Stalker
Tags: murder

Plot synopsis:
The "Stalker" (Alexander Kaidanovsky) works in some unclear area in the indefinite future as a guide who leads people through the "Zone", a vicinity in which the normal laws of reality no longer fully apply. The Zone contains a place called the "Room", said to grant the wishes of anyone who steps inside. The area containing the Zone is sealed off by the government and great hazards exist within it. At home with his wife and daughter, the Stalker's wife (Alisa Freindlich) begs him not to go into the Zone but he ignores her pleas. In a rundown bar, the Stalker meets his next clients for a trip into the Zone. The "Writer" (Anatoly Solonitsyn) and the "Professor" (Nikolai Grinko) agree to put their fates into the hands of the Stalker. Their specific names do not come up as they all agree to refer to each other pseudo-anonymously by just their professions.
The three of them evade the military blockade that guards the Zone, attracting gunfire from the guards but all survive. They then ride into the heart of the Zone on a railway work car. The Stalker tells his clients they must do exactly as he says to survive the dangers which lie ahead, and explains the Zone dangers are invisible. The Stalker tests for traps by throwing metal nuts tied to strips of cloth ahead of them. The complicated path that they must take cannot be specifically seen nor heard but can only be sensed.
The Writer feels skeptical of any real danger, but the Professor generally follows the Stalker's advice. As they travel, the three men discuss their reasons for wanting to visit the Room. The Writer expresses his concern of losing his inspiration. His manner appears angry and stressed during the journey. The Professor appears more content, though he carefully insists on keeping a backpack filled with unknown contents close to him. While the Professor's desires are not clear, he reluctantly gives in to countless pleas from the Writer and admits he has hopes of winning a Nobel Prize through scientific analysis of the Zone. The Stalker insists he has no motive beyond the altruistic aim of aiding the desperate. At times, he refers to a previous Stalker named "Porcupine", who had led his brother to his death in the Zone, visited the Room, gained a large sum of money, and then hanged himself, failing to achieve the happy ending implied in rumors about the Zone.
While it seems the Room fulfills all the wishes of a visitor, this creates a serious problem given that these might not be consciously expressed wishes but the true unconscious desires of those that come in. In addition it appears that the Zone itself has a kind of sentience. When the Writer later confronts the Stalker about his knowledge of the Zone and the Room, the Stalker replies that his information came from the now deceased Porcupine. After traveling through tunnels the three reach their destination. They determine that their goal lies inside a decayed and decrepit industrial building. In a small antechamber, a phone begins to ring. The Writer answers and cryptically speaks into the phone, stating "this is not the clinic", before hanging up. The surprised Professor decides to use the phone to ring up a colleague. In the ensuing conversation, he reveals his true intentions behind his whole journey.
The Professor has brought a nuclear device with him, and he intends to destroy the Room for fear it might be used by evil men. The three visitors to the Zone then fight verbally and physically in a larger antechamber, just outside the Room. The fight ends in a draw, all three men exhausted. As they catch their breath, the Writer experiences an epiphany about the Room's true nature. He argues that when Porcupine met his goal, despite the man's conscious motives, the room fulfilled Porcupine's true, secret desire for wealth, instead of bringing back his brother from death. Thus, Porcupine's suicide came about from the resulting guilt. The Writer further reasons the Room is genuinely useless to the ambitious since its ability to look inside those who enter it renders the Room only dangerous to those who seek it for negative reasons. With his earlier fears assuaged, the Professor gives up on his plan of destroying the Room. Instead, he disassembles his bomb and scatters its pieces.
The men rest before the doorway and despite their long and arduous journey, they never enter. Rain begins to fall into the Room through its ruined ceiling, then gradually fades away. The Stalker, the Writer, and the Professor are shown back in the bar, and are met by the Stalker's wife and daughter. A black dog that had followed the three men through the Zone is in the bar with them. When his wife asks where he got the dog, Stalker declares that it just came to him, and he remarks that he felt unable to leave it behind.
Later, when the Stalker's wife tells him that she would like to visit the Room herself, he expresses doubts about the Zone. He states that he fears her dreams will not be fulfilled. As the Stalker sleeps, his wife contemplates their relationship in a monologue delivered directly to the camera. She declares that she knew full-well life with him would be hard, since he would be unreliable and their children would face challenges, but she concludes that she is better off with him despite their many trials. "Monkey", the couple's daughter, sits alone in the kitchen, reciting a love poem by Fyodor Tyutchev.
Monkey holds the large book and lays her head on the table before her. She then appears to use psychokinesis to push three drinking glasses across it, one after the other moving over the table. The final glass falls to the floor, but does not break. A train passes by where the Stalker's family lives, and the entire apartment shakes. As the stark, crashing noises of the train begin to subside, the film ends.

Review: A very decent effort!.
One reviewer claims this isn't a horror film then seeks to justify that comment by saying there's very little gore.
Dear me, when did good horror require gore?
If done with a bit of style, atmosphere, decent acting and a proper understanding of and respect for the genre, then it's not needed at all.
The interesting thing is that the writer and director is none other than Martin Kemp.
The man has gone from child actor to pop start to cinematic gangster to soap star to music revivalist to screenwriter and director...and like everything else he's done, he's been successful!
Interesting too that he would know much about the infamous Hose on Straw Hill/Expose film of the mid-70s.
Perhaps other reviewers would question that films horror veracity too?
Here Kemp remakes with a considerable twist (albeit a somewhat clichéd one) and even brings back Linda Hayden who played a younger, saucier character back in the day.
From the original film to Hammer Dracula to the awesome 'Blood On Satan's Claw', Linda is always a welcome contributor.
Convincing performances from Jane March and Billy 'The Bill' Murray also help and it's mice to see the excellent Colin Salmon, though he seems less comfortable.
In short, a psycho thriller type horror film that isn't particularly original but successfully evokes the feel of mid-70s independent British horror.
I hope that Kemp makes more of these..
Stalker is nothing to get to excited about & is not a horror film.
First of all everyone should know this is not anything even close to what you would expect from a film named "Stalker".
It involves a writer under pressure for her second book, her first was a #1 Bestseller so people were eager to see what's next.
The author, rumored to have had a recent breakdown, has also had a very tragic childhood.
We are given flashbacks from what appears to be her childhood but it all doesn't make full sense until near end.
It is a short film at around 70 minutes and I was getting kind of bored around mid point, but then the unveiling of the classic twist which we have seen many times before.
So all in all it was a decent effort but was nothing to run out & try to track down or pay to view for that matter.
It was an average movie & I had no problem spending some time watching it.
I'm not really sure how to rate it mainly due to it's lack of originality.
However this is not a horror movie at all it has been MISLABELED there is very little gore & very very little tension till the final minutes.
So if you're looking for that as I was, you will be sadly disappointed..
Not bad, but rather odd and misguided remake of a movie most people have never seen.
This is an (oddly unacknowledged) re-make of the 1970's film "House on Straw Hill".
The gender of the protagonist has been changed to female, but the same basic plot remains--a blocked writer, who is trying to finish a novel, hires a sinister secretary, who quickly takes over both her book and her life (and casually murders several people).
The ending of this movie though goes in quite a bit different direction.The movie was directed by Martin Kemp, who is mostly known for his acting and music.
The original "House on Straw Hill" was the only British film to be labeled as a "video nasty" during the infamous British censorship hysteria of the early 80's (most of the other banned "nasties" were Italian cannibal films or obscure American horror flicks).
It was banned not because it really had that much violence or that much sex, but what the authorities considered to be an unhealthy combination of the two.
Oddly, this remake has less violence and far less sex than the 70's version.The cast is interesting.
Udo Kier, who played the protagonist in the original is sorely missed, but Linda Hayden, who originally played the sexy psycho secretary gets a cameo role as the housekeeper (which is odd since she has had nothing good to say about the original film over the years).
Her former role meanwhile is played by Jane March, who has had a remarkably similar career to Hayden.
Both appeared in notorious erotically-themed films as teenagers ("The Lover" and "Color of Night" for March and "Baby Love" and "Blood on Satan's Claw" for Hayden) that may have hindered their later careers (March has done little work since the 1990's while most of Hayden's later work was in goofy sex comedies and a cameo role in "Boys from Brazil").
March is not nearly as good as Hayden in this role, neither as sexy nor as deliciously evil, but I think Hayden was just a much better actress (extremely underrated actually).Frankly, this whole project is a very strange undertaking since the original film is still essentially MIA in Britain and is only getting a DVD release in America this year.
And the remake doesn't even use either title of the original (which is better known as "Expose" in Britain), but goes with the bland title "Stalker" (actually, also the title of great Tarkovsky film).
The movie itself isn't bad, but this whole project seems very odd and misguided..
When i don't give a film 10 stars i explain why.
Before I explain why I removed 3 stars I will say this is a good film .
it just could have been better with a few minor changes.
The Real Lead Anna Brecon did a fantastic job as did most everyone else I can recommend this on a rainy or foggy night.
Did the lead Character tell anyone she had a PA coming to help her ?
Did Linda The PA introduce herself to he writer ?
Just Say Personal Assistant because Not everyone knows what a PA is .
If my 2 questions would have been answered in that 4 minutes that were edited from the version I saw sorry but I had to take a star for that hole in the set up .I didn't remove a star for the fact that the film makers chose to push the less important character Linda as the Lead in the film when she isn't.
The Actress playing Linda isn't the better actress of the 2 and she hasn't learned to speak her lines Clearly.
When the 1st human was killed the killer mumbles the second half of the lines but lucky for the audience later we hear that Full line from a recording Where Surprise the lines were clearly spoken otherwise we would have no idea what was said and it's important to the plot .
But I didn't remove a star for that .The film loses a second star for the movie cover because it gives too much away .It lost a 3rd star for allowing the villain to too quickly & too easily without justification or explanation bully the lead character into submission when saying "The servants have to leave they annoy me ." Yes the actress who you gave 1st billing Linda Overacts If she usually does a lot of stage acting and didn't adjust herself to the small screen that could explain that.
Otherwise a well written ,directed and acted film ..
Starring Some Creepy Muzak.
Not to be confused with the 1970s Soviet film where three men wander off in to the Russian wilderness and do absolutely nothing for four hours STALKER is no less unentertaining .
Based upon a British horror movie from 35 years earlier whose only claim to fame it was banned by the BBFC .
It features a plot about a female writer working on her second novel but instead of getting on with the task of writing a book she sits in the garden , sips a glass of wine , has a bath , lies in bed and does a hundred other mundane things , none of which involve typing stuff up on a lap top .
There might be something about to happen because creepy music plays out on the soundtrack .
Ms Writer sits down in a chair , creepy music .
Ms Writer stares at a computer , creepy music .
Ms Writer brushes her teeth , creepy music .
In fact no matter what happens creepy music is the star of the movie .
Considering the director of STALKER is Martin Kemp the talented pretty boy from Spandau Ballet this might be the reason for it.
Who knew Martin Kemp had it in him?.
STALKER is the Martin Kemp-directed remake of the notorious video nasty THE HOUSE ON STRAW HILL, a sordid tale of depravity and murder that came out in the mid-'70s.
Thankfully enough has been changed in this story to make it an effective shocker in its own right, one that even fans of the original film will find has surprises in store.Truth be told, I quite liked this movie.
It's no classic but it is a solid little thriller and, given it's a low budget British B-movie, the quality is a lot better than you'd expect.
The dull Anna Brecon stars as a mousy writer who goes off to live in a remote country cottage to work on her new novel, only to fall foul of a psychopath.STALKER benefits from effective direction, some shocking moments of violence, and decent performances from the supporting cast.
Best of all is Jane March (COLOUR OF NIGHT) playing the secretary and having a ball with the role.
Dependable character actors like Billy Murray and Colin Salmon turn up and are most welcome, and there's even a minor part for Linda Hayden, who of course starred in the original film.
STALKER is a film that kept me interested throughout, and that's a rare enough thing for a low budget film these days..
Wasted potential.
Essentially the movie is about the writer Paula, who travels to her uncle's house hoping for inspiration there on writing another book.And admittedly, the film has good atmosphere at first, and then some weird writing assistant shows up.
From there it appears as if the movie could take itself in an interesting direction, but...It's like this - suddenly the assistant is in control of the situation, and here's technically a SPOILER - not because of the detail itself, but because this works up to a very overused twist; see basically, Paula isn't seen talking to the assistant near anyone else, she never inquires about the things her assistant does, almost like she already knows, and so on.If it had taken another direction, the film might have been pretty good, but this became predictable and unexciting..
She's in the cellar......
When novelist Paula Martin retreats to the seclusion of her family home Crows Hall she hopes to clear her mind and focus on her new book.
The arrival of an assistant, Linda, should take the pressure offBut bodies begin to pile up, and Paula finds herself trapped in a terrifying nightmare of murder and madness.....A remake of the criminally under seen 'house on straw hill', Stalker begins very well, and Kemp proves he is as good behind the camera as well as in front of it.
But as soon as March appears on the screen, it falls apart.I haven't seen March in anything prolific since Color Of Night, and back then she was known as 'The Sinner From Pinner' and this stuck in my head for the majority of the film.Salmon is good, but he's nothing more than a narrator, filling in the blanks for the clueless audience...if there are any.The rest of the cast are really good, but March hams it up too much to be a convincing men ace.
Half the time she looks ill, and the other half just being too prissy toward everyone.So all in all, it's well made, Kemp is a very able auteur, but March needs to pull her reins in.
She ruins the movie.