Solaris

Rating:
Summary: masterpiece
Review: not so complex as it might seem, and a different kind of metaphysics than the tarkowsky. Full of reminiscences (Resnais, Antonioni,Kubrick) but a visual splendor of its own, and a deep reflexion on life , memory, death, and love
masterpiece
of course, if you expect star wars like gimmicks, do not go to see it . But if you love GOOD movies, this one will catch you

Rating:
Summary: Quite simply a masterpiece
Review: Solaris is a deeply philosophical story. The validity of time-space, of love, of any conscious experience are left for your interpretation. Ultimately the basic question of desire and the shortcomings of human existence to overcome desire through love are explored vis a vis Becker et. al.

The movie presents a construct, a wholeness of form with an exquisite dramatic curve. The cinematography is humanistic. The soundtrack, which is very Ligetian, provides a companion replete with the sonic presentation of enduring desire.

If you can not think for yourself, you'd be better off seeing another movie, but if the cinematic experience for you is frequently mind numbing and pedantic, this movie is for you.

Rating:
Summary: MASTERPIECE
Review: Yeah, yeah, yeah...

It's been exactly such movie, it should be.

Agree, not for everyone...

If you don't understand that, don't be worried, you just
gotta be grown up spiritually. I believe you will.

The question is circling in your head: What is it all about?

Well, it's of neverendless living of spirutual power of
The Holy Bible.

Amen.

Rating:
Summary: A subtle masterpiece
Review: Apparently, a lot of viewers got frustrated with this film. One review on Amazon said, "Why did Clooney's wife commit suicide? I don't get it."

If you plan to see this movie on DVD, keep this in mind: There is a reason why the dialogue and the general pace of the movie is a bit slow and deliberate. It's not going to hit you in the face, but there is a lot of subtext to the dialogue. Savor the moment, and a lot of the answers will come, although this film does not attempt to answer every question it raises.

(As to why Natascha McElhone's character commits suicide, there are subtle clues in her conversations with Clooney in their bedroom and in what looks like a Wal-Mart.)

This is one of those terrific movies that may be puzzling at first but reveals itself more and more with each viewing. If you rent it, watch it twice. It'll grow on you. I also recommend seeing the 1972 version for comparison's sake.

Besides the stunning cinematography, elegant dialogue and graceful acting, it's a movie you can personalize and interpret in your own unique way -- Soderbergh leaves a lot to the audience's own perceptions. Clooney absolutely shines in this film in a role unlike any other he's played -- he creates a palpable aura of grief and pain with few words and a total lack of histrionics. I can't praise Natascha McElhone enough for pulling off an incredibly challenging role. (How can you convincingly play a woman who has someone else's memories and none of her own? She does it with aplomb. I cannot imagine better casting.)

It's not a chick flick, it's not a science fiction film of the aliens/robots/gadgets variety ... it's really in a unique category of its own. Love it or hate it, there are few films as thought-provoking or affecting as Solaris.

Rating:
Summary: Don't blink or you'll miss something important...
Review: In truth, that is the case with both the 1972 Russian version (subtitled in English) and the recently released one I throughly enjoyed with George Clooney. I originally went 'seeking' "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" but the matinee was sold out. In spite of my disappointment over this, both "Solaris" movies were excellent substitutes.

I was afraid to blink because I might miss something vital to the movie and not understand what was going on. I was on the edge of my seat most of the time. In both of the movies, the lead characters went into space seeking something they lost on Earth. They were also on a misson that would decide the outcome of the space station orbiting Solaris.

The closer they got to this mass of energy, the more strange things started to occur to the remaining crew. Were these people real or figments of Clooney's and his predecessor's imagination? What would Clooney'sand the other person's character do if they could regain the losses suffered on Earth? It didn't surprise me that the crew was somewhat spooked by these apparitions on the station. But it was shocking what Clooney's character discovered.

I liked the way both movies handled their plot. Clooney wanted something totally different from the man in the 1972 version. At any rate, I highly recommend both the 1972 version and the recently released remake of "Solaris".

Rating:
Summary: I STILL DON'T GET IT
Review: OK..I have to admit it..I am a BIG George Clooney fan, which is the #1 reason I have been waiting to see this movie since I heard it was being made. I saw it twice..yes, twice. I thought maybe I missed something..I mean, how can a great & gorgeous actor like George be in a bad movie?! I don't really think it was a bad movie..it was slow & kind of boring. And I know it is supposed to have some deep meaning to it. I love movies about space & planets, aliens, etc., and maybe I was expecting something more exciting..like Armagedeon or The Abyss or Independence Day, which is probably one reason I was disappointed..this movie is not exciting at all, but I guess it really wasn't meant to be exciting. It was meant to be a love story I guess..but it was even a boring love story! It didn't even explain why she was suicidal. I mean, they met, they fell in love, they got married, she killed herself......isn't there something MISSING there?!?! The worst part was it had so many holes in it..there was no explanation of anything whatsoever. It's like we're supposed to draw our own conclusions as to what was going on. I mean, are there any real answers to any of it? ... I just wish someone could give me some answers. I gave this movie a 2 because I think George was very good in it..whatever the story was about..he did an excellent acting job. But he was the only good thing about this movie.

Rating:
Summary: A haunting and mesmerizing look at human loss
Review: Solaris is a film that not everyone will walk away embracing. Many will, in fact, walk away loathing it, carrying a reaction of boredom and anger at wasting their money to see it. But others, such as myself, will come away delighted from a wonderful, cerebral film that carries with it a heavy question: What would you do if you could regain an artificial version of something you lost?

The reason many will hate Solaris is because of its deliberately slow pace with little action or dialogue. Everything spoken and seen has a significant purpose, not a moment is wasted. And many expecting a certain genre of film won't get what they want out of it, either. It isn't science fiction exactly, and it's not really a romance or horror. It's a film that takes elements of all these to create a simple story about irreplaceable loss and what you might do if you somehow found a way to replace it with a shadow of its former self.

The film, a remake of a 1972 film of the same name, and based on a book by Stanislaw Lem, follows psychiatrist Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) who is assigned to visit a space station orbiting the planet Solaris. Something strange is going on and a team sent to investigate it never returned. Kelvin, who has some experience with the crew, is the owning company's last chance before giving up on the station. When Kelvin arrives, there are only two crew members left. When his deceased wife suddenly appears at his bedside, Kelvin gets wrapped up in the strange goings-on, and tries to get to the bottom of things. But one of the themes of this film is some things in life have no answers, as Kelvin soon discovers. What really makes this film work is the way it presents questions and ideas such as these, leaving the audience time to ponder them. As Kelvin learns his resurrected wife isn't quite real, the viewer is forced to consider if they would want to live with an imitation of a lost love, or rely only on memories. And the question of the accuracy of memory is also raised. How well do we remember how people truly were?

What really aides the tone of Solaris is its mixing of genres. There are many science fiction touches, and the film seems to use much of the visual style of 2001, A Space Odyssey. But the experience is more human and intimate then that large scale film. It uses some horror elements, including an unsettling score and a potentially scary situation, much like in the film Event Horizon. But it never becomes in your face scary, it's held back a notch. There is romance through flashbacks, as Kelvin remembers the love he once had, and how he lost it. But the somber tone drowns out any happiness there once was. This mix, combined with wonderfully scripted yet simple dialogue create a haunting atmosphere that will open the door to hours of discussion after the film. Much of that discussion will revolve around the film's cryptic ending. It's a conclusion that everyone will have to decide for themselves what happens. After all, as the film so eloquently states, there are no answers, only choices.

The film uses some simple methods to keep the story flowing and avoid confusion. Most apparent is the use of blue lighting on the station, and yellow lighting on Earth to keep straight the flashbacks with present time. The results are subtle but unmistakable. Also, director Steven Soderbergh wisely keeps the film length exceptionally short, as the slow pacing of the film, a necessity to its subject, makes the film seem longer then it is. The acting is also top notch. With a very small cast, Clooney plays his role perfectly, seeming to carry a great weight of grief throughout, and Jeremy Davies as one of the remaining crew members manages to bring a little light-heartedness to the dreary nature of the film.

As stated before, this film isn't for everyone. If you look at film as simply entertainment, then skip Solaris. But if you want to see something intelligent, thought provoking and stunningly beautiful, then Solaris is highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: There are only two reasons to say this is a lousy film:
Review: 1: You honestly don't like art film -- which is completely valid.

2: You are lying to make yourself look smart, and will, in 10 years, be ranting at cocktail party about how brilliant and overlooked it was, and why doesn't hollywood do anything like that anymore.

If it's 2, you're only helping keep the kinds of films you want to see from being made.

I saw Solaris a number of times in the theater, and am convinced that it is one of the top 2 or 3 science fiction films of all time. The Tarkovsky version is brilliant and beautiful, but ultimately too aloof and self congradulatory to do justice to the questions it provokes. The ontological questions raised by Solaris are, of course, unanswerable, and merely identifying them in an intellectual sense is pretty pointless, unless the idea is to pat yourself on the back for how clever you are.

Soderburgh, on the other hand, precisely because he is not trying to be (or some would say he is incapable of being) the 'artiste' that Tarkovky was, attaches these questions to real, painful, and familiar emotions -- making them actually mean something; giving them the weight they deserve. In other words, this is grown-up filmmaking that is dealing with reality, not the novelty of acedemia.

Gloriously shot and patiently edited; acted and directed with controlled, tentative grace, Solaris should be viewed as the very template for science fiction film of the 21st century: immediate, personal and real as our lives. It is a deep shame that this work of true feeling has been done in by film snobbery and baseless anti-Hollywood opinions, as the only thing that will come of it is further reluctance from Hollywood and elsewhere to fund thoughtful, rich science fiction of any sort.

Rating:
Summary: What Was george Cloonet Thinking?
Review: SOLARIS is a movie that should have never been made. The writer/director, Steven Sondenberg (Traffic, Erin Brochocich) and James Cameron (Titanic, The Abyss) must have not read this script. The only readming value to this film is the planet Solaris itself. The visuals of this planet were very beautiful.

Everything else, the story, the action, the camera work and even the sets and props were not that interesting at all. Audience members were leaving during the movie. It was so slow. So long. Nothing happening - often very long static and silent shots. It was almost torture in some points and I almost fell asleep as well.

George Clooney (The Perfect Storm) must have not read the script - no one did. He plays a psychiatrist who lost his wife to suicide and gets her back in the most unbelievable and strangest way. There is a space mission, I think, that went wrong, I think, that has murders or suicides, I think, that ends up resolving itself in a make-believe world - I think. If you figured it out - please write me and tell me. It's not science fiction, its not supernatural is just weird. His wife, although beautiful played by Natascha McElhone (The Truman Show, DearDotCom) was so boring. I have never forced myself to sit and watch something before this film.

Don't see it. Don't even wait for cable - or rent it...

Rating:
Summary: A true masterpiece
Review: I've been waiting this moving when the first trailer hit. When I saw the trailer for the first time I knew it was going to be something different and something very special. Finally got to see the film, and I was blown away with this piece. I will not disagree with the people who think the movie was slow - it was. But if they movie was brisk then it would have lost most of its greatness. The movie did not need to rely on dialog to get the point across or entertain the audience. This movie - in my mind - was made to address the audience through sight and sound. The best part of the entire film was the camera shots/angles and the music. Plus the acting was amazing.

I wouldn't believe the critics or the people saying the movie was horrible. I would recommend renting the film, just because it does move a little slow, and watch it in the comfort of your home. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it.

A true masterpiece!