Rating: 
Summary: very, very, very, very, very bad
Review: One of this movie's defenders poses a question (reproduced below). The question may have been asked with rhetorical intent, but I think it deserves an answer anyway.The question: "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." The answer: First let's clear up two misconceptions: 1) The couple are not "having sex". They are lying prone side by side on a bed and having an animated discussion. The woman is presumably naked herself, but Mr. Clooney is closer to our side of the bed, and all we see of her is her head. 2) One person's "lengthy" may be another's "brief", but it is a distortion to call this a "shot". It is not a "shot"; it is a scene, a prolonged scene. Now, why is it, not just gratuitous, but particularly gratuitous? Because the entire scene is shown with a wide-angle view: We see Mr. Clooney from head to toe, yet the action for the entire duration of the scene has entirely and only to do with his and his girl friend's heads. Instead of focusing on these heads (nothing else on screen is moving), the camera, for the entire scene, is focusing on Mr. Clooney's buttocks. Don't mistake me: I have no serious objection to gratuitous male or female nudity in a movie. On the contrary what bothers me about this scene is the utter crudeness of its attempt to disguise its gratuitousness. It is, like pretty much all of the movie, heavy-handed, clumsy, and inept. In fact, I was no less annoyed by Mr. Soderburgh's heavy-handed, clumsy, and inept attempt gratuitously to inject theology into Stanislaw Lem's plot--but that's another story.
Rating: 
Summary: So-so
Review: I had great expectations for this movie and it was nothing like I thought it would be. George Clooney is almost exactly the same character from ER, a broody, arrogant doctor, psychiatrist Chris Kelvin. He meets a woman on a train and they marry after a hot tryst. Later, he is recruited to go to a space station where strange things have been happening to the staff. Upon arriving, he finds only two staff members remain (a physicist and a computer tech) and they are being 'visited' by beings, not aliens and not quite ghosts. Kelvin is visited by an imitation of his wife Rheya (who halfway through the movie we find out had commited suicide) and he wants desperately for things to turn out different than they did on Earth years ago. The scientist on board warns it will not work out and they come up with a plan to destory the visitor. After detroying imitation Rheya, the doctor escapes as the station heads for certain doom. Kelvin has a change of heart and stays behind on Solaris, which may or may not be his utopia.
The timeline is hard to follow and there are a couple of characters who are really unessential to the plot. It's pretty good if your a fan of sci-fi-type movies, it is not so much romantic as it looked to me.
Rating: 
Summary: relax give it time
Review: NEAR TIMELESS in its leisurely un harriedness expansiveness, for those who WILL let it into their CONSCIOUS, you just might discover, beneath the surface INEXPLICABLE VACUOUS SPACEY AVENUES TO VENTURE behind the numb shade of everyday the plain worn out play, lies OTHER MODES OF greater consciousness, if you dare too QUIET this movie is like meditation it can soothe the soul,,ITS MAGIC, but SHROUDED in a CLOUD OF HOLLYWOOD CLICHE ,..AGING LEADING MAN WITH , shirt always off, romansing with much younger could be daughters,FILM MAKING FOR MEN,idotic assumptions, the CAMERA WORK SPENDS TOO MUCH TIME WORSHIPPING CLOONEYS GOOD LOOKS, it start to grow wearisome,WOMEN MOST LIKELY FONDLE AND TREASURE EVERY NUANCED frozen STILL GEORGESHOT, selfUNholy fill fullment,caste as seedy voyeourism voyages, in slumber beneath their sheets stuphour, intoxicantKISS but it grows like a parasite allegren shame viagra for meta pausal tubes too worn and dried.to engage.
Rating: 
Summary: I want to like it, but...
Review: Rather than explain the plot, and write a novel here, I'll just say what I liked and didn't like about Solaris. I enjoyed the music, the photography, Natasha McElhone's performance (for the most part,) and the themes of loss, regret, and possible ammends-making. I didn't like the plodding pace, the flat and at-times hokey dialogue, the cryptic ending, and the fact this film is a re-make, rather than an original. Soderbergh and Cameron could make an excellent science-fiction film without borrowing others' material, I believe. This film is ultimately a chore to sit through, with few good moments to keep your attention from wavering. Most casual movie-goers will either hate this, or be confused by it. Others won't feel much different. A disappointment.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful and haunting
Review: First of all, why do all of the people who are waiting for Diehard- 9 to come out feel compelled to tell us how bored they were with this film.
It's not your cup of tea, fine, keep it to yourself.
And the criticism that it doesn't explain enough is such a shallow criticism. Inspiring wonder and firing your imagination is what great art is supposed to do. It's like saying I don't want to see the great pyramids unless someone can tell me exactly how they were built. Tieing things up in neat little packages isn't great art and for that matter isn't even real life.
I found this film thoroughly engrossing on so many levels and am not surprised at all, considering the reality TV that most Americans subsist on, that it didn't go over here. For one thing, I almost never watch a movie twice but I couldn't wait to watch Solaris again and discovered even more layers upon second viewing which inspired more fascinating thoughts-questions about the nature of mortality, love, religion and the human condition. It also really struck an emotional nerve about loss which I suspect makes some people uncomfortable. But it's all done with such grace and poetry from the acting to the cinematography to the haunting musical score. I only wish there were more filmmakers as courageous as Soderbergh who aren't afraid to make a film that speaks quietly and holds to the maxim- still waters run deep.
Rating:
Summary: Yawn! A Great Cure For Insomia!
Review: Sorry I can't say anything regarding what this movie was about. It was so dull that I fell asleep after about 1/2 hour & could not bring myself to start over.
Rating:
Summary: A Resounding Dud
Review: Much ado about nothing: this sci fi movie is a tiresome, pretentious, vacuous, longwinded bore. It strives for a transcendent, even apocalyptic note, but winds up being just plain silly. George Clooney struggles manfully to breathe some life into this stillborn turkey, but it's more than mortal actor can do. Natascha McElhone (who?) is the forgettable romantic interest, and Jeremy Davies as a crew member is such a mannered ham you long to make him sit on his hands. At 99 minutes this is not a long movie, but it's a lot longer than it ought to be, if you catch my drift. Do yourself a favor and save your time and money; I wish I had. I venture to predict that if this dud is remembered at all, it will be recalled as the movie in which George Clooney unveiled his bare ass. Maybe he was trying to tell us something.
Rating:
Summary: You Will Love It or Hate It
Review: You will either love this movie or hate it; there's not much middle ground here. If you like typical Hollywood fare - stay away (which audiences did in droves). If you like movies that are "mood pieces" and that make you think for yourself instead of spoon feeding you, you will probably watch Solaris more than once. Make sure the kids are in bed before you start. This isn't the kind of movie that works with distractions or pauses. One side bonus to Love/Hate movies: The people who love them can pick them up cheap from the people who hate them. If you liked this film you've already seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" (obviously), so try "Nosferatu The Vampyre" (the 1979 remake).
Rating:
Summary: NOBODY TALKED THROUGH THIS ENTIRE FILM
Review: Throughout this entire film, the actors just STARED at each other. Nobody answered any damn questions, they just STARED. Nobody conversed - THEY JUST STARED. That's all this was. Staring. And George Clooney's naked ass. Hardly worth it.
Rating: 
Summary: STYX..............?
Review: JEREMY DAVIES and VIOLA DAVIS are probably the most scary in this re-telling of the legend of Orpheus {Now, let's face it folks - this is really WHAT it is ... it ain't that original!}, but for what we see - it is a great movie, perfectly scripted and directed by genius Soderberg - that's what he is and we have not touched the tip here. Mr. Clooney as the befuddled and bemused Orpheus is understandably confused by the recurring appearances of Euridice [the late, late spouse who 'offed' herself clutching those enigmatic lines of poetery .........] Natascha McElhone is suitably haunting as the confused alien ~ provided by the mysterious SOLARIS [a planet? whatever .......] It's one of those rainy-day movies, and yes 'all' will chat incessantly after viewing this one .... BUT it is quite brilliant - so is the original 1972 version .... missing though is that stupendous 1972 catharsis between the crew and the alien ... and the alien's revelation........ Sound, Visuals, Great - The costumes smat slightly of 2001 [but wasn't the original versions the USSR'S ANSWER to theKubrick opus?] This is also a Great Love Story ...... for the sensitive male, and the knowing female. Long to be remembered ... and cherished. [It is just 'something' in the eyes of Viola Davis and 'something' just brilliant about Jeremy Davies that adds to this movie - and no you won't miss HAL .... he is quite there ....]
|
