Solaris

Rating:
Summary: wow....wow....wow.....
Review: ... Soderbergh, amazing director, just as good of a writer frankly, and this movie. Why? I ask. Why did I cry? Why did I laugh? Why did I not want to leave the theatre and finally drag myself after the very last credit rolled on by...

...it's because here is a film that throws love directly in your face. Whether you like it or not this is a love story, not a sci-fi flick that'll end up on a channel with the same theme. The dialogue was truly phenomenal. The romance, the memories, the emotions. It's all there and it's going nowhere but straight to your brain for you to ingest like a Thanksgiving dinner I did a few hours earlier. This film shows you the true beauty of love and its consequences - yes, they do exist - but then, it puts it all back together in one piece as if you never touched it.

Or does it? I can't (and won't) say because I want you all to go see this film if you're interested in seeing something different and far from cookie-cutter about what love is and how it is portrayed in movies. This film has nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with science fiction. There's no fiction to the premise of Solaris. Don't watch the trailer, don't read the reviews, just go see it yourself and make your own decisions. The theatre wasn't packed tonight but we watched it at a place where kids mostly go watch other films but I do want to point out the three young girls sitting in the isle in front of us who left half way through the film. It's just really unfortunate to see that. But for all I know maybe they just wanted to see Clooney's behind. I just feel they missed out on something seriously more meaningful.

And I don't want you to miss out on that either.

Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking treat for classic sci-fi fans
Review: Solaris is a refreshing return to the days when science fiction was less about special effects, explosions and laser blasters, and more about storytelling and trying to understand ourselves and our place in the universe. What Solaris may lack in beats-per-minute it more than makes up for with solid and convincing performances from the cast, and by telling a fascinating story.

This is the best sci-fi flick to hit theaters in a very long time.

Rating:
Summary: FYI: Higgs Bosons
Review: In regards to Arthur Rozum's 'Solaris' review in which he snears: 'and my favourite: "the station is going to fall down bacause the mass of the planet started increasing". And how does a planet suddenly increase in mass???'
Answer: By the Higgs bosons that the scientists just bombarded the planet with! Were you watching the same movie as me? Don't you know that (in theory, of course) the Higgs field imparts 'mass' on the known particles and that the Higgs boson is the mediator of that force? This is good hollywood science fiction that actually tries to teach people something. With the increased mass, Solaris may implode becoming a tiny singularity (where spacetime is infinite). Poetically, we may think of the lone astronaut's descent into that imploding Solaris singularity as eternal; and an eternal experience suggests Heaven. In his eternal descent into the Solaris singularity, the astronaut experiences his Heaven in his gravity-warped mind: he lives with his (dead) wife and (perhaps) the child that she aborted. This was the first Hollywood vision of 'heaven' that I could accept. ...

Rating:
Summary: Tarkovsky will rise from the dead in revenge.
Review: Solaris (Steven Soderbergh, 2002)

I don't have the words to describe what a painful, unhinged, heretical, plotless, tortuous, mind-numbing experience this dog is. That it got made at all without lightning bolts coming from the heavens to kill both Clooney and Soderbergh is hard evidence of the non-existence of a higher power in the Univese; that it got released is hard evidence of the non-existence of a higher intelligence in Hollywood. My fiancée summed it up best after ridding her mind of this nonsense by seeing the original: "it's as if the director of the new version only ever saw the second tape of the two-tape set." All of the setup that makes Tarkovski's film so excellent is gone; according to Soderbergh, Solaris is "a love story with contributing factors." Yeah. Kind of like Ocean's Eleven was a love story with contributing factors.

Soderbergh stated in an AP interview recently that he's planning on taking a year off to do nothing but write. Thank heaven for that, because his last four films have all been painfully bad. But as silly, uninformed, and downright manipulative as were Erin Brockovich, Ocean's Eleven, and Traffic, none of them was on the same level of heresy as Solaris. Do yourself a favor and stay far away from this; Tarkovski's version is the Holy Grail, while Soderbergh's is a leaky Dixie cup. (zero)

Rating:
Summary: it does not get much worse than this
Review: Tarkovsky's original attempt to make a movie out of S. Lem 'Solaris' was bad. It was rambling, boring, and devoid of the intensity of the book. So I was very encouraged that somebody wanted to remake this movie. I did not think it was likely that the remake could be as bad as Tarkovsky's attempt. I was dismayed to discover that it was, in fact, as bad.

Soderbergh discarded the philosophical core of the book, choosing to concentrate on a love story. He moved the station from low altitude over the planet to orbit, discarding the fascinating scenery of Solaris described by S.Lem. As a matter of fact, he replaced Solaris - 'the living ocean' - with some sort of a hippie plasma ball, forcing us repeatedly to watch long takes of the 'planet' - a special effect worthy of the original Star Trek.

Finally, Soderbergh insults our intelligence with logical lapses like:

- when something goes very wrong on a space station, mission control sends a lone psychologist, instead of a security team

- a unique planet, the only one of that type ever discovered, with a mysterious single life form of unknown origin, type, biology, possibly intelligent - instead of being a subject of intense academical research, is given away to some company for development (possible energy source)

- and my favourite: "the station is going to fall down bacause the mass of the planet started increasing". And how does a planet suddenly increase in mass???

None of the above idiocies appear in the book. S. Lem has always been careful to write plausible 'science fiction' (in which you work with existing laws of physics, and if you break some you at least try to provide a pseudo-scientific explanation for it). Soderbergh replaces this with 'anything goes' sloppy fiction.

Bottom line - if you ever read the book 'Solaris' - watching this movie you keep asking yourself - "Is this a joke? Is it an outtake of 'Solaris'? They can not be serious, this must be a spoof?"
Sadly, it is not a spoof. Ed Wood could have made it.

Rating:
Summary: "I could tell you what's going on . . ."
Review: ". . . but that wouldn't really tell you what's going on." -- Snow, Dialogue from _Solaris_.

And how. I'm still not sure how or whether to sign off on this movie, but I want to give it a boost. Soderbergh has, in this film, taken the psychological probe of memory and the desire for human connection that he began in _The Limey_ and pushed it beyond the limits of audience comfort. The film is stripped down, bare. The visual surfaces are clean, bright, and reflective, and in a way so is the character psychology. Snow's remark is penetrating, because in a way, *nothing* is going on in _Solaris_. The plot twist is astonishingly simple, the brief attempt at science-fiction explanation is unrevealing. The reactions of the individual characters to the situation onboard the space station are all different, and feel deliberately illustrative of paradigm potential emotional and moral responses, none of which seem favored b the movie's narrative authority (arguably Soderbergh might sign off near the end, but the signals seem to me few and mixed). As a result, and as some reviewers have noted, it's almost impossible to get 'involved' with these characters in the ordinary sense.

Thus, if you're bored with this movie and don't care about the characters, that's that. You're bored. Soderbergh hasn't taken any steps to stop you; he hasn't invited you to become involved in a particular way. But if, for some reason, one is intrigued by the situation, and wishes to sympathize with the characters and evaluate their actions--to be involved despite the lack of invitation--the moral tension becomes almost unbearable. Soderbergh refuses to reassure the audience in its potential sympathies right up to the end credits.

A comparison: In _The Limey_ Wilson wanted to make up for a wrong he had done a dead loved one. By the end, the film had made it clear: Wilson, though sympathetic, was a selfish bastard, and his quest a mere distraction from this basic flaw. In this film, Soderbergh no longer allows himself or his audience the safety provided by a clear narrative position on whether the actions of those onboard the space station are brave or cowardly, legitimate or confused, right or wrong. It's an intense experience, which one can burn out on quite quickly (though I appreciated the film in an abstract way upon a second viewing a day after the first, I was emotionally drained).

Frankly, I suspect that the film is the best Soderbergh has ever done, and offers an experience unlike anything else one obtains from Hollywood films. But because of its odd everything-from-nothing nature, and my variable response in two viewings, I will hold off on offering five stars for a more conservative four.

Rating:
Summary: This movie will flop . . .
Review: . . . but, given what American audiences are making box-office successes these days, that's a compliment. They certainly were eager to shell out $$$ for Soderbergh's most recent "commercial" films, like the you-go-girl feminist epic *Erin Brockovich*, the Drug-War-for-Dummies epic *Traffic*, and the pointless remake of *Ocean's Eleven*. (Well, okay, they stayed away from *Full Frontal*, proving that you can't fool ALL the people ALL of the time.) Got news for you, folks: those were the bad Soderbergh movies. His latest, *Solaris*, is a good Soderbergh movie, his best to date . . . and -- get this! -- it's better than Andrei Tarkovsky's original film of the same title. First of all, it's shorter. Point for Soderbergh. Second, there's a minimum of that philosophical blah-blah-blah that makes Tarkovsky's *Solaris* so intolerable at times during its 2 1/2-hour length. Another point for Soderbergh. I mean, don't get me wrong, Tarkovsky's picture is fine -- heck, I'd give it 3-stars just for trying so hard -- but if I feel like being awed by cosmic mystery, I'll just put in my copy of *2001* into my DVD player. (Better cinematography, and less blah-blah.) Indeed, Soderbergh's *Solaris* is remarkably free of dialogue altogether, which I personally found refreshing. The precise -- and, at times, lovely -- photography was equally refreshing, especially coming from this director, who tends to be herky-jerky with the camera, or otherwise pretentious with color (as in *Traffic*). I'm not going to talk much about the story, because any prior information ruins the movie for the viewer (other reviewers, please take note!). I'll just conclude with this: *Solaris* is one of the most challenging films from Hollywood I've seen this year. In fact, I can't even believe this was a major release, starring George Clooney, of all people. I laugh when I think about all those housewives out there going to see this because they were lured by promises of seeing several shots of Mr. Clooney's "butt". As that bully on *The Simpsons says, "Haw haw!" -- you just walked into an art film, Soccer-Mom! *Solaris* IS an art film, make no mistake about it (now I'm quoting Dubya -- I'm on a roll!), of the type they stopped making after the New Wave died down and the Movie Brats sold out. (The editing, which confuses past, present, and future, certainly recalls Resnais.) The movie doesn't get 5-stars for two reasons: first, it's a wee bit full of itself, and Soderbergh hasn't earned that right yet; second, it's got that irritating Jeremy Davies, who stutters and mumbles and waves his thin, pale hands around like palm fronds in a high wind. Beyond that, it's an excellent film that will, as I said, flop at the box-office only to develop a cult following once it's out on DVD. But really, there's no need to wait. See it now.

Rating:
Summary: I didn't like it, and no, I'm not an idiot
Review: ...

First off, the movie uses a sci-fi framework but doesn't develop it. Instead, questions are raised and then discarded without resolution. For example, who is Gordon's "other" that makes her so upset and vengeful? What happened to Snow? Did he die and come back as one of the "others"? Or was his "other" an identical twin who killed him and took his place? These questions aren't answered. In addition, the "futuristic" sets are the same streamlined, metal-and-plastic, Star-Trekesque ones we've seen a million times before.

But the movie doesn't care about these things, because its main focus is on Clooney's character, Chris, and how he deals with his dead wife's seemingly coming back to life. Unfortunately, their relationship, told through flashbacks, is the epitome of style over substance. I didn't get the sense that they loved each other, only that they liked being beautiful together, so Chris's dilemma had a big "who cares" factor for me. In my opinion, this is the film's biggest failing. And how about that "happy" ending? Just terrible, pat and unsatisfying.

On the plus side, Clooney does an amazing job of conveying Chris's isolation and desolation. I also appreciated the film's sloooow pace, with long pauses in dialogue, which mimicked real life and was a challenge for typical ADHD audiences. I actually wish the film had been an hour longer, which would have given it a chance to flesh out both the sci-fi elements and Clooney's relationship with his wife. My understanding is that Soderbergh did complete a 3-hour cut that test audiences hated. A pity. Maybe it'll turn up on the DVD, in which case this would be a worthy rental. But, as I think most of the country has already figured out, it's not worth your box-office dollar in its current form.

Rating:
Summary: MULTI-MEGATON BOMB!
Review: Folks don't let "erudite" reviews kid you. If you've seen this movie (squirmed through its pseudo-profound,cosmically-vast silences) and emerged from theatre-Solariums feeling perplexed; confused or...let's say it...connned: don't feel bad or shamefully cretinoid. The movie is bogus. Worse- it's a multi-megaton bomb. I'm a fan of Steven Soderbergh. Most of us saw and applauded his award winning version of the British (epic)mini-series, TRAFFIK. Soderbergh knows how to make an existential thriller(THE LIMEY); his PM intellectual horror film, KAFKA is recognized as genre classic.(Producer James Cameron equally knows his way around epics: TITANIC; ALIENS). So que paso with this titanic flop?

Those who've seen and (in my estimate) without sufficient warrant venerate Russian Director Tarkovsky's original SOLARIS might be more than disappointed by the American effort. I, however, stand by assessment of that version as game but pedantic curiosity which the director himself disavowed. For viewers who aren't fans of Tarkovsky or idolaters of THE OLD MIMOID...as novelist Stanislaw Lem "illumined" the(Solarian)Entity (chapter 14)...you are likely to be less than bedazzled and in fact BORED. By reducing an intriguing sci-fi Post-Modernist deconstruction of Western Civilization [The book is philosophical horror story about Mankind in LOGOS-less universe which Lem "plants" in a Void...Space Station...floating above "Intelligent-Chaos"]to a rather hackneyed love story (("'LOVE means never having to say you're sorry'I jettisoned you into space in a guided missile...Or you committed suicide...AGAIN...by guzzling Liquid Oxygen"))not only entertainment, but pretense to profundity is SOLARISIZED.

By stripping-away intellectual constructs informing Lem's novel (which I contend unsuccessfully frame Tarkovsky's effort), Soderbergh's "Monarch Notes" scrippting manifests itself the BEDROOM FARCE one of Tarkovsky's Solarians denounces in the cult "classic". The novel SOLARIS...Lem's first work translated into English...is neither impenetrable nor boring.His concept of a gnostic Hegelian-type COSMIC GEIST...though interesting...is neither originally radical nor disturbing. If you're adept at mysticism try Rudolf Otto's The IDEA OF The HOLY.His "Mysterium Tremendum" makes Lem's Old Mimoid more transparent and far less awesome than FORBIDDEN PLANET's Monster from the Id. I mention Forbidden Planet because...after 50 years...it's still vastly entertaining and intellectually provocative.As well as being fun. Neither filmed versions of SOLARIS can make this claim. Especially Soderbergh's cinematic catastrophe. Despite good acting, photography (straight-forwardly unpretentious--unlike some of Tarkovsky's moments in aesthetic posturing); and fine production values,the movie is a solid miss.If you're a fan of Stanislaw Lem you might, none the less, enjoy being put-off by another masterpiece-manque.For remaining prospective viewers recall"being 'close' works with horse shoes;hand grenades;and nuclear bombs." SOLARIS, with George Clooney and company, disproves the cliche: it's a multi-megaton bomb and it's not even close(1 & 1/2 stars).

Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Awesome!
Review: I fell in love with this movie from the start. It had a calm sort of atmosphere to it, almost an erie quitness that stuck throughout the film. It sure is a "thinker" movie and that's what makes it even more interesting. The idea of a ship discovering a source of energy that could replicate lost loves and friends is amazing!! Definitely worth seeing if you like Sci-Fi / Romantic movies. I rate it 5 stars and will definitely be purchasing the DVD.