Rating: 
Summary: Move over Barton Fink
Review: The benchmark for all things video awful has been, for us, the overrrated self-important Barton Fink. We rate all movies not by stars but by little Bartons. Well move over Barton - we now will live by Little Solaris's. God this was awful. I wish the guy who edited this with a meat cleaver would have gone after that irritating 'Snow's' hands. I wanted to just rip his hands off . Agh! Agh! agh! stop moving those weird fingers of yours!!! I love sci-fi and have no trouble following some complicated ether-world story lines but I really had a hard time with this. So where were they in the end? The Nexus err... Solaris? Thankfully the DVD skipped and froze a few times so I can get my $1.88 back.
Rating: 
Summary: Cosmic voyage
Review: If you're looking for a different kind of science fiction movie, this one might be worth checking out. Unlike most sci-fi, it has nothing to do with space battles, the colonization of alien planets or anything like that. The plot of this film is a bit more introspective and perhaps even cerebral. The movie has an eerie but not scary tone to it. The story can also be described as erotic in timbre, although there is no nudity. The subtle but pulsing soundtrack lends a hand to tell the story in a memorable fashion. If you like movies with a mysterious flavor to them, you're bound to enjoy this one. The basic premise of the movie centers around a research station that is way out there orbiting above a planet called Solaris. While there, the crew encounters an ambivalent alien force and strange things begin to happen. A shrink from Earth (George Clooney) is called in to investigate. Unfortunately, instead of clearing things up, things get even stranger once the psychologist arrives at the station. As there are so few crew on the station, the rest of the movie has more of a feel of a play than a standard film. The one motif that passed thru my mind as I watched this film was the TWILIGHT ZONE. If you like TZ and are open to watch a very different kind of sci-fi film, this one might be for you. As a bonus, some of the special effects are downright spectacular and really bring out the capabilities of your HDTV / DVD setup.
Rating:
Summary: Not just a "special effects extravaganza"...like most sci-fi
Review: Now, I have yet to see another Steven Soderburgh film, but in a day where modern film is relegated to dishing out fast-paced, spelled-out-for-you, rehashed action plots with crazy camera angles, 30-second editing, and pointless "big-star" cameos, it was a refreshment to see such an elegant film as this re-telling of Stanislaw Lem's novel, Solaris. While the pacing of the film seems to be "slow and boring" to many people (due to it's complete lack of car chases, stereotype bashing, and toilet humor), each scene in Solrais seems (in my opinion) to be paced to perfection, setting the stage for character interactions that do exactly what each scene is supposed to do: reveal something about the characters. Each frame of this film seemed like a painting to me, which echoed the importance of the many silent sequences, utilizing a single picture to tell us so much more about the characters than can be said with the forced dialogue and watered-down character motivations that seem to plague the majority of modern American cinema. Each member of the cast gave an exquisite performance, and never before have I seen George Clooney take on such an emotional character. Solaris represents exactly what science fiction cinema should have graduated to decades ago: not laser guns, killer robots, space invaders, or lots of special effects action, but new ways of thinking. But don't let the "sci-fi" placement of this film fool you. This story isn't about spaceships or aliens or the fate of the universe. It's about what every good story is about: people. For those of you interested in seeing a non-traditional big-budget picture with complex characters and a far from spelled-out plot, give this film a try. For those of you who have nothing but buddy cop films, "special effects extravaganzas", or cynical comedies that make you feel more intelligent than the rest of the world in your top 10, try the latest Micheal Bay or Kevin Smith films instead.
Rating:
Summary: HORRIBLE MOVIE
Review: I was forced to go see this god-awful movie with my girlfriend, and it was a total waste of time. This movie dragged on forever, and it had the worst storyline ever created. The acting is so poor that I was laughing during some scenes. When the movie was over, I heard people in the theater saying things like "Well that was the worst movie I've ever seen." and "What a crappy movie. I want my money back!" Avoid this movie at ALL costs. Don't even watch it if someone rents it for you. You have better things to do with your time.
Rating:
Summary: The worst movie I've seen in the last decade!
Review: Well, I expected to enjoy the evening watching an interesting, intelligent science fiction film but instead I ended up ejecting this DVD about half-way through the film when I had gotten more than my fill of endless love scenes and naked bodies. Thank goodness I only rented this worthless movie. I should've known better when I saw Steven Soderbergh's name on the case. I can describe all of his movies with one word - BORING.
Rating: 
Summary: What planet is this from? Uranus?
Review: Take the boredom and disconnection of "2001" and combine it with the intelligence of "The Cell" and you get a movie that will put you to sleep wondering what on earth is happening. How did George keep a straight face? What sort of movie did he think this would end up being edited into? So many questions, so little time. In honesty, this is an all time fizzer. Maybe it is trying to be intelligent, or maybe I'm just being unfair, but whatever is happening here doesn't end happily for anyone.
Rating:
Summary: thumbs down
Review: >As you can see, it's easy to find faults with this film. What's harder is expressing what's so great about [it]. Three guesses why that is.
Rating:
Summary: Everyone's right!
Review: Well done above for writing the biggest review of a film about one shot of a man's naked body ever. Now, the film. It's biggest flaws seem to stem from the script, Soderbergh's own. After his recent, brilliantly scripted movies Out Of Sight, The Limey, Erin Brokovich and Ocean's 11, Soderbergh should take this latest offering as proof that Sex, Lies And Videotape was a one-off. Not only is the dialogue from the present day story vague, it's also very clumsy and banal. I can practically see Soderbergh struggling to write realistic dialogue but not finding the words. I can also see him struggling to fill the space inbetween Kelvin arriving on the station and his dead wife showing up. Somewhere around there should have been the mystery of what happened to the crew, but there's nothing. When Mrs Kelvin shows up, things perk up a bit - Soderbergh had obviously got to the bit he was interested in - but even then the terrific acting (check out the scene where Clooney first sees McElhone on the station, or the "You keep saying that" line - phew) is tested to the limit by the clumsy dialogue. As you can see, it's easy to find faults with this film. What's harder is expressing what's so great about. Performances, asthetic beauty and haunting atmosphere aside, the highlights of the film are not in the main storyline but in the flashbacks. Here, several scenes showing the faulty relationship back on Earth are improvised, and so not hindered by Soderbergh's uninvolving, beat-around-the-bush nonsense. Particularly effective (and moving) is the scene where Kelvin finds out what his wife has done. The more typical Soderbergh cinematography comes into it's own, and the two central performances astound, especially McElhone. All in all, it comes down to where you, the viewer, are coming from as to whether it is the film's pros or cons are most prominent. If the pros, then the film's great acting, visuals and tone will carry you through the mess. If the cons, then it's just a series of pretty pictures.
Rating:
Summary: an insult to your intelligence (but only if you have any)
Review: >Indeed, Soderbergh's *Solaris* is remarkably free of dialogue altogether, which I personally found refreshing. It is also remarkably free of content. Do you find that "personally " refreshing as well? Unfortunately, Soderbergh's adaptation "Solaris" is not COMPLETELY free of flashback dialogue (dialogue contrived especially for this adaptation not found in its source), for that dialogue is distinctly puerile and insipid.
Rating:
Summary: Dour, Dull-witted, and Heavy-handed
Review: This seems to have been more influenced by the Russian cinematic adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's novel than by the novel itself. There is little of the novel here that isn't also in the Russian film and a lot here that is in the Russian film and not in the novel. Both films are fairly tedious (the novel is gripping), but the Russian film compensates for its tedium with intellectually engaging dialogue and provocative, if enigmatic, visual effects. In contradistinction, the dialogue in the Soderburgh film veers from merely banal to truly moronic. Its visual effects are studiously unimaginative. Some of the Russian film's score sounds as if it might have written by Dmitri Kabelevsky; some of it sounds as if it might have been written by Gyorgy Ligeti. In contradistinction, the Soderburgh film's score sounds as if it were written by an anonymous new-age hack; it is distinctly unoriginal and old hat. It doesn't seem to occur to either film, however, that, though Stanislaw's essay on the limitations of human intelligence has its serious ramifications, there is a great deal of humor in the novel. To a significant extent, the novel is a send-up.
| 
