Solaris

Rating:
Summary: Metaphysical and cerebral science fiction
Review: With the way that movie storylines are these days, it was refreshing and elightening to know that a science fiction film that dealt with metaphysical and cerebral matters was being released around November of 2002 AD. Especially the fact that Kentucky native George Clooney was the lead actor in the production, along with the lovely British actress Natascha McElhone. In many ways, this was more entertaining and watchable than your average Star Wars and Star Trek film.

Much like 2001, but with some romantic overtones, Steven Soderbergh's Solaris is an interesting mix of metaphysical and cerebral science fiction, with a love story thrown in. Not only was the storyline very solid and multi-dimensional, the sets, the costumes, the special visual effects, and soundtrack were all beautiful. The actors and actresses did a remarkable job in the roles, along with the material they were given.

Based on Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem's novel, Solaris tells the story of a 21st Century psychologist who receives a message from a scientist friend of his on a space station orbiting a mysterious planet named Solaris. Chris Kelvin, the psychologist is asked by his friend if he could come to the space station named Prometheus and find out what is going on. Apparently, some strange and unusual incidents have been occuring.

Still recovering from the tragic death of his wife, Kelvin journeys to the space station and discovers the fact that his friend has mysteriously died, one of the scientists is acting irrationally, and the other is frightened. While determining the cause of all of the events, Chris is suddenly visited by an image of his deceased wife. From there, Chris and the two surviving scientists determine that the ocean planet they are orbiting his a sentient form of life that is recreating the images of those from a tragic moment in their past. As to why this alien intelligence is committing these acts, remains an unknown factor.

I haven't seen Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 version of the film, so I really can't compare this film with the older version. I can say this, it helps to read the book first before viewing the film. I can honestly say that I enjoyed Soderbergh's version of Solaris. Not only does the film stay true to Lem's book in some levels, it also paints an interesting picture in Freudian terms. It states an interesting fact about how well do we know other people and at the same time how well we know ourselves. In all honesty, this was probably the best film out of 2002! It may have the qualities of a science fiction art house film, but it is still entertaining. One that I look forward to purchasing on DVD this summer.

If you enjoy science fiction that makes you think, instead of the ususal shoot them and blow them up types, then you will be pleased with Solaris. It will make you think and it will astound your mind.

Rating:
Summary: beauty without substance
Review: I didn't expect great things from the Soderbergh remake of Solaris. Being an avid Andrei Tarkovsky fan, I was always of the firm belief that no remake could surpass the intensity and beauty of the original film, even with the much-lauded Steven Soderbergh / James Cameron(producer) partnership at the helm.

Psychologist Chris Kelvin is sent to a space station orbiting the planet Solaris, in order to investigate the strange happenings onboard. Upon arrival, he finds one of the crew dead from suicide, another isolated and unwelcoming, and the third appearing rather insane. Later, Kelvin realises that the planet is in fact sentient, being able to probe into its inhabitants' minds and recreate, in physical form, one's memories of people long lost to them. Soon he finds himself in the presence of his dead wife, who remembers events in their life together, but doesn't recall ever actually having those experiences. She is only part of the person she used to be, a manifested memory.

The film begins well enough but quickly descends into conceptual chaos. Where the original focused on the bounds of science and humanity, the remake is a simple-minded, if perplexing, love story. Where the original was thought provoking, heavy with desperate love and questions of conscience, the remake pretends to be all these things and then fails miserably with the ending, where everything is said instead of shown and stupid, redundant 'twists' abound. It seems as though Soderbergh has been taking advice from Steven Spielberg who, as we all know, defines that a movie's not finished unless you tack on an extra half hour to ensure your sunshine and your puppies and your mandatory happily-ever-after.

Of course, the film is not completely without its merits. The directing is top-notch. The editing is pretty good in places. The score is great. The CG shots of Solaris are gorgeous. But that's all stuff on the surface. It's beauty without soul, the form of the original film with none of its substance. Tarkovsky would be rolling in his grave.

If you're after an intense action/romance blockbuster, wait for The Matrix sequels.

If you want a recent film with real substance, get The Hours instead.

If you are one of those annoying cinema-goers who always express your non sequitur views loudly at the expense of everybody else's abject exasperation, need to have a 'deep' analysis of everything regardless of whether there really is any need, and like it when a film's themes are spelt out so that you can claim the insights as your own, then... by all means, get Solaris. Oh yeah, and those who like random, gratuitous shots of George Clooney's naked butt will not go away disappointed either.

Rating:
Summary: Solaris widely misunderstood bt critics
Review: The movie plot : The planet Solaris with its only inhabitant a sentient, vast and powerful living ocean of pure energy is watching the space station hovering in the sky. The ocean of Solaris is penetrating the minds of the crew and knows how they are, knows all their thoughts, desires and emotions.

The man-made space station is an attempt to grasp the purpose of the mystical constantly moving ocean of energy enclosing the planet. Kelvin (George Clooney) is the psychologist that is sent from Earth to find out what happened to the people on the space station and a previous mission sent to rescue the crew.

What he finds is but a remnant of the original crew. There seem to be only three people left. Three individuals all acting strangely, suspiciously and almost animal-like. As he get no clear answers about anything Kelvin has to go through whatever is going on and experience the truth for himself . As soon as he goes to sleep things starts to get eerie and he is during the night visited by his long dead wife. At least that is what he wants to think it is.

What is the movie really about?
I believe this movie is about what reality humanity is facing as we move ahead on our path of evolution. The original book written in 1961 by the Russian author Stanislaw Lem is widely misunderstood by many readers and also today by movies critics amongst others. Many critics though sense the depths but seem not to be able to place the novel or movie and its message in the proper context.

"Solaris leaves room for a few parallel and even contradictory interpretations;  one can see it as a Swift-satire, a tragic romance, an existentialist parabola in Kafka-style, a meta-fictional parody of hermeneutics, an ironic tale of knights reminding of Cervantes or a Kantian meditation about the nature of the human mind." / Minotauro, publisher

My personal interpretation is that the ocean planet Solaris represents the human sub consciousness that responds to our thoughts and manifests our dreams. The space station is an analogy of the second form of existens of human kind, the non-physical worlds in our dreams and beyond the physical body.

Solaris is the "factory" of our minds. It has its owns intelligence but no will, as pointed out by a crew member visiting Kelvin in a "dream". Solaris scan and reflects our minds and serves us accordingly. What dreams and desires may come are materialized. Solaris is thought-responsive and serve the people. The problem is that the humans on the space station are not ready for that since they have no control, no inner natural discipline of their minds. They are not pure enough, so to speak, and they easily attach to thought forms. What is on the inside becomes the outside as soon as they go to sleep, as soon as they become unconscious.

From one aspect I believe the novel is a warning to human kind not to go too far in our technological and mental development lacking the energy of the heart. Because technology is 100% mental, is it not? We may very well stand on the brink of our own self-destruction because we have turned away from our soul and our inner beings far too long. Instead we cling to the outer material world, technology and soon outer space in a never ending spiral of desire to conquer new unknown areas of existence without first knowing ourselves. Sooner or later we may stand in front of the limits set up by our own mind filled with illusions and misconceptions about whom we are and what human life is all about.

So are you ready to walk into a new reality, a brand new world where you can manifest your wishes simply by using the thought? Are your innermost parts of that which is you, all your thoughts, emotions, memories, aversions, aggressions, regrets and desires ready to be manifested and become you as your inside becomes the outside?

Rating:
Summary: Bad adaptation of the novel = Bad movie
Review: The simple fact of the matter is that the novel Solaris by Stanislaw Lem is just too "heavy" intellectually & philosophically speaking for the silver screen. The Tarkovsky film version of Solaris is better than this one, but even he couldn't quite grasp Solaris properly.

Soderbergh's version of Solaris is horrid and leaves out the backbone of the novel. What's the backbone you ask? The planet Solaris itself. If you don't follow me, read the book and you'll understand. Essentially what this movie is, is a watered down version of the novel so that it would be more palatable for the mass public. I knew even before I saw this version of Solaris it would not come close to acheiving what Lem's book did. I just didn't know it would be this shoddy. The feel of Soderbergh's version is all wrong too. He should have opted for a 2001:A Space Odyssey feel. But really would that actually help a doomed screenplay? No. Instead we have relatively bland stage design and mood. Soderbergh really had a chance to do Solaris right but droppped the ball for the sake of trying to bring in the big bucks from the general public. It was a box office bomb and rightfully so.

In a nutshell, Soderbergh's Solaris follows Chris (George Clooney) and his episodes onboard a space station hovering in the atmosphere of the planet Solaris. When his dead wife suddenly reappears onboard Chris must cope with this situation. The book will explain much more into why these visitors from our past apparantley come back to us. Do yourself a favor & read the book, then watch the Russian version, then watch this hideous version (eh, maybe leave out this version).

Rating:
Summary: My thoughts on Solaris
Review: I cannot say this is a bad move, because it is definitely has its points and part of the story is interesting and has an intelligent feel. Lots of surprises arise out of all those questions that come to mind.
However, as I can see it, Solaris has one major drawback:
It is simply not entertaining enough. Some more fast-paced action would be required for a higher grade.
Still, I believe that Solaris is about the best work that can be made wihtout deviating from the book that it is based on.
If you like mind-boggling slow psycho-thrilllers then this is the movie for you, otherwise stay away from it.

Rating:
Summary: 5 stars times 10
Review: I admit,I originally wanted to see this movie because I am a George Clooney fan. Ten or fifteen minutes into the film I forgot all about George Clooney and got caught up in the story. This movie makes you THINK! I had so many different questions,many different answers and I am still not sure. This is a story with many different endings,each ending depending on the viewer. I saw it three times and can't wait for the dvd release. Steven and George have made a classic!! It is one of my top 5 movies of all time. If it were allowed I would rate it MUCH more than 5 stars!

Rating:
Summary: Section Eight to the rescue
Review: You have to applaud George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh's Section Eight production company for bringing mainstream budgets, talent and production values to non-mainstream films like this one. 'Insomnia' was a hit, and with a few Oscar nominations 'Far From Heaven' should be, too. But they're also going to get their fair share of boxoffice misses like 'Solaris'. It's a difficult game they're playing because mainstream budgets, talent and production values tend to attract audiences with mainstream expectations. Such audiences are unlikely to be satisfied with a film about God, morality and memory; a film which toys with our yearning for answers, but then doesn't really give us any. Soderbergh's adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's novel is admirably concise, but it may irritate those who are unwilling to make the inferences it requires or unable to cope with ambiguity. The production design is beautiful, the music apt, and the performances are excellent - with the exception of Jeremy Davies who gives an immensely irritating portrayal of Snow. What I find most engaging about 'Solaris' is that it returns us to the philosophical/emotional core which has been absent from so many sci-fi movies since '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Soderbergh might have fiddled with the ending of Lem's novel, but he hasn't avoided the moral issues and uncertainties the story provokes. And yet for all that, 'Solaris' still deploys most of the genre cliches we've seen in everything from 'Alien' to 'Event Horizon': the deep space rescue mission; the seemingly-abandoned spacecraft; the alien threat; the enemy amongst us; even the ultimate decision to abandon ship. That it can work within that tired framework, and still deliver something fresh and compelling, is a credit to the cast and crew. Perhaps sci-fi is headed back in the right direction: a genre of moral speculation, not just of digital imagery.

Rating:
Summary: Please
Review: All these rave reviews must be from geeky sci-fi lovers whose genre is usually filled with monsters and busty babes. So when something comes along with a pretention to solemnity, they feel validated and appreciated, and they return the favor by writing raves. But this is truly the emperor who had no clothes -- I defy one of these writers to admit that when they saw Solaris in the theater, they had to pinch themselves to stay awake. This movie is so low-key and somnambulistic that the entire point of the novel is glossed over if not altogether trashed in favor of lots of languid images of Clooney, his bare [rear-end], and his lost love. In the theater where I saw it, people were actually booing when it ended (and not because they wanted it to keep going). Movies are entertainment. They can also be edifying and informative, but beyond those three, there isn't much else a movie can or should do. Solaris fails on all three counts.

Rating:
Summary: Is that what everybody wants?
Review: Brilliant Movie!! Although a bit empty thats because not that many actors though the visuals are amazing modern/futuristic scene is a well thought out. Soundtrack is amazing as well. See it and get the soundtrack they just go together.

Rating:
Summary: the voice from beyond
Review: As a big Stanislaw Lem fan as I am, I was really curious to see this new movie based on his famous novel. While not his best novel (this honour IMHO should be awarded to "His Master's Voice" or "Futurological Congress"), still stands out among the best of thought-provoking science fiction. As always, more questions than answers here, but these questions refer to very essence of our consciousness and our relation to the outside world (is there any outside world? Read later about the final sequences of the movie). The main problem with the novel is its complexity; attempting to make a modest, not overlong movie, one has to choose the most important thread and leave the rest aside. This task was accomplished masterfully here. To complain the movie isn't a simple equivalent of novel would be more than ridiculous. I think the older Tarkowski's version was this failed attempt to reflect the novel in all its complexity. It became overlong, filled with pseudo-philosophical blah blah and therefore hardly tolerable as the whole although I must admit it had its moments. I think my feelings are justified by Stanislaw Lem himself. During the making of Russian version, the Russians invited Lem to Moscow as a consultant, to make sure the movie would fit ideas of the novel. Lem found virtually everything bad and irrelevant, from screenplay to the very concept and the way it evolved. Tarkowski, the great artist himself, did not even want to argue, not to mention follow any Lem's hints. After a week or so completely counterproductive stay in Moscow, and after a subsequent show of the movie in statu nascendi, Lem got so irritated that he started to stamp his feet and scream "fools! Fools! You do not understand anything!". He left Moscow and never wanted to see Tarkowski again.
The god of science fiction, now in his eighties, but as wise and intelligent as ever, found this Soderbergh's version very good and totally relevant. I am pretty sure everybody who knows what is Lem all about will fully appreciate this movie. Especially its "dream in a dream" atmosphere, when you do not know at all what is real and what is just a dream (a trademark Lem's plot, check some of his short stories or "Futurological Congress" to know what I'm. talking about). Up to the final scene - is it "real" or it is just re-made in God-Ocean's consciousness while the spaceship endlessly falls down into singularity...
The beautiful, atmospheric score builds up the atmosphere of "quiet restlessness" prevalent through the movie, this "something from beyond" feeling. The actors play their roles perfectly, I would even dare to say it was the best, most imaginative and subtle performance of George Clooney I have ever seen.
This movie will flop for sure; its primal sin is that it was made in Hollywood, so it was expected to be quite different. It won't be also praised by critics; they like intellectual movies in the vein of "American Beauty" or "Talk To Her", much more pretentious and artificial.
This is too ethereal, too "from beyond" to fit their tastes, but will be a cult movie sooner or later.

Igor Kurowski