Rating: 
Summary: Almost the worst movie ever
Review: This film is irredeemably bad. The pacing is ponderous at best, there are numerous large holes in the story, and none of the characters are able to inspire any degree of pathos. On the positive side, such as it is, the acting is good and the cinematography is beautiful - especially in the way it conveys subtle hints about the story.What seems to be the main story, the odd phenomenon of people from the crew's memories appearing as visitors on the ship is actually just a frame for the real story, that of Dr. Kelvin's relationship with his wife (who is his visitor) and her eventual suicide. This story is told through flashbacks and dreams that Kelvin has. As some folks have pointed out, it can be a bit difficult to piece them together, but there are enough clues there to make it pretty obvious what happened. What isn't obvious, or even hinted at, is why he would stay with such a basket case. One is given plenty of time to ponder this question in the almost interminable flashback sequences. With tighter pacing, this film could have been 15 minutes long. Most of the holes are in the story that acts as a frame. Who is Dr. Gordon's visitor, why was Snow's visitor himself, why did Gibarian commit suicide, and so on. The pseudo-science is also annoying. By no means do I insist on hard SF realism, but the few scientific details they do throw in are bad enough to make Star Trek look accurate. The visitors are composed of "subatomic particles, held in suspension by a Hinks field". The solution to getting rid of them is to generate an inverse field. Somehow, doing so causes the nearby planet to start gaining mass. Whatever. Please save yourself from seeing this monumental waste of time. For those wondering why this is only almost the worst movie ever, it's because it doesn't come close to the level of awfulness of Being Human.
Rating: 
Summary: A far cry from the original
Review: Not bad. It's not so much a remake of Tarkovsky's film as it is an interpritation of the book. (by Stanislav Lem). Soderbergh's version is a love story rather than a commentary on human nature and social values.
Rating: 
Summary: Much ado about noting
Review: Like the title of Shakespeare's play are the reviews that have made much of Clooney's "unveiling." I don't understand why a brief shot of a nude George Clooney during a sex scene with a, theoretically, nude actress in a movie that focuses on a love affair between a man and a woman would be understood as gratuitous. How many times do the sheets slip and a shot of so and so's perfect breast peep through? People are, often times but not always, naked while having sex. No, we don't have to see it to understand it, but if it's brief and part of the story, then a quick shot of someone's rear end, thigh (which we see a lot of Clooney's, and which I, quite honestly found more interesting), breast, ankle, or toes unsheathed seems perfectly in-line with the moment, the story, the act, ect. Is it just that a man's rear is shocking? Is it Clooney's in particular? Without belaboring the point, it seems that men's parts are gratuitous and women's critical to films. How absurd. With regard to the film, since I believe that the average person will not pick up this film, those that do will likely know what they're getting into and make of it what they will. Having never seen Tartovsky's original, nor read the book, I had no preconceptions, but I will say that I think George Clooney gives his most subtle performance to date and is obviously in the process of evolving into a more substantial actor. I agree with other reviewers that, unlike Kubrick, this film is not about technology or outter space; it's about inner space, our minds and its seemingly infinite and yet, at times, dangerously limited capabilities, the very things that make for our complexities and contradictions. The ending may seem too cookie cutter, too optimistic, contradicting the rest of the story's themes; however, in a film where reality stands on unsteady ground, even the ending is open to interpretation and not at all definite.
Overall, a thought provoking film.
Rating:
Summary: Haunting adaption of both Russian film and Polish novel
Review: Although far from a perfect film, the American version of Solaris benefits from the brevity (90 minutes)and focus of the story (adapted from both the original novel by Stanislaw Lem and Andrew Tarkovsey's classic 70's film). Solaris appears to divide people just about as evenly as both the first film version did and Kubrick's 2001 when it was first released. Solaris appears to be alive. The star around which a huge space station orbits intrudes on the occupants' dreams making what they dream a reality. Why? Is there some sinister purpose or is it an attempt to communicate? Perhaps Solaris is nothing more than an idiot savant playing on the imagination of the astronauts trapped on an endless merry-go-round to hell. Or not. Based on Stanislaw Lem's fascinating novel and echoing the Russian film adaption by the talented Andrei Tarkovsky , Solaris is part dream and reality. George Clooney plays psychologist Chris Kelvin who is sent on a mission to the orbiting space station. His mission is to determine if the astronauts on the Prometheus have gone mad or, perhaps, if some sort of covert attempt at first contact his occurring. When Kelvin arrives he finds one scientist has committed suicide while another has barracaded herself in her room. Clearly something is at work. The only questions are why and what its motivation might possibly be. Kelvin awakens after his first day on the space station and discovers his wife is with him. Which is impossible as she committed suicide. The film, like its Russian counterpart, is designed to unfold gradually with each layer discovered as you watch. The narrative thread that holds the film together appears to be stretched quite thin by the end of the film. None of the central questions are truly answered. Then again, these very qualities make the film interesting. There aren't supposed to be any definitive answers provided. In many respects, Solaris has more in common with Kubrick's 2001. In the novel by Arthur C. Clarke (like Lem's novel Solaris)there are more answers to the puzzle. Kubrick wanted to keep cold, hard answers to a minimum. That's also the case with Soderbergh's film. We live in a tradional world where we expect all answers to be handed out on a silver platter. Many of the best films play with that convention. If you expect answers to the many layered riddles in this fine film, you'll be sadly disappointed. I do take issue with the interpretation of the ending as a "happy" ending; it's no more a happy ending than the perplexing, difficult and complex ending of 2001. In many respects, Kelvin is in as much of a cage as Bowman is in 2001. It's a cage of his own choosing but he has chosen to live in an illusion vs. the real world he left behind. There's a great deal of tragedy to that decision. Clooney and the rest of the small ensemble cast gives terrific performances. I was pleasantly surprised at Clooney's ability to convey the haunted, hurt quality at the core of Kelvin. Directed and written for the screen by the talented Steven Soderbergh, Solaris, like Tarkovsky 's first adaption, is a quiet, unsettling film that bathes itself in Lem's rich metaphors and analogies. While it lacks the glacial pace of Tarkovsky 's original film, the narrative doesn't occur at a breakneck pace either. Recalling both Kubrick's cold 2001: A Space Odyssey and Truffaut's distant Farenheit 451. Interestingly, Soderbergh's film has much of the passion missing from these works of the 60's. It's interesting because, despite its snail like pace, the first film was written and directed in reaction to Kubrick's 2001. Tarkovsky hated the the anonymity of Kubrick's characters and the fact that HAL the computer had more passion, more humanity and, ultimately, more flaws than its creators. So while Soderbergh's film references these other films, it also reflects the very qualities missing from Kubrick's clinical 2001. The DVD transfer is very good. I didn't notice any edge enhancements which have marred many of the films that Fox has put out on DVD. The sound is top notch as well. The extras are sparse; there' the original screenplay available in still mode; an HBO special about the making of the film which is interesting although hardly essential; the films original trailers (both of which are quite vivid and imaginative) and a commentary by Soderbergh that provides an interesting insight into the process of film direction. Solaris deals many of the same themes as Kubrick, Truffaut and other neophyte science fiction directors; it's ultimately about our humanity and the very qualities that make us unique. It's also about the loss of our emotional self at the hands of technology and personal loss. Soderbergh's film is a complimentary piece to the Tarkovsky masterpiece (which can be admittedly difficult to sit through) from the early 70's. Soderbergh asks many more questions than he answers and that's how it should be in great literature, films and plays. Ultimately, the value of any art form is the not just in the questions it asks but in those it chooses not to answer.
Rating:
Summary: Psychological Science Fiction
Review: Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) is a psychiatrist who still mourns the suicide of his wife a few years before. He receives a communication from an old friend, Dr. Gibarian (Ulrich Tukur), who is doing research on a space station orbiting the planet Solaris. Gibarian asks Chris to come to the station to help with an unspecified problem that is affecting its crew. When Chris arrives at the Solaris station, he finds only two members of the crew left alive, and they are suffering from paranoia , delusions, depression and general mental mayhem. He has a hard time making sense of their explanation of events. When he goes to sleep for the night, Chris dreams of this deceased wife, Rheya (Natascha McElhone). When he wakes, he finds Rheya in his bed. This Rheya is a "visitor", a being created by Solaris that takes on an identity from the memories of the space station's crew. The three humans must try to agree upon a course of action that will safely return them to Earth. "Solaris" is based on the novel of the same name by Polish science fiction author Stanislaw Lem. The film was written for the screen, directed, photographed and edited by Steven Soderbergh. (Soderbergh's cinematography and editing credits are pseudonyms.) The cast is very effective. But Solaris left me with a feeling of dissatisfaction. Its resolution is vague. I don't mean that it's ambiguous. I mean it's downright nebulous. I hope it was clearer in the book, which I have not read. The film also spends a lot of time in dream and flashback sequences, which may wear on some viewers' patience. "Solaris" is a very good-looking film. I like Steve Arnold and Keith Cunningham's art decoration and the images of the planet Solaris are beautiful. I recommend "Solaris" to committed science fiction fans and to fans of George Clooney. I'm not sure that there is enough in the film to hold the interest of general movie-goers.
Rating:
Summary: Worst film ever - even 1 star is to much
Review: I bought this film because of Clooney and Sonderberg without even knowing what it is all about- and I still regret. This is the most enoying, slow and useless film that I have ever seen. The reference made to Kubricks 2001 is an insult to the director. This is the first DVD ( and I do have a few) where I FFWD most of the time because nothing is hapening - don't we all love seeing empty corridors during 5 minutes. Slow camera moves with nothing hapening.If you want to get bored to death buy it, all others should avoid this movie!
Rating:
Summary: Soderbergh's thoughtful version of Lem's classic SF novel
Review: Director Steven Soderbergh insists that "Solairs" is another film based on the science fiction novel by the Polish author Stanislaw Lem and not yet another remake of a European film, in this case the 1972 film version of "Solaris" by the Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky. There is admittedly some truth in this idea since the premises are the same but the focal point of the story and the approach rather different. Both films share the same flaw in an overwhelming sense of solemnity that becomes oppressive at times, but the premise is so intriguing and the lesson so true to the human condition that such a concern becomes relatively minor. "Solaris" is the name of a planet around which a space station is orbiting. When two astronauts die the survivors send back frantic messages that have mission control worried about their sanity. So they send psychiatrist Chris Kevlin (George Clooney) to the space station above Solaris and the first night there he wakes up to find his wife, Rheya (Natascha McElhone) in bed with him. The catch is that not only did she not come on the trip with him, she had committed suicide on Earth some time before. Thus both Kelvin and the audience learn the secret of Solaris, a planet that can read the minds of the humans orbiting above and send them people that they have lost in their lives. Dr. Helen Gordon (Viola Davis) points out the obvious to Kelvin, namely that his "wife" is not human. But confronted with a being that not only is made of flesh and blood but shares his memories, Kelvin cannot help feeling he has been given a second change. There is another survivor on the space station, Snow (Jeremy Davies), who apparently has had a close encounter of the worst kind with whatever person from his past the planet sent up. This is a science fiction film where the key elements are not the fantastic planet and the advanced technology but the psychology of the human beings confronted with personal trauma materialized in human form. The key conflict is between Gordon, who is constantly questioning what Solaris wants and assumes it has to be something bad, and Kelvin, who wants to talk to his dead wife. While Gordon spins more fanciful visions of the end game of this bizarre scenario, Kelvin comes to terms with this particular Rheya. She might have been created by Solaris, but she seems to have free will. However, eventually Kelvin learns the dark true about Rheya. This is not to suggest that Solaris is a malignant planet, but that the gift it has given to Kelvin has inherent limitations. The lesson is that the limitations come from Kelvin himself and are peculiar to the human condition. The maxim that comes to mind is that you are not who you think you are or who your friends think you are; you are who you think your friends think you are. I have been teaching that in Interpersonal Communication classes for years. However, I have never seen the principle manifested as dramatically as it is in "Solaris." In many ways "Solaris" is a love story, which is fairly rare in science fiction films (diverse examples come to mind such as "E.T." and "My Stepmother is an Alien"), but even as such it is a strongly introspective one. Kelvin might be responding to his idea of his wife rather than to the actual being, but that is all we poor mortals get to do in the first place. Clooney's performance is appropriately minimalistic. His character might be dealing with profound emotions, but he does not get overly emotional, even as his rationality is buffeted by this strange confrontation with a replicant of his wife. Soderbergh's version of "Solaris" is not quite as slow, not to mention not quite as confusing as Tarkovsky's original (which has also been released on DVD as part of the Criterion Collection). Kevlin and Gordon are able to crystalize the situation throughout their arguments. Still, even though the point is more clearly made in this 2002 film, there is an inherent power to the original that should be enjoyed.
Rating:
Summary: Relaxing, Charming, Subtly Disturbing
Review: This is a beautifully shot, marvelously paced film that only Hollywood highrollers can make, not only because the message is ponderous, but somewhat depressing. As a fan of Tarkovsky's original adaptation of Lem's novel, and as someone who heard from many the Clooney remake/reintepretation was terrible, I was pleasantly surprised: there is *acting* here, pretty good acting considering the hard-to-believe plot (the planet is actually a creature, not a planet), and the story unfolds beautifully with eye-candy shots. Like Tarkovsky's film, Soderbergh is careful to make this about human being in an inhuman context. Another great thing about this film is the soundtrack (Martinez always does wonderful work), which accompanies the "cold" feel of space with a sense of something hopeful. This is a filmlover's film, a romance for sci-fi buffs (theres more implied skin than ship here), and has a "watch late at night" feel. If you don't need Random-Things-Blowing-Up, suprise endings, or acid-dripping aliens from Uranus, and if you like paced, contemplative films, you might give it a try. And if you like the philosophical undertone, check out Tarkovsky's version for something much more plodding (but equally pretty).
Rating: 
Summary: A Very Underrated Adaptation Of A Sci-Fi Classic
Review: Stanislaw Lem's sci-fi novel Solaris was written as a story with a lot of technical ideas. When the Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky adapted it to film in the early 1970's, he added a much more emotional tone which seemed to move away from the technology the book was based on. Tarkovsky was not a fan of Kubrick's 2001 because it was mostly devoid of human emotion. That is why his adaptation of Solaris has the characters yearning for Earth and questioning why humans should explore the cosmos when they can't even understand themselves. Tarkovsky's version is a classic, so we knew that one day it would be remade for American audiences. Enter James Cameron and Steven Soderbergh who produced and directed the remake (respectively). The remake did not go over well with American audiences though as the film was yanked from theaters after just a few weeks. Soderbergh's version changes a few things...... the station is now in orbit (instead of floating above the water like in the original)..... the planet's ocean now looks more like a multi-colored gas cloud...... the character of Gordon is now a woman....... and the ending is completely different since the studio didn't like Soderbergh's original ending (it should have been on this dvd). Yes, Solaris is a very different kind of sci-fi movie, but it is still very underrated when you consider how deep the themes are that it portrays. The DVD of Solaris is a little on the expensive side, but well worth owning. The video quality is about as good as you would expect from a film that is only a year old. The planet changes colors a lot and looks very vivid on DVD. This is definitely the kind of film that benefits from a huge screen. The 5.1 mix is also quite good, but it rarely makes use of the surround speakers. The extras also feel a little skimpy, but they are better than any bare-bones release. Let's hope Solaris gets a better run on home video than it got in the theaters.
Rating:
Summary: THE masterpiece of mediocrity...
Review: WOW! To take a great book ("Solaris") of a great author (Stanoslav Lem) AND a great movie ("Solaris") of a great author (Andrei Tarkovski), both full of sence and philosophy and to create that... WOW!
|
