Rating: 
Summary: MASTERPIECE
Review: AVOID THE REMAKE BUT SEE THE ORIGINAL.
Rating:
Summary: Rent this unless you know you're ready for it
Review: First of all, this 2-disc Criterion "special edition" of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 film _Solaris_ is clearly intended to capitalize on Steven Soderbergh's American remake. I'm not sure whether either will succeed; Soderbergh's version is an art film masquerading as a Christmas movie, and I think it's fair to say that those who can't stand the original won't much like the remake.Tarkovsky's _Solaris_ has suffered unfairly from facile comparisons with Kubrick's _2001: A Space Odyssey_. The two films are deeply opposed in both tone and content, though on the most superficial level, the pace of both films makes them appear rather similar. That said, Tarkovsky's elliptical, nostalgic work stands very well on its own. The first forty-five minutes of _Solaris_ are slow going, even by Tarkovsky's glacial standards. (They're also profoundly important to subsequent action, so don't even try to skip them.) Once the action shifts to the mysterious space station, the story quickly sinks its hooks into you and doesn't let go for an instant, up to its mysterious and unsettling conclusion. Criterion's video and audio transfers are dependably high-quality, though in this case far from flawless. The extras on Disc 2 consist mostly of dull interviews with cast and crew (though, in a notable omission, there is no interview with Tarkovsky himself). But the audio commentary on Disc 1 with film scholars Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie is absolutely indispensible (at least, if you're into this sort of academic analysis). As is usually the case with Criterion, the extras are directed chiefly at hard-core film buffs and scholars. Some critics have noted that _Solaris_ is Tarkovsky's most commercial film, although in terms of his oeuvre that term is strictly relative. It's still plenty strange, and if you haven't been properly initiated into Tarkovsky's work, this film is as frustrating and impenetrable as anything he directed (except for his last, most accessible film, _The Sacrifice_). If you're ready for _Solaris_, it's a deeply moving experience. If not, stay away until you know you are.
Rating: 
Summary: The Emperor's New Clothes
Review: I saw this movie in the theatre in the late 70's or early 80's when I was a teenager. I went with a group of friends. Why someone picked this movie to see I have no idea. No one read the book or knew anything much about it. No one liked it. No one had any idea what was going on. This is one of those movies that people pretend to like because they think it is a sign of intelligence to make sense of the incomprehensible. Nothing happens. I couldn't believe it when I heard someone was wasting money on a remake. I would rather see Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein remade before this.
Rating:
Summary: Tarkovsky's interpretation of Stanislaw Lem's Solaris
Review: Solaris is a Soviet film version of Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem's story of the same name. Long, thoughtful and atmospheric like most Tarkovsky films, Solaris slowly meanders through its complex story. The plot is fairly straightforward science fiction. There is a space station orbiting a planet (Solaris) whose crew may have gone mad and a psychiatrist is sent to investigate. What he discovers is that an illusion of his wife, who had committed suicide years before, is on the space station as the creation of the entity that caused the crew to go mad and destroy itself. Solaris becomes an introspective study of personal guilt, reflection and musings. It is to Tarkovsky's credit that the focus on human beings keeps the film rather than hardware. This is an engrossing, moody and atmospheric film. It demands of the viewer patience and intelligence. For western audiences accustomed to light shows and adventure in their SF Solaris may disappoint. Tarkovsky was a serious intellectual in the best sense of the word and demanded the same from his audiences. An great film by possibly the greatest director Russia (or the world) has ever produced. Highly recommended to those with long attention spans.
Rating:
Summary: Second best film by the best Russian director .
Review: Second best after " Stalker ", by the same director . Based on the sci-fi scicological novel by Stanislav Lem . But developed to a higher level by Andrey Tarkovsky , translated to a different lagvige of sinematography .
There is a planet , covered by alife ocean. We think - it is intellegent , but we don't know for shure . We build a research lab there to find out... and gess what - we did . The ocean takes your deep thout , your dippest lost and pain...and bring it back to you ALIVE...
Get ready for very intellegent scicological drama of making a choice...what would you do ?! You lost someone in your past . Someone , you still love... and many years later , on a strange planet she comes back . Is she real or a clone...
Rating: 
Summary: Not exactly by the book
Review: If you read the book by Stanislaw Lem prior to watching this movie, you will notice some key differences. This is primarily to ease the audience into the film and to connect with the audience more. First, in the book, Kelvin is in flight for the Solaris space station. A lot of the time spent at the station is spent reviewing books. Here, the film starts in Russia as Kelvin is preparing for his flight. He is visited by the pilot Burton concerning Solaris whereas in the book, Kelvin simply reads about it. The time spent in Russia does not detract from the message of the film, and the audience does understand a bit more of what is happening. Second, there are cultural references that are more understandable to a Russian audience than an American one. Two of which are references to Dostovyevsky and Tolstoy. Given that this is a Russian film, it makes since that the director would use these references. The film is in Russian with English subtitles. The cinematography will remind you of "2001," but some of the picture is cut out. Rather than lose some of the subtitles, the producers of this film place a dark band across the bottom to act as a backdrop for the subtitles. This is helpful, and I don't think the audience loses anything important. Silence fills a lot of this film as we must enjoy the view and take in the feel of the movie. This may tax the less patient. I would recommend science-fiction fans to watch this.
Rating:
Summary: a once banned russian film comes out in full...
Review: the very first sci-fi film i ever saw was kubrick's awsome 2001. i was 4, my parents went to vegas for new years w/ my 10 year old sister and i and didn't quite know what to do with us in the late hours while they gambled and rang in the new year. at ceaser's palace or sahara (i can't remember which, for a while i thought we lived in both...)there was a cinema, well... a viewing room accually. it held about 50 people and the screen was a standard 50 mm screen. my parents gave my sister the key and told us to go back upstairs after the film. we had no idea what we were getting into or what had started right then and there as a life long love. my sister fell asleep before the first rotation of the space station, and i was mesmerised! i had not heard about solaris until my teens when there was an announcement that the local art-house theatre (the same one that showed classic films and midnight theatre) was to show the first american showing of the complete version of the "russian 2001". with b/w cut ins from once lost reels, this 2 1/2 hour film would send me back in time. once again i was engrossed. the cinematography was exemplary for it's time and orgin, the story line was deep and intellectual, and the development of character and insight into the psychie of humanism was wonderful. clark told our side of the development of the cold war and it's underlying effects on our american egos, lem showed us the effects it was having on our russian brothers. he showed us not only the instability of russian futurism, but the declining individualism that eventually brought down the wall. i hear that soderbergh and cameron plan to remake solaris. well, kudos to them if they can do this and still keep the very important russian "flavour" (i don't know what else to call it)that makes this beautiful film what it is - the best damn russian sci-fi EVER.
Rating:
Summary: Science Fiction for Adults
Review: Arthur McVarish suffers from a few confusions. Stanislaw Lem is not a Russian author. He is, in fact, Polish. What Mr. McVarish "expects" from a book he's never read is beside the point. The triteness of most Science Fiction films -- yes, even the revered Kubrick 2001 -- makes them difficult for an adult to watch. Some eye candy spaceships or technological wizardry stapled awkwardly to a sub-grade Romance or Boys Own plot. Tarkovsky's film is, yes, slow in places. And -- shock horror -- some of it takes place far away from any spaceships. Even worse, the hero drives at one point in a car! And it doesn't even float! Tarkovsky does for Science Fiction film what Lem did for the SF novel. He made it grow the hell up. Tarkovsky doesn't really care about galaxies or the wattage of the laser gun (neither does Lem, who has steam engines powering his spaceships in one series of short stories.) He puts men on an orbiting platform, and lets them be men. Not Kubrick's automatons. Mr. McVarish's judgements of the aesthetic and technical merits of this film are also fundamentally unsound. It is a beautiful film.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Great Science Fiction...Not profound philosophy...
Review: Andrei Tarkovsky is averred to have said "great films should not be entertaining." In this sci-fi, cult-epic version of SOLARIS it may be said the Russian director has eminently succeeded making a film that is NOT entertaining. The question then presents: is it a work of art? Cinematically or philosophically...In my estimate in the former category...aesthetically and technically, NO. Its photographic execution; lighting; art work and general production values are PEDESTRIAN.Stanley Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey,will remain landmark film both as art and science fiction even if you do not follow--or accept--his metaphysical/mystical speculations on the nature of Man and cosmic evolution.
[Kubrick's classic BEYOND THE INFINITE psychedelia is "lifted" by Tarkovsky--in tribute;parody or not so sly...or effective..."car ride" to the space port with "tunnel lighting"; ominous almost choral keening. Subsequent overwrought time lapse photography of the confluence of freeway/highway(get it!)routes/roots are also intended to recall and foreshadow the "life force" filaments of SOLARIS as well as the micro-Cosmic "solarium" the director so emphatically wants his psychiatrist hero's backyard pond to BE...] Philosophically regarding the film: PONDEROUS PACING doesn't make attempted explication of potentially illuminating ideas profound. Tarkovsky's cinematic (it isn't really a science fiction film) exploration of Platonic Idealism; Kantian phenomenology; and occasionally wearying "astral plane" theology of several well known New Age cults is often dramatically boring and feckless. Much of the film devolves into T-Group dialogue where the Western Tradition --and the Soviet Marxist aberration--is mocked by the principals including a Hari(Krishna?)clone conjured... a la FORBIDDEN PLANET... by the Solarian force field/INTELLIGENCE. It is said that DON QUIXOTE is among novelist Stanislaw Lem's formative literary influences. None the less, quoting Sancho Panza; Dostoyevsky; Tolstoy; Goethe's Faust--while displaying a bust of SOCRATES--in a grocery list litany is hardly effective dramatic technique nor particularly convincing intellectually. Granted many scenes between Kelvin and his subconsciously "reincarnated wife" are powerful. But Tarkovsky squanders their emotional jolt by making them predictable(even the Liquid Oxygen poisoning).Then he totally blows this fundamental appeal to humanity by evoking Goethe's "gnostic illumination"of THE MOTHERS as Cosmic "anchors" in non-LOGOScentric read:Judao-Christian God)chaos. The fact he throws in "AT-onement with The Father" in closing sequence clarifies nothing other than suggest to informed viewers that perhaps Tarkovsky really doesn't value narrative or philosophical integrity and is pitching the "kitchen sink" with the concept The UNIVERSE IS A VAST (Logos-less)SOLARIUM with little Man Being sucked (because "there is no gravity") down the drain if he isn't careful...Or LIVE in SHAME as one of the dizzy Solarians profoundly wails in capitulation. To what? POST MODERN self-indulgence? This version of SOLARIS cinematically incarnates
this and Tarkovsky knew it when he disavowed the film. Hopefully the upcoming Steven Soderbergh version of SOLARIS does what this film fails to do: entertain while challenging. In my estimate, Andrei Tarkovsky's film is pedantic curiosity. This is my third effort in assessing what seems to some viewers to be a film of seminal importance. Again--though I rate the effort 3 stars--I dispute with those who are "overwhelmed" by the director's epic intentions; as well as maintaining well founded, mature criticism of SOLARIS ultimate failure as high level entertainment or art...
Rating:
Summary: Plunged Into the Ground of Being
Review: One would be well-advised to read Lem's novel "Solaris" prior to viewing the movie. Why do I suggest this? The book uses narrative as a means of portraying the psyche of the protagonist,
Chris Kelvin, as he encounters Solaris. The movie relies on
symbolism and dialogue to connote the same details. The latter is problematic and obliges the viewer to exert a great deal of attention and INTELLECTUAL effort in order to follow the movie. Now
in order to fully immerse yourself in this movie, it is best to be able to let go of your intellect so that you can EXPERIENCE the movie. For those not compelled to read the novel, perhaps a brief structural summary of the movie will help. The opening scene finds psychologist Chris Kelvin at his parents' house. In a few days, he will leave earth to explore the planet Solaris, which some scientists believe is an intelligent life-form. His mission
will be to determine whether research- Solaristics- on the planet should continue. A certain pilot Burton, who once did a flight over Solaris, comes to visit Kelvin befor the latter parts for Solaris. Burton claims that Solaris is an intelligent life form and that he experienced the planet recreating human life forms.
Burton's account was dismissed by most scientists as nothing but a hallucination and Kelvin, a sort of sceptical positivist, seems to think the same. Upon his arrival to Solaris, Kelvin finds that his former friend and mentor Gibrarian has recently committed suicide. The other
two scientists on the station- Snow and Sartorius- who have been trying to make "contact" with the planet- are acting peculiarly and allude to strange recent phenomena. Soon after arriving
Kelvin has his own encounter with this phenomenon: an exact replica of an ex-girlriend, Hari, who had committed sucided many years earlier( a sucide Kelvin could have prevented) appears. The other scientists also have been visited by beings who had either existed in reality or in their fantasies. In Kelvin's case he first tries to rid himself of Hari, but she reappears.
He then falls in love with her. I hope the above schema is of some help. The movie like the book
opens up questions about communicability, science and man. It poses the problem of the gulf between the individual subject and the world as object. The movie, perhaps because it goes beyond the purely intellectual, attempts to resolve this opposition
in a mystical vein. In particular the last 30-45 minutes are devoted to creating an experience that speaks not so much to the intellect as to the heart and spirit. I dont know how else to explain it. Tarkovsky does not ARGUE for us to experience the world mystically, this movie IS a mystical experience. Thomas
| 
