Why do people like this overindulgent pretentious garbage...

Why do people like this overindulgent pretentious garbage? It's filled with shots much longer than they need to be and Tarkovsky can't convey his themes and ideas through the visuals or the dialogue, even if his life depended on it. He bombards you with 2deep4me words and thinks what his making is art, when in reality it's anything but that. There's no lead up to the philosophical drivel, it comes out of nowhere and it's worth and meaning are nullified because of it. Only people to like this are first year film students who think they'll impress anyone with their "connoisseur" knowledge.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vDI-afx6ejk
youtu.be/QQYrR4Stos4
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Its comfy

that's it?

well you're watching his worst movie so

stalker... more like.. farter hehehehehe

It's anything but pretentious.
Tarkovski is as sincere as a human can be.
If you don't understand his films, it's not on intellectual level. It's a question of sensibility and intuitive understanding of reality.
BTW your judgemental comment IS pretentious.

>that scene where writer has a breakdown after the meat grinder
If you can't appreciate that, then you really shouldn't be watching the movie

cringe

as if, zerkadlo is x times better than stalker with stalker being a really good film on its own

burgers need not apply

I just didn't care for their personal dilemmas and problems, because I felt they weren't conveyed properly in a way that would make me give a shit about the characters. Gonna watch it again in a few years after I'm done with Tark to see if my opinion changes.

dont get me wrong, his worst movie is still way better than most other movies out there

>pretentious

you should be forced to take a quiz about the Western philosophical canon before being allowed to post this word

You've been deluded by todays streamline Hollywood industry that a film has to be made in a certain kind of way with a certain kind of structure, you're looking at it the entirely wrong way.
There is no usual setup-punchline here, you actually shouldn’t put any "le deep thought" while watching a Tarkovsky film to "get" it, there is no singular universal answer to every image shown, Tarkovsky absolutely hated direct symbolism.
His only goal was for the viewer to feel something, anything from it. You aren't meant to analyse and deconstruct every shot by "what does it meaaan", you are meant to just experience it.

Think of his films like visual poetry, not some elaborate puzzle which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" it.

Why do they splash around in radioactive water so fucking much?

>But I have to care about muh characters
Tarkovsky doesn't give that much of a shit about them so why should you? There are more important takeaways from his films than your tired Hollywood conventions.

Watch this scene from my favorite movie of all time and you will understand where Tarkovsky was coming from. Better yet watch the whole movie.
fyoutube.com/watch?v=vDI-afx6ejk

>(((The Fountainhead)))

An idea can have value on its own merits regardless of where it originates from. Good bait though.

>the only way to watch a movie is to think and feel what the director wanted me to

the plebbiest of opinions

Friendly reminder that this man is actually responsible for the look and feel of Tarkovsky's most visually stunning films and was fired because T was a big cuck

>I hateee hollywood so much my faves? anything by the criterion collection :)

my favorite movie

Anyone have that pic with Tarkovsky's quotes from a diary or something?

...

Yes, that one. Thank you!

the guy's face wrinkles so much when he smiles

>Pwedenchus

Bergman did it better with Persona.

How does this compare to the book?

Don't know, haven't read it, but if it's anything like the film, it's not worth your time.

the book is more similar to the game than to the movie
there's nothing philosophical about the book, it's pure sci-fi

It's like I'm reading a Sup Forums thread.
Also I agree with op, it was a boring movie.

Are you implying there's anything philosophical about the movie?
>people are selfish with dumb ambitions
>I do this because I want to help
>no you do this because you're a loser cuck
>ayy lmao mutant powers
There, I summarized the movie.

Why was Tarkovsky such a bitter asshole?

100% agreed. Even use it for a good laugh sometimes. My dad wanted a movie recommendation and I suggested Stalker and showed him this as an idea of it youtu.be/QQYrR4Stos4 and we were in tears laughing.

You're boring .

So is it totally valid for me to say I didn't like Stalker because it didn't make me feel anything? I don't think it was boring, but it certainly did not stir anything within me. Solaris did to a degree, as did Andrei Rublev. But for the most part I've been pretty disappointed with the Tarkovsky movies I've seen, not because they're too slow or deep, but simply because they don't do much for me emotionally

Tarkovsky is championed by middlebrow cinema consumers. The veneer of sophistication and austerity of his style make for the perfect IMDb "movie buff" bait. Formalistically and stylistically speaking, he did nothing new

such a good scene