Solaris

Rating:
Summary: I've had migranes that were more pleasurable
Review: Upfront let me state that I love independent, unusual and foreign films, the ones that many people often have never heard of, or dislike. That said, let me state without question that I hated this movie, in fact every single person within earshot expressed loud and long how much they hated this movie. So what is the biggest problem with this film? Simply this, it is interminably dull both visually and in story. Perhaps those [induced in a] haze might find some redeeming qualities in this movie, apparently those I was watching it with were not suitably impaired to fully appreciate it. I spent most of the film waiting for it to end, just to put all of us out of our misery (the audience and the characters). Do not waste your time or money on this film, even a few glimpses of George Clooney's bum don't make it worth the effort required to sit through this. Truly painful to watch.

Rating:
Summary: A thinkers film
Review: If you're looking for light sabers, explosions, or Alien 5 then you came to the wrong place. Now if you want a movie that is going to make you think about what decisions you make for the rest of your life, then this is it. You will walk out of the movie theater in a different state of mind than how you walked in, but the key is that you have to hand yourself over to this movie completely. Even at the very end of the movie you can't just think to yourself: "what a stupid ending!" just because you might not 'get it' at first. What you should be thinking is what and how does this relate to me personally.

Andrey Tarkovsky's version was about an hour and a half longer than this movie and it was/is a masterpiece. Soderbergh does not disappoint me in the slightest with this picture. Instead i'm looking forward to his future endeavors. Hopefully he'll stay away from the mainstream mediocrities that were "Ocean's 11" and "Erin Brokovich". I'd love to see him stick to what's farthest away from his own personal character, movies like "Traffic" and "Solaris".

Bottom line: George Clooney will get a nomination for best actor. "Solaris" won't get any nominations, but will instead become a masterpiece through the passage of time like "2001: A space Odessey" which was also shunned by the movie going public when it came out.

Rating:
Summary: Extremely thought provoking especially the ending
Review: This movie truly astonished me and I just don't get all the negative reviews. I've even seen serious critics complain that it didn't develop the relationship between the two principle characters enough. So what? That's like saying that Fargo is flawed because it never explained why Jerry Lundegaard was in such financial difficulties. That misses the point entirely.

My 25 year old son warned me against seeing this. But I think his problem was that he was looking for a space opera like Star Wars or Star Trek Strikes Again. This is not a space action adventure, although it IS visually stunning and the music is glorious, I don't care if it is derivative (I would say the music is more an homage to 2001 than an imitation). So instead of an action adventure where special effects are an end in itself, this movie presents some really intruiging ideas about an alien life force (not life form, except in the guise of mystical looking, whispy clouds shrouding the planet Solaris) that seems desperately to want to "fix things up" when individuals from an intelligence species like homo sapiens misunderstand each other resulting in tragic consequences. The logical conclusion of this "procedure" just blew me away as portrayed in the last fifteen minutes of this movie, which I will not reveal as it should come as a total surprise to the viewer, although in hindsight there were hints enough that it could come to this, and then you have to wonder about the validity of human self-identity and the relativity of our own individuality. You will also be wondering about the "morality" of this kind of redemption. Is it good, or is it bad? I really have to wonder, which is why I look forward to viewing the movie again and again when it comes out on DVD.

As you can perhaps see from my review, what is really going on in this movie is actually philosophically rather abstract, and so the many criticisms of this movie on concrete points are really irrelevant. This will probably be a box office flop because it will take too long for the good things about it to get around, and the movie industry has little patience when a movie doesn't immediately start dragging in tens of millions the first week. But I predict it will become a cult hit on DVD, as people buy it and watch it ten times or more just to go through the experience of contemplating all the cosmic and philosophical issues the movie raises.

I might add that I never read the book and did not see the original movie. This movie stands on its own and I am sad to see that the original movie ruined the experience of this movie for so many others. I remember how disappointed I was seeing the movie "Tom Jones" when it first came out because, as happenstance would have it, I'd just read the book. I saw the movie twenty years later and realized then that it is a masterpiece. I've since become very skeptical about people criticizing a movie simply because it wasn't like the original or betrayed the book. Sometimes movies are mere inspirations from previous works, and so should always be judged on their own merits, as hard as this often is to do.

Rating:
Summary: Was This an Action Film????
Review: Seriously, I was Sold to see it because of the previews. I was falling sleep on the 1st 38 minutes. The only good parts ( of the first 38 minutes) was the scene when he was recruited and when landed in the Space Station. The Movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an Action/Mystery/ not so slow movie...then avoid Solaris. Be sure you walk out before the 30 minutes if you want your money back. If you don't, You'll get movie passes.

Rating:
Summary: Similar to SOLARIS, but not the same story
Review: Have you seen "Bram Stoker's Dracula"? The one where the director took a classic horror film and tried to force it into being a love story? If so, the prepare for more of the same. Although many of the characters and incidents are here, this movie is not SOLARIS. Soderbergh had his own story to tell and uses the framework of the Stanislaw Lem book to tell it.

The book is moderately difficult, but the movie is more so. Since thrust of this movie is psychological, the camera work is mimicking what the same disjointed feeling that the characters have. As a result, the movie seems more of a patchwork than a fluid storyline. If you are not familiar with the story, it will take some focusing to understand what is happening.

If you have read the book, unfortunately, the feeling of disjointedness is still there. You may find yourself asking "why" every time Soderbergh varies from the original story. After reading the book and seeing the Russian version, I still found myself at a loss throughout the movie.

The movie is not all bad. The is a lot silence in portions, which may take getting used to. I feel that I am going through the same bewilderment that the characters are, but at the loss of following the story.

I would not recommend going to see this film.

Rating:
Summary: Stay Away From Solaris!
Review: I can sum this "film" up in one word.....BAD. Clooney brings unsuspecting movie goers into the theater, however Solaris will send you packing. I sat through the entire movie. Many in the others left midway through the film.

Save your $$$!

Rating:
Summary: A good film - not for everyone
Review: I went to Solaris 2002 reluctantly. A quarter of century ago I saw Tarkovski's Solaris. I will never forget scenes from that film - like other Tarkovski's work, it deeply impressed me - and I watched it several times since then. I did not know what to expect from a new Solaris and was afraid to be disappointed. I have mixed feelings after seeing it. It is, probably, a good movie. Contrary to what was said - that it is not a remake - it is a remake, although like someone suggested "a loose" one. There are some similarities if not direct borrowings. The space station is reminiscent of Tarkovski's although improved with modern design and flat screens that did not exist in 70'ies. Still it shares the color gamma and lightning design, which was so impressive in 70-ies and yet looks good now. Also, I had a feeling that Clooney is the same type of a guy as Benionis was and these two even look similar. The love story, however, is more straightforward than Tarkovski's - I was somewhat annoyed that Chris knew what was going on right from the moment he saw Rae's phantom for the fist time. And even worse - he explained it to everyone. Tarkovski's presentation was more natural and poetic. One scene, Rae's resurrection after drinking liquid nitrogen was, in my mind, particularly loosing in comparison with the Russian movie - I will never forget the crisp sound of the woman's frozen body and her sudden shaking that scared me fist time I saw it. However, there are some very good scenes in the new Solaris. For example, the "urban" solution/vision of the love story is fresh and novel, although the rain motive is reminiscent of the earlier film. I know that there is little point in comparing these films with each other - but I still cannot stop doing that, and, hopefully, will be forgiven by those who read this. The major difference between the two films is in their director's interpretation of the Lem's novel. Overall, Tarkovski's film is richer, with a more convoluted and mystifying storyline and is ultimately more philosophical and significant. Soderbergh film is more straightforward and more suited for modern viewers, although, I am sure that many were still disappointed by the lack of action and answers to all the questions. In the end Tarkovski's Chris finds peace. New Chris finds love. There is no doubt that Soderbergh has been influenced by Tarkovski's masterpiece, but he created a different movie in its own right, and we shall thank him for that effort. Many viewers who have never had a chance to see Tarkovski's Solaris will have an opportunity to learn this great story in a nice interpretation by Soderbergh.

Rating:
Summary: Still a great story
Review: I went to Solaris 2002 reluctantly. A quarter of century ago I saw Tarkovski's Solaris. I will never forget the scenes from that film - like other Tarkovski's works, it deeply impressed me - and I watched it several times since then. I did not know what to expect from a new Solaris and I was afraid to be disappointed. I have mixed feelings after seeing it. It is, probably, a good movie. Contrary to what was said - that it is not a remake - it is a remake, although like someone suggested "a loose" one. There are some similarities if not direct borrowings. The space station is reminiscent of Tarkovski's although improved with modern design and flat screens that did not exist in 70'ies. Still it shares the color gamma and lightning design which, was so impressive in 70-ies and yet looks good now. Also, I had a feeling that Clooney is the same type of a guy as Benionis was and even looks similar. The love story, however, is more straightforward than Tarkovski's - I was somewhat irritated that Chris knows what is going on right from the moment he sees Rae's phantom for the fist time. And even worse - he explains it to everyone. Tarkovski's presentation was more natural and poetic. One scene, Rae's resurrection after drinking liquid nitrogen was, in my mind, particularly loosing in comparison with the Russian movie - I will never forget the crisp sound of the woman's frozen body and her sudden shaking that scared me fist time I saw it. However, there are some very good scenes in the new Solaris, for example, the "urban" solution/vision of the love story is fresh and novel, although the rain is again reminiscent of the earlier film. I know that there is, probably, little point in comparing these films - but I still cannot stop doing that, and, hopefully, will be forgiven by those who read this. The major difference between the two films is in their director's interpretation of the Lem's novel. Overall, Tarkovski's film is richer, with a more convoluted and mystifying storyline and is ultimately much more philosophical and significant. Soderbergh film is more straightforward and more suited for modern viewers, although, I am sure that many were still disappointed by the lack of action and answers to all the questions. In the end Tarkovski's Chris finds peace. New Chris finds love. There is no doubt that Soderbergh has been influenced by Tarkovski's masterpiece, but he created a different movie in its own right, and we shall thank him for that effort. Many viewers who have never had a chance to see Tarkovski's Solaris will have an ecellent opportunity to learn this great story in the nice interpretation of a Soderbergh's film. However, if you did not hate new Solaris try the old one you may enjoy it much more.

Rating:
Summary: Great Science Fiction Film
Review: First, this review is intended for those who just didn't "get it". I
intentionally leave out most of the details in the movie, because if
you haven't seen the movie, I think you'll enjoy it more if I didn't
tell you the story line.

The key to enjoying this film is given by a wonderful quote in the
movie: "There are no answers, only choices."

Do not try to come into this film wanting to know what it is 'all about?'
You will only be confused. Instead, immerse yourself into the themes
presented in the movie:

1. Free will/determinism
2. How is it that we know a person.
3. Our own ideas of a love one, and how those ideas relate to us.
4. Love.
5. Identity.
6. How does an intelligence so alien to us communicate with us?
7. God.
8. Rebirth.
9. Morals.
10. Who dunit?
11. Who escaped?
12. Being
13. Memory
14. Murder

Many of these themes ideas presented in the great movie BladeRunner.
Whereas BladeRunner gave us the themes which we can point out. This
movie gives us a Rorschach Test, a Chinese Puzzle; a rich enigma that if we
try too hard, you will only torture yourself.

I mean look at this list. It ranges the gamut of humanity, and also
the mundane details of a cop show. It is a testament of the complex
tapestry of the movie.

If you are practically minded, you will want to know the physical
evidence. If you Star-Trek minded, you may think this an interesting
movie about contact with an intelligence so foreign to us. If you are
hopelessly romantic, you will see this as a lovestory. And if you are
30 something -like myself-, thinking about a career change, the phrase
"There are no answers, only choices" will haunt you after leaving the
theater.

And, if you are a bottom-line thinker, I believe you can add two more
things to the list:

15. Boredom
16. Confusion.

So be warned, some of you will find this movie too slow.

But go ahead and see this movie, and enjoy the imagery, and the

questioning. Here are some that I have right now: Why does the planet
look like an egg cell? If beings are constructed from memory, then
who constructing at the end of the movie?

I don't think there is a clear cut answer to any of these questions or
themes; much like there is no clear cut answers to life.

Finally, let me comment on the comparison with Kubrick's 2001. I
can't make a fair comparison at all, since I could only watch a part
of 2001 before being too disappointed in it.

See Kubrick was interested in many scenes of just living in space, and
in technology. What would it be like to live in space? And this is
evident in many scenes that don't present anything but that. We have
Kubrick being a futurist, showing us his vision of the future.
Witness the scene where a person walks away from the camera down a
hall, flips upside down, and away from the camera. This chews up like
2 minutes of film, which I thought was rather useless.

As a programmer in real life, I think I have enough experience to say,
"technology? who cares!"

In the end, technology is present to solve a human problem. Data is
ultimately a record of human activity. It is the human that is
interesting not the technology, and this is why I can't sit through
2001, because for me it needs a good editor.

Soderbergh hasn't forgotten that the star of the show is not PDA's, a
whirling spacestation, an embryonic E.T. homunculus, phasers or the
like. It is humanity.

Science fiction is just a wonderful device for highlighting human
issues, drama, and emotions in a way that may not be possible or as
terse in other genres. And with such a masterpiece as Solaris is, it
is evident that Soderbergh hasn't forgotten this at any point in the
movie.

Rating:
Summary: Anything lower than 1?
Review: Think of the worst movie you've ever seen. Put this one right below it! Poorly directed, with too much emoting. Old spaghetti westerns are the only comparable style I can use. Would love a refund.......