Theo Robertson 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

FlashCallahan 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.

lazarillo 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.

J. Davis 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. I'll say 5-6/10. 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.