Solaris

Rating:
Summary: Planet? Of No Return
Review: If you are familiar with and like the Lem novel on which this film is alledgedly based, and if you have perhaps seen Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 adaptation of it, then this film holds nothing for you but intense disappointment because of what could have been. Remove the Lem name from the credits, remove the "Solaris" title and in-film references, and what you have left is an anonymous and tepid piece of trash with no such supports under which to masquerade, sans any significant special effects, science fictional elements, alien representations, or indeed any elements of interest whatsoever.

Solaris, perhaps one of the more profound science fiction novels of the 20th century and written by a world renowned author, is reduced in this film to a pathetic, unimaginative, heavy-handed, politically correct, poorly cast, cheap hack job, by a director who obviously has no comprehension whatever of what the original novel was attempting to portray. A proper presentation of the novel could have produced a genuinely great and adult science fiction film (what a rarity!) of great power, re-enforced by the spectacular special effects that could have been achieved today, challenging the adult viewer with what it means to be human, and what it could be like to encounter an incomprehensibly alien intelligence.

Nor could this director have had any comprehension of what the Soviet-era director, Andrei Tarkovsky, tried to accomplish: Operating under a repressive Soviet regime, and lacking today's routine film technology, he yet skillfully blended metaphor, a superb cast, being true to some of the book's intricate details, and the best effects he could hope to produce, to create a film which, while it lacked a lot of the science fictional elements one would have liked to see, nevertheless remained basically faithful to the original concept, and allowed lovers of the original novel to at least be able to experience some of its' aspects in film form. Instead, what we get, in addition to the above deficiencies, is some rehashed metaphor from the Tarkovsky film, whose only original intent had to be as a poor but necessary substitute for the concepts in the book which were beyond then-current technology to produce!

My advice is: SKIP THIS FILM! If you are not familiar with Stanislaw Lem's work and would like to sample this great author, buy the book with the money you save and read it! Then, if you can afford it and have a sufficiently high regard of the book, buy the Criterion DVD offering of the original Andrei Tarkovsky film, just released in a newly re-mastered version, out this past month.

Rating:
Summary: Better Than I Thought It Would Be...
Review: ...and I'm not trying to damn with faint praise.

Going into the movie: I had read the reviews, so I knew the basic story. I've always wanted to like George Clooney as an actor more than I do, and I was hoping this movie would help him break away from just gliding along on his charm and Clark Gable-esque looks. To be honest, his trick of crinkling up his eyes and leaning his head over 'just so' to appear more like a rogue have begun to wear thin, at least with me. 'Three Kings' was a step in the right direction, but even in that film, it was as though he just couldn't resist using his patented 'ladykiller' moves.

To be honest, the first half-hour was slow. In fact, I began to consider leaving the theatre to get started on Christmas shopping. And I don't walk out of movies very often.

But I stuck it out, and I'm glad I did. Little by little, the characters began to grow on me. Natasha McElhone is beautiful in this film, with an inscrutable 'Mona Lisa' smile. She is seductive, and mysterious; perfect for the part.

Jeremy Davies as Snow was okay. However, I was strongly reminded of Brad Pitt's performance in '12 Monkeys.' Same excessive hand motions, same vague delivery of lines. This made it hard for me to accept the character as believable. Viola Davis, as the ship's captain, didn't seem to bring much to the part outside of a serviceable performance.

No, the real actors in this film were Clooney and McElhone. To me, great acting is when you forget you're watching a person playing a part, and begin just seeing them as their character. Both Clooney and McElhone achieved that, in my opinion. I wouldn't disagree with an earlier reviewer that offered up Clooney as a dark-horse candidate for the Best Actor Oscar. I wouldn't have any trouble nominating Natasha McElhone for Best Actress, either.

Now, direction. To keep it short, I'll say 'good but not great.' An earlier reviewer took issue with similarities between elements of 'Solaris' and '2001: A Space Odyssey.' For the most part, I agree: particularly the part where Clooney is struggling to stay awake. Plagiarism? No, just uncomfortably and unnecessarily close to a cinematic masterpiece.

I would love to have seen what, say, Luc Besson would have done with this film.

At its core, this is a love story. I strongly recommend you see this movie, but be ready to adapt to its slower rhythm. It is not going to rocket along with frenetic jump cuts as do the majority of today's American films. Frankly, it's refreshing that Soderbergh chose a more stately pace. The hyperactive intensity of most modern films has always struck me as an artificial substitute for real content.

Rating:
Summary: Oh my god!!!
Review: This is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen. My thoughts were backed up by the other unfornate souls how happened to go to the same viewing as me. Out of the 30 or so people how were in the theater, about 20-25 of them walked out within the first hour. This movie is so slow and boring, and the ending is so cheesy and stupid. If I had to sum up this movie in one word, it would have to be torturous. Avoid this movie at all cost, you will be sorrily disappointed

Rating:
Summary: Best Film of the Year, A Masterpiece
Review: The rating system will not hold its power for this film. The common movie goer's will not enjoy this film for one main reason. A common person always tries to get ahead of the film, they try to suspect what will happen next, they want to find the answers. But this film is different. It tells you word for word in the movie that there are no answers an illistrates a question why can't there be no answers? If you try to search for answers that are not there then you wont like it. I suggest that you sit back and enjoy the film. Let the film take you along of it's beautiful story. If you are looking for reviews to see whether the movie was good or not or wether to go see it then read the reviews of critics to base your decision.

This film is a masterpiece. A contrast between beauty and darkness, Science fiction and drama. I remember thinking in the middle of the film that the screenplay was so complex that it had to be hard to write. The dialogue was perfect. Each scene was perfect. Also the time was right. It is a little under two hours and that was exactly when to end it. A mistake for inexperienced directors could have made this film so much longer but it would not have been as effective. The film has a slower pace than what some people are used to but it keeps your attention with its mystery and suspense. The film has a little for everybody, a love story, a spirtual quest, and a science fiction time. So far this is the best film of the year and I don't say that often.

Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: A very thought provoking film, well shot, not your average Sci-Fi thriller or space opera. Downsides: jumpy - a little hard to follow; Cooney's bum shots

Rating:
Summary: BE PREPARED - You Could Love Or Detest This Brilliant Film
Review: This is literally a brilliant film - visually stunning and perhaps a candidate for an Academy Award for cinematography. Prepare to be dazzled and confused. The colors and vision of the planet Solaris are wonderful, and are an essential element of the overall impact of the movie. In addition, the use of sharp focus on the central character or event at times with a blurring of the background elements is quite arresting, as is the theme of many of the scenes on earth taking place in the rain. See this on a big screen to get the full effect and impact, don't wait to rent or buy it unless you have a home theater.

This film is based on a book by the Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem which has been translated into English from French.There was also a Russian film version by Tarkovsky in 1979 as their reply to Kubrick's 2001 A SPACE ODDYSSEY. This is a standalone review, since I have neither read the book or seen that film (although I now plan to do both). The primary character in this film is Kris Kelvin (George Clooney), an analyst who receives a request to join a space mission sent to explore Solaris that has been plagued by strange events. The story proceeds from Kris's perspective in a steam of consciousness format with frequent flashbacks. We learn that some force (intelligence ?) on the planet allows individuals to experience alternate realities depending on their wishes and desires. When Kris flls asleep on the space station, his loosened control over his consciousness lets his unconscious mind return to his lack of resolution and feelings of guilt about the death of his wife. He wakes from sleep to find that his dead wife Rheya (Natasha McElhone) has literally materialized, not as an apparition or ghost or memory, but rather apparently as a physical being. However, as you can surmise, the effect is shock, disorientation, and disbelief; the reality is more complex and troublesome. Thus, Kris not only has to solve his dilemma of whether to love this new Rheya but also understand the effects on the rest of the crew in order to help them.

This is what another reviewer has labeled "cerebral sci-fi", not space travel and adventure but rather an examination of the meaning of life and death and our existence, and in fact of the definition of what is the essence of reality and what defines the human condition. So why not five stars (or even ten)? Primarily because it was frustratingly slow and unnecessarily confusing. (Think VANILLA SKY to understand the level of confusion and nature of this film). Steven Soderbergh is a great director, but he relys too much on the artistic brilliance to carry the story. He apparently decided less info would be more, but in this case it is less. It needs better editing. We learn about Rheya's death and its impact on Kris' life, but too many other questions about the planet, the mission and the other characters remain unanswered (including what happened to most of the original participants in the space mission, the station is almost unpopulated by the time Kris arrives).

One line of dialog in the movie sums up this story, "there are no answers, only choices" and their consequences. And while the individuals exploring Solaris perhaps get to choose an alternate reality, those choices are still irreversible and sometimes tragic. And I would have felt a much greater involvement with these characters rather than simply being an observer of this film if I had more background information on their choices, which spanned the range of life, suicide, murder and return to earth for the various characters.

Rating:
Summary: What a Shame....
Review: Steven Soderbergh himself described this film as "Last Tango in Paris" meets "2001". First, what self-respecting director would resort to a bad joke to describe his own film? Second, "Last Tango in Paris" meets "2001"? Ouch. In the marketing-induced frenzy of splicing mismatched genres and themes together in hopes of creating a new cinematic beast, we see 2001 and Last Tango (incredible films) become sad victims of creative plundering.

We have a science fiction movie about humans: cool. The science fiction portion of the film is well executed, in that the design is conceived and the locations believable. But, this is not a science fiction film. This is a movie that dwells on human character and emotion, and it becomes obvious that Soderbergh (albeit undermined by a mediocre script) has no real grasp on how to cull this from his actors. To their credit, no one acting in this film does a bad job, the acting is fine, it is the direction and script that let us down. We are constantly taken out of the narrative flow by "stylish" <> edits and shots, the colors are never quite right. Clooney's emotional arc is broken and disjointed, flip-flopping from one scene to the next, in what can only be assumed was a three hour film edited down to a scant 100 minutes (but in theater time it feels like three hours).

There are some extremely interesting moments, some surprises, but by the time they transpire the audience has ceased to care. There are disconnented from the story as we are from the characters on screen, and that is the one thing that movies cannot afford to lose: emotional involvement on the part of the audience. In this type of movie, that is key. In Solaris, sadly, this is altogether lacking.

Rent 2001 and Last Tango in Paris. You will get far more for your dollar, and be better off for it intellectually, cinematically, and visually.

Rating:
Summary: My Mistake Was How I Remembered You
Review: This is a thought provoking movie...If you don't think, don't go see it! For the person who selects this movie for a weekend viewing they will either be turned on or off. There is no in between view of Solaris! Steven Soderbergh delivers for his audience and permits the audience member an emotional buy in with reward if one choses it. Otherwise be prepared to be bored because there is no blood and gore; and, tenderness in place of action. There are the obligatory bloody hand prints, bodies in bags, and George Cloney bare back sides; but, tastfully done.

Fantastic photography, exquisite modeling, and a riviting plot seduce the viewer into the picture and provoke you into making your own choices, good or bad. The line "my mistake was in how I remembered you.." illustrates how some of these choices lead to tradegy for the ones we love. Then, the movie gives us a second chance; or, another choice once we leave.

This movie is therapeutic for relationships, but probably not useful to anyone in the audience less than 25. Go and see it if you are in the mind to be introspecive or if you just like rain and pretty colors. For the rest go to your shoot'em up stuff.

Rating:
Summary: This ain't your daddy's sci fi.
Review: This was a movie I really wanted to hate. The beginning is slow, the sceenes are stretched out and there aren't any special effects (no flying space monkeys. Well, maybe just one). However, this movie does crow on you if you can relate to the experiences of our protaganist and his beloved reincarnation.
Given, most people will hate this movie but many people complained about Memento also.
What's interesting about this movie is that explaining the story line to a person isn't enough to get them to like it. The film's charm lies in the emotional quality that it invokes in the viewer. I suspect that either you like this movie or you don't. There are no revelations.

Rating:
Summary: Okay! ITS NOT THAT BAD.!
Review: Sure this film is not perfect, but it really wasn't bad. Clooney, actually was very moving, I mean I never thought he was a very good actor until I saw this movie. Now I think hr's pretty darn talented&sexy too. Anyways to the movie, yes it did have its faults, but I'm not here to focus on them, except lemme tell you the majority of those whom will see this movie will hate it, simply because its not a movie for the masses. Like Vanilla Sky, and hey I thought that was good too. A little slow-moving, but good. Hey call me dumb or whatever, but I get movie easily and this movie made me stop and think about love and life.

Story, Chris Kelvin, goes to space, strange orccurences, many emotions, mnay problems, alot stuff goes on. Maybe could've been a little better, but I still loved it.

So if you hate it, I don't care. Just see it and have an open mind don't go in ready to lambaste things come on.! "Be ye kind to one another&Love thy neighbor as thyself"!

God Bless ~Amy