Rating: 
Summary: In space, no one can hear you "Huh???"
Review: A previous reviewer called this film haunting, which I agree with, though I also found it incoherent and pretentious, trying to do daring things with the absence of narrative and sadly failing.George Clooney does an admirable job in this film, which I saw when it was first released in theaters, and Natasha McElhone and he do a wonderful job developing into a believable, flawed set of lovers onscreen. Though "science fiction" in its essence, Steven Soderbergh's SOLARIS is mostly unconcerned by the fact that it takes place in space. The planet Solaris is a plot device, not a menacing thing, that allows the human drama involving Clooney and his resurrected wife to unfold. I've not seen the original, and I'm aware that the film is exactly supposed to not completely tie all of its plot elements together. That said, I don't know why they would introduce characters only to abandon them, plot points only to not fully explain them. The ending, though apt and eventually undersandable, seems disturbingly abrupt. This movie doesn't have the staying power you'd hope it would when you leave the theater. You get the feeling that, instead of answers being there for you to find, there's nothing to figure out, nothing to add. And I found that really disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: You've seen it on Star Trek already
Review: A good movie, and visually great, but you have seen the basic plot on countless episodes of Star Trek, Next Generation.
The story is very simple so most of the movie is close ups of the male and female leads.
Rating: 
Summary: Professionally shot, but trite and muddled
Review: If there's one film I thought would never be re-made by Hollywood then it's Solaris. You can't say their Philistines, can you? Here's the lowdown for curious fans of Tarkovsky's original. Soderbergh's naff version replaces Hari with a Sloan-ranger. Brit readers think Tara P-T in 'Celebrity get me out of here'. McElhone, poor lass, is hopeless. Being an American production there has to be a murder mystery included (Philistines!) I half expected Columbo to pop his head around the door only to be tapped on the shoulder by another Columbo saying "oh, and one more thing." Or maybe two. Half way through, Basil exposition drops in shrouded in darkness to fill Americans in on plot details they may be missing. You know, give 'em a prod. There's a conjuring trick or two and finally, a fortune cookie ending. Mix in what suspiciously sounds like David Bowie's Subterraneans and Bob's your uncle. Well, only if he's dead. It's mystifying why Soderbergh should want to remake this. No takers for Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin, right? Those who think Tarkovsky's film is 'perfect' won't need it. Those in that group who are curiosity killed the catters but are worried that the new version may intrude upon their thoughts while watching the Tarkovsky should probably steer well clear of this atrocity. I didn't, but I'll live. Special features: Well, you get a lot of thumping techno music and speeded up camera in the 'Behind The Scenes' specials that is risibly at odds with the subject matter. Cameron, never a man to retire from hyperbole, announces grandly that there has not been a film like this in twenty years, neatly leaving the original 'Solaris' outside the loop. Surprisingly, Tarkovsky's celebrated classic is not mentioned at all. Or perhaps we shouldn't be the least surprised.
Rating:
Summary: not even close
Review: This doesnt come close to the book. There is no reason what so ever to change a thing from it. If you never read the book, the movie is decent but just has that, "trying to make something deep" feel to it. Theres never that climax that you felt reading the book.
Rating: 
Summary: THE Best Film of 2002
Review: When most people ask me why I chose Solaris as the top film of 2002 out of a year that had BLOCKBUSTER written all over it, I round it up into one simple sentance; "This is a SCI-FI film that shows man's relationship to God. Before you start thinking I'm some religious zealot, let me assure you that I mean what I say only in a latteral sense. Kelvin's character is that of a man who creates another being just by the will of his mind, by a love that he can neither control nor respect. Clooney finds Kelvin's quiet dispair with gusto. But it is the two women in this movie, Nastasha McElhone (whom I loved since The Truman Show)and Viola Davis that are the show-stealers. McElhone as Rheya has the hardest job in the movie, especially near the end when she comes to realize the woman she was. Most actresses would overact in these situations, but not her. She plays it with a calmness that fits the character and Kelvin's tone. Viola Davis has the role that could have been easily typecasted as The Witch In Space. But she remains the voice of logic in the story when it seems everything is going to Disneyland. At this time, I think it's fair to mention Steven Soddeburgh's contribution. This is the perfect follow-up to his epic Traffic. And there you have it, just a little of essay I could write on this movie, explaining how this is THE BEST FILM of 2002
Rating: 
Summary: Refreshingly different
Review: Psychiatrist Chris Kelvin is sent to a space station to investigate why the crew has cut off contact with Earth. When he gets there, he discovers that the crew is receiving "visitors," and soon he gets his own visitor: his wife who has been dead for years. The crew believes that the planet, whom they believe to be a living entity, is the cause of this, but why? Solaris is not your run of the mill Sci Fi film, for which I am greatful. For once, a mainstream SciFi film uses scifi as a vehicle for ideas instead of action (something that SF literature has been doing for many decades, Solaris was written in the early 60s). This is both a philisophical film and a love story. It's also the most realistic alien I have ever seen in a film; completely enigmatic. We think it's intelligent (this is based on some comments early in the film, when Chris first sees Rheya), but we can never be sure. And perhaps Solaris is thinking the same thing about us. The drawback to a "realistic" alien is that we the viewer cannot learn anything about it which leaves us with a good number of questions that are not answered. Indeed, it really isn't necessary to answer those questions as Solaris exists (within the context of the story) only to set the stage. So if you're looking for laser beams and space battles, steer clear. If you are looking for something to stimulate your mind, then this is definitely worthwhile.
Rating:
Summary: Haunting
Review: I was not very convinced when I went to see the movie because I did not think that George Clooney was a good choice for the main part. Clooney carries with him this stereotype of a modern Don Juan that does not lend itself well for a drama such as Solaris.
As soon as the story got going, however, Don Juan was totally erased both from my mind and from the scared psychologist walking the corridors of the space station.
I'm not trying to sell Clooney. Actually I think that all the actors playing characters present on the space station did an outstanding job. This is one of the elements that make this movie a success. Every single expression, slight movement, silence, carries true meaning.
The special effects that bring the outer space and planet background into the film are done well enough that I didn't notice imperfections. I think that Steven Soderbergh was right at keeping this aspect of the movie secondary, otherwise it might have become a disturbing element. This said, I enjoyed the nice shots at Solaris added here and there because they contributed to the overall mystery.
And the music. It's haunting. I kept looking for a pattern and couldn't find it. However the music seeped through my being while I was busy with the pictures and really got to me. I would hesitate buying the soundtrack, by the way, because I'm afraid that the sound without the images may not work so well. But the marriage of the two is one of the best I have experienced.
The pace is slow but I kept having to catch my breath, so captured I was.
To conclude, I would say that not all will like this movie. I brought my date with me and it turned out to be a mistake. She was annoyed. So this may be turn out to be a case of all or nothing; you will either hate it or love it.
A last comment: don't go see it if you're depressed.
Rating:
Summary: A mature sci-i film from a mature director
Review: Steven Soderbergh's elegant Solaris is one of the best movies of this past year. It's a thoughtful tone poem on the nature of love and the mysteries of mortality and time. There is an assuredness in the direction, a confidence in the performances and a visual artistry in the camera direction. The maturity of the relationship between the two leads is refreshing - no cliches here. Soderbergh never makes assumptions about the intelligence of the audience, which is a relief after so many spoon-feeding Hollywood sci-fi films.
I did see Tarkovsky's original Solaris and I find this version a lot more satisfying - thank goodness Soderberg did not recreate the endless scenes of old bearded philosophers arguing with each other for hours. It was a risk to make this film and sadly, audiences did not support it to the success it deserved, but for those who appreciate intelligent, thought -provoking films, this one will linger with you long after the last credits roll.
Rating: 
Summary: Another classic falls victim to Hollywood
Review: Through this remake of a Russian film (released in 1979) is somewhat entertaining in terms of montage, I feel that it failed to pose crucial and philosophical questions about humanity aroused in the original. By failing to trigger those questions or showcase any sort of intellectual originality, this film has comfortably classified itself as another bland "sci-fi" Hollywood production.
Rating:
Summary: Not your typical Hollywood movie.
Review: It seems as if this movie is one of those love it or hate it ones. Both sides of those opinions seem to be well explained in other reviews, so I will be brief. The silence, slow pace, wonderful score, dream scenes, unspoken words, symbolism with the door nob and Solaris, the character Snow, and the real meaning of the film ("We want mirrors" even if those mirrors are inaccurate) add up to a film that is not typically made by Hollywood. You can compare this film to the book or to the Tarkovsky version, but all three were made by different people for different reasons, therefore I am comparing it as a movie against other movies I have viewed, and I think it's beautiful.
|
