Solaris

Rating:
Summary: SO-LA-TI -DOH!!!
Review: Well, despite superstars, super-directors, and super-producers, this remake of the Soviet Masterpiece attempting to solve Kubrick's "2001" conundrum - still clunks along. Great performances though from Mr. Clooney and the rest, with superlative Costume and Setdesign - but leaves you empty ......

Now if only "The Plague of the Remakes" would subside, and Tinseltown would concentrate on originality instead of reinvention .......

This version pales by comparison to the original Masterpiece - and what's with this continuous 'homage ala Kubrick'?

Let the poor genius rest!

Rating:
Summary: An Existential Space Odyssey
Review: I have not read Stanislaw Lem's novel, or seen Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 version, of Solaris. By all accounts they are brilliant ("all accounts" meaning critics), and I am sure they are, but this matters little to current movie goers, or at least it shouldn't. Oh the critics: compare, compare compare. I don't care. Steven Soderbergh has made a visually brilliant, considerabley moving, and deeply thought provoking film.

It is the near future and Clooney plays a pychologist named Chris Kelvin. One day he receives a disturbing message from a friend that he must come to the space station orbiting a planet called Solaris. His friend tells him things are happening that are beyond comprehension, but Chris will understand when he gets there. When he gets there he finds things have gone wrong. But the only people left on the station, Snow (Jeremy Davies) and Dr. Gordon (Viola Davis), don't seem to be able to explain what happened. Snow tells Kelvin he will understand when he goes to sleep. So Kelvin goes to sleep and when he wakes his dead wife, Rheya (Natascha McElhone) is by his side. And then...it gets surreal.

Solaris got to me. Movies like this do. It raises very interesting questions. Some are questions about morality and imortality. Some are the kind of questions we will only be able to answer when we have passed on. Is this Kelvin's wife, or is it just an image of her compiled from his memories? Neither of them know. Why is Solaris doing this? Is it a gift or a curse? It made me wonder: how well do we really know other people; how well do we know ourselves; what will happen to us when it is all over? These things frighten me because I don't know.

This is not the type of film most mainstream audiences will embrace. I wish that weren't the case. Steven Soderbergh continues to surprise me. From Sex, Lies, and Videotape to Kafka to The Limey to Out of Sight to Erin Brocovich to Traffic to Ocean's 11, this guy just keeps pumping out exceptional movies. Solaris, even if this adaptation isn't as good as the original, is worth seeing. It's different.

Rating:
Summary: An 'OK' film adaptation.
Review: First, this would have been an Art House release, if Clooney hadn't starred in it. That is it's target audience.
Major difference from the original adaptation: this film only deals with one of the original's subplots. It changes some of the major settings of that subplot, yet still contains the same basic message.
For the best effect, you need to let the film wash over you. Soak up the wonderfully subtle steel drums in the soundtrack (which I highly recommend).

Rating:
Summary: Decent remake of a great sci-fi classic
Review: Let me start with the following disclaimer:

If one of the following applies to you, this movie is not for you.

- you are under 14
- your intellectual level is under that of an average 14 year-old
- you dropped out of high school
- your favorite science fiction movie is "Independence Day" or "Mission or Mars"

If you're one the people described above, basically you won't find here things that you're looking for in a movie. There's no Will Smith uploading a computer virus to an alien mother ship via a perfectly compatible Apple laptop.
There's nobody fighting with lasers in a space suit or living in a tent on Mars with complete disregard for laws of physics.

On the other hand, if you've seen the original Tarkovsky movie, or read the book or are simply looking for a interesting, thought-provoking film, you'll enjoy this one.

Short summary for those who read the book or have seen the original movie:

Cons:
- Ending changed from the original and not for the best. The screen writer / director chose to replace the original open-ended finale with a more or less typical holywoodish "everything's well that ends well" ending. Disappointment.
- Several key sequences are shortened, probably due to time constraints. In particular "her" appearances are only two, instead of 4-5 in the book and original movie, 2 are simply not enough to show the depth of the psychological struggles that the main character goes through.
- Appearances of "others", other than of the main character's wife are cut out of this script completely, which takes a lot away from the movie as well. Probably due to time constraints as well.
- George Clooney's performance is adequate, but not great. He's simply not the right actor for the part, no matter how hard he tries.

Pros:
- Steven Soderbergh manages to accurately recreate the surreal and at times terrifying atmosphere so pervasive in the original movie. Quite an accomplishment in itself.
- Natascha McElhone is a great surprise, she's perfect for the part and plays it perfectly as well.

Summary:

Plot/Storyline: ****
Screenplay(adaptation): **
Acting: ***
Directing: ****
Cinematography: ***
Overall: ***

Conclusion: If you're a fan of the book you may want to see this movie despite its shortcomings. It's simply great to see Solaris come to life on the big screen.

Rating:
Summary: Love in a Vacuum
Review: The world of "Solaris" is very grim: dark, rainy and filled with angst ridden characters like Chris (George Clooney) and Rheya (Natasha McElhone), who find each other and marry despite the murk and muck of a big American city at an unspecified time in the future. The décor of "Solaris" owes much to "Blade Runner" as both Steven Soderbergh (director) and Ridley Scott see the future in much the same manner: bleak and dreary with rampant paranoia.
Chris is called to a space station circling the planet Solaris by "The Company" to investigate some unexplainable occurrences. When he arrives he is met by two survivors: Helen Gordon (Viola Davis, also good in "Far from Heaven") and Snow (Jeremy Davies) who is a dead ringer for, and I kid you not, Maynard G. Krebs of the "Dobie Gillis" TV show. There are also two corpses in the deep freeze.
Soderbergh is nothing if not a perfectionist and therefore the physical production is flawless: all gleaming metallic surfaces and beautiful luminescent costumes. But unfortunately the story is puny and not as well thought out as his "Traffic" or "Out of Sight" for example. Do we know enough about Chris and Rheya to really care about them? Is the "menace" on the space station really a compelling threat to those on the space station or to the people back on earth? There is just not enough evidence presented on the screen to adequately address these questions. These are major and damaging holes in the script that Soderbergh does not adequately fill through dialogue or action.
"Solaris" is a gorgeous film but ultimately too ice cold and enigmatic for it's own good. If it weren't for the warm personas of George Clooney and Natasha McElhone, the fierce determination of Viola Davis and the loony-ness of Jeremy Davies we'd have little to appreciate and bond with.

Rating:
Summary: So-SO
Review: As a fan of Steven Soderbergh's and George Clooney's previous work, I expected a really good movie. What I got was an unfulfilling, apathetic movie. Steven Soderbergh did do an excellent job directing this movie. The shots were aesthetic. The only reason this movie received three stars was Soderbergh's brilliant style of directing. Having said that, I must say the same cannot be said for his writing. The movie had a great premise, but somewhere in Soderbergh's writing the premise was lost. I could care less about the characters. How am I supposed to feel for these people, if I do not know anything about them? He also did a less than stellar job devolping a reason for us to care for Clooney's wife. In fact, the stuff that she did made me dislike her even more. Clooney's performance has been touted by many people, but to me, it wasn't that great. It was definitely good, but not Tom Hanks quality. His performance has more to do with lack of script quality. The only good part was of the stoner on the ship. I'd recommend seeing this movie if you are a fan of Soderbergh's unique style of directing; otherwise, wait to video. Bottom Line- Steven Soderbergh: Awesome Director- Mediocre Writer

Rating:
Summary: Great Sci-Fi Fare
Review: I agree completely with the previous reviewer.... Except that I consider this more a film about romance than simply a soap opera. And true, it probably WILL bring you and your loved one closer together by the time the film ends, however DON'T watch this film if you happen to be already depressed. Trust me!

Examine the reviews on the original Solaris here at Amazon.com. This film is the same - it gets inside your head! It takes you on a roller-coaster ride of emotions and leaves you at the end full of despair/hope? Like 2001, which Solaris (it is said) was written in response to, this film leaves you both dazzled and wondering at the end.

Cameron Crowe's 2001 Vanilla Sky was superior, in my estimation, to Alejandro Amenábar's 1997 Abre los ojos (Open your eyes). (See both - available at Amazon.com - and see what you think!) I am very curious to compare Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 Solaris (also available here at Amazon.com as is, in fact, Stanislaw Lem's book Solaris) with this modern remake by Steven Soderbergh. I am a sucker for visual effects, but a movie is nothing without good writing. I believe that this film has both.

Rating:
Summary: I liked it, but ...
Review: I went into seeing solaris, thinking it was going to be like Vanilla Sky. Which meant it already had sounded good because I loved 'sky'. Well it was a bit like it, but it set itself apart too. I really get into these types of movies but mainstream movie goers will probably feel as though they've wasted their money. Personally I hope to see it again in the theater just to make sure I got it all. My recommendations if youre going to see this movie, see with a friend or loved one, and see it quick because once Gangs of New York comes out, then this will be gone. (if its there that long.)
This is by far George Clooney's best movie since "Out of Sight". He can really act if given the right script and movie to play in. He did a good job of being the lonely guy. And you can tell right off that something has gone wrong and he feels responsible.
I felt this movie moved along nicely. It keeps you guessing but not too much. It wraps up nicely with no loose ends. They weave bits and pieces of science versus morality in with threads of human anxiety and morality. Overall it seemed chilling and a bit eerie with some obvious Sci-fi references thrown in for fun.
But alas, this is a love story. and I felt that S. Sodobergh did a good job of putting that element at the forefront. I would say if you have patience go and see this at the matinee, or just wait and get the DVD.

Rating:
Summary: "Solaris" is Empty and Lost in Space
Review: Before viewing "Solaris," you expect an interesting psychological thriller that makes you think, and makes you wander about it. After viewing "Solaris," I was puzzled, and very unpleased. The film is dark, empty, dead, and too full of artistic and symbolic forms of spirituality and morality. George Clooney stars as a psychologist who is commanded to check out a deserted space station with only two people left on board. Soon he discovers the amazing power of Solaris, and how it can change your life and give you a second chance. Without telling you too much more, you would think that a film like this leaves you guessing, making it somewhat fun and interesting, but this one is everything but fun. Critics have said "Solaris" will leave you talking, but the only thing I could talk about is how awful the film was. The only pleasant thing in the film is that you only waste 102 minutes to see it. Clooney is impressive, and yes, the film is the ideal project for most directors, but if you're thinking "Solaris," is a crowd pleaser, you are wrong. If you're really into artistic, symbolic mind-bender space mysteries, see "Solaris." But if I myself had a second chance, I would have skipped "Solaris" completely.

Rating:
Summary: As Uninspiring as Vanilla Sky, et al
Review: I don't know how many movies hollywood is going to spit out regurgitating the same childish epithets, claiming them to be philosophical and artistic masterpieces. There is nothing complex, thoughtful, or original in this film. On top of that, it's boring as living hell. I was asleep within 10 minutes flat. I had to consciously force myself to stay awake as the "plot" "unfolded." I place "unfolded" in quotations because it's already been lying on the table since the earliest Enlightenment era. And these metaphysics are anything, if not inadequate, in presenting concepts that have been offered up in recent scifi films, including Solaris. Contrary to many reviews, this movie will only fascinate the non-erudite and mass culture. No one else will be fooled by the lack of plot, entertainment, and thought behind this shaky film.

In fact, the only redemptive quality in this version of Solaris is the soundtrack; this put me to sleep a good 5 minutes faster than the film would have by itself. The use of ambient synths and fading bells is very good space music. Having said that, I recommend the soundtrack, if you're thinking about experiencing something of Solaris, and not bothering with the movie itself.