why is this slop so overratedit's stalker for the hunger games audiencegarland is such a lousy directorstalker is nothing happens the movie but it looks amazingthis is nothing happens the movie but it looks terribleuses more lens flares and bokeh than a 2010 teenage girl on instagramit's pure digital cinematography ugliness, I don't understand how people don't see how ugly it lookslasts two hours when it could have been 90 minutes, it takes 27 minutes before the movie begins no one says this enough but padded length time is the great cancer of modern moviesi don't mind slow and meandering if you build atmosphere but in this movie it's just exposition and everything is flatthe whole mystery is just fauna and flora are merging, that's it, that's the whole two hours, don't expect any interesting imagery besides walking in some tall grass with some random flowers growing unusuallyand the whole cast is five women walking and talking about some arbitrary screenwriter 101 basic bitch traumas, who the fuck wants to see five women talk for two hoursportman looks worried and frowns for two hours, the only good actress here is jennifer jason leigh and she phones it in, the other three are completely nonexistent charisma voidsI despise this piece of crap and anyone who praised it
this is a serious storyi am acting
>>214506269also that yeah forgot about it
>>214506085If you want a good story with this kind of premise, just read Roadside Picnic which is the book that Tarkovsky based Stalker on. All the imitations since then (including Stalker) have just not been as good.
It's a shame how disappointing Garland is as a director. He shows such potential yet all of his efforts are lackluster. There's always a couple interesting scenes or ideas that get lost in a mess of bad writing. He should collaborate with other writers and directors.
