I enjoyed this new version of Stalker. I did not mind the yellow sepia ish effect. This movie reminds me of 3 guys who are on a hallucinogenic trip outdoors The whole film is like that deep self examination that you go through during a serious psychedelic experience. I love this film. I was a little on the fence about the new transfer but quickly came to love it.There is a divide in the meaning of the film in that there are parts that are clear in relation to the types of questions meant to be addressed. The symbolic meaning of having an artist/writer and a scientist are clear in the argument proposed. Tarkovskey is obviously worried about dehumanization and science becoming too advanced as made claer in Solaris -more specifically the ending.I feel this film is in Tarckovsky's slightly commercial category. What i mean by this is ,like Solaris, i feel he uses a futuristic as well as supernatural element (depending on how you interpret those moments) to capture a larger audience while possibly fooling them into finding out something about themselves as well as their environment. This film has one of those artistic fail safe devices that has multiple meanings and even if you do not grasp all of the meanings it is almost impossible to miss some of the intention.There seems to be a lot of elaborate reviews for this so i will point out a few tidbits of significance.There is a very positive point that is explicitly made in that The artist as well as the Scientist seem to upset the Stalker in the end because he thought by taking 2 people of the mind they would understand the lessons of the Zone. The Stalker is an introverted socially lacking type who we find out is most likely equal if not more academically skilled that the 2 professional due to his extensive library of reading materials shown in his house that is purposely not shown at the beginning (even though we see many good interior shots of the Stalkers home. Tarkovsky is making statements that are not hard to figure out such as the overall theme of having hope in life. There is an agnostic as well as a unified field type of suggestion. I have thought for years that Andrei Rebleiv is my favorite Tarkovsky film and i still hold that opinion because i feel it is the ultimate ode to real artists. I also prefer The Mirror ,Nostalgia,Ivans Childhood and The Sacrifice over Solaris or Stalker. Stalker is a film that is growing on me. It does seem to have a direct message while most of Tarkovskies films leave more to ponder. The mystery element of the film is what exactly is the cosmic-ness of the Zone.I find any comparison to Roadside Picnic completely irrelivent to Tarkovskys film. Often people will jump on a film for not being in sync with the book. This is a common response from closed minded people. There is no rule for interpreting a work of art. You never hear anyone going on and on abut the differences in the Richard 11 films. That is because people who know that material are not pop critics. For someone to compare this film with either a. Chernobyl or b. Roadside Picnic is comparing a non argument and instantly turns into puedo intellectual backwash. There may be loose connections to Chernobyl but that would be too obvious. Look at The Sacrifice or Nostalgia. Those films are the only real Tarkovsky films that have a straight forward meaning. This leaves the viewer to form their own meaning using the loose structure Tarkovsky gives them. Anyone who will completely disregard a film because it does not match with the source novel should not be watching an art film to begin with. One of my favorite criticisms of film versus novels is Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita. Most people do not even realize Nabokov himself wrote the film script, intentionally making it challenging. Challenging in making it able to be a film in the early sixties. Back in the day film studios had legit authors like Capote and Chandler writing film scripts so the Lolita script was actually a great work of art. Hearing Tarintino criticize the script is funny because he is supposed to know so much about films.Back to Stalker, anyone even remotely concerned with the Russian history or book comparison is not only missing the point of the film but also getting stuck in a corner. Each of the characters in the film represent a generalization that could apply to any battle with science, man and nature. I feel this film is very accessible and also the last time Tarkovsky would do that. Calling it a sci-fir film is very non cerebral and again not within the category of films that require a different kind of thinking.