'Stalker'
Andrei Tarkovsky's very loose adaptation of Boris Strugatsky's novel 'Roadside Picnic' is, today, hailed as a classic amongst certain quarters but I came away from it with mixed feelings I have to say. The same "mixed feelings" as was the original critical reaction to it when it first appeared in 1979. The story, what little of it there is, concerns a man, the "Stalker", who acts as a paid guide for two enlightenment seekers, the "Professor" and the "writer", as they traverse The Zone, an exclusion area that is the site of a meteor that crashed to earth over 20 years previously and has altered the natural landscape (plants have no scent, geography is fluid) and, seemingly, made it uninhabitable for humans. However, in The Zone there is a building with a room that will grant anyone who walks into it their innermost desire. But this may come with a hefty price.
'Stalker' is a unique film, unlike anything that was done before, although has been copied to a certain degree in the 40 odd years since it was made, most notably in 'Annihilation' from 2018, which I actually consider to be a much better film over all. But, unlike 'Annihilation', Tarkovsky's film demands the viewer's own interpretation on what the meaning of the film is and so wide open to cinematic exegesis it is that ultimately it renders the film without any real coherent point. This isn't a bad thing in itself, films don't necessarily have to have a point, clear or otherwise. But for a piece that runs at over two hours and forty minutes it ends up a somewhat gruelling journey to nowhere in particular.
And 'Stalker' is a slow film...molasses slow. It takes a long time to do much of anything at all. But, in saying that, it's not dull and the first hour or so is incredibly intriguing. It's the middle section that gets bogged down, and coupled with the relatively unsatisfying finale, the whole thing can leave the viewer wondering just what it was they sat down to watch. But maybe, in the end, that is exactly what Tarkovsky wanted.
However, where 'Stalker' completely succeeds is in its 1.66:1 cinematography which is never anything less than an captivating sight, even if I do consider the stylistic choice of shooting the bookend sequences in sepia a poor one. But the fantastic vistas - it was mostly shot in Estonia - imbue the film with an otherworldly feeling that helps to transport the viewer to another place despite the fact that everything was shot in real world locations. Simple scenes of mostly empty fields broken up here and there with the odd rusted vehicle or an strangely angled telegraph pole that the land is gradually reclaiming does wonders for the film's atmosphere. An atmosphere that's shrouded in a deep, deep, gloom. No matter what part of 'Stalker' is on the screen, its visuals create the impression that this world is a dark and depressing one with many places that have been abandoned by man, both in The Zone and outside of it. The opening and part of the closing sections, shot in the sepia I mentioned, portray a very rough life for the protagonist and his family. In contrast the scenes inside The Zone, shot in colour, are disturbingly desolate while at the same time very beautiful in parts. Regardless of that, the world of 'Stalker' is not one where any rational being would want to live.
The soundtrack, too, is remarkably complimentary and works well in helping the viewer into the film, while remaining as sparse as it is unobtrusive. Eduard Artemyev uses his instruments in such a fashion that his subtle notes crawl in the viewer's subconscious adding greatly to the general unease of what we're looking at.
Acting wise, 'Stalker' is mostly low key, but with some highly charged moments. Some of the monologues as well as the poetry let it down a bit, but don't distract too much. Although Alisa Freindlich's spoken to the camera moments feel quite stagey and ill fitting. But everyone plays their part with convincing enthusiasm, and despite not being a Russian speaker, lines appear to be delivered with feeling even with the heavy use of overdubs which was the order of the day in Russian cinema of the time.
'Stalker' is a strange film and not one to approach lightly. It isn't something to sit down to for relaxation and I can see that many people would be put off by its lack of substance and long running time. But if you're prepared for such "challenging" arthouse fare, you may find it a rewarding experience.
7/10
'The Shape of Things to Come'
A 1979 movie that has little to do with the superb 'Things to Come' from 1936 and even less with the H.G. Wells book that spawned both, that was made on the back of the success of 1977's 'Star Wars' in a period when every studio was trying their damnedest to reproduce what made George Lucas's film so successful and failing miserably. This independent Canadian production was no exception.
Ostensibly starring Jack Palance as the stupidly named "Omus" (which I couldn't help but hear as Humus), as the new leader of Delta 3, a planet responsible for the production of Raddic-Q2. This is an anti-radiation drug necessary to sustain the remaining human survivors of Earth's robot wars, who have fled to the moon leaving their former home a radioactive wasteland. Omus withholds shipments of Raddic-Q2 unless the leaders of the moon grant him his demand of being supreme leader. His demand is refused by the people on the Moon and Dr. John Caball (Barry Morse), his son Jason (Nicholas Campbell) and the moon colony leader's daughter Kim (Anne-Marie Martin) head off in a starship called Starstreak to try and stop Omus before he can send his army of robots to invade.
And yes, 'The Shape of Things to Come' is as bad as it sounds. It's such a cheap production that even TV efforts like 'Buck Rogers in the 25th Century' would be forgiven for having a laugh at its expense. Omus' robots look more like rejects from the design concepts of Robby The Robot and are impotent in any effort to convince that they are an army of killer droids. And the friendly robot name Sparks, reprogrammed from one of Omus' collection, looks like something assembled for a kids costumed party. The miniatures and spaceship effects, too, are bottom shelf quality and even lack the dubious charm that such efforts general inspire.
It's nice seeing Barry Morse get a role in the wake of 'Space 1999' and the always watchable Jack Palance is fine in another scenery scoffing part. But there's nothing Morse can do to elevate the awfulness of the whole thing and Palance is the kind of bad guy who spends most of his time in a single room plotting the destruction of something, because the budget is so tight. So there's little for him to do either. Everything ends up feeling so amateurish and there's no entertainment to be had at all despite any effort put into the proceedings by everyone concerned.
And while there are certainly worse Star Wars knockoffs around, such as 'Starcrash' or 'War of the Robots', 'The Shape of Things to Come' ends up just being dull because there's not enough to poke fun at or is just isn't as all out enjoyably campy as something like 'Flash Gordon'.
2/10
|
Posting Permissions
Originally Posted by shootemindehead
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks