Rating: 
Summary: Involving and challenging, gentle but powerful film
Review: I saw this in a small cinema after work when I was tired. As such it seemed extremely dreamlike and and events seemed to happen in ebbs and flows like the sea at the centre of the story. It is a difficult film if you are used to passive entertainment from films, as I and many probably are in the main these days. But it is richly rewarding. The dialog is sparing but extremly affecting. The emotional set of the film sweeps through confusion, desperation, sadness and futility but ending remarkably with a sense of hope. The over riding message to me seemed to be that man, unable to come to grips with his own existance and purpose has turned his mind to exploration of the outside at the neglect of the inside......this films shows how the two are linked and inseperable. Splendid stuff
Rating: 
Summary: A brilliant exploration of guilt by a master director . . .
Review: Solaris is usually compared to 2001 by critics whose sensibilities are bound by the concept of genre. In Solaris, based on Stanislaw Lem's novel of the same name, Andrei Tarkovsky explores guilt and its effect on the psyche in the setting of a living alien world that tries to communicate with a group of cosmonauts by recreating ghosts from their pasts. Marked by Tarkovsky's trademark camera work and an excellent score highlighted by selections from Bach, Solaris is much more than the Russian answer to 2001.
Rating:
Summary: A serious diversion for people who like to think
Review: Well if you happen to be reading this do yourself a favor and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how this movie might make you feel. You might think it is boring and trite and wonder when the plot will begin or it might cacth you like it did me and give you answers to questions you never really wanted anyone to answer. It is not science fiction, it is metaphysical fiction about the human mind and of all things, true love. Not a usual combination but it does show no matter how far man travels from the earth he always brings his humanity. A very beutiful original and haunting film that really defies a true description. You really must make yourself sit through it you will not be the same afterwards.
Rating:
Summary: forget 2001 space odyssey
Review: and go to the depth of the human soul with this masterpiece. Pure philosophy in a breathtaking "psychoscape". Get lost in this 'non-material' movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing 2001 wannabe
Review: Solaris takes the cake when it comes to throwing in every sort of 2001 effect and no coherent plot line. Racked with tediously long pauses devoid of meaning, Solaris would put anyone not abusing narcotics to sleep or drive them to the stop button on the remote. This movie isn't even worth rewinding!
Rating:
Summary: One of the greates films ever created by the hand of human.
Review: My word, what an excellent science fiction film. In fact, it transcends genre and manages to become one of the greatest films ever made. I can't help but to become engrossed every single solitary viewing. It is awe inspiring. They are talking of an American Hollywood remake, but nothing would do it justice. Not even if 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY helmer Kubrick headed up the project.
Rating:
Summary: A Rare Blend of Fine Art & Science Fiction
Review: For those who miss genuine science fiction and also for the ones who have always wondered what science fiction is, Solaris might be a wonderful treat.Science fiction is not just about future technologies. In my view, s.f. explores (human) intelligence and how it enables us to observe and communicate with the universe around us. In this sense, s.f. celebrates being (intellectually) alive. Solaris is a tremendous achievement, a poetic and romantical masterpiece where love is portrayed as the only activity which will enable humankind to break free from the world of symbols and "see things as they are."
Rating:
Summary: Serious science fiction of a type no longer seen.
Review: This Soviet film was made in 1971, based on the 1961 novel by the great Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem. It is the only one of his books to be made into a movie, and worth seeing for that reason alone. The film is true science fiction, serious and meditative. Investigations have been ongoing for years of a single being on an alien planet, so far evolved that it can communicate with us only indirectly. It concludes that the best way to communicate with our limited intelligence is to grant our own deepest desires, sensed telepathically. The "ocean being" creates out of thin air, a la the Star Trek Holodeck, apparently real objects and sentient beings from our own minds. One scientist creates a fantasy sex object, another recreates his long-dead wife, who committed suicide when he insisted on accepting a long deep space piloting mission. However, these creations do not conveniently disappear when you say "off", because they represent truths deep within us, and the alien senses that the truth remains. They are also as flawed as are our own memories and desires. The problems with this film arise when it diverts from the book, which is far more spectacular. In one scene, the protagonists satirize their own rambling on, "a la Dostoevsky", when the scene is not even in the book and they are rambling on. It would be a great film to remake with today's modern special effects, although so much of its originality has been appropriated by others since. The film remains haunting and well worth seeing as serious science fiction of a type rarely seen anymore.
Rating:
Summary: Learning one's place
Review: We find a creature who seems far more advanced than we are. Who we might like to destroy but hardly know if we can. Who can seemingly turn our minds against us. For whom we don't seem to be a priority at all. Of whom our best minds manage only feeble speculations. I saw this movie first and only recently read Lem's story. Tarkovsky got a great start from Lem. It's difficult to compare text and movie. Tarkovsky seemed to have been reasonably faithful to the contents of the book, but added a long introduction as well as his own ending. Both works are impressive. Tarkovsky seems to linger often so a good deal of patience is a prerequisite for enjoying this film. Now that I've read Lem's "Solaris", I'm less satisfied with Tarkovsky's "Solaris". Lem's book moved along well. Tarkovskky's added introduction (including moving up the inquiry of Burton) accomplishes little and the ending may be more explicit than is needed: hasn't Solaris already done enough to impress? On the other hand, Tarkovsky's cast is excellent (I especially enjoyed Hari and Snow) and visually the movie is a treat.
Rating: 
Summary: Solaris by Tarkovsky - Great Cinematography, Questionable Pe
Review: In terms of Tarkovsky's 1972 take on this Stanislaw Lem sci/fi novel, his cinematography is achingly beuatiful and well-crafted. The acting is superb, the production brilliant, given the constraints that the then Soviet government imposed.
And yet, I am left feeling cheated and conned into accepting a view of reality that I find to be close-minded, lacking imagination, settling for the mediocrity of human life. For - make no mistake - Tarkovsky is a melancholic humanist. Man doesn't need or want space, or contact with alien intelligence. Man needs only man and has no business flying off in space or leaving the earth. It is my understanding that Lem was furious towards Tarkovsky for making this pessamistic, idiosyncratic view of life and reality, which, by its own limits, does not allow any of the speculations that Lem's book demands.
And it is because these reason that I believe Soderbergh's taut rendition to be far better than Tarkovky's. I know that to say so is almost heretical amongst the professional cinematographic community. Soderbergh's production emphasises life/death, what-is-the-true-nature-of-life, memory and vindication. Tarkovsky's film also touches upon the selfsame themes, but more through the distorted lens of his own quite sad personal life history - and, most importantly, in terms of conscience. This latter factor is absent, and rightly so, from Soderbergh's film, for the most part.
Buy Solaris (2002); rent Solaris (1972)and then decide if it's worth the price.
| 
