Rating: 
Summary: intellectual but not like the original
Review: i felt a certain amusement watching this movie. i think the director couldn't really understand the original film by andrei tarkovsky made years ago. i truly recommend watching the original film - a real world cinema treasure - first.
Rating:
Summary: "I Don't Understand."
Review: I'm probably generous in giving this movie three stars. What a disappointment. The movie can be summed up in one word, dull." There is a lot of talk here and not much else-- I love a good talk movie of the calibre of, say, LION IN WINTER--but that is not what we have here. You'll be lucky if you can stay awake in this one.Biggest surprise of the movie: That Steven Soderbergh of ERIN BROCKOVICH and other fine movies directed this dog. Best lines from the movie: At one point Natascha McElhone says "I don't understand" three times in fairly rapid succession. I couldn't agree more. Best thing about the movie: It's no longer than it is.
Rating: 
Summary: Oh boy, what sholack....
Review: The one thing that this movie will do is that if you want to fall asleep watching something, then this piece of boring film will do it. You watch it for five seconds and fall asleep.
Rating: 
Summary: Challenging, mesmerizing, heartrending
Review: I'm really not surprised to see so many negative reviews for this wonderful, dreamlike film; it's certainly not for everyone, especially those who prefer their films pre-digested & undemanding. But for those who are willing to give themselves over to its rich, subtle rhythms, an astonishing experience awaits. An extended meditation on love, loss & memory, this film takes the viewer deep into the heart of Being, far below the trivial layers of the Everyday. George Clooney gives a superb & nuanced performance: a modern Everyman struggling with grief & the limitations of his own imagination, he hopes for that precious second chance we all long for so desperately ... and does he find it? Like so many of the questions raised by this film, the answers are yours to determine. Walt Whitman once said, "Great poems demand great audiences." And so it is with this film: passive, spoon-fed viewers need not watch. The filmmaker trusts in the intelligence & depth of soul of those who do watch. Everything contributes to the establishing & sustaining of its mood: gorgeous cinematography, haunting music, a tasteful underplaying of special effects. No, it's not Tarkovsky's masterpiece -- but it's not meant to be, either. Rather it directs a fine & powerful focus on one aspect of its source material, striving for & achieving an emotionally luminous work of Art. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating journey into inner space.
Review: Every once in a while a film comes along that makes its audience think. Really think. Quite often these films are poorly received at the time of their release, defying as they do the conventional desire for easily read entertainment. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is one such film, loved by some and loathed by others. Steven Soderbergh's SOLARIS is another. Any group of viewers is likely to emerge from SOLARIS polarized which, given the subject matter of the film, is not necessarily a bad thing. SOLARIS' story is simple, but its implications are maddeningly complex. At some point in the future, a group of scientists studying a distant planet (the eponymous Solaris) have begun to experience a phenomenon they cannot explain, but which jeopardizes both their collective sanity and their mission. Psychiatrist Chris Kelvin, played with great depth and subtlety by George Clooney, is dispatched in an attempt to salvage the Solaris expedition. Once there, however, Kelvin is snared in the same mystery that has trapped the Solaris scientists. For a big-budgeted SF film, SOLARIS is incredibly intimate. The cast is small, with no more than four actors onscreen at any given time, and consequently the camera is allowed to rest on individual performers for much longer than in other films in the genre. The three primary figures - Clooney as Dr. Kelvin, along with Viola Davis and Jeremy Davies as scientists on the Solaris expedition - are complex characters afflicted with doubts and other personal demons. The troubling intensity of the Solaris experience has already driven one scientist to suicide, and resulted in murder. Soderbergh, who adapted author Slanislaw Lem's classic novel for the screen and served as his own director of photography, understands that to take the situation on Solaris seriously, the audience has to come as close as possible to the experience of those living in it. SOLARIS raises difficult questions. How well do we know the people we love? How could we choose between reality and perfectly realized fantasy? Is there any way to truly understand the nature of God? Is there God at all? These kinds of uncertainties are enough to drive many audiences into a frenzy. It doesn't help that SOLARIS offers no explicit answers to any of these queries. Not that SOLARIS could. As the film suggests (but never states unequivocally), everyone has his or her own experience of life's essential moments, and it is up to every individual to forge an understanding of his or her existence. SOLARIS is challenging material, perhaps even more challenging than that most opaque of SF films, 2001. Unlike most films, which are designed to be as disposable as a paper cup, SOLARIS demands to be considered, and then reconsidered. It will stay with the viewer long after the final frame has run. But is SOLARIS any good? For those who want nothing more of their filmic experience than entertainment, the SOLARIS will be an irritant. For those who welcome the idea of film as a starting point for intellectual consideration, SOLARIS is a remarkable achievement. Technically and aesthetically, SOLARIS is a perfectly realized film rich with powerful emotional content, haunting images, and moving sounds. It's a film that deserves to be seen, and pored over, for years.
Rating: 
Summary: full of potential, but mostly fails
Review: This movie carries has a lot of really heavy themes swimming around in an ill-defined soup. It never really decides which ones it wants to focus on.
I think the most interesting ones are about control and culpability in relationships. Kelvin feels responsible for his wife's suicide, so when she reappears he is less concerned with her as a person than he is in making sure he never loses her again. When it is clear that she is unhappy, it matters very little to him; he will guard the door to make sure she does not get away from him again. He cannot love her because he is too busy trying to keep her.
There are also some interesting moments about how we remember people vs. how they really are, and I was intrigued by Gordon's fear and desire to do the right thing at all costs, but these themes remain undeveloped -- as does most of the movie. I haven't read the book or seen the 70's Russian version, but I've got to say that despite so much potential, the actual movie mostly fails.
Rating:
Summary: Souless
Review: More of an an excercise in filmaking taking on an atmosphere of Kubrick's 2001:A SPACE ODESSY (the DVD cover of Clooney in the space helmut looks exactly like the picture of Kier Dullea in one of the movie poster/stills of SPACE ODESSY). SOLARIS is a real downer considering Clooney and Soderbergh had just worked together on OCEAN'S 11. This is a frustrating story about lost love and regret, almost like a depressing GROUNDHOG DAY reliving the death of a loved one over and over again. Clooney plays Chris Kelvin, a psychologist sent to a remote space station to investigate problems with the crew and finds out that they are being visited by "ghosts". He too gets a visit from his dead wife and it is to no surprise that he he still mourning her death which makes it all the more painful. This is another in a line of stories where man wants to destroy out of the fear of the unknown. The standout character is that of "Snow" one of the surviving crew members on the space station, played to quirky perfection by Jeremy Davies. Otherwise, the rest of the performances and characters are too painful to watch in this depressing film.
Rating:
Summary: The persistence of memory.
Review: Somewhere between "2001: a Space Odyssey" and "Alien" lies "Solaris", a psychological drama that had viewers stampeding out of theatres long before its end credits rolled. Too bad, because although the film is certainly cerebral, static, and remote, it is also emotionally intense, well acted, and beautifully shot. The film explores the pain of losing a loved one, the guilt that survivors feel, and the ways that our memories of the dead color our feelings about them. The cynical marketing of this film, emphasizing George Clooney's nude scenes, was perhaps an act of desperation; a studio trying to mass-market a distinctly un-commerical film. And yet, its now cult status is perhaps more in keeping with the film's spirit as a probing look inside the pain of death, a place not everyone wants to visit.
Rating:
Summary: Lukewarm, Melodramatic
Review: This is a barely lukewarm (i.e., almost cold) and overly melodramatic movie. Although short by typical movie standards, by about 20 minutes, it seems to have been twice as long. This is the type of movie that tries to force its self-importance on you. Like the boyfriend or girlfriend that plays hard-to-get and once connected, you wonder what the suspense was all about -- all surface, no substance. Unfortunately, it seems to be a poor space rendition of movies like "Sphere" (which was an excellent book and mediocre movie, but better than this movie) and several others. In other words, a cookie-cutter movie that is run at half-speed.
Rating:
Summary: LAME EXCUSE FOR GEORGE TO SHOW HIS BARE BOTTOM REPEATEDLY
Review: Unless you're a female fan of Clooney's, this bore has nothing to offer.
| 
