Solaris

Rating:
Summary: 6 Star film out of 5
Review:
Tarkovsky's second best fim after Stalker.

This film is about the center of the universe; its you.
Telling; everybody lives his/her own life, relative thinking (with respect to a few close people/relatives/friends) is the biggest irrational trap human can fell into, and if you will be happy; you can even dream a lost relative/mother/lover. The critical thing is if you will be happy..

Solaris is about psychology/happiness and human-being...
It criticizes 1970+s world (and actually todays).. the living style, and the irrational human population on earth..
(as Stalker)

Highly recommended for people, who love to think/exist.

Rating:
Summary: A supreme White Star in the Russina Cinema !
Review: There is a clever phrase of Solaris -1972- that can resume its sense and in general what the life meant for Tarkovsky : "May be we are here just to feel ... the human being as love motive . This reflection includes issues that are fundamental for the filmmaker : the capacity of the man for feeling and loving , to be not indifferent to what it happens with one's self and with the others .
The 'protagonists of Solaris are lost in the cosmos and obligated to learn new things , to establish contact with other worlds . It is the scientific knowledge lack of spirituality , a material advance that has not only forgotten , but drowned the spiritual development and has set the world in a crisis hard to forget . "We talk about expect find other planets , civilizations when we are seeking for is a mirror : We talk about to establish contact , when we are not really interested at all . It is the selfish idea , of the incapacity to establish an adequate relation with the outer world.
Every one of us loves as he can ; every one of us is so human as he can . Even if Solaris and Stalker have many common issues ; the zone and the station have similar features built for the man ; an abandoned place close to the desperation edge and disappearing .
The Zona and the Station are spaces that change very often and without rules , exactly such the life is .
The human beings of Solaris are the survivors of a world without love that forgot the necessity that the human beings have of other human beings . The isolation has never been a good advisor .
When Kelvin returns , he only dreams with his back to home . His attitude is crucially different , of humility and repentance . His home appears in the thinking ocean , becoming real his maxim wish .
With perhaps the unforgettable ending of Chaplin City Lights , this ending shot is simply overwhelming . Through the window looks at his father ; with the expression of whom wishes to reach the things he considered lost . The father opens the door and he puts on his knees to embracing him . The camera begins to raise slowly till an unsuspected height ; you see the house , the environment that surrounds it, the sky , the immensity and in the middle of the ocean in movement , the minuscule house , as small is the man in the middle of the Universe .
One of the supreme jewels of the cinema in any age , one of my twenty best films and for many friends of mine the definitive supreme masterpiece of Tarkovsky .
Winner in Cannes and to me the second best work of Tarkovsky after Andre Rubliov .




Rating:
Summary: One of the best Russian films ever!
Review: This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.
It also compares it with the version released by the Russian Cinema Council (RUSCICO)

Solaris, released as Solyaris in Russia, is among my favorite Russian films, and my favorite film by Andrei Tarkovsky. It is based on the sci-fi novel by Stanislaw Lem. It is been considered a Russian version of 2001 A Space Odyessy. While some consider it to be the polar opposite.

An interesting note is that the Criterion Collection edition was released exacltly one day before the theactrical release of the 2002 remake directed by Steven Soderbergh and starring George Clooney.

It is about a space station orbiting an apparently sentient planet. The planet has the capability of reading the minds of the scientists aboard the space station and created 'doubles' of people from their past. When a psychologist comes aboard to investigate, he is confounded by the recreation of his dead wife.

It is a great film. Although it is slow paced, it has some excelent and unique cinematography. One example is one scene near the begining of the film where it focuses on raindrops landing in a full teacup. The special effects in this film are quite impressive given the time, place, and budget of filming. To top it off the film's score includes a superb rendition of J.S. Bach's Choral Prelude in F Minor, "Ich ruf zu' dir Herr Jesu Christ" BWV 639.

There are some subltle differences betweent he Criterion DVD and the RUSCICO DVD. The most noticable is a 5 minute POV scene of driving through the streets of a city. The scene is in both color and B&W. In the RUSCICO version part of the scene segues from B&W to color. on the Criterion DVD this part is solely in color.

The DVD has some excellent special features
Disc one contains the film plus an audio commentary by Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie, who are experts on Andrei Tarkovsky and are co-authors of the book, The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue.

Disc two contains 9 deleted and alternate scenes. There are also interviews with composer, Eduard Artimiev, lead actress Natalya Bondarchuk, (daughter War & Peace director, Sergei Bondarchuk) cinematographer Vadim Yusov, and art director Mikhal Romadin. There is also an excerpt from a Stanislaw Lem documentary.

The RUSCICO DVD is also good and has filmographys of cast & crew, a production photo album, an interview with Andrei Tarkovsky's sister, a biography of Andrei Tarkovsky and Stanislaw Lem, and a biographical film on lead actor Donatis Banionis.

Both versions are worth getting but the Criterion Collection version is far better. This one is a Must buy!

Rating:
Summary: Amazing
Review: I just saw this movie for the first time - and I am blown away! Tarkovsky's film is a perfect example of how to pace a film. It is not too long but rather a beautifully sustained meditation. It also has enough suspense for todays audiences - if they are willing to surrender themselves to the images on the screen.

I like most of all the scenes that take place on earth - they are just as mysterious and visually interesting as those that take place in space. This film is beautiful to watch and it was obviously made by a very sensitive person (and collaborators).

Rating:
Summary: Slow....yes. Boring.....no!
Review: I would have to agree that this is a slow-paced movie, but I felt that the pace helped to create a somber, reflective mood in the viewer. This movie is like one of those half-remembered dreams that we have, and Tarkovsky is able to use his camera in a way that we find ourselves fascinated with objects that we would normally not find the least bit interesting. I love the idea of the main character's dead wife reappearing after ten years, and his response to the situation. This movie raises many questions at a deeper level: What exactly is consciousness? What constitutes "being alive?" Solaris was hauntingly beautiful, and I prefer the original to Soderbergh's version(although I actually liked Soderbergh's effort as well). This is a cerebral, beautifully tragic movie and does the book justice. It certainly won't appeal to everyone, as it doesn't have much in the way of fast-paced action. This movie will definitely put you into a contemplative mood.

Rating:
Summary: This is the highest level of filmmaking!
Review: I'm not going to give you a plot summary in this review; for one thing, it's been done already, and for another, it's a pointless excercise. Just telling you the plot will not let you in on even a tenth of the movie's strength.

This movie has been compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey (a movie that I, and everybody I know, hated), but the comparison is tasteless. This movie is as different from 2001 as it can possibly be. Where 2001 featured uninspired stationary-camera camerawork and scenes that served absolutely no purpose but to showcase special effects (I'm talking about the waitress scene, among others), Solaris features the most beautiful and delibirate filming that I've ever seen (apart from the camerawork in Tarkovsky's other movies). Where 2001 is cold and heartless, Solaris is brimming with humanity.
Perhaps the people who don't see it are the ones who do not realize that there is a deeper level to humanity than hollywood-produced love stories; this is the level that this movie portrays - the level that comes out when everything seems lost, and you realize how petty all of your wants really are in the grand scheme of things.

This movie shows us that, and more. Tarkovsky is not simply "pretending to be clever" as some sci-fi afficiando exclaimed in a review before mine. If you think that that's the case, then you obviously do not understand him, no matter what you may say and no matter how much of a sci-fi buff you are; this is NOT a science fiction movie at heart, but an intense and accurate look at humanity.

So accurate, really, that it makes me feel like a new person after every time I see it; it's hard to describe, but it's as if for a brief period of time, I see everything in the world clearly and know exactly where my role is.

Everything in this movie actually DOES make sense. I've watched it three times thus far, and each time I've gained a bigger appreciation for it because I understood more and more of it; some scenes that happen earlier can only be understood after you've seen the whole movie. It's like peeling the layers of an onion.

In closing, I'd like to say this:
In the USSR, the intellectual community carried Tarkovsky on their shoulders while many from the general populace walked out on his films because they could not understand them. Solaris is one of his more accessible films, along with My Name is Ivan, but there are doubtless still many who will not understand it.

If prefer action, hollywood-style shallowness, and teen-angst movies like Donnie Darko (which is another movie that I hated, and which in its philosophy is the complete opposite of this), chances are that you won't like Solaris.

I, however, will remain one of the folks who metaphorically carries Tarkovsky on their shoulders, because I do not know of ONE other filmmaker who even approaches his talent.

Rating:
Summary: A movie of Promethean scope
Review: Tarkvosky's "Solaris" takes on so many deep seated philosophical questions at once that by the end of the film, the casual viewer may feel overwhelmed. It is a madness trip, an intellectual exercise, a visual piece, absurdism, a dramatic catharsis and an uncomfortable probing of the human self all at once. This is not "shut off your mind" stuff. The long and short of it: three scientists visit Solaris, a planet which seems to be an alternate reality, and suffer the consequences. Chris (really the main focus of the film), a scientist, is warned repeatedly by a colleague who suffered a mental breakdown on the station about how dangerous it is, but pays no heed. One commits suicide before the unfortunate Chris arrives. Hari, his wife who committed suicide when he left her years ago, appears and despite Chris' initial attempt to blast her in the space, is seemingly there to stay. Chris is warned by both men (a ruthless scientist and a drunk) that he is being deceived, and that she is not his real wife, but Hari seems to have feelings which are genuinely human despite being an illusion. There are awful scenes in which she splits apart, re-emerges painfully back into 'life', etc. All the while Chris engages in philosophical discussions about the worthy or unworthy nature of mankind, quoting Tolstoy and, of course, Dostoevsky. Some of it is drop dead funny, perhaps without intending to be: an air of absurdity overshadows everything taking place. When the two men on the ship with him decide that itss time Chris gave up the ghost and destroy Hari, he returns home and still seems to be a million miles away. We are not sure if he is sane in the last scene, which is frighteningly reminiscent. He is in slow motion, behaving like a man high on LSD. Will he ever regain his sanity? Was a part, at least, of Hari real? When she viewed his home videos with the 'original' Hari (among the scariest sequences in the film), why did she respond as if she knew? Tarkovsky skillfully keeps us dangling from his parapet. This is a kickass, disturbing movie.