While a key work of the supposed 'slow cinema' movement, the first half of Stalker is actually briskly paced & relatively action packed; easing us into a mesmerising second-act expedition that connects the physical to the metaphysical in a profoundly dramatic way. Tarkovsky's aesthetic had matured into something unique here; his reflections on nature & existence finding the perfect expression in both content & form.
STALKER is the second time I watched a movie from director Andrei Tarkovsky. The first is SOLARIS. This movie has a very slow pace. Not as slow as SOLARIS. But I kinda feel bored with STALKER than SOLARIS. I don't know. Maybe I'm not in the right mood when I was watching it. STALKER is haunting, intriguing, & slow but beautifully filmed. Mr. Tarkovsky made me asking myself about what's the essence of our existence...
"Sevgilim, dünyamız çok sıkıcı. Bu nedenle, telepati ya da hayaletler, ya da uçan daireler gibi şeyler yok. Dünya kesin kanunlarla yönetiliyor ve dayanılmaz derecede sıkıcı.Yazık ki, o kanunlar hiç çiğnenmiyor. Kanunları nasıl çiğneyeceklerini bilmiyorlar. Bu yüzden, çok ilginç olsa da bir ufo için umutlanma."
**1/2 This was not an enjoyable experience. Though instrumental to my early days as a cinephile, Tarkovsky's 70s works currently seem to me to be nearly insufferable. Though divided into clearly delineated movements, the film's structure from scene-to-scene is surprisingly amorphous. The allegory is emphasized at the expense of all else. Style is predictable, the philosophical underpinning remains naive & elementary.
A visual masterpiece with some of the most hauntingly beautiful imagery I've ever seen. Also often excruciatingly, pointlessly slow, while going beyond mysterious into inscrutable. Thematically, it bites off far more than it can chew, striving desperately to say something profound but ultimately having little noteworthy to say. But the atmosphere is so intoxicating, it was somehow still worth the ride. Barely. A B-.