Solaris

Film

Science fiction

Solaris

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>4</span>/5
Rate this
 
0

Reviews

Add +

Release details

UK release:

1972

Duration:

167 mins

Users say

0
<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>0</span>/5

Average User Rating

3.6 / 5

Rating Breakdown

  • 5 star:6
  • 4 star:1
  • 3 star:1
  • 2 star:3
  • 1 star:0
LiveReviews|18
1 person listening
Nick

This version can't beat Tarkovsky's film. It is a nice movie, but can't compete with the artistical level and beauty. This review can't be serious. Or I wonder how much was it paid to have such propaganda?

Porl

It would have been very easy for Soderburgh to rehash Tarkovsky's film with a refresh of special effects because the original 1972 plot uses special effects (which now seem charmingly dated) such as the indoor rain scene or descriptions of scenes that would need special effects to depict accurately, such as the low pass over the surface of Solaris. The beauty of the 2002 film is that it relies on no special effects - it could straightforwardly be adapted into a stage play. Some viewers and critics are frustrated by the lack of reason or explanation in the film and are unsatisfied with not knowing for example, the identity of Gordon’s visitor or exactly why Rheya killed herself and ultimately not knowing why Kelvin made the choices he did. But too often viewers are pampered by modern science fiction films and given all the answers so that they can sit back and wait for characters to catch up. Soderburgh refuses the viewer this privilege right to the end. So we don’t get all of the answers. In this respect it is much closer to the writer Stanislaw Lem’s intention to depict something that “ … cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images�. Cliff Martinez’ soundtrack complements the film perfectly too - it lends the film suspense and mystery. However the ultimate compliment comes unintentionally from Lem himself - he said after the 2002 film’s release that the book is not a love story and was never intended to be so. But he also claims not to have seen Sodebergh’s film (which I find difficult to believe). It would have been so much easier for him to dismiss Soderburgh’s film as an irrelevant diversion.

Porl

It would have been very easy for Soderburgh to rehash Tarkovsky's film with a refresh of special effects because the original 1972 plot uses special effects (which now seem charmingly dated) such as the indoor rain scene or descriptions of scenes that would need special effects to depict accurately, such as the low pass over the surface of Solaris. The beauty of the 2002 film is that it relies on no special effects - it could straightforwardly be adapted into a stage play. Some viewers and critics are frustrated by the lack of reason or explanation in the film and are unsatisfied with not knowing for example, the identity of Gordon’s visitor or exactly why Rheya killed herself and ultimately not knowing why Kelvin made the choices he did. But too often viewers are pampered by modern science fiction films and given all the answers so that they can sit back and wait for characters to catch up. Soderburgh refuses the viewer this privilege right to the end. So we don’t get all of the answers. In this respect it is much closer to the writer Stanislaw Lem’s intention to depict something that “ … cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images�. Cliff Martinez’ soundtrack complements the film perfectly too - it lends the film suspense and mystery. However the ultimate compliment comes unintentionally from Lem himself - he said after the 2002 film’s release that the book is not a love story and was never intended to be so. But he also claims not to have seen Sodebergh’s film (which I find difficult to believe). It would have been so much easier for him to dismiss Soderburgh’s film as an irrelevant diversion.

Tarik Bahadir Kirtay

Andrei Tarkovsky tried to show human problems about humanbeing.I coudnt see the same thing in the new one.Even that it is good.Because i woulndt know Tarkovsky if i hadnt seen the new one.

Technoguy

Would not be worthy enough to tie the original's bot-laces.Lost the whole heart,soul and poetry.Boring and seemed longer.

Adriano

I actually found it too fast, compared to the original. The thing is, the plot's quite simple and "old", nothing special really. The atmosphere and "poetry" are what should save the film. The Tarkovsky version (the full one, not the abridged one) is brilliant in doing this. With a far better photography, and compelling acting, it manages to pass the test. The Soderbergh version is not bad, and it would be wrong to compare the two films. It's just another take, a more emotional one, and a much more accessible one, as well. But it has a "cheap" feel, it feels like it wants to simplify everything, as I said at the beginning, things just happen too fast. Which, I know, it's strange to say, since most people have found it slow (and I wouldn't advise them to watch the '72 version, of course...). Anyway, this last version isn't the superior one, of course, this is a "nice" film, the Tarkovsky film, in its long pauses, and with a "colder" approach (which increases the tension in the film), is the real poetic masterpiece among the two.

Rich

It seems to be one of the despairing signs of our times that contemporary motion pictures are generally viewed only in relation to their predecessors. It has become increasingly difficult to see beyond the intertextual implications of what has gone before and in my opinion this solely what undermines this film. On its own merit this film is great existential work and to reduce it to mere love story seems unfair. The atmosphere generated by the aesthetics in conjunction with the soundtrack is stunning. An underrated movie.

Rich

It seems to be one of the despairing signs of our times that contemporary motion pictures are generally viewed only in relation to their predecessors. It has become increasingly difficult to see beyond the intertextual implications of what has gone before and in my opinion this solely what undermines this film. On its own merit this film is great existential work and to reduce it to mere love story seems unfair. The atmosphere generated by the aesthetics in conjunction with the soundtrack is stunning. An underrated movie.

Rob

I can see where Robin Is coming from, but after a second (and third!) watch of the movie it has become one of my favorite sci-fi films. Its like an album that sounds crap on the first listen, and then grows on you like a fungus! To be honest I'm more into slow-moving thoughtful films rather than zombie massacres :)

Rob

I can see where Robin Is coming from, but after a second (and third!) watch of the movie it has become one of my favorite sci-fi films. Its like an album that sounds crap on the first listen, and then grows on you like a fungus! To be honest I'm more into slow-moving thoughtful films rather than zombie massacres :)

James M. Vereen

I honestly believe Soderburgh's picture is fantabolous. I like the fact that rather than mimicing the choices that Tarkovsky made, he Interpreted the book with a modern bent with visual references from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and The Shining (1980), and from Tarkovsky's Zerkalo (The Mirror). To compare it to a cult fav is tough but lets be fair this is one of the better angels of hollywood film making.

James M. Vereen

I honestly believe Soderburgh's picture is fantabolous. I like the fact that rather than mimicing the choices that Tarkovsky made, he Interpreted the book with a modern bent with visual references from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and The Shining (1980), and from Tarkovsky's Zerkalo (The Mirror). To compare it to a cult fav is tough but lets be fair this is one of the better angels of hollywood film making.

Alex

I hope that you realize that by writing something like that, you're only commenting on your own inability to grasp the full power of the original Tarkovsky's film. Soderbergh's Solaris is a weak and pathetic attempt at imitating that great masterpiece. Pseudo-philosophical, heavily Hollywood-ized, and completely idiotic, it completely misses the point of not only the movie, but even of the book. One may argue that Tarkovsky reinterpreted the original novel to fit his own view, and that Soderbergh was making his shi... movie from the book. But even the book is different in its philosophical sense. So, yes, if you want to watch a Hollywood movie about love in space, this is great. But please don't offend true art by labeling this as such.

Will P

I have not seen the original yet so it is unfair for me to judge, I do however agree with the Time Out reviewer solely on the basis of the remake and personally find its emotional understatement refreshing and quite moving.

Will P

I have not seen the original yet so it is unfair for me to judge, I do however agree with the Time Out reviewer solely on the basis of the remake and personally find its emotional understatement refreshing and quite moving.

idiophone

I absoutely agree. I knew there was more to this film than I got after my first viewing. Sure enough, the rewards of repeat viewings and analysis are rich indeed.

idiophone

I absoutely agree. I knew there was more to this film than I got after my first viewing. Sure enough, the rewards of repeat viewings and analysis are rich indeed.