Has anyone here seen Tarkovsky's Stalker?

I was looking at the screen captures for Criterion's recent remastering at DVDBeaver: Stalker Blu-ray - Aleksandr Kaydanovskiy

They really look good. I know that Tarkovsky is a legendary director (did Solaris as well), but I've never seen any of his movies. If you watched it, was Stalker a positive viewing experience? Opinions.

 

I enjoyed it on its initial release in 1979, cool arty film at the time.

 

I accidentally saw parts of it on TV about 10 years ago and was intrigued enough to read the SF novel it is based on, called Roadside Picnic, which I enjoyed a lot. I then got the DVD and watched the entire film. Stalker is much more elusive to follow than the novel: a great deal is left unexplained in the film that is explicit in the novel. There are some very memorable scenes but the pace is quite slow. I do recommend reading the book as well as seeing the film - they are very different experiences.

 

IDK if this helps but I did see the (or 'a') long version of Solaris, and Sacrifice in the theater. You've got to take Tarkovsky on his own terms, which for me can be subtly rewarding and also frustrating. I'm glad I saw them, but don't feel compelled to view them again. Still want to see 'Andrei Rubelev' and unsure how 'Stalker' fits into his body of work.

 

Slow going with a few striking set pieces (that room of hills of dust is the most famous). I want to see it again, though, since it's been over ten years.

 

Very positive experience for me, but I tend to like contemplative, auteur driven cinema... slow paced with long takes. Stalker is a return, of sorts, to the sci-fi genre first explored by Tarkovsky in Solaris. A metaphysical journey, involving three metaphorical characters looking to access a zone where innermost dreams can come true.

Tarkovsky's most accessible (straightforward narrative, faster pacing) film is probably Ivan's Childhood from 1962.

 

Haven't seen it but Tarkovsky as been on my radar since he's been hyped up so much during my recent revelation with world cinema. I honestly don't know where to start.

 

I've seen Stalker and Solaris. Tarkovsky's an intriguing director for me. I enjoy thinking about his films afterward more than I enjoy watching them at the time. I've always felt the urge to rewatch his films eventually.
Stalker has an interesting production history. It was shot on defective film stock and had to be scrapped and done all over again; the second version was quite different from the original attempt.

 

I tried but couldn't get into it

 

Unfortunately, yes.

 

It's one of my favourite Tarkovsky films... the upcoming Criterion edition will be a must-buy.

 

it has some stunning and innovative camera work and a cool premise (though it is a bit slow for my taste) a very good movie.

 

It's not edited for contemporary audiences, that's for sure. Tarkovsky might not be for everyone, but his films are challenging, intriguing and uncompromising. You have to meet him on his terms, but I've found his films to be very rewarding.

 

Even for a Tarkovsky film the payoff is incredibly slow.

Making this film probably caused many premature deaths including that of the director.

 

I enjoyed it but his films tend to have glacial pacing.

 

Saw both Stalker and Solaris in a college class 25 years ago and was a much bigger fan of Stalker. I've rewatched both films since then and my opinion hasn't changed - Stalker holds my interest with the plot and visuals. Yes it's slow, but compared to parts of Solaris (tunnel shot, anyone?) it moves. When Barnes and Noble have their Criterion sale in November I'm getting this one.

I downloaded Roadside Picnic a few months ago and have to read it. There's also a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. video game series which is loosely based on the two sources. The first game ties the mysterious Zone to Chernobyl. The first novel of Jeff VanderMeer's Southern Reach Trilogy, Annihilation, appears to have similarities though the author has repeatedly said it was not an influence. The movie of Annihilation comes out next year, directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina).

 

I read Roadside Picnic a few months ago and saw Stalker yesterday afternoon during a rare theatrical screening. The film really has little in common with the book other than the broad contours of the story; it's less sci fi than spiritual/existential quest. And while I thought it was OK, I also thought it was something of a long walk on a short pier; Tarkovsky does like his looong shots, but here I don't think most of them contribute anything other than to extending the run time. Same with some of the spiritual/poetic musings and scenes. You could probably cut the film down to two hours without unduly affecting the overall feel and impact. Nevertheless, like one of the above posters I feel I might give this another shot eventually.

This might get me branded a cinema heretic, but it'd be good to see, not a remake, but a movie more closely based on the book and shot with enough of a budget to have the alien tech and effects of the Zone realistically portrayed. I understand one might actually be in the works now...

 

Unfortunately, the adjective glacial no longer conveys what it used to.

 

I have the Criterion blu ray, and it is an excellent transfer, unlike the Artificial Eye release which is awful. I have all the Tarkovsky films on blu ray, and I think he was a master film maker. Stalker wouldn’t be my favourite; Solaris and Andrei Rublev are, but it’s still essential. I’d definitely recommend the Criterion, but stay well away from the Region B Artificial Eye.

 

I would advise NOT making Stalker your first Tarkovsky film, if you've not seen any before.

Best to start with Solaris, I'd say.

 

Like @johnnyyen, I own all of Tarkovsky’s films on Blu-ray, and agree that the Criterion edition of Stalker is the one to own. (I also own the Artificial Eye limited edition box set.)

I love them all, but Stalker may actually be my favourite of the lot. Yes, it slow, but to accuse Tarkovsky of that is to miss the point, IMO. I love the themes of Stalker, the way they are presented in such a minimalist fashion, and how the director builds tension until we, and the characters, are ready to receive the final denouement. Tarkovsky always tackled the big questions in life, and none are bigger than those of Stalker. It’s a masterpiece.

 

True.

 

I couldn't finish it, and I have a pretty open view of films.

 

The best comment I've heard about Tarkovsky, from someone I can no longer name on an online forum some years back: while you're watching Tarkovsky, he challenges you to stay awake; after you've watched it, the experience prevents you from sleeping.

I do find him extra challenging to watch at home, especially alone. Would like to see his work on the big screen--not because of the visual impact but just to keep me focused.

I love his movies, if it sounds like I'm ranting on him.