 Is it about faith in the thing that gives, or within ourselves? Ooh, that's a hot mug, guys! Hey guys, different review again. This is a film that I have wanted to talk about, hell, I wanted to see for so long considering all of the love, the praise, and the very dark history behind this film. This is Stalker. Andre Tarkovsky's Stalker is a film that comes up so often in film circles, especially very elitist, a little bit, a little bit elitist film circles, and I'll admit the film deserves the praise for being as different of a cinematic experience as it is. In the last few years, ever since watching Come and See, I've really gotten into Russia slash USSR film style and just the history of it, and Andre Tarkovsky is a very renowned film director because he did things that were against the norm, and he had incredibly poetic visions. He's a very, very much a visionary director, and Stalker is a massive example of that. The film is 163 minutes long, and yet it only has 142 cuts, total, so that averages out around 88 seconds per cut. There's one take in particular that is 4 minutes and 45 seconds long, and it's just one shot and it's just the three characters in this room while looking into the door of another and rain falls down. In that one take, there is so much being conveyed, the idea of being at the precipice of something that could grant them anything, but would it grant them what they want, or would it grant what they truly desire, and is that desire actually something that is serving of them and the world, or just serving of themselves? Stalker is based on the novel Roadside Picnic. It's as much about the book as it isn't. A good example I would almost say is the Haunting of Hell House series that was done by Mike Flanagan. Flanagan essentially made a story based on Shirley Jackson's novel that follows absolutely nothing of the book, yet it actually included so many elements, not just characters, but elements from the original novel that it does have a lot of inspiration and homage to the book, but at the same time being its own thing, and Stalker is very similar. This movie is essentially, I would say, the last third of the novel, because the beginning of the novel starts with this Stalker going over and getting caught, going to prison from correct, and then talking about society in the middle, that immediately the middle part was a little boring. And then the third part is this story, the three of them going into the zone and trying to find the door, trying to find the room. And there are a few elements in the book that definitely explain a few things more than the film does. For instance, the idea of him throwing the rocks, throwing the lures. He's trying to find and see if there's any of the beings that are in the zone or around. For me, it seemed in the book, they were kind of like entities that were of a parallel dimension that could move through objects and like the ground and whatnot, and he would use those to try and see if they were there. The films that don't do that, he's throwing the lures, but you never know what he's actually trying to see, and in most situations that would never work. He would be super boring, but he's able to convey this interest so much with the film because he's making you a part of this adventure. For instance, just to get into the zone, that's like a 30 minute full on segment of these guys driving around the patrols to eventually get past the wall. And I liked it. There's barely any dialogue exchange between the three characters, but you can see that this is how they do it. Most films, they would just cut this out and be like, oh yeah, we got over the wall, or it's just a simple two takes. You get really entwined with this perilous journey, and then once they get over, you get enamored with the world because all of a sudden color comes back, and that's something that Tarkovsky uses very well with color is the beginning of the film is kind of shot in a sepia sort of color. The color of the world is gone. This is an alternative history, an alternative world of ours. The reality of the world is dark, dank, and boring, and lifeless, whereas the zone, as dangerous as it supposedly is, is full of life and color and greenery. And it's a little bit ironic too, considering the areas that they shot the zone in were near radioactive waste, near dangerous chemical runoffs. They were in facilities that definitely weren't safe. For instance, a lot of the people involved in this film died of cancer eventually later on because of the hazardous areas that they were near. But it's because of that, that you get the serene areas, the serene environments that just really build a world of their own. There's a part where the character is walking down a tube, and there's no sound, it's just the atmosphere around it. And that's something else too. This is a Foley artist's dream. This film must have been so complicated, not only in terms of doing the post sound, but also the music, because the music and the sound really intertwined it. It's a soundtrack that you've never heard before, unless you've really gone down this road of listening to these, or watching these really obscure movies. But the music isn't really music, I don't want to say it's sound, and it's so perplexing, yet it's so enthralling at the same time. And like I said, there's lots of takes that nothing is said. It's just one long shot. But it's letting you build your own environment, it's letting your imagination take hold of the scene, and you're building things in the shot. And you're second guessing yourself of what is actually there. And I think that's why this film is so heralded. It's a different sort of experience. You'll never see this. I doubt you would ever see this in a modern day theater, especially now. No one would have the intentions to have this anymore. Then at the end of the film, when they get to the door, and there is this complete discussion about faith, not only in terms of what is out of the door, like what it would give, but also of humanity itself, and what the stalker gets out of going to the door. I love how the movie ends. I love how they give you this question. Kind of perplexing that everyone talks about the discussion before the door, and no one talks about the daughter being able to move things with their mind. I looked for several videos trying to find anyone talking about it, and everyone's talking about the thesis of the film, the discussion of whether you would want your dream wished. It's a monkey's paw in a completely different sort of tone, because they don't actually wish anything. At least it's kind of implied that that's what happens. But it's so different, and it's so enthralling that now all I want to do is watch more of Tarkovsky's films. I want to watch all of them. Andrei Rubilev is at my local library. It's like four hours long, I think, but I'm really tempted to watch it because he was such a different film director. And as I've said several times, there's elements of this film that build its own world without anything having to be said. There's barely, if any, exposition. It does not hold your hand. It expects you to think for yourself. And I like that about this movie. It's one of the most visually appealing films I've ever seen. And if anything, it's because I'm a bit of a fanatic for trying to find a band in places, but it really feeds into that for me. I don't condone the means of how they made this movie at all, because, like I said, people died not immediately afterwards, but not too long afterwards. The director himself died of cancer. You'll never see a movie like this again. Like, not without breaking a crap ton of legal laws. It's very much like Come and See. It's a different sort of experience. It's a different form of cinematic storytelling, but it's just so enthralling, it's so different from what I'm used to. At first I thought I was like, okay, I get it, but I don't think it's that great. But it's still been on my mind. I've been watching more and more videos about it. There's a video by Cinema Tyler. I'm gonna put that in the link in the description. He talks about how the film was put together. Essentially, what we're watching is the third iteration of it, because the first version was destroyed in the processing factory, and the second version sucked, apparently. And so the director literally remade this movie three times. The fact that so much effort was put into making this movie a reality is incredible. In the end, yeah, I'm gonna have to. I'm gonna give this movie a seven out of seven. It's definitely one of the movies you have to see before you die. Some of you will probably wonder what is this uptype hipster garbage. But for those of you who get it, you'll see, you'll understand. I would totally understand though why people wouldn't be enthralled with this movie, why they wouldn't care, why some would just be so bored that they just would walk out. But for those who get it, for those who are interested in this sort of thematic storytelling, and this difference in terms of cinematic storytelling, you'll definitely get your feel, you'll definitely get your taste for it. Anyways, that's all from me. Hope you enjoyed this review. If you did, leave a like, and if you're interested in more, subscribe. Otherwise, see you guys next time. Thanks to a successful Kickstarter campaign, but we are still asking for your support. To see any and all updates about the upcoming Undergrads movie, be sure to check out and like the Bring Back Undergrads Facebook page. And with any luck, we'll see you guys soon.