Stalker: A Film by Andrei Tarkovsky Reviews

• THE BEST FILM EVER CREATED

  
  By on 2000-04-22
  This is a film about faith, divine grace and the fruitless vanity stemming from our soul's original sin. To quote from one of the characters in the film," My mind preaches vegetarianism, but my heart longs for a juicy piece of steak." And this is the premise of the three characters journey into the Zone - to seek out their steak: to find the Room in the Zone that will grant them their wishes; and this coming from the very same people whose professions demands higher standards of moral living from them, careers that require them to preach vegetarianism. Of course they have failed in their lives professions, and the characters know this but their inner chaos stem from the private pains in their lives, their failure to live up to their calling and their denial/certainty about their indivisual failures and states of their tarnished souls. Although Stalker is someone who leads others into the the Zone as a guide, his purpose apparently being to help others obtain their wish and thus bring about happiness for others, yet Tarkovsky hints that Stalker's outward explaination is dubious as he will not hesitate to make scapegoats and guinea pigs of his clients in the face of uncertainty and danger. As for Writer, he is, yes, a writer who is going into the Zone to look and beg for inspiration and faith in life as a whole; until Writer can obtain this wish, his cynicism and lack of faith can be summed up in one of his quotes:" A writer can only write about his readers." Professor is a scientist whose reason for seeking out the Room is unspecified until at the very end of the film but I will not divulge his reason.He is a researcher who has to bear his boss's fury and defintely hates his job at the lab. Many great cinematic moments are to be found in the film, in fact the film is one great cinematic moment non-stop, even after it ends, and this can be attributed to Tarkovsky's brilliant handling of every aspect of the film; one can even go so far as to say that with this film tarkovsky proved that he is easily the Einstein of cinema. His vision is earth shattering, deviating almost completely from the original intentions of the writers of a novel on which the film was based. The ending when it is revealed the reason why one of the guides of the Zone hanged himself despite obtaining a wish from the Room will blow away anyone who lives in the frustrated knowledge of life and all our mortal desires as an empty vainity of vanities without the presence of God and selfless love. The editing, set designs, music and lighting, the human choreography, the wisdom and everything in this film qualifies it as the best film ever made. Totally original without trying to be. If you only watch one film for the rest of your life this has to be it! It will make you want to live better, stirring profound thoughts and feelings within you long after the film's over. This is more than a film, it's almost a miracle. The British label ARTIFICIAL EYE apparently has better English subtitles and shows the complete film without cuts unlike the American version, or so I read.
  
  

• The title STALKER is misunderstood

  
  By A3FDFVJKDA4P1D on 1999-06-30
  The title STALKER is quite misunderstood because many think it is a translation from a Russian word that means 'to stalk.'. Actually Tarkovsky's script inserted the word STALKER thinking it was a catchy English equivalent for something like a Russian pathfinder or guide. In that context, the central character's role is better understood, for he spends time leading the writer and scientist toward discovery and revelation, which they ultimately cannot achieve. STALKER is a masterpiece of imposed reality on the viewer. Make no mistake: this film is very difficult to stay with without your utmost attention. Little artifice, few physical elements, hardly any plot, STALKER exists as a journey that draws your mind, heart, and soul into the nature of human existence. Only those intelligent and sensitive enough to ride Tarkovsky's waves of feeling, emotion, and thought can comprehend his message of possible salvation and redemption through love and persistent searching for human truth. The writing on the video box implies this is another sci fi film, but clearly it is not. Tarkovsky's great films are mythical allegories in the tradition of Pilgrim's Progress or Piers Plowman. For me, Tarkovsky is the ultimate challenge in intellectual film making, because he presents and discusses his ideas only in the context of the film itself, not just as a media vehicle to speak. What strikes me most is his absolutely consistent sense of pace in all his films: slow, deliberate, but fluid and highly organic. He is one of the few great masters of film as an art form.
  
  

• Tarkovksy's best film (along with Solaris)...

  
  By A2UYAFQ40U2PHS on 2007-03-18
  This film is as amazing as you have heard. It's arguably Tarkovsky's best film (and the last one he made completely under the auspices of the USSR), and a film that gets inside your head and your soul. The plot is rather simple. An alien force lands on Earth, and then leaves. The area where they landed is a vast wasteland where the laws of physics are suspended. It's been dubbed the zone (or 3OHA in Russian). A stalker (not the current definition), a writer, and a professor venture into the zone, where there is a room that will grant you your most inner wishes. Now, it's not what you ask for, it's what you really desire. The room reads into your soul. This is a very slow, cerebral movie (it wouldn't be a Tarkovsky movie otherwise), but it has to be seen many times to fully comprehend it. I love Stalker's "dream" sequence, which has one of the most amazing shots I've ever seen in cinema. The ending is really exceptional as well. I have seen Stalker at least 10 times, and I can see 10 more. It was a difficult shoot (Tarkovsky had to stop shooting because there was a defect in the film stock he was using. He had to reshoot from scratch, essentially), yet, it is Tarkovsky's greatest film along with Solaris and Andrei Rublev. When you watch it, make sure that you choose the original mono soundtrack. The DVD company, RUSCICO, remixed the soundtrack to 5.1 dolby, but they ADDED sound to the original film, including music during the ride to the zone (which originally only had dialogue and the sound of the trolley car). It was awful. They ended up reissuing the disc with both tracks after the outcry by Tarkovsky admirers.
  
  
  
  

• Brothers Karamazov visit Chernobyl

  
  By A2H712PES9HBM5 on 2000-12-24
  Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker is another one of those movies with a bipolar disorder; You either love it or hate it. Having said this, I must admit that I loved the movie. So be forewarned. This is another review by an enthusiast. Stalker improves upon recollection and has a fascination that one cannot readily explain.

  The stalker leads others into a mysterious and forbidden zone that is heavily protected by a police state. Was the zone caused by a meteorite? We do not know. We do know that many have entered the zone never to return. And we also know that in the twenty some years since the meteorite fell, a legend has grown up that there exists within the zone a room where one's innermost wish may be granted. The calling of the stalker, who has faith in the legend, is to lead others past the police guards and through the labyrinthine zone to the room.

  The action begins when a writer and a physicist meet together with the stalker in a dreary bar. Everything is wet and slippery here, as it is through most of the movie. Curiously, the images change from sepia to color as we enter the zone. As the stalker explains the mysteries to us we know that we are not in Kansas anymore. In the decidely un-cartesian zone one never traverses the shortest distance between two points. An indirect approach is always best. Only the stalker can divine the way, which is confused beyond words.

  It is an understatement to say that the scenes are disquieting. The zone is strewn with syringes, silt, and debris of all kinds. Everything seems to be wet, including the visitors. But they don't mind. They are engaged in philosophical-religious speculation! For shame to think of personal comfort when larger issues are at stake.

  It is remarkable that in 1980 Tarkovsky created a film about a dangerous zone strewn with debris, where children of frequent visitors have deformed children. I cannot escape the conclusion that this film artistically predicted Chernobyl.

  In many ways the zone is like life (where sometimes progress is simple and other times it is confused beyond words). In other ways it is like death. But it is not all gloom and doom. The Stalker is, in his original way, beatific. Through the prayerful monologue of the stalker Tarkovsky accomplishes the transcendent moments characteristic of all of his films. The stalker's faith is reminiscent of the cargo cults of the South Pacific. That the object of his faith is pathetic makes it no less sincere.

  The unnamed "writer" and "professor" are profoundly different individuals whose only common experience seems to be suffering. But the quality of their suffering is different. Our "writer" has specialized in a kind of suffering that contaminates all who come within the orbit of his wit. The professor has suffered alone, in intellectual isolation. The stalker has suffered as well, but he has sacrificed his suffering and has attained an acceptance of life through faith. It is a fragile acceptance though, one that can be shaken by intellectuals convinced that they have been "born for something".

  Stalker convinces us that a man be so misguided as to worship the most pathetic of objects. If such a man has sacrificed his suffering he is greater than the most exalted intellectual.

  I am impressed that you have read this review from beginning to end. You must really be a fine person!
  
  

• Yes, I do have better drugs....

  
  By A1Y8FBJLVK6LS9 on 2005-08-22
  I love the trash review directly below! And I always stupidly thought it was drugs and sophomoric attitudes that made films like this impossible for some people.
  
  Working with next to nothing, Tarkovsky conjures up a unique film experience. Imagine a visually magical film about the search for the Grail filmed in someones backyard--it's kind of like that. In some respects it's a bit like Godard's Alphaville...but only in some. It's certainly not a film to "get," but one to get lost in and I think that's why it frustrates a lot of viewers who sometimes think every intelligent film is a puzzle that needs to be worked out. Some film-goers need to understand that one can't always be poetic and linear/literal (I say "can't always" to be ironic). Hard point to make in the world's most unpoetical linear/literal society.
  
  Tarkovsky is a master of the tangential, the sublime, the surreal--anything but the direct. I've watched this film nearly a dozen times and I can't tell you what most of it is about--especially the ending (which is utterly devastating and quite beautiful). Well, that's not totally true, I've a fair idea what it's vaguely about; in some ways the meaning's as clear as French criticism. It's just elusive too, because people's souls are slippery eels, and souls seem to be an obsession with Tarkovsky.
  
  I'd put hard money on this being a great film but it's tough to prove it, especially using the Procrustean critical and analytical tools we find scattered around the garage today (The "Boring-ometer," or the "Left-handed PC Gauge") People who strongly dislike it seem to be of two camps: one is the sort of ADD group that can't handle long, slow movies with little visceral stimulation; it's a valid lifestyle for many but insufficient grounds for condemning anything*. The other camp consists of a type that's been with us since the cave man or woman discoverer of the wheel was given one star on Amazon.rock for creating a pointless spinning thing that made folks dizzy. There's no response available to complaints that a complex, advanced, or visionary work of art is "boring," "artsy," or "pretentious." The reviewer is writing--quite validly and no irony intended--to his or her equals and they should listen keenly. My dog, Alphonse, once reviewed a Beethoven symphony and described it as "meaningless and annoying low-frequency noise with no hope of dinner or treat implied in its raucous ending" and since that was published (in The New Yorker, no less!) no other dog has bothered to listen to the "Eroica." My cat hates paintings by Mondrian because the artist didn't leave enough texture on the canvas to sharpen ones nails on. The mice, however, love Pollock. To each according to their needs and abilities.
  
  [* I recently suggested to the Turner folks that since colorizing worked so well to bring boring old black and white films to the attention of the easily distracted (Or "Differently Attentive" as the PC folks say), that we should, uh, "stimulize" slow-moving old films. This would involve say, adding footage of car crashes and explosions, maybe even a graphic decapitation to "Twelve Angry Men" or re-editing "Jane Eyre" so that it looked like an MTV video. We could easily digitally minimize clothing so that "Miracle on 42nd Street" could get an R rating and an audience. Just a thought]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• The most powerful emotional experience on film
  By A1SBZ4MW2ZSMZU on 2005-09-26
  I first saw a Tarkovsky film when I was 10. It was a pretty young age to watch a film like Andrei Rublyov, but even then I knew this film maker to be different from all the rest. Over the years I have watched all his films except Zerkalo (Mirror), but I have found this film, Stalker, to be the most powerful emotional experience ever captured on celluloid. It never suffices to waste words on a Tarkovsky work, because primarily he's a poet who has chosen the medium of the film out of necessity and because of his training - and like all good poetry his work - the things he manages to express in his films - cannot really be done justice by words. Like one of his characters (Little Man in Sacrifice) says, 'In the beginning was the word...why was it so, Papa?' It sounds almost like an apology to Andrei Tarkovsky.
  
  The main reason I wrote this was because I felt uneasy that there were so many bad "reviews" by morons who can't sit through a film that doesn't have blood or sex in it (I feel this view has already been expressed by one of the more mature reviewers). I cannot believe that people can talk about inane films like Titanic and incredible classics like Stalker in the same breath. At least they should have the discretion to know that these are fundamentally different ways of making film. Why, Tarkovsky used slow-motion in only two instances, and on both those instances he did it reluctantly because he was not being natural! He was a director who respected the rights of all the artists - foremost among them the actors - so much that he did not interfere with their "secrets", so to say.
  
  Let us forget the tasteless imbeciles. I know this is just a forum for opinions, but I am also disconcerted by so much talk about symbolism in Tarkovsky's films. What symbolism is there is Stalker? Or Rublev? In any of his films? I think we have forgotten, through the glut of bad films, how a film should be like, or what a film looked like before Hollywood corrupted it with its dose of violence and sensual excess. I think, like the images of nature depicted in his films, Tarkovsky's films are pristine, verdant, untouched... and even the slightest ripple in the river is cause for joy, celebration.
  
  We have come a long way from simple pleasures that we have forgotten what joy is... if we get uneasy if the film shows 30 seconds of a river flowing, is it because our time is so precious that in the thirty seconds we would achieve paradise trying to work out the inches to a celebrated torso? Or is it because we have trained ourselves to become callous idiots seeking after sensual pleasures?
  
  Whatever the reason, it cannot be the fault of a film maker keen on showing the simple truths, on giving rushed individuals a glimpse of the spiritual heights he himself has achieved by turning over the most tormenting thoughts again and again that finally only the thought remained, and all the traces of toil were removed... it is a great gift to present a work of art after removing all traces of preparation and toil. His work is there for you to see, if you want to. He never clamoured for fame or wealth. If he had,then he'd have been a billionaire (such crass flicks like X-Men, Matrix, Syamalan's sci-fi "original" sci-fi thrillers wouldn't have existed). The sad truth is, a lot many of wealthy idiots in the business would have been doing the dishes if this film hadn't given them ideas. But such is life.
  
  I'd recommend this film to all of those folks who need to be reassured that all the toemtn, all the guilt, all the wretchedness they have endured trying to makse sense of human values like dignity, brotherhood, sacrifice and faith - ideas that get completely forgotten by that overused word called love - yes: such people would find meaning, and only such people. For others, even sympathetic viewers, Stalker would be much of a sacrifice for nothing. There's nothing to be gained by those others. but to the wretched ones the film addresses, it is the last place of hope.
  
  I am not one of the "winners", and in general I do not find it hard to understand why. This film does not really fit in the usual Tarkovsky canon, where every film at least tells a story, because it has no story. Time, space and action all move fluidly to the same point to produce several breathtaking moments of truth where we see man at his most compassionate. It's such moments that remind us that human beings are capable of a higher life, of higher values.
  
  In Stalker, probably Tarkovsky's last great film (I do not believe Nostalghia or Sacrifice come even close, and that's mainly because they are personal films, made after a traumatic defection to the West), he deals with several human values conclusively. The main thread is human dignity, then faith, service of others, compassion, selfless love, and hope. He has said all there is to be said to all those things. The film does not leave any open ends, it's conclusive, and this quality is impressive...almost hard to believe. It's the least poetic of his works, he is matching his wits with the greatest prose works of the mould of, say, Crime and Punishment...
  
  I recall someone ruing that this film has been a disappointment after waiting for 20 years. I'm sorry he expected to see something different. But for all these 19 years this is the film I've been waiting to see, and it could not have been any different. It is unique in every respect, and it's the only film of its kind. I only wish vainly that it were not so, that Mr Tarkovsky left us a few more than the eight films that he did. Be that as it may, we should consider ourselves fortunate that we have what we have...
  
  
• Grand philosophical journey
  By A25JBPU5G0C29H on 2002-11-27
  This 1979 Andrei Tarkovsky film, a favorite among his fans, is all philosophy in a story of three men searching for meaning in their lives in a hellish environment. Truth, motive, art, meaning, purpose, reason, selfishness, hope, soul, belief, are all examined here. The story focusses on three men. They are called Stalker, Professor and Writer. The Professor and Writer have hired the Stalker to take them to the guarded Zone, where mysterious hidden forces influence the area. In the heart of the Zone is a room, where any wish will be granted. The three men, have to overcome various physical, mental, and social problems among themselves to reach the room. They discuss, debate, and reflect on their world and situation, and philosophize on the room, and the mysterious forces in the world, and their place in it. What will this journey hold for them, and the room, waiting, offer to them? What do they really wish for, and what will it mean to the rest of mankind? And why does the Stalker bring others to the room, but he does not enter?

  So many questions are raised in this interesting sci-fi analysis of human existence. The film is long and slow, but nevertheless, the ideas are fascinating, and are a real treat to see laid out masterfully by Tarkovsky, in images, words, and music, within an entertaining story. The film is emotional, and as in other Tarkovsky's films, he creates an experience in you, and warps your views of the world, and offers so much more than mainstream films give after viewing. If you look for films that will offer more than just a two hour cheap thrill ride and then never thought of again; a real beautiful, and meditative journey, that includes you along, and inspires you to look around and beyond life, so memorable, and intelligent then you really should see this film any way you can. Anyone disturbed by high concepts, intelligent scripts, and slow pacing, stay far away, as you will be bored to tears. 5 stars. I loved it.
  
  

• SOUL CANDY
  By AL5D52NA8F67F on 2000-01-25
  I'm ashamed to admit this, but I bought this film because I thought it would be full of special effects ala THE MATRIX. Wrong. Instead, I was hypnotized by a wondrous film full of the power and frustration of Faith. Filmed in the waning days of the Soviet Union the film seems to exemplify spiritual emptiness and the desperate search for the Divine and Miraculous. The State has built a Wall around "The Zone", as if afraid of what people might find there. The Guide who leads people through the Zone tells tales of its mysterious tendencies and fluctuations...which we never see even though we, like the "pilgrims", desperately want to. So does the guide really believe in the Zone? Or is he the victim, too, of desperation? The Professor tries to "get rid" of the Zone, so as not to be tortured by it anymore. The Writer tried to be glib about the Zone, unconvincingly. And then The Child, at the very end, when no one else is around, neither Politicians or Scientists or Artists or Mystics...is it the vibration of the train or something else? A soulful, even painful, journey into our own Inner Zone where Nothing/Something waits...
  
  
• Taking another look at Tarkovsky
  By AERGIVLVUJAY4 on 2005-07-07
  I believe Andrei Tarkovsky once mentioned that his films were meant to touch the soul, rather than the intellect. Indeed, the "grand" experience of his works have a way of drifting into your subconcious and stir something inside if only you let them. The feelings that are achieved can lead to meaningful discussions (and thus the intellect) about life and, in the case of Stalker, that elusive search for happiness that consumes our lives.
  
  As is the case in all of Tarkovsky, 'Stalker' does not lend itself to virtually any of the cinema's plot convention, nor easy explanation, nor does it consider Box Office potential. In fact, it is a minor miracle that Tarkovsky was able to create films like this for over 20 years at all. He never found a wide audience in his native Russia, thriving only by independent means, and was eventually exiled. But back to the film:
  
  The world outside of "The Zone" is captured in an eerie faded black and white tint that recalls the silent era. The two characters who search for happiness (The Professor and The Writer) are led blindly through the dangerous outer perimeters of the Zone, which is closely guarded by the military. Perhaps not coincidentally, it feels we are in the aftermath of nuclear haulocaust. Mysterious trains seem to float through the fog, like ghost ships. They carry weapons and supplies, but no one is ever shown getting on or off. The music is subtle and strange, and comes and goes as eerily as the trains.
  
  When the characters finally enter the Zone, the screen fades into color to correspond to the "sacredness" and supposed ecstasy that this place promises. Tarkovsky often offers us an empty frame, a soft wind, as the characters drift through tall grass and trees, never quite sure what is around the next bend. The Stalker knows the place all too well, and knows that there are unseen traps that can spell death to the overconfident. The two other characters come to symbol our split conciousness: The Writer is brash and daring, always questioning what is "right" and never afraid to take risks to satisfy his curiousities; The Professor is quite and contemplative, content to go along with what is expected of him in order to come to a higher understanding (Though his true purpose becomes clear later on.)
  It would take several more paragraphs to go into the details of Tarkovsky's meaning through the film (And, in fact, I'm sure there is much I have yet to understand.)
  However, at it's center, this film is a meditation on the full meanings and complexities of happiness and the values of one's life. Toward the end, as the character return to the outside world, and the color fades back into blandness, there is a great moment of insight. Without giving it away, I'll just say that one of the most hopeful and moving moments captured on film occurs when the screen suddenly blazes with color once again at a moment of new awakening for one character. It justifies and reaffirms all that we have experienced along the way throughout this profound journey....
  
  
• My god this guy is amazing
  By A26MCVUEIWCVCA on 2001-09-27
  When I slipped Andrei Tarkovsky's "Stalker" into my VCR I just layed back, openned up a bag of chips, and began contemplating the useless, insignificant quote left by some small time critic on the box: 'this film is the Slavic equvilant to David Lynch's "Eraserhead" (Who like that's a good comparison).'

  But then, instead of turning out like some third-rate American make-no-sense paranoia noir, Tarkovsky's achievment is so ingenious, so visual, so relative, and so downright different that I was just blown away.

  The film begins in stark black, white and brown colors. The look is so bleak that it looks faded and unfocused. Tarkovsky introduces us to a man desperate for color and beauty in a society that depraves him of such things. The smoke, rain and mud seem to forbid him to leave his home just as much as his own wife does. With this scene alone Tarkovsky has painted a finer picture of communist Russia than every film combined that has ever tried to capture the country's atmosphere and spirit (I'm largely speaking of American movies).

  I could go on and on about this film, but I can't. I can't describe what you see, feel, and how it purminates in the mind. It goes so beyond anything that English or American 'Ambitious' epic films present. Films like "Apocalyse Now" and "Lawrence of Arabia" have a surface, but rarely a living indivualized heart underneath.

  This is my first Tarkovsky film, and after watching just one, I have contemplated he is just as brilliant and highly cinema-vocabularic as Bergman, Godard, Ozu and Herzog (at his prime). After witnessing Tarkovsky's work, I have a newfound interest in Russian Cinema, and a newfound interest in Russia in general.
  Watch this film, or any other Tarkovsky masterpieces, and I garuantee that the bag of chips will be just as untouched come the end as it was at the beginning.
  
  

• Much more than just science fiction...
  By A2B00S9GI2U8KQ on 2003-02-13
  Tarkovsky is by far my favorite director. Stalker was the first film I saw, and the experience was so memorable that I went on and saw all his other films. Many people have compared it to Stanley Kubrick's "2001, a space odyssey". I beg to differ. While Kubrick's film was also a masterpiece in its own respect, it was not delivering a spiritual and metaphysical message like Stalker. Many viewers tend to criticize Stalker for lack of so-called "action". In his book, "Sculpting through time", Tarkovsky explicitly states that this was indeed what he intended to do. This is about a journey to our inner soul, this side of us that is our most intimate and yet at the same time our most frightening. The Writer is of course our artistic side while the Professor would represent our logical and scientific leanings. Both of these men seem despaired because of lack of faith, only to be redeemed at the end. However, while many would believe that this film seems to give a pessimistic message about the human condition, it actually gives hope. Indeed, we can be redeemed, and that is through love and sacrifice personified by the Stalker's wife.
  Now, for the visual aspects of this film. Every shot is a masterpiece, a work of art. The language and the dialogue are all beautiful and poetic.
  All in all, Stalker is a philosophical masterpiece, a gem in the world of cinema.
  
  
• What Andrey Tarkovsky had to say about his own film
  By A2G1CV3W924OFS on 2002-04-25
  Stalker is an extraordinary film, but what is it all about? A writer and a scientist meet the stalker in a shabby, decaying bar. Afterwards they board a makeshift rail trolley and travel deep into the Zone to the strange room that grants any wisher their innermost wish. And who can forget the flowing pool with it's coins and artwork and detritus of civilization? Later, there's the ending with the spectral black canine prowling about silently and the stalker's child is moving objects across a table by telekinesis.
  The great director himself offers something of an explanation which can be found in "Sculpting In Time", a collection of his film writings (which are often rigid and lapse into Soviet locutions -- (but hey, those were the times he was living in, when the Kremlin mindf**cked everybody, and a director was lucky if he or she even had the opportunity to open a film cannister, much less make a film).
  

  Tarkovsky writes: "What, then, is the main theme that had to sound through Stalker? In the most general terms, it is the theme of human dignity; of what that dignity is; and of how a man suffers if he has no self-respect...Let me remind the reader that when the characters in the film set out on their journey into the Zone, their destination is a certain room in which, we are told, everybody's most secret wish will be granted. And while the Writer and the Scientist, led by Stalker, are making their hazardous way over the strange expanse of the Zone, their guide tells them at one point either a true story or a legend, about another Stalker, nicknamed Diko-obraz. He had gone to the secret place in order to ask for his brother, who had been killed through his fault, to be brought back to life. When Diko-obraz returned home, however, he discovered that he had becom fabulously wealthy. The Zone had granted what was in reality his most heartfelt desire, and not the wish that he had wanted to imagine was most precious to him. And Diko-obraz had hanged himself."
  
  In another part of the book, "Sculpting in Time", Tarkovsky offers a portrayal and purpose of the Stalker. Tarkovsky writes:

  "Looking back now at the films I have made so far, it strikes me that I have always wanted to tell of people possessed of inner freedom despite being surrounded by others who are inwardly dependent and unfree; whose apparent weakness is born of moral conviction and a moral standpoint and in fact is a sign of strength....The Stalker seems to be weak, but essentially it is he who is imvincible because of his faith and his will to serve others. Ultimately artists work at their profession not for the sake of telling someone about something, but an assertion of their will to serve people. I am staggered by artists who assume that they freely create themselves, that it is actually possible to do so; for it is the lot of the artist to accept that he is created by his time and the people amongst whom he lives."
  
  

• Flawless.The fourth wall falls.
  By A3TTWJGVWTJ460 on 1999-11-25
  From one of the few artists in history who never produced so much as one poor piece of work came this definitive moment of cinema. No other film has ever captured me in such a way, I quickly become afraid of what I will find in the "zone" and concern for the characters is secondary. "Stalker" is an experience, not a form of entertainment. Much like "Persona" it is very easy to forget that you are watching a film. All of Tarkovsky's films are of an unequalled beauty, Stalker is amongst his most beautiful. To call it "Science Fiction" is a grievous insult, this film is nothing less then poetry. There is no excuse for not having seen this, I feel very sorry for anyone whose preconceptions will not allow them to admire this film, they have been cheated as they maintain, but only by themselves.
  
  
• An impressive and poetic masterpiece
  By A1IXSJ5BWARUMP on 2005-05-16
  This is one of my all time favorites. One visually stunning masterpiece among others by Andrei Tarkovksy. Nowdays when people seem to think that "visually amazing" is equal to the artifical reality of "Lord of the Rings" or new episodes of "Star Wars" It`s funny to look back and see how beautiful films were made 20-30 years ago.
  
  
• the best film ever made
  By A3VAGBUMUT1CZQ on 2000-09-29
  saw stalker a few nights back and i'm still in a daze. look forward to seeing it again... and again... and again. if you're a first-timer, i suggest you resist the temptation to analyse/interpret, and just let the movie take over. Oh, p.s. The ones who gave the movie bad reviews are all American. Interesting.
  
  
• Three men and a field = Sci-Fi Masterpiece.
  By AD0J5KK4WQXNS on 2003-11-20
  Tarkovsky was filming Stalker for over a year when the film lab reported back that the entire negatives had all been destroyed during processing. Having no insurance Tarkovsky had to re-shoot most of the film again on a remaining shoe-string budget which restricted the production dramatically. He was forced to film Stalker without the vast sets that had since been taken down and headed for the fields in order to concentrate on a character driven science-fiction movie.

  Stalker is bafflingly simple, but it is the story and characters that take this film to a new level. The premise is quite straightforward - a meteorite has crashed near a small town causing the Russian army to takeover the entire area. During their investigation they discover that the meteorite has caused some form of a psychological disturbance on all who enter The Zone. The Zone is sealed off but our main protagonist, Stalker, has been to The Zone more than once and acts as a tour guide for people who want to visit this strange and dangerous place. The film starts with Stalker disobeying his distraught wife in order to take two men - a writer and a scientist, to The Zone. The rest of the movie concentrates on their journey, spiritually, mentally and physically. There are some surprises in store at the end.

  Stalker is like the metaphysics of the Matrix multiplied by ten. It is deeply philosophical in nature and haunting. The locations are beautiful and the camera is always where Tarkovsky wants it to be. Stalker can be a bleak film at times with many slow parts but it is still highly engaging and looks terrific. Not many directors can take three men, put them in a field and then using dialogue alone and a few puddles of water, turn it into an absolutely original sci-fi fest.... for that alone the film is a must see and deserves full marks.

  Film students should definitely study this simple masterpiece.

  ***As a note the transfer is not the best and MPEG encoding does not work well with still shots. In fact DVD does not do Tarkovsky any justice. The film has also been digitally corrected and the start of the film in the bedroom looks terrible, but it does get a lot better after that. The extra are great!***
  
  

• Stalker
  By A2W4C46EFXWDKT on 2001-06-25
  The question is possibly Why did Tarkovsky turn to science fiction? Just possibly. Maybe there's an answer in the diaries, or Sculpting in Time. Maybe memory, as we think about it, or as the modernists thought about it, evokes images of the time machine. Cinema is a time machine, certainly. Whatever the reason, that Stalker or Solaris even fare as science fiction is astonishing, or preposterous, depending on the way you look at it. And it is probably witless to discuss "painting" in a Tarkovsky film at this point, but there you have it. It's painting. Or analagous to painting. Or the films maintain a relation to painting that is more or less consistent. The films are meditative, Stalker especially. The films persist. There are people who walk out on Tarkovsky films, at Cannes the year Nostalghia showed lots of folks walked out. "If I wanted to watch rain fall on bottles, I'll peek out the window," etc. In such an atmosphere narrative doesn't matter. The films aren't narrative. Not in a real way. Mirror is about the impossiblity of sustaining narrative. Stalker seems to have a story, and maybe that seeming is the important thing, but the story disappears, constantly, the images wipe it out. Just the focus on images seems to reabsorb the story. Or something. Like the "driving" passage in Solaris that flicks between color and black and white, pointless, absorbant, yet saying, at the same time, something about the nature of transit, standing in as it does for the rocket's blast off, saying something also about the monotony of travel, about highways and overpasses and other cars and their drivers, about blinking signals and the sounds you hear, on the road, with their rhythms, pure rhythms, about pylons, and colors, and the portions of people you see, or don't see, it's more or less about the fragments of life you're passing, and the danger of being on the road, but it's also, in the last of things, about the passage of film through the camera, as well as the projector, the medium comments on itself, saying something about the deathly monotony of it all, transit, certainly, travel, yes, all of it, including film, and taking pictures, there's a meditative, but also certainly exhausted feeling one can have while watching Tarkovsky, which is why those folks walked out (because you can), but there is also an exultant feeling, I don't know. This delirium that's present in the films is an ecstasy of absorption in the image, in the dream image, something authentic, in the image far removed from a capitalist use of nearly the same thing, the face of the star or starlet. The films are structured by their own mysterious, completely internal laws, Stalker most of all. There is something happening in Tarkovsky and Stalker that simply doesn't happen elsewhere, the films exist at the furthest possible reaches of cinema, just as In Search of Lost Time exists at the furthest possible reaches of the novel. We're back again to time. There you have it, I guess.
  
  
• masterpiece
  By A3QWV9O21VKOT4 on 2007-05-25
  Stalker is a rare movie experience. If you have seen other works from Tarkovsky then you will love this one. However if you are new to Tarkovsky then this may be a bit of a challenge. The film is long and slow - a bit like a dream. You have to concentrate throughout the movie and come to your own conclusions and interpretation at the end.
  
  The story has been explained by other reviewers so I wont bother repeating what they have already said.
  
  The acting and cinematography are faultless. Throughout the movie I felt as if I was on the journey to the "Zone" with the 3 main characters. So many of the images could stand alone as a photographic work of art.
  
  The quality of the DVD is excellent reproducing the desired look that Tarkovsky wanted.
  
  Sometimes I feel that "Stalker" is not a film - it feels more like a dream with a philosophical theme.
  
  I am truly lost for words. Let me add that "Stalker" would be on my top 10 list of greatest films ever made and considering how many fine movies have been made over the years it is very high praise indeed.
  
  In conclusion, if you are a mainstream movie goer and love films like Spiderman and Starwars then this film may not be for you. Rent the DVD if you can and at least see it once. You may be surprised at how much you like it.
  
  
• Amazing.
  By A253WFE8XBPIG9 on 2001-12-08
  STALKER is one of the best sf films ever. Extremely intelligent in every way I could mention, the movie does not fail to hold the viewer's interest at every step. A loose adaptation of the novel ROADSIDE PICNIC by the brothers Boris & Arkady Strugatsky, this film is every bit as rewarding an experience to watch as that novel is to read. The film concerns the adventure of a "stalker", a guide who leads a team of illegal curiosity seekers through "the Zone", an area tainted physically and, perhaps, spiritually by the brief presence of extra-terrestrials who stopped there in their journey. Impressively, THE STALKER achieves its power completely through dialog and direction, without benefit of any kind of visual special effects (beyond those of the director and camerman). I highly reccommend THE STALKER to anyone searching for an intelligently composed film.
  
  
• Night and Day
  By A2X9QA4JU5Q4VY on 2000-10-06
  Twenty years ago, a meteorite fell to Earth, and decimated a provincial Russian town. Villagers travelled through this curious area, now known as The Zone, and disappeared. Stories purport that there is an inner chamber within the Zone, The Room, that grants one's deepest wish. Fearing the consequences from such an inscrutible resource, the army immediately secured the area with barbed wire and armed patrol. But the desperate and the suffering continue to make the treacherous journey, led by a disciplined, experienced stalker who can stealthily navigate through the constantly changing traps and pitfalls of the Zone. A successful Writer (Anatoli Solonitsyn), perhaps searching for inspiration or adventure, and a Scientist (Nikolai Grinko) searching for Truth, enlist the Stalker (Aleksandr Kaidanovsky) to guide them through The Zone. The Stalker has been trained by a renowned stalker named Porcupine, who, after an excursion with his brother into The Zone, returned alone and infinitely wealthy, only to commit suicide a week later. Soon, it is evident that reaching The Zone is not their greatest impediment, but the uncertainty over their deepest wish. As the men approach the threshold to The Room, their fear and trepidation for the materialization of their answered prayers leads to profound revelation and self-discovery.

  "Stalker" is a visually serene, highly metaphoric, and deeply haunting treatise on the essence of the soul. Episodically, Andrei Tarkovsky uses chromatic shifts to delineate between the outside world and The Zone. Thematically, as in "Solaris", the transition serves as an oneiric device to separate physical reality from the subconscious. The created barriers and imposed laws of the outside world parallel the Stalker's incoherent tracking methods for reaching The Room. Note that despite the Stalker's warning not to use the same path twice, the Scientist returns to retrieve his knapsack unharmed, casting doubt on the Stalker's navigational rules. Symbolically, it is as if the subconscious is in denial of its sincerest wish, creating its own boundaries and impediments to prevent its realization. After a circuitous route, the men arrive at the antechamber to The Room, hesitant to proceed, unable to define their innermost wish: their spiritual longing. The floor is strewn with coins, hypodermic needles, weapons, and religious icons: a reflection of the mind's search for escape from its misery. In the end, The Zone's real or imagined powers proves to be inconsequential to the weary, ambivalent seekers. It was all in the journey...
  
  

• A dream, a poem, the human soul.
  By AUBIF50IF7CMP on 2000-07-29
  STALKER is the Odyssey of the human soul. Tarkovsky unveils the human soul and films it naked in this surrealistic poem. Agony is the word that describes this Odyssey, the agony of the soul to salvation through a journey that will alter the three heros forever. Dont try to interpret this film, dreams cannot be interpreted. They just leave a feeling to your tongue after you wake up that you forget moments after. STALKER reaches the point of the ontological question: Who are we, were do we come from and what is our destination. It does not give answers, that is impossible, but it describes this unfair struggle.

  The film is not divided in scenes or acts or anything else. It is a collective flow of the human spirit. It is one act that flows in slow motion because Tarkovsky's notion of time is completely different than the conventonal one. The time and space inside the ZONE are badly distorted by the presence of the subconscious of the three heros, in the same way that space and time are distorted in the universe by the presence of mass. Tarkovsky manages to visualize this strange coupling between the human soul and nature through his brilliant invention of the invinsble "traps" inside the ZONE.

  The images that are depicted on the film are greater than life. Tarkovsky's achievement is unique. It is like the child that pretends that his bed is a spaceship and travels across the universe without ever leaving its room. This is the same "ROOM" inside the ZONE. The three heroes seem to travel through wrecked buildings and flooded sewers but in reality they travel through the entire spectrum of their existence. Dont believe what you see on this film, try to dig deeper.

  I firmly believe that STALKER is one of the utmost achievements of the human art. It is a priceless gem in the arsenal of the human kind in its search for the Truth.
  
  

• A terrific film, if you know what you're getting into.
  By A46CR6BN727BC on 1999-10-15
  My apologies to Joe, whose review appears below. I'm as fed up with black-clad intellectual geeks as you are, but this is still one of my favorite films. The important thing to understand going into this film is that A) it's primarily a visual poem, rather than a plot-based thriller and B) the dangers of the Zone that the characters enter are metaphysical, not physical. In other words, they are entering a realm that questions their lives, their beliefs, and their choices, not throwing razor blades at them (cf. THE CUBE). STALKER is a strange and beautiful film, but don't expect action or conflict--it functions on a much more quiet and introspective plane.
  
  
• low score for the video transfer
  By ADSO7IC2BQ5R5 on 2005-05-12
  Disappointing transfer by RUSCICO, butchered PAL to NTSC conversion. Tarkovsky deserves better! Buy the PAL version if possible.
  
  
• Unbeliveble, this movie changed my concept of movies.
  By on 1999-07-19
  I've seen this movie sometimes and everytime i see it, it has "changed" a litle bit. I don't only mean that cliche of good movies where there's always something else to see, Stalker is living movie it's so intense, emotional, that talks to you as you see it. Ok it's slow, but in video you can always stop it and start to see it later. Has the best photography i've ever seen. It,s the movie that made me continue to study cinema. Sorry about my english it's very rusty it'been sometime since i don't use it. AVE Tarkovisky CINEMA.
  
  
• An interesting monster
  By A1MYKR9HHCR6EW on 2004-08-19
  I've only seen one other movie by Tarkovsky, Andrei Rublev, and I absolutely loved 3/4 of it, but found that love to be betrayed by the last fourth, which only made me scratch my head. In other words, this review is not put forth by a partisan of the Tarkovsky-esque.
  In terms of style, all the other reviewers are not joking. It is very slow, even the movements of the people are slow. I think the first ten or so minutes of the film has no dialogue at all, but just this tip-toeing camera the goes hither, then thither, front, then back, pan left, then pan right. Which is not to say that this is something I personally detested, but it is enough to try the patience of even the most ponderous souls.
  The dialogue is abstract enough to be challenging, and the setting itself is abstract, making this a big abstract-fest that, again, will probably off-put many viewers.
  The narrative arc is subtle and depends for its interest on the viewer's ability and or willingness to perceive nuance: if you're not the type of person who enjoys relating setting, sound, camera movement, and dialogue, in order to grasp significant points in a film, then Stalker will probably not be your favorite two and a half hours of life.
  But perhaps I exaggerate. I, personally, am not one of those people, and when I do look for nuance like that, it is always in addition or complementary to what is given explicitly on the surface (I prefer Kurosawa to Bergman). I found that this film had plenty on the surface, and I enjoyed it immensely. The story, despite its slow pace, is really fascinating, and Tarkovsky makes good use of dropping hints early on about things to be more fully fleshed out later. This was enough to keep me interested. The music is positively haunting--I cannot emphasize how haunting the score is--and during many of the "long takes" where nothing is said and nothing much happens, the score is quite enough to make the scenes gripping. In short, this is a movie that relies a lot on mood and atmosphere, but I don't think you have to be particularly subtle in order to enjoy those things, since, again, they are the most obvious aspects of the film.
  Like with Andrei Rublev, the ending of Stalker left me somewhat perplexed, with the difference that, for some reason, I found it kind of appropriate. It moved me in some way, it seemed to "work," even though I couldn't give you three words of explication about its meaning or Tarkovsky's intent.
  Potential viewers, I think, should not be scared off by the "heady" nature of the material in Stalker, and unlike some other masterpieces, this one seems to be more of a cup of tea than a philosophical screed pandering to film professors. Personally, I find the ideas in Stalker to be fairly commonplace, and I'd be surprised if anyone, with more or less effort, was unable to get the gist of them. What makes the film compelling is the way the ideas are expressed and dramatized...in a sense, Tarkovsky gives them a mood, an environment, a timbre, and a color.
  Give it a shot. At worst, you'll be bored. But at best...in the Zone!
  
  
• incredible
  By A3SOKVFUWBC31N on 2001-07-12
  I'm not familiar with Tarkovsky's beliefs or writings but this film still blew me away. It's fairly slow moving, it's long and it's in Russian. Normally that description makes for a waste of 3 hours but not in this case. Instead 'Stalker' is a profound, intelligent, beautiful, interesting journey that hypnotizes you for the entire length. This film had about 3 or 4 shots that are probably the most beautiful visual moments I've ever experienced. It was like watching a painting come to life. Another interesting thing about this film was despite the lack of special effects the mere discussion of 'sci-fi' related ideas kept you interested. Due to my ignorance of Tarkovsky's other works I'm most likely not appreciating this on as many levels as I should. Regardless I was enthralled.
  
  
• Most Soviet films aren't in widescreen
  By A1KN287JUP2TNN on 2002-12-05
  A number of customer reviews of Russian films on DVD express surprise at the 4:3 full-frame aspect ratios - but you should be aware that the Soviet Union carried on using 4:3 for feature films well into the 1980s, so virtually all Soviet films between the 1950s and 1980s will be either 4:3 (like Stalker and Come and See) or 2.35:1 (like Solaris and Andrei Rublev), with no middle ground.

  Stalker should definitely be in 4:3 (and I speak as a former repertory cinema manager). Anyone claiming to have seen it in widescreen will have seen it projected incorrectly, possibly at one of the many cinemas that can no longer show this aspect ratio.
  
  

• I had to write a review...
  By A13FAJLWHZRP3W on 2005-12-17
  I'm an open-minded film watcher with a tendency to go for films that stray from cliché. I collect everything from a Studio Ghibli to Mike Takeshi's works (and a few Hollywood films as well). There are a few films that I absolutely love, but I have never felt so strongly about a film before that I have felt the need to write a review until I watched this. It completely knocked me off my feet. So here goes...
  
  I'm not saying anything about the storyline as enough has already been said elsewhere in this review section. All I want to do is give a bit of guidance to a potential buyer whether or not this is a film for them. I will TRY for an unbiased review based partially on other reviewer's comments, good and bad.
  
  Firstly, looking at the number of positive reviews this film has had it was inevitable that curiosity was probably getting the better of certain different types of movie goers, some of which have probably regretted purchasing such a film. There is definitely a fine line to who will like this and who will fall asleep/hate it. There isn't many people who fall into the "its ok" review here either, it seems that this is a love or hate it movie.
  
  As said by a lot of reviewers this is certainly NOT for mainstream audiences. Now days (especially Hollywood) there seems to be a certain way films are made to interact with the viewer, an example would be a main character dies and cue certain camera shots, body actions, script and sad music, etc to try and make the viewer feel `sad'. In a way, most films stay with you, do the work for you, and require you to only switch off and go along for the ride, which is good, no complaints there. Stalker on the other hand seems to down a bottle of vodka and go skipping off into the distance spouting poetic banter and profound questions, sort of leaving you scratching your head wondering whether to follow it or not. Its a case of you're then either intrigued or have fallen asleep. And it seems that those who do follow are greatly rewarded.
  
  The pace of the story is another thing mentioned a lot in these reviews. One or two of them said that this film is a good introduction to Tarkovsky but I beg to differ. This is HARDCORE SNAIL PACE of the slowest order, so much so in fact that even some lovers of Tarkovsky's other works feel that they have met their match with this monster. Another reviewer has claimed that it's a good film to fall asleep to, I can certainly see where he's coming from. And ill admit, the first 10 minutes or so are challenging. There's no dialogue and the camera moves around the house very slowly to the point that you start to become slightly disinterested. You will definitely have to be patient with this one! If you fancy watching your first Tarkovsky film you would be better of with trying Solaris, it was featured on Film4 once so I imagine this is probably one of his better-known films. If you find you like Solaris then try this but be warned, this makes Solaris look reasonably fast paced!!!
  
  Many people seem to have different feelings towards this film, which is understandable due to the complex nature of it and the way it was made. This film works on many different levels which sort of go alongside the main plot. So I cant really go on about the philosophical, artistic, religious, scientific, psychological, poetic qualities, or how this scene got me thinking about this and how he's put a personal statement into that scene, etc. Or what's the best mood/state to watch it in. It just seems that everyone has his own views on what's going on in this film, which is what Tarkovsky was trying to achieve I think. He must have been shooting this mumbling to him-self "I'm not going to explain things to you lot, come up with your own ideas or try and work it out yourselves". I must admit a lot of the `little things' others seemed to have noticed completely escaped me whilst watching the film. I just thought it was an absolutely amazing cinematic experience quite unlike anything I've seen before. It is obvious that Tarkovsky is one of a very few who can make such a film. How many directors out there can make a film about 3 blokes trekking in a backyard, having the odd packed lunch and chat, for 3 hours interesting and beautiful to watch? I imagine not many. The thing is this is just a completely different and original way of making a film, which could be another reason why this seems to amaze a lot of people.
  
  I never really had a favourite film until seeing this. Unfortunately I doubt there's going to be many more films like it to come either, seeing as Tarkovsky is dead now. Which is a shame really. So on that note, all I can say is it's a pretty damn good film and if your sick of cliché Hollywood stuff and understand the demands this film has, maybe you should give it a go sometime.
  
  
• The Best Film Done Ever
  By A3PS6HIFQWWXB0 on 2004-12-26
  I think that this is the best film I have ever watched, even I can exaggerate a bit: the only film I have ever watched.
  
  If you like action films, where there is no aim of the film, but just a fight/thief story, as Holywood films, you would not like Stalker; even you maybe not understand even a scene. So, this film is not for holywoodians.
  
  But, if you like psychology, the art, to understand real meaning of something, you love to think, in my opinion this is the best fim done ever.
  
  What is this film about?
  The stalker with his two friends (author and the professor) goes to a "Zone", which is surrounded by military units. There is no permission, but they can able to go there. All the film is the dialogue between them in that area, and there is a strong final.
  
  Although the above paragraph is correct, the film is much much more than any paragraph can tell. First of all stalker is you, me, and every person in the world. There are two friends as Author and the Professor, which represents our emotional and realistic feelings/mind in our lives. And and and the Zone is the happiness/the meaning of life/the religion. As it is true in todays world, all of these 3 key items of life is surrounded by the obstacles. Every person knows that he/she should think about meaning of life, but he/she unconsciously delays it. Todays world is about money and power. Relative thinking is the biggest trap that human being fell into. Every person optimizes his/her happiness with respect to a few people nearby, which lacks the rationalism... etc. etc..
  In the film, when they enter the zone, the gray colors of the objects, starts to be colored; the real meaining is seen and understood. And in that zone, Author (emotional side: the heart) makes emotional decisions, goes alone without listing to the mind... etc. etc. And the professor just makes the opposite.
  In the zone, every action they took, every sentence they said, meant something, could be translated to heart/mind, emotional/rational dimensions of human being.
  The film ends with a very very strong closing... The wife of the priest/stalker/human, tells the reality of human psychlogy in a few words,
  and the girl of the stalker, plays the best closing of a film. Its like a summary in one sentence plus 2 minutes of action; The girl moves the glasses on the table with her eye (emotional) and drops the one which is the biggest but nothing inside (rational).
  Isnt it true? If a person/organization/nation is big, but there is nothing inside, that persons/orgs/nations collapse is inevitible.. either in his/her period, or just after...
  
  The Stalker (or life) is what you watch and what you get...
  I recommend to everybody
  
  PS: There was a comment written below, which triggered me to write a review to a film I watched 2-3 years ago. In my opinion, the dog is related with the story of 7 Christians who slept for a lot of years in a cave, and then go out of that cave. (A dog also slept for years with them in that cave) For more information please refer to Bible or (more precise in:) Quran.
  
  
• Amazing and Breathtaking
  By A2AREUQXKG7PCG on 2003-01-20
  The first Tarkovsky movie I ever saw, this left an instantaneous and indelible impression on me. Set in an apparently rather totalitarian, and Sovietly grim future, the film follows two men (a writer and a professor) on their trek, guided by a stalker, into the Zone, at the center of which is said to be a room where one's wishes come true. Anyone familiar with the novella by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky (they wrote the screenplay as well) will be struck by how different the two are.

  Tarkovsky denies that there is any symbolism in his films. If that is the case, then it is not a subtext of spirituality that I get from this film, but an open announcement of it. Because what most makes this film really not science fiction in the final analysis is its deeply felt spirituality. (Not that science and spirituality are mutually antagonistic, but that's a separate issue.) The stalker, played by Alexander Kaidonovsky, is genuinely heart-breaking in his simplicity and openness, compared to the intellectuality and cynicism of the two men who accompany him. And the speculations the two educated men engage in are more purely philosophical than inherently science fictional in nature. (Not that science fiction and philosophy are mutually antagonistic either.)
  
  What most makes the film, though, is its intense surreality and the cinematography that makes it possible. If you are not already familiar with the achingly slow cinematography Tarkovsky loves to employ, then the sense of suspense that this film can drum up in you will be amazing. Tarkovsky loves to plant the camera on a physical object, and then make you look at it until you have no choice but to decide you're missing something, that more must be there. Thus Tarkovsky inspires you to look at the world in a visionary way so that even the most banal objects start to take on an ominous significance. Elsewhere, Tarkovsky unnerves you by having his characters keep looking over their shoulders while the camera creeps up on them with murderous intent from an off-angle.

  In the novella, the Zone itself is a place where the laws of physics are broken, bent or simply no longer apply. As such, one cannot approach the Room directly (even though it is just across a field), but must approach with respect by going the long way around. Tarkovsky encodes this "non-Euclidean" reality of the Zone in several ways, but one shot in particular is breathtakingly brilliant and beautiful. The Stalker lies in a stream of water, and the camera then pans in a straight line, treating us to a phenomenally gorgeous still life of submerged objects, when suddenly the stalker comes back into view. Apparently we've somehow gone in a circle, though it seemed the line of vision was constantly straight. The way that this is blatantly startling is matched by innumerable other details throughout the film, as Tarkovsky ruthlessly and subtly tweaks things to keep the suspense constantly high. Tarkovsky will even change grains of film stock in order to unsettle what you are looking at.

  Certainly one of the most moving and gorgeous "science fiction" movies ever, it is also a meditation on the nature of human responsibility and remorse. Personally, I find the Stalker to be the most affectingly drawn of all of Tarkovsky's protagonists, perhaps because he is the one who most openly gives voice to Tarkovsky's own intense spirituality.
  
  

• Solaris - Criterion Collection
• The Mirror
• Andrei Rublev (Criterion Collection Spine #34)
• The Sacrifice
• Ivan's Childhood - Criterion Collection