M

  
  one of the most dreadfully boring fucking things i think ive seen this year. and it really doesn't help to know that this shit is two and a half hours long. it was like watching a boring person watching a PBS documentary on how slugs fall asleep in the winter, and the guy who is… More
  one of the most dreadfully boring fucking things i think ive seen this year. and it really doesn't help to know that this shit is two and a half hours long. it was like watching a boring person watching a PBS documentary on how slugs fall asleep in the winter, and the guy who is watching doesn't even muster up enough sarcasm to make prickish comments about it. not even a "fucking gay slugs.." he just sits there in his Lazy Boy and nods with a face like hes thinking real hard about what hes seeing. thats how i felt about this shit.

• Aditya G

  
  Calling Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 film "Stalker", a science fiction film would be unjust. This isn't really a science fiction film. But then again, maybe it is, on a slightly abstract level. Then at yet another level it is perhaps a meditative psychological… More
  Calling Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 film "Stalker", a science fiction film would be unjust. This isn't really a science fiction film. But then again, maybe it is, on a slightly abstract level. Then at yet another level it is perhaps a meditative psychological drama...or maybe not. Maybe what is really is, is a highly philosophical film, making some very important points during its entire running time. The difficulty faced by this reviewer in categorizing this picture reflects the difficulty faced by the three central characters of the film in understanding the nature of "the zone" that they set out to explore in this mesmerizing introspective drama. The plot deals with a mysterious "occurrence" somewhere in Soviet Russia, that has been believed to be a meteorite or an alien visit. But then no one is really sure. The incident happened 20 years back and whoever went to find out at the place in question, never returned. Ever since people disappeared, the area has been cordoned off by the government. Termed "The Zone", this is a place were supposedly normal laws of physics do not apply. People are fearful of the place and no one visits there. Only there are stories running about that in the Zone is a room, which has the powers to fulfill the innermost wishes of a person. Hence, of course, a lot of people are curious to visit. Since it is illegal to do so, they have to seek help of what are called "stalkers" or guides to the zone. One such stalker is our central character known only as the Stalker (Alexander Kaidanovsky). He takes his two clients, a writer and a scientist (Anatoly Solonitsyn and Nikolai Grinko respectively) who have their own personal reasons for visiting the zone. The rest of the film details this expedition of theirs, led by the Stalker. Where "Stalker" succeeds and most other films fail is in maintaining a perfect balance between the humanistic and the supernatural aspects in the story. So, very often in the film, the viewer is left questioning himself. "Stalker" deliberately refrains from taking sides and takes the idiom "seeing is believing" to an entirely new level! So we find ourselves wondering, just like the Writer who is totally perplexed about the Stalker's actions. Why does the Stalker choose only the longer paths when the destination seems close at hand? How much truth is there in the stalker's knowledge of the powers of the Zone and the kind of people that the Zone lets through? What are these so called "traps" of the Zone and what is the real significance of the "meat mincer"? What are the motives of the Stalker himself? Is there really a room that fulfills one's innermost desires? The journey through the Zone also turns out to be a journey through their inner self; an exercise in self-realization. Amidst all the mysterious situations faced by our journeymen, we are also presented with a whole range of very interesting philosophy, which is sure to set the ball rolling for a completely new perspective on how we see things around us. Technically the film excels in all departments. The screenplay of "Stalker" is written by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky who have also written the novel "Roadside Picnic" on which this movie is loosely based. Tarkovsky gives it that special touch that was required for this kind of story. Like all of his films, this film makes use of long takes on the camera, slow and subtle camera movement, devoid of any conventional camerawork usually used in films. The cinematography is beautifully done by Alexander Knyazhinsky. He captures the bleak as well as the beautiful scenes with great finesse. The film uses Sepia as well as full colour tones and these tones toggle during scenes. The locations chosen for filming scenes in the Zone are two deserted hydro power plants. There is also some hypnotically beautiful music by Eduard Artemyev which couldn't have been more befitting to any other film. Acting is mostly great, particularly by Alexander Kaidanovsky who stars as the Stalker and Anatoly Solonitsyn, the Writer. Also notable is the acting by Alisa Frejndlikh who portrays the character of the stalker's wife. She makes a lasting impression particularly in one important scene towards the end. "Stalker" is a suspenseful, mind-bending, enriching and thought-provoking film all at the same time. This is what makes it a truly unique experience! It is one movie, after watching which, you may find yourself questioning your religious beliefs! Like the "Zone" that it talks about, the film itself is a miracle that Tarkovsky has managed to pull off. If this is not art,..what is?

• Carlos M

  
  A deeply metaphysical and philosophical allegory about human desire and the search for happiness, Tarkovsky's Stalker is beautiful and hypnotical, though somehow difficult and not as sentimentally engaging as Solyaris.

• Greg S

  
  A "Stalker" has the skill to lead the curious past armed guards and mystifiying traps into a mysterious area known as The Zone, inside which there is rumored to be a room that will grant the visitor's innermost wish. Typically slow and impenetrably obscure movie by… More
  A "Stalker" has the skill to lead the curious past armed guards and mystifiying traps into a mysterious area known as The Zone, inside which there is rumored to be a room that will grant the visitor's innermost wish. Typically slow and impenetrably obscure movie by Tarkovsky, which almost lulls you to sleep with long stretches where nothing happens, then suddenly shocks you with an unforgettable image of haunting beauty.

• Stella D

  
  gorgeous and mesmerising tho the last quarter was a bit talky and thoroughly confusing. a kind of claustrophobic surrealist nightmare. wait, that's inland empire. i loved the ending tho i'm not sure what happened beyond that the stalker had some sort of existential… More
  gorgeous and mesmerising tho the last quarter was a bit talky and thoroughly confusing. a kind of claustrophobic surrealist nightmare. wait, that's inland empire. i loved the ending tho i'm not sure what happened beyond that the stalker had some sort of existential crisis. perhaps it's a religious allegory about faith. anyway the cinematography was superb. i'll be thinking about this for awhile

• Ken S

  
  Tarkovsky's masterwork of science fiction is a must see for fans of the genre. This dark highly atmospheric film is photographically on par with any Bergman or Kubrick film.

• Arash X

  
  Poetic and Philosophical, This and Zerkalo are the best I've seen from Tarkovsky

• Pierluigi P

  
  Tarkovsky's slow lethargic pace may be hard to swallow, but no doubt the story, existentialist and fascinating, compensates the rest. A film so difficult to watch that it gets us immerse into "the zone" a deceitful landscape where we can't step forward without… More
  Tarkovsky's slow lethargic pace may be hard to swallow, but no doubt the story, existentialist and fascinating, compensates the rest. A film so difficult to watch that it gets us immerse into "the zone" a deceitful landscape where we can't step forward without thinking twice.

• Walter M

  
  [font=Century Gothic]In "Stalker," a professor(Nikolai Grinko), a writer(Anatoli Solonitsyn) and a stalker(Aleksandr Kaidanovsky) all walk into a bar. And what is a stalker you may ask? The Zone is a mysterious area created possibly by a meteorite some years before.… More
  [font=Century Gothic]In "Stalker," a professor(Nikolai Grinko), a writer(Anatoli Solonitsyn) and a stalker(Aleksandr Kaidanovsky) all walk into a bar. And what is a stalker you may ask? The Zone is a mysterious area created possibly by a meteorite some years before. Soldiers went in but never came out, so the police cordoned off the area. It is said that there is a room in the Zone that will grant a person's innermost wish and the stalker is paid to take his employers there on a perilous journey, first past the police and then the obstacles in the Zone itself.[/font] [font=Century Gothic][/font] [font=Century Gothic]Directed and strikingly designed by Andrei Tarkovsky, "Stalker" is a thought-provoking allegory about the conflict between religion and science as personified in a running conversation between the stalker who has faith and the two other members of his party who represent the intelligentsia. Personally, I thought since human beings are forever curious, that they would need the Zone as a further mystery to explore. But I think Tarkovsky sees the Zone's necessity coming out of it being a sign of god's existence(the words faith and miracle are bandied about an awful lot) because without any religion, the world would lose any kind of hope. In the film, the outside world is devoid of color and in the Zone, there is color, like the color schemes in "The Wizard of Oz."(There is one exception to the rule.) But to be kind, the world looks the same, no matter whether we believe or not. We just need to have faith in each other.[/font]

• Bryce I

  
  There is no doubt in my mind, or in anyone's mind that this film is dull, and is not the easiest to get through. But even having said that, it is "SO" well done. Weather or not it is boring to an individual, you cannot mock Tarkovsky's work. His visions, and his… More
  There is no doubt in my mind, or in anyone's mind that this film is dull, and is not the easiest to get through. But even having said that, it is "SO" well done. Weather or not it is boring to an individual, you cannot mock Tarkovsky's work. His visions, and his film-making show some of the only moments in cinema that remain nothing but pure art. Everything that the camera picks up is flawless. There is no easy way to enjoy this film, but when each scene is carefully shot to perfection, and how everything can come together through haunting metaphors and clever cinematography, it's even harder to say that it's dull. No film may ever reach the possibilities that Tarkovsky has designed for Stalker. Though it's no masterpiece, it sure as hell remains a brilliant piece of cinema.

• Gevvy S

  
  The entire 163 mins of Tarkovsky's philosophical sci-fi flick are completely engrossing and thought-provoking. In the beginning, when the credits are shown, there was a bar and unique, evocative music (the likes of which I've never heard before). Ingmar Bergman said… More
  The entire 163 mins of Tarkovsky's philosophical sci-fi flick are completely engrossing and thought-provoking. In the beginning, when the credits are shown, there was a bar and unique, evocative music (the likes of which I've never heard before). Ingmar Bergman said "for me, Tarkovsky is the greatest", and after watching Stalker I totally see where the Swedish master filmmaker was coming from. This film depicts a highly philosophical and psychological journey; which is rooted just as much in realism as it is in fantasy. It is a very surreal film which is beautifully shot (Tarkovsky's films are renown for their cinematography) in both sepia and color. Crudely summed up, the film's protagonist is a guide, called a stalker, for two troubled men who are escorted into and around an area known as the zone. Stalker seems to depict the worst and the most negative aspects of human nature, but in the end leaves you with an impression of the very best and positive traits that a person possesses. A subtle and serene film, which moves freely and calmly forward along with it's characters in the zone. Throughout the movie, the mysterious personalities of the secretive characters are revealed to us through words and through actions. Tarkovsky explores the intentions, cravings, and "inner most desires" of human beings. I was moved and shocked by this poetic mentally stimulating film. A film that makes me want to get up and make a movie while simultaneously thinking about what I'm shooting and for what purpose-- not a lot of movies can do that. With all that being said, it is most importantly a subjective film and an artistic film of the highest merit. Whats not subjective or up for debate is whether this is a good film: it is a great film. Period. Tarkovsky said "An image- as opposed to a symbol- is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it." Words of course cannot begin to describe the arrangement of moving pictures that Tarkovsky put together. The enjoyment is in the experience of this singular special film.

• Ivan D

  
  For the record, this is the first time that I have watched an Andrei Tarkovsky film and I must say that it was quite a spellbinding first encounter. Both confusing and enthralling at the same time, "Stalker" is a timeless meditation on beliefs that contradict what's… More
  For the record, this is the first time that I have watched an Andrei Tarkovsky film and I must say that it was quite a spellbinding first encounter. Both confusing and enthralling at the same time, "Stalker" is a timeless meditation on beliefs that contradict what's empirically perceived and is also a deep exploration of intellectual apprehension. Part-fantasy, part-science fiction and, in some ways, a quasi-religious discourse, this film is unique not just because of the otherworldly concepts that has established the film's visual texture but also because of the density of what it speaks of. Although painfully slow in its pacing, "Stalker" is never boring because of the quite stunning ideas that it presents. The film, about two tormented intellectuals and how they are guided by the titular character towards the 'Zone' (a place that is said to have the ability to grant wishes), is an adventure of immense consequences. It is a soul-searching trek towards a proverbial 'end of a rainbow' yet it is also a melancholic journey made infinitely more compelling by the characters' constant polemics. At times, I even found the conversations and arguments between the three characters to be even more fascinating than what their mission awaits them. This, I think, is the thing that makes auteurs like Tarkovsky very, very exceptional. Aside from their command of the visuals, they are also in control of which language their films would speak. And in "Stalker's" case, Tarkovsky mainly chose the language of metaphysics to further the film's profound abstraction. With the film mainly concerned about the unanswerable inquiries about the meaning of life and the anxiety of both knowing and feeling too much (represented by the two intellectuals, one a writer and the other a physicist), it was quite obvious at certain times that the characters' utterances are personal musings coming from Tarkovsky himself. At one point, the film has even discoursed about the unselfishness of art and the shallowness of technology (the writer character claimed that technology is nothing but an 'artificial limb' which makes people work less and eat more); with Tarkovsky the auteur at the helm, that particular statement is obviously all too personal that it seem out of place in a film that deals with monolithic ideas about life in the context of despair. But nonetheless, it's also all too refreshing. This is why true auteurs and no one else can best capture intimate artistry both at its most divine and at its most turbulent; they just know it all too well. Now if there's a term that would best describe the feat of creating this film, then I think it would be 'miraculous'. A convergence of imagery and content, "Stalker" is masterful not just because of the technical craftsmanship that comes with it or the weight of its ideas but because of the equal distribution of both and the patience of how they were balanced. And then there are also the locations that have made the film even more special. With the 'Zone' seemingly taking on a life and character of its own as the film progresses, the way the place was visually presented is quite impressive because of how three-dimensional it was. With a naturally pervading sense of unpredictability, acute danger and, ultimately, of spiritual transcendence, the 'Zone' has been the strong backbone of the film. Shooting in ruins, dank tunnels and dark sewers, Tarkovsky and company has molded the reality (or unreality) of the 'Zone' in a way that's mystical yet also consistently dystopian. Also, there were some great performances in it too, particularly that of Aleksandr Kaydanovskiy as the 'stalker' himself. In some ways, the film's final minutes, at least for me, seems to be a subtle commentary regarding the irrationality of religion (with that enduring image of one of the characters wearing a crown of thorns on his head as if emulating Christ) and the outlandish belief towards both the unknown and the unseen. But despite of the film's flowing cynicism, "Stalker" still echoes hope even at its subtlest. Amid the film's overwhelming sense of intellectualism, it has at least succeeded to be emotionally eloquent. Though the film has left many questions in its wake, it offers closure on an emotional level. That, for me, is what's more important.

• Francisco G

  
  My second favorite Tarkovsky film is much like Solaris: a meditative experience on the human desires and on our search for the unreachable. A truly fascinating piece of art that stills manages well to be ambiguous, making the viewer to find a meaning within it by it's own. Of… More
  My second favorite Tarkovsky film is much like Solaris: a meditative experience on the human desires and on our search for the unreachable. A truly fascinating piece of art that stills manages well to be ambiguous, making the viewer to find a meaning within it by it's own. Of course, not for everyone, but for the patient viewer, you'll get here a landmark in movie history. Very few directors have managed to find his own distinctive style and being able to transmit the essential to us, on the other side of the looking glass.

• Lauren D

  
  Just dumb. It wasn't about anything. Nothing happened. Some of the shots were nice, but otherwise it was boring as hell and put me to sleep.

• alan j

  
  An important film, yet hard to watch on many levels. Ultimately, its teasing ---- you never see any alien presence or transformations, and no one ever does go into 'the room'. great visuals and storytelling, but much needs to be imagined by the viewer. I thought the… More
  An important film, yet hard to watch on many levels. Ultimately, its teasing ---- you never see any alien presence or transformations, and no one ever does go into 'the room'. great visuals and storytelling, but much needs to be imagined by the viewer. I thought the dialogue was written very well and at times i thought the philosophical discussions were the main driving point of the film. See it and decide for yourself; one thing for sure is the premise of the film is terrific.

• Stefan P

  
  If you're looking for a fast-paced, or even paced, story, look elsewhere. If there would be a remake from Hollywood, the running time would be about 10 minutes instead of 163 minutes; that's how slow this story develops. But "Stalker" is more a piece of art than a… More
  If you're looking for a fast-paced, or even paced, story, look elsewhere. If there would be a remake from Hollywood, the running time would be about 10 minutes instead of 163 minutes; that's how slow this story develops. But "Stalker" is more a piece of art than a movie, it's about imagery more than anything. Beautiful indeed, but unfortunately I couldn't keep the interest up.

• Robert F

  
  Not an easy film, but certainly hypnotic and visually unforgettable.

• MJS M

  
  Now this is more like it. I was sort of disappointed with my adventure through the work of Andrei Tarcovsky, but this has restored my faith in the guy. This is another science fiction movie that focuses on esoteric discussions instead of actual sci-fi stuff, but it feels a lot more… More
  Now this is more like it. I was sort of disappointed with my adventure through the work of Andrei Tarcovsky, but this has restored my faith in the guy. This is another science fiction movie that focuses on esoteric discussions instead of actual sci-fi stuff, but it feels a lot more natural than Solaris as it isn?t a Space opera. The movie involves a ?zone? that has been created through unknown means. There?s said to be a room at the center that grants anyone who enters their innermost desire, the catch is that it?s an extremely dangerous and seemingly sentient area that kills many who enter. The film interestingly pulls a Wizard of Oz by filming almost everything outside of the zone in sepia-toned black and white and almost everything inside the zone in vivid color. This is a similar choice made in the alternating color scheme in Wim Wender?s Wings of Desire. I also think the setup sounded oddly similar to the show Lost. I could have done without some of the endless lingering shots of nothing, and I would have liked them to show more of the danger of the zone instead of just telling about it, but otherwise this is a very interesting film from a cinematic master.

• Anthony V

  
  Slow, but rewarding. Each shot is worthy of being framed and put in a gallery.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings