Starts slow. It picks up a bit. Looks amazing. Good sound. Great shots. The journey into the zone did have a brilliant atmosphere, sense of adventure and was intriguing. Some of the dialogue was thought provoking and meaningful. My problem is that some of the shots (nearly all) are very long for the sake of long arty shots. It feels extra long considering it's over two and a half hours in length. No it's not because I watch hollywood trash, it's a long movie by any standards. Especially a purposely slow paced one. It didn't gain any extra atmosphere by being long. It was bordering on self indulgent. There isn't much with character interaction and plot development after an hour, so it's the same old stuff but in a new tunnel. Dialogue become thinner. It's everything I like and dislike in one movie. One of those movies people add to their CV to look sophisticated perhaps. After a while the writer character seemed a mirror for pretentious viewers/ failed artists to reflect upon. These aren't fully fleshed human characters, despite all the self analysis and doubt the writer is still a cliché. I dont mind that at all. But from what ive read it's supposed to be so much more philosophically. All ive read on imdb from fans is them attempting to turn the negatives i to positives. Would they act the same if those faults were in mainstream movies?. It's very well crafted but desolate in more than just setting, and panders to a specific audience.

"Stalker" is a movie that unfortunately failed to keep my attention. I found myself having to pause the film 11 times, as I fell asleep 15 minutes after starting to watch it. The only thing that I can remember about the movie is that the photography is good. However, the lack of engagement in the story, characters and pacing made it difficult for me to stay awake and interested. It may be appreciated by those who enjoy slow-paced, contemplative films that focus on atmosphere and visuals over action and plot, but for me, it was a boring experience. The only positive thing I can say about the movie is that it could be better than a sleeping pill, if you're looking for something to help you fall asleep.

Joins the trinity of film student high art porn alongside *Solaris* and *2001: A Space Odyssey*. At least those two had something going on visually, ***Stalker*** really doesn't. Half of it looks like it was filmed in a forest in someone's backyard. The green sand thing was interesting for a minute and I did like the brown and grey filters at the beginning. It raises some thought-provoking philosophical questions, the acting is good, some interesting camerawork and the sound design is great. My biggest take away from it is it's too damn long by at least 1h and it's one of the most painfully slow and boring movies i've ever watched. The story was hard to follow, kept losing interest, just not for me. Not much of a payoff in the third act or ending either. Watch here: https://youtu.be/Q3hBLv-HLEc?si=lUcwigF_2vO04I7R

A long, slow, boring movie that must make all the film school students quiver with joy while the rest of us catch up on sleep.

This is a tough one for me to rate. I wanted to watch this after Alex Garland stated this influenced him while directing Annihilation. I saw how highly it was rated and it set my standards too high. I was a little disappointed. While watching I thought it was too slow. I also thought it was too long. The themes are really interesting and after reading more about it I really think that is the best part and can be discussed endlessly. It is a beautiful movie to look at. The cinematography is great but I did think that there were too many long takes. The sound was good too. I think overall I like it more than I disliked it. Maybe I wasn't in the proper mood but I'll have to give this a rewatch in a few years and hopefully it will make me think different.