Unpopular Opinion: Tarkovsky's STALKER sucks.

"The room grants your innermost desire." The Rock would probably suplex the other two guys and then pull one of those WWE title belts out of his ass while pyrotechnics go off in the back lol

__________________
Sent via Blackberry

Interesting self-analysis. I pulled the DVD off the shelf last night....set it on the desk. When I asked myself why I didn't plug it into the player, my cynical self-criticism (an important thing in the Soviet era) was that it's the end of the day and I need something "entertaining" that won't keep me up when bed time comes and would not remind me just Fu'd up much of the world is. Stalker wasn't THAT. It just makes the Fu'd up world seem weird too.

I turned on Jimmy Fallon instead.

The narrative was fine. It was meant to being inherently philosophical, which you can discern by following the dialogue. It was slow paced, yes, but narratively, easy to follow.
That does not mean it was easy to grasp the themes of the film, which are distinct from the narrative (the story itself, which was 2 men hiring a guide to an object that was capable of granting one’s desire).

Tarkovsky wasn’t interested in a conventional approach to the subject matter and took his time conveying the Zone and it’s mysterious nature along with its philosophical complexities, but what you get is a deeply satisfying film that tackles some important questions, even if leaves some ambiguous.

So, you believe that everyone who says they like the film is lying? That's never a good approach to bring to any discussion since it puts the entire thing at a standstill. Because regardless of what any of us say, you could just say "I don't believe you" and we'd get nowhere. We're not here to force you to enjoy the film, but even if you don't have the same connection that we do, trusting our sincerity would go a long way.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

I think it's a somewhat common reaction to having a minority opinion. People are herd animals, and it's disconcerting to have thoughts that don't match the majority. It's more comforting to think "Everyone secretly thinks they way I do, they're just pretending they don't." Because if everyone actually does like Stalker and they find out you don't, well, you know who's getting cannibalized first in a plane crash/desert island situation.

Personally, in a deserted island scenario, I'm exclusively eating Stalker fans


I guarantee that people with shitty taste in movies are chewy.


But that's just me. I could be wrong.

Hey, I heard that!

*licks lips*

This is the kind of opinion that’s so bad that it makes me dip out of forum life. So continue as planned, y’all.

So, the order you consumed everything was first played the book, second watched the game, and then finally read the movie? Just wanting to check that to get a sense of what your expectations were going into the movie. Because I'm wondering why did you complain about the movie literally removing all life from the Zone when you realized from the book, the source material, they didn't encounter any life in the Zone either? Shouldn't the complaint have been not to focus so much of the movie on the Zone since you don't find the Zone interesting?

Are there any movies that have a meditative quality to its pacing that you enjoy? 2001: A Space Odyssey is a common one for a lot of people - it's also a movie that bores some people. So do you like anything that really sits in the moment and asks you to experience the scene and not by action going on? Because it might be a sign that transcendental or slow cinema isn't necessarily your jam (I might be shaky on my terms, but I believe Stalker and 2001 would be examples of transcendental cinema as opposed to Jeanne Dielman or a number of Tsai Ming-liang's films, such as Days or Stray Dogs, which would be considered Slow Cinema). I mean, I've known people who do like 2001, but hate Solarys and Stalker. While I've met people who prefer the latter two, I don't know if I've met people who like the Tarkovsky but dislike 2001, but I'm sure they also exist.

What were your hopes for this thread? Trying to figure out why other people like this movie you can't fathom the appeal of? Seeing if you weren't alone in your dislike the movie? An acknowledgement that it's okay to not like a critically acclaimed movie? Trying to argue with people that liked the movie they shouldn't like it?

Yes. I played a book. Watched a game. And read a movie. It's my magic power that the zone gave me.

The book's depiction of the zone had significantly more going on. From describing ghosts, to various anomalies, to sights to be seen there, precious artifacts, to other stalkers. It also goes into way more detail as to how the zone affects the world outside. In the movie, these things are, at best, mentioned in passing. It's a movie. It has the luxury of being able to show us what the book can only say with words, and yet it chose not to. My point is to express my opinion and have a discussion, perhaps even a contentious one, on the movie. If you seriously expect me, or anyone to believe, that Tarkovsky did the best job possible of showing and telling the audience about the zone, it's not gonna happen. Slow would be how I'd describe the movie if I ever bump into Tarkovsky in the afterlife and wish to be genteel in discussing the matter.

Very few people know that many of the victims in the Donner Party had recently co-written a pamphlet about how Alexandre Dumas was "totally overrated".

Assuming the word life is meant in the literal sense (that seems to be what LostInSauce is getting at), saying there isn't life in the Zone is actually wrong. We get a handful of scenes which details other creatures living in the Zone, as well as the remnants of prior people who ventured into it. The recurring presence of the black dog (perhaps a symbol of the dangers of human desire) and the shots of abandoned tanks which signify the military entered the area before and perished (as per the opening text), thus indicating there are clear dangers within the area, do indicate life 100%. Also, I may be misremembering, but don't we see a skeleton near the latter parts of the film? These set pieces aren't just thrown in as background scenery. Whether you found them interesting or not, they do serve clear thematic purposes. Which isn't to imply the film needed to have life within the Zone for it to work, but "He literally took life out of the movie" is a factually untrue assessment of the film.

"Upon its release the film's reception was less than favorable. Officials at Goskino, a government group otherwise known as the State Committee for Cinematography, were critical of the film. On being told that Stalker should be faster and more dynamic, Tarkovsky replied:

'The film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.'"

Whilst being a babe, and probably a very impressive all around person, Cate Blanchett isn't actually much as an actress.
I subjected myself to almost 40 minutes of her incredibly wooden and contrived near soliloquy in Tar before giving up on what had looked like a promising movie.

Hating on arthouse films is a popular thing, ... and that's ok, makes those who like them feel even more speshal.

See, this is the part where you try to kick Bugs out the door, only for you to go flying out in the next shot.

Uh...wrong thread?

__________________

I thought it might have turned into a general unpopular opinions thread by this stage.

That and the bots seem drawn to it lately, as well.

I dunno, still some fairly lively Stalker discussion going on, from what I can see.

I own the film, I like it, but I don't count it in my favorites that's for sure. I waffle back and forth on whether or not I am just sometimes not in the mood for it, or I am just simply outclassed by it. I have had some pretty enjoyable viewings though, so I count it as an exceptional film. Not my favorite Tarkovsky, though.