Rating: 
Summary: Russian 2001?
Review: Despite of the fact that Lem's novel seems to have a somehow different approach, it is a good movie.It was awarded in Cannes. It is slower and larger than 2001. Also it has no noticeable special effects, except for the sea. So it is basically an acting matter. Terrific concept makes no need to use special FX. So you know what to expect. I think I just liked and it is a good choice for non-asleep time.
Rating:
Summary: A Movie that Gnaws Away at You (in a *Good* Way)
Review: When I first saw SOLARIS, I found it at all times intriguing, but often boring, like an Ingmar Bergman movie, and yet, like a Bergman movie, there is stuff going on that won't sink in until well after the film is over and you've tried not to think about it anymore. This is a metaphysical journey in the guise of sci fi allegory, which, much like the director's other sci fi film, STALKER, rewards close attention and surrender to the concepts being presented. Don't expect gee whiz effects, because there aren't any. Instead, think Truffaut's FAHRENHEIT 451 and/or Godard's ALPHAVILLE. The film that perhaps comes closest to SOLARIS, for me, would be Bunuel's LOS OLVIDADOS, an existential meditation on tortured psyches, dreams, desires, and unfulfilled expectations. Like that film, SOLARIS is deeply resonant and stays with you almost as lastingly as a true physical experience.
Rating:
Summary: A haunting and soul-searching cinematic experience
Review: Of the three Tarkovsky films that I have seen (Solaris, Stalker, and Sacrifice) this is the only one that put everything together. Despite its length (~3hours+) I did not feel that it had any dry spells. It is a marvelous cinematic illustration of the adage "All men lead lives of quiet desperation." Natalia Bondarchuk was not only beautiful, but hypnotic. I am disappointed to see so many reviews disparage 2001. The films have little in common. Each is a masterpiece in its own right. The soundtrack is outstanding, while the screenplay maintains continuity and avoids lulls in the suspense.
Rating:
Summary: A true Masterpiece
Review: First of all, although Lem has many great ideas he couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. This film has all the depth and style that Lem's book lacks and I think we should not merely look at it as an adaptation of the book, but as a work of art on its own. Tarkovsky is one of the greatest film directors ever and I feel it is wrong to reduce this piece to a mere adaptation of an interesting but otherwise inferior piece of writing. The cinamatography is brilliant. What really sticks in my mind is the first time we see Hari. He is sleeping when she appears and all we see is her face from the nose down and we get an eerie sense that she is watching him. Comparing this to Lem's book is like expecting Led Zepplin to be true to the blues originals they covered. Genius has no boundaries. Another thing: please do not compare this film to 2001. It is an insult. 2001 is a pretentious and arrid piece of junk in comparisson. In solaris we go to the depths of a man's soul and to the mysteries of creation in a way that is so sexy and spellbinding that I would have to say it is one of the most remarkable achievements in all of cinema. six stars please.
Rating: 
Summary: Pretentious and shallow, generally soporific
Review: Although sometimes true to the book by the great LEM (and not his best one, at that) it deviates at times in ways that are utterly baffling and pointless. The zero-G scene especially comes to mind. More significantly, the principal theme violates the book: rather than sardonically snickering at the limitations of the human brain, it ends up being a crude psychological vehicle for the principal character to suck on his father's memory. Disappointing, but at the same time worth seeing once if you can stay awake.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Psycological/Philosophical Exploration
Review: Stanislaw Lem, the author of Solaris, writes science fiction that explores the limits of the human mind to comprehend new encounters with senient beings and inexplicable events. His protagonists are led from one indecipherable question to the next, but reach no conclusions. I think it is a mistake to attempt to compare Solaris to 2001, apples to oranges. 2001 had a great deal to do with cutting edge special effects; Solaris used minimal special effects. Solaris is more Chekhovian in its character exploration as they attempt to deal with their subconcious interaction with a planet that has evolved as a single intelligent entity. I hope more who enjoy this film will read more of Lem's works.
Rating:
Summary: It's no 2001...
Review: ...and it wasn't meant to be. Like all of Tarkovsky's best work (Stalker, The Sacrifice, Nostalghia), Solaris explores the endless chasms of the mind and soul, touching on universal truths along the way. It is a search that transcends mere Sci-Fi, setting is secondary.
Rating: 
Summary: Better Than 2001
Review: Althought this movie is very strange, I enjoyed it much more than 2001, a film that is highly overrated. But I guess anything is interesting if you have a joint in your hand.
Rating: 
Summary: In space, no one can hear you be pretentious
Review: Solaris was recommended to me as being "way better than 2001". I no longer listen to that person. Solaris is about as ponderous and pretentious as a movie has a right to be. From the chamber organ music to the astronauts quoting Tolstoy and looking at one another as if they are ready to kiss boringly, Solaris doesn't live up to any of the 'hype' I had heard. On a scale of 1 pillows to 5 (on ability to make one drowsy) Solaris gets 5 pillows. Space can't be that boring, can it?
Rating:
Summary: GREAT MOVIE,BUT PALES IN COMPARISON TO 2001
Review: I BOUGHT THIS MOVIE BECAUSE I WAS HOPING IT WOULD BE AS FASCINATING AS 2001. BOY,WAS I WRONG. THIS FILM HAS A LACK OF SUSPENSE. OTHER THAN THAT,THIS IS A GREAT FILM. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR SCI-FI FANS.
| 
