Movies
- Thread starter gouis
- Start date
we'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when........
Bull Shannon
Well-Known Member
It feels sillier and sillier each time I watch it; George C. Scott is going hog wild.
Funny story, the first time I tried to watch it in high school, the VHS I rented was so busted it left the movie super grainy and hard to hear. It came across as the driest thing ever and I switched it off after twenty minutes. Second time around I didn't really find it funny until the titular Dr. showed up.
These days I think that's the third-funniest Sellers performance in the movie; Col. Mandrake is full-on crawling out of his skin and dissociating (all the sounds he makes in reaction to Col. Ripper are hilarious), and the phone call between Dimitri and the President is god-tier.
zomgbear
Well-Known Member
Just familiarity with Kubrick's later stuff, the tone of this movie just completely caught me off guard. the call where they repeatedly apologized to each other was hilarious. I have tried to watch this before when I was younger but i think the beginning turned me off the movie.
folsom_lives
pretty_lil_dirt_boi
If you showed me Dr. Strangelove and Eyes Wide Shut and asked me if the same director did them, I would have said absolutely not.
kvetcha
Chet Hanks' Filmography Buff
Sellers performance as Merkin Muffley (lol), that scene in particular, is a pure masterclass. It’s so fucking funny.
Thackeraye
Well-Known Member
Was at a Studio Ghibli themed tasting menu at a Japanese restaurant last night. Held as part of the Melbourne Food Festival. Loads of food!
The Denmarkian Wonder
Well-Known Member
Bull Shannon
Well-Known Member
I haven’t even seen the dang movie but I spoiled the end looking at the “possible sequels” section of its Wikipedia entry. 
DJSJ
Well-Known Member
I watched Stalker (1979) last night
Tarkovsky has always been a major gap in my film viewing (I saw Solaris about a decade ago but was pretty stoned at the time and dont remember much) and the more I'd hear about the plot of Stalker the more intrigued I'd be. I was so goddamn disappointed. The film tackles such interesting themes but presents them in such a boring way it makes it an absolute chore to watch. I know the film is based on a novel, and it seems like it'd suceed so much more in the written form, where you can extrapolate your own images and pay more attention to the monologues that are being presented. As a film, using all the tools a filmmaker has to expand upon that basic text, it fails. The first and last shot of the film are extremely interesting and gripping, but what comes inbetween is so slow, tedious, and dare I say lazy? The camera movement is so uninspired, the shots are so long (which wouldn't be a problem if there was actually something interesting to look at), the Waiting for Godot-esque monologue's become monotonous very quickly, and all together it feels like opportunity squandered. Again, the themes itself are so interesting it makes it really sad to come to this conclusion, but after about an hour of this I had to force myself to finish it.
Very disappointed.
Tarkovsky has always been a major gap in my film viewing (I saw Solaris about a decade ago but was pretty stoned at the time and dont remember much) and the more I'd hear about the plot of Stalker the more intrigued I'd be. I was so goddamn disappointed. The film tackles such interesting themes but presents them in such a boring way it makes it an absolute chore to watch. I know the film is based on a novel, and it seems like it'd suceed so much more in the written form, where you can extrapolate your own images and pay more attention to the monologues that are being presented. As a film, using all the tools a filmmaker has to expand upon that basic text, it fails. The first and last shot of the film are extremely interesting and gripping, but what comes inbetween is so slow, tedious, and dare I say lazy? The camera movement is so uninspired, the shots are so long (which wouldn't be a problem if there was actually something interesting to look at), the Waiting for Godot-esque monologue's become monotonous very quickly, and all together it feels like opportunity squandered. Again, the themes itself are so interesting it makes it really sad to come to this conclusion, but after about an hour of this I had to force myself to finish it.
Very disappointed.
ayayrawn
Well-Known Member
This is probably my least favorite Tarkovsky I've seen, and you could definitely call it boring if you're not in the right headspace, but I'd never say it was lazy or uninspired. The whole thing (and his work at large) is very measured. And it's nothing if not gorgeous and visually immersive imo especially if you see if you see it in a theater with minimal distractions. But I digress.
My favorites are Mirror and Andrei Rublev, which are both also very slow, but more immediate (at least for me) and more visually stunning. If you don't like either of those, Tarkovsky's probably just not your vibe, which is fine too.
Hemotep
Well-Known Member
I'm on the opposite side in that Stalker is my favorite Tarkovsky film.
ayayrawn
Well-Known Member
It's my least favorite of his I've seen (still missing like 3), but it's still like a 4/5 for me. The rest just slap that hard.
TenderLovingKiller®
Well-Known Member
Never seen The Stalker but from what I understand the Novel/Film Annihilation was heavily influenced by The Stalker and I really enjoyed Annihilation.
DJSJ
Well-Known Member
I really wish I liked it. I really vibe with the themes of furthering human evolution, allusions to otherwordly activity and their hand in said evolution (reminiscent of 2001 in that sense), the wants and desires of man and the price one has to pay for knowledge. As a comics nerd at heart the concept of the room itself felt very reminiscent of the White Hot Room from X-Men lore.
I just couldn't get behind how directionless the camera felt. It felt like watching a brilliantly written but poorly directed stageplay in that sense, where the content outweighed the performance. I thought the sound throughout the whole thing was interesting, but when combined with the drab and samesy mise en scène, just really made everything blend together. It probably would never happen, but its the sort of film I'd love to see remade with more modern filmmaking sensibilities.
I just couldn't get behind how directionless the camera felt. It felt like watching a brilliantly written but poorly directed stageplay in that sense, where the content outweighed the performance. I thought the sound throughout the whole thing was interesting, but when combined with the drab and samesy mise en scène, just really made everything blend together. It probably would never happen, but its the sort of film I'd love to see remade with more modern filmmaking sensibilities.
ayayrawn
Well-Known Member
It's a film that's very of its soviet sensibilities, so I don't think a remake would ever work (and shouldn't happen). I recommend the movie Annihilation tho, which is not really based on Stalker, but it's kind of similar in concept and more modern.
Check out Ozu if you want some examples movies with almost no camera movement that manage to still be extremely powerful. Every filmmaking style has its place.
DJSJ
Well-Known Member
Interesting comparison, I love Ozu. It's not like Stalker had a lack of camera movement, it just felt meandering for the most part. The opening shot is this long deliberate shot across the bed, to the glass of water, and back to the protagonist, that was really engaging and maybe set my expectations too high for the rest of the film. Most of the long shots in the zone just felt so...directionless in comparison.
kvetcha
Chet Hanks' Filmography Buff
I find the boredom fascinating. The eye wanders across the frame, focuses on every wrinkle, every eyelash, every branch, every blade of grass, eventually back to the focal point of the image. It’s entrancing.
The Denmarkian Wonder
Well-Known Member
Starting on the Heisei/Millenium Era Godzilla movies.
