There are a number of good things about this movie, but ultimately it felt to me like a lost opportunity. It raised provocative psychological issues but never carried me away or led me to anything like an epiphany. In the latter half, I was in fact a bit bored. It certainly isn't enthralling like Tarkovsky's version. Rheya's character is better developed, particularly her own psychological trauma in being a "creation" (Tarkovsky's Rheya was something of a naif in comparison). But what I missed from Tarkovsky's version is the sense of humor (this one is stiflingly earnest) and the evocative and poignant use of Bach chorales in the soundtrack. The soundtrack to this one is intriguing (a la Brian Eno, Ligeti, and Thomas Newman's scores for The Player and American Beauty), but I eventually found myself desperately longing for a cadence. Lacking the feeling of redemption communicated musically in Tarkovsky's version, this one had to rely on ham-handed statements of fact. And finally, I can't help remarking that neither Tarkovsky nor Soderbergh really convey the element of shame and sexual deviance that played such an important part in Lem's original. Both place the emphasis instead on guilt, which isn't quite the same thing, is it?
778 Reviews
Neither bored nor enthralled me
bilahn17 July 2006
I always find it interesting to approach a movie that has people so polarized - in this case "it was sooooo slow" vs. "uplifting and incredible." That seems to go for the critics as well. My reaction was neither.
I am predisposed to like this kind of science fiction - the low key and wonderful "Gattaca" comes to mind. I found the story very intriguing and atmospheric and it held my interest - at the same time I felt something was missing and it just wasn't as rich, complex and good as it should have been.
I am not sure why, I think the key for me is that I was not able to really get emotionally involved with the love story - and this is first and foremost a love story. I have trouble with most love stories, due to my own particular biases, so there has to be a lot there to really identify with it. I think the problem here was the casting and acting - it could have been a lot better. The woman playing Gordon was rather flat as well.
Also the script was a little too obvious.
All in all, an interesting film that I am glad I saw, but I can't really get worked up about it.
I am predisposed to like this kind of science fiction - the low key and wonderful "Gattaca" comes to mind. I found the story very intriguing and atmospheric and it held my interest - at the same time I felt something was missing and it just wasn't as rich, complex and good as it should have been.
I am not sure why, I think the key for me is that I was not able to really get emotionally involved with the love story - and this is first and foremost a love story. I have trouble with most love stories, due to my own particular biases, so there has to be a lot there to really identify with it. I think the problem here was the casting and acting - it could have been a lot better. The woman playing Gordon was rather flat as well.
Also the script was a little too obvious.
All in all, an interesting film that I am glad I saw, but I can't really get worked up about it.
Call It Something Else, Because It Ain't Solaris
Kevin_K3 June 2008
Having read the book before I saw this I though it was a huge disappointment. They completely missed the point of the story, which was philosophical rather than emotional. Basically, the movie took an awe-inspiring "what if" thought experiment - of finding a very advanced non-human intelligence (which, surprise surprise, doesn't have two arms, two legs, a body and a head) and the problems of trying to communicate with such a radically different being, especially when it doesn't seem interested in communication, and how we can relate to it with our own limited human experience, and squeezed out all the juicy intellectual bits. Solaris was supposed to be the real star of the story and the screenplay instead turned it into background wallpaper. All that was left then, was a sappy love story set in space. It is frustrating to think about the potential that was wasted. Mr. Soderbergh could have made a classic sci-fi film here, if only he'd made an honest attempt.
The funny thing is, if I hadn't read the book I would have liked the film, because it is well directed and has a nice atmospheric mood. There's nothing inherently wrong with love stories either. Just.. call it something other than Solaris, give the characters different names, don't do anything to remind me of the original story and I'd say it is a good movie. But as it is, it's an extreme disappointment.
The funny thing is, if I hadn't read the book I would have liked the film, because it is well directed and has a nice atmospheric mood. There's nothing inherently wrong with love stories either. Just.. call it something other than Solaris, give the characters different names, don't do anything to remind me of the original story and I'd say it is a good movie. But as it is, it's an extreme disappointment.
Intriguing mood piece
Buddy-518 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Since nobody had the wherewithal or wisdom to re-release `2001' in the actual year 2001, a remake of Andrei Tarkovsky's comparable `Solaris' in 2002 would seem the next best thing. Like those two earlier films, Steven Soderbergh's latest work is something of an `art' science fiction film, far more concerned with philosophy and theme than with action and suspense. This may make the film a tough slog for modern day audiences who have been conditioned to be jolted out of their seats every five minutes while watching films of this genre. But for the deeper thinkers among us, `Solaris' offers a fairly intriguing sci-fi vision of the afterlife, a sort of new religious paradigm for the twenty-first century.
George Clooney stars as Chris Kelvin, a successful psychiatrist whose mentally ill wife - ironically enough, given his profession - killed herself a few years back. Chris is commissioned to travel to a space station orbiting the planet Solaris after strange things begin happening to the crew aboard the ship. It turns out that dead loved ones have started appearing to the people there, leading a number of the crewmembers to descend into madness and, in the worst cases, even commit suicide. It's not long before Chris' own dead wife, Rheya, arrives on the scene, prompting him to question whether she is real, a replica created for an unknown reason by the forces of the mysterious planet, or merely a figment of his own troubled conscience and imagination. The film taps into that desire we all have of somehow being miraculously reunited with a deceased love one. We can't help but be moved by Chris' intense desire to believe that all that is happening is real and that life with this person could indeed start back up where it left off. Clooney does a beautiful job conveying the inner struggle between the grieving husband who wants to reconnect emotionally with this strangely familiar woman whom he had thought forever lost to him and the rationalistic scientist who suspects that both she and their relationship are illusory and ephemeral. The film itself may be glacially paced, but the tension created by the situation pulls us through. Natascha McElhone brings an ethereal beauty to the role of the dead wife, and we are moved by her own confusion as to whether she is really this woman Rheya or merely some fabrication usurping the memories and feelings of someone long gone from the scene. Clooney and McElhone generate a strong romantic chemistry between them, both in the scenes aboard the ship and in the manifold flashbacks the storytellers use to reveal their relationship back on Earth. Viola Davis gives an intense performance as Helen Gordon, the rationalist of the group who tries to convince Chris that he must overcome his feelings and destroy this facsimile of Rheya or risk bringing potential destruction to the people back home.
`Solaris' has been shot in the widest screen ratio I have seen in years. It almost feels like one of those old Cinerama pictures from the 1950's and 1960's, which is surprising actually, given the fact that, for all its outer space trappings, the film is really an intimate, personal drama in quality and scale (if you rent this on video, do NOT opt for the `full screen' treatment; rather, make sure it is in the letterboxed format). Also, the set design and special effects are actually rather understated for a modern science fiction film as is everything about `Solaris' in fact. Like `2001,' `Solaris' is filled with images and concepts whose significance and meaning aren't always readily apparent or easily spelled out for the audience. Just be forewarned that the film is more along the lines of a tone poem than a rip-roaring action adventure tale.
`Solaris' isn't a great film and I can certainly see why many people, expecting something different, might find themselves becoming restive and bored by it. For me, the film managed to seep under my skin and kept me interested most of the time. This is definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but for those with patience and an appreciation for something a little different, `Solaris' has its share of rewards.
George Clooney stars as Chris Kelvin, a successful psychiatrist whose mentally ill wife - ironically enough, given his profession - killed herself a few years back. Chris is commissioned to travel to a space station orbiting the planet Solaris after strange things begin happening to the crew aboard the ship. It turns out that dead loved ones have started appearing to the people there, leading a number of the crewmembers to descend into madness and, in the worst cases, even commit suicide. It's not long before Chris' own dead wife, Rheya, arrives on the scene, prompting him to question whether she is real, a replica created for an unknown reason by the forces of the mysterious planet, or merely a figment of his own troubled conscience and imagination. The film taps into that desire we all have of somehow being miraculously reunited with a deceased love one. We can't help but be moved by Chris' intense desire to believe that all that is happening is real and that life with this person could indeed start back up where it left off. Clooney does a beautiful job conveying the inner struggle between the grieving husband who wants to reconnect emotionally with this strangely familiar woman whom he had thought forever lost to him and the rationalistic scientist who suspects that both she and their relationship are illusory and ephemeral. The film itself may be glacially paced, but the tension created by the situation pulls us through. Natascha McElhone brings an ethereal beauty to the role of the dead wife, and we are moved by her own confusion as to whether she is really this woman Rheya or merely some fabrication usurping the memories and feelings of someone long gone from the scene. Clooney and McElhone generate a strong romantic chemistry between them, both in the scenes aboard the ship and in the manifold flashbacks the storytellers use to reveal their relationship back on Earth. Viola Davis gives an intense performance as Helen Gordon, the rationalist of the group who tries to convince Chris that he must overcome his feelings and destroy this facsimile of Rheya or risk bringing potential destruction to the people back home.
`Solaris' has been shot in the widest screen ratio I have seen in years. It almost feels like one of those old Cinerama pictures from the 1950's and 1960's, which is surprising actually, given the fact that, for all its outer space trappings, the film is really an intimate, personal drama in quality and scale (if you rent this on video, do NOT opt for the `full screen' treatment; rather, make sure it is in the letterboxed format). Also, the set design and special effects are actually rather understated for a modern science fiction film as is everything about `Solaris' in fact. Like `2001,' `Solaris' is filled with images and concepts whose significance and meaning aren't always readily apparent or easily spelled out for the audience. Just be forewarned that the film is more along the lines of a tone poem than a rip-roaring action adventure tale.
`Solaris' isn't a great film and I can certainly see why many people, expecting something different, might find themselves becoming restive and bored by it. For me, the film managed to seep under my skin and kept me interested most of the time. This is definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but for those with patience and an appreciation for something a little different, `Solaris' has its share of rewards.
A cafe house/minimalist version of Stanislaw Lem's story
Maciste_Brother18 November 2003
SOLARIS, directed by Steven Soderbergh, and starring George Clooney, is one of those pointless remakes Hollywood has been making these past decades that adds almost nothing to the original classic. The movie itself is good. Not great or even close to being bad or a misfire, just good. Soderbergh basically boiled down the complex and epic story, as seen in the Russian film, into a simple MINIMALISTIC love story. Which made me wonder why did they even bother remaking the movie if all the science-fiction and metaphysical elements were thrown out? The story could have easily taken place entirely on earth. And instead of Solaris, the story could have been set in a mystical setting, like a haunted castle or an ancient archeological find. If you're going to set in space, might as well give the outer space aspect some sort of meaning to it. The minimalistic approach is interesting but the result is pointless. Having Rheya come back from the dead, sort of speaking, and her problems adjusting to her new reality reminded me a lot of the replicants' plight in BLADE RUNNER, which is what I think Soderbergh tried to do here. Who's reality is it?
My only criticism about the movie is the use of dreams and flashbacks. In the film, the Solaris planet takes a person's main dream while they're sleeping (there's even silly close-up shots of Clooney's cranium). These dreams are seen as "flashback" in the movie. Dreams are rarely that linear. One doesn't dream about one specific thing or person (in this case Kelvin dreaming about Rheya) all the time. And dreams are impressions of reality. So when Rheya comes back, looking exactly like Kelvin's wife, for me this points out to an obvious weakness in the whole concept of the Solaris planet going into a person's mind and grabbing their version of reality. If this was the case, the reincarnated Rheya should have looked slightly different that the Rheya on earth. Oddly enough, the way Soderbergh approached the idea of a planet reincarnating a long lost loved one into flesh reminded me of the SPACE 1999 episode, A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, more than the Tarkovsky movie. But I find that the SPACE 1999 episode, even with all its faults, was more epic and poignant than Soderbergh's version of the Stanislaw Lem's story. There's just something anal retentive about Soderbergh's direction which prevents any kind of emotions to seep to the surface.
Unlike most people though, I wasn't bored at all with SOLARIS. In fact, movies like ARMAGEDDON, THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK 2 or THE CORE were a thousand times more boring than this flick. It's just that the film's outcome is so predictable and that the script and filmmaker did nothing to alleviate this predictability that the pointlessness of the whole project comes to the fore. Good beginning. Predictable and flat ending.
And then there's another odd point about Soderbergh's SOLARIS: where did the money go? The film reportedly cost $80 to $100 million to make. The cast is tiny (four or five actors). There are very few special effects and the sets look like your standard spaceship sets you see on a TV show like STAR TREK VOYAGER. Why spend that huge amount of money on a simple, predictable love story? The film should have cost $30 to $40 million, not $100.
I love the Russian film a lot. But I can't say that Soderbergh create a disaster here or disservice to the Russian version or the book. It is a typically Soderbergh flick, which, on this aspect alone, sets it apart from the Russian movie. And like I've said, the film by itself is good. But in the end, it looks more like an episode of SPACE 1999 or THE TWILIGHT ZONE than a real movie.
My only criticism about the movie is the use of dreams and flashbacks. In the film, the Solaris planet takes a person's main dream while they're sleeping (there's even silly close-up shots of Clooney's cranium). These dreams are seen as "flashback" in the movie. Dreams are rarely that linear. One doesn't dream about one specific thing or person (in this case Kelvin dreaming about Rheya) all the time. And dreams are impressions of reality. So when Rheya comes back, looking exactly like Kelvin's wife, for me this points out to an obvious weakness in the whole concept of the Solaris planet going into a person's mind and grabbing their version of reality. If this was the case, the reincarnated Rheya should have looked slightly different that the Rheya on earth. Oddly enough, the way Soderbergh approached the idea of a planet reincarnating a long lost loved one into flesh reminded me of the SPACE 1999 episode, A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, more than the Tarkovsky movie. But I find that the SPACE 1999 episode, even with all its faults, was more epic and poignant than Soderbergh's version of the Stanislaw Lem's story. There's just something anal retentive about Soderbergh's direction which prevents any kind of emotions to seep to the surface.
Unlike most people though, I wasn't bored at all with SOLARIS. In fact, movies like ARMAGEDDON, THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK 2 or THE CORE were a thousand times more boring than this flick. It's just that the film's outcome is so predictable and that the script and filmmaker did nothing to alleviate this predictability that the pointlessness of the whole project comes to the fore. Good beginning. Predictable and flat ending.
And then there's another odd point about Soderbergh's SOLARIS: where did the money go? The film reportedly cost $80 to $100 million to make. The cast is tiny (four or five actors). There are very few special effects and the sets look like your standard spaceship sets you see on a TV show like STAR TREK VOYAGER. Why spend that huge amount of money on a simple, predictable love story? The film should have cost $30 to $40 million, not $100.
I love the Russian film a lot. But I can't say that Soderbergh create a disaster here or disservice to the Russian version or the book. It is a typically Soderbergh flick, which, on this aspect alone, sets it apart from the Russian movie. And like I've said, the film by itself is good. But in the end, it looks more like an episode of SPACE 1999 or THE TWILIGHT ZONE than a real movie.
An interesting statement about the inability to let go
mentalcritic18 November 2004
As a science fiction film, Solaris follows the same rule as the best of the genre, namely that it isn't the creatures or technology that makes the viewers want to watch, it is the human drama. Which is just as well, because the film itself is slower than the proverbial wet week, in spite of being less than a hundred minutes in length. Nonetheless, I will be very interested to see future projects from Steven Soderbergh.
The plot revolves around a psychologist who is suffering deep emotional problems, which mainly seem to revolve around the suicide of his wife. So when he is floating aimlessly around a spaceship that orbits the titular planet, apparitions of his wife begin appearing. From what I am able to discern, an alien intelligence is trying to take over the ship's crew, in the hope that the ship will return to Earth and take them with it. Of course, the crew have other ideas.
In essence, it sounds a lot like the basic plot for Alien, minus the violence. Alien has a degree of violence, most of which is implied, and so too does Solaris. The difference here is that the violence is not essential to the plot. In fact, aside from a couple of corpses, you never really get to see any. Instead, we are given a good deal of exposition regarding the doctor's feelings regarding his wife and what he would do to have her back in any shape or form. When the Solaris alien appears in his cabin, it tells him everything he wants to hear, and appears exactly as he desires.
The big question posed by the film is whether we are the sum of how we, and more importantly other people, remember us, or whether there's more that defines our reality. Having struggled with other people's wrong impressions of me for most of my life, I have often pondered this question myself. When the apparition-clone of Rheya is suddenly deciding that it would be best for her and Chris if she no longer existed in this form, she asks simply if she has simply been slapped together from Chris' memories or desires. Nobody ever knows all there is to know about another person, and that's what makes the surrealism of the story so compelling.
I gave Solaris a seven out of ten. It was slow, and it could have been at least ten minutes longer, but it works as a nice little piece of thinking entertainment. Give it a once over, and you might be pleasantly surprised.
The plot revolves around a psychologist who is suffering deep emotional problems, which mainly seem to revolve around the suicide of his wife. So when he is floating aimlessly around a spaceship that orbits the titular planet, apparitions of his wife begin appearing. From what I am able to discern, an alien intelligence is trying to take over the ship's crew, in the hope that the ship will return to Earth and take them with it. Of course, the crew have other ideas.
In essence, it sounds a lot like the basic plot for Alien, minus the violence. Alien has a degree of violence, most of which is implied, and so too does Solaris. The difference here is that the violence is not essential to the plot. In fact, aside from a couple of corpses, you never really get to see any. Instead, we are given a good deal of exposition regarding the doctor's feelings regarding his wife and what he would do to have her back in any shape or form. When the Solaris alien appears in his cabin, it tells him everything he wants to hear, and appears exactly as he desires.
The big question posed by the film is whether we are the sum of how we, and more importantly other people, remember us, or whether there's more that defines our reality. Having struggled with other people's wrong impressions of me for most of my life, I have often pondered this question myself. When the apparition-clone of Rheya is suddenly deciding that it would be best for her and Chris if she no longer existed in this form, she asks simply if she has simply been slapped together from Chris' memories or desires. Nobody ever knows all there is to know about another person, and that's what makes the surrealism of the story so compelling.
I gave Solaris a seven out of ten. It was slow, and it could have been at least ten minutes longer, but it works as a nice little piece of thinking entertainment. Give it a once over, and you might be pleasantly surprised.
"We're a mathematical probability, and that's all."
classicsoncall6 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. This movie was a Top #250 film on IMDb in 2015, and now registers a '6.2' rating as I write this. Funny what a difference a couple of years make with the inclusion of additional visitors to the title.
Before watching this picture I had no knowledge of the novel by Stanislaw Lem or the original Russian movie based on it. So without contaminating my review with the perspectives of those two works, what I thought started out as a pretty good sci-fi mystery turned into an illogical love story aboard a space station. I thought there were all kinds of problems here, principally starting with the main character, Chris Kelvin (George Clooney). He was introduced as an intellectual and level headed psychiatrist who was invited to Solaris because of unexplained occurrences that were driving the scientists on board insane. Fair enough, but when he himself experiences the impossible, he abruptly turns off his brain in order to resume a failed relationship with the woman who was his wife (Natascha McElhone) on Earth. Why? How does that even make sense?
There's also inconsistency with the character of Rheya. The 'first' Rheya who appears on Solaris has memories of her past with Kelvin, but the 'second' Rheya' doesn't. Until she does again when flashes of life on Earth intrude on her memory. I'm really bothered by internal consistencies in a story, and the two I just mentioned were big time ones.
What I really like about well written sci-fi flicks though, is the scientific gobbledy-gook that writers come up with in service to a story. You could have blown me away with that description of the Higgs device - a high energy proton accelerator with a matter phase modulator, which by adjusting the tuning frequency, you could get an enhancement of Higgs anti-bosons at ninety gigahertz, and even better, an almost pure beam at a hundred sixty gigahertz.
See, if I were writing the story, Kelvin could have saved himself a lot of trouble by cranking up the Higgs to a full one eighty, thereby reversing the mass exponentiality of the Solaris gravitational field. Then, by switching to decoupled internal power, he could have calibrated the external high-grain antenna and set a course back to Earth, one that wouldn't have jeopardized the possibility of bringing an alien life force back with him. If he wanted to see Rheya again, he could have depressurized the spin turbines on the Athena, settled back with a brandy, and made love to his heart's content. I guess the simplest explanation is just too obvious.
Before watching this picture I had no knowledge of the novel by Stanislaw Lem or the original Russian movie based on it. So without contaminating my review with the perspectives of those two works, what I thought started out as a pretty good sci-fi mystery turned into an illogical love story aboard a space station. I thought there were all kinds of problems here, principally starting with the main character, Chris Kelvin (George Clooney). He was introduced as an intellectual and level headed psychiatrist who was invited to Solaris because of unexplained occurrences that were driving the scientists on board insane. Fair enough, but when he himself experiences the impossible, he abruptly turns off his brain in order to resume a failed relationship with the woman who was his wife (Natascha McElhone) on Earth. Why? How does that even make sense?
There's also inconsistency with the character of Rheya. The 'first' Rheya who appears on Solaris has memories of her past with Kelvin, but the 'second' Rheya' doesn't. Until she does again when flashes of life on Earth intrude on her memory. I'm really bothered by internal consistencies in a story, and the two I just mentioned were big time ones.
What I really like about well written sci-fi flicks though, is the scientific gobbledy-gook that writers come up with in service to a story. You could have blown me away with that description of the Higgs device - a high energy proton accelerator with a matter phase modulator, which by adjusting the tuning frequency, you could get an enhancement of Higgs anti-bosons at ninety gigahertz, and even better, an almost pure beam at a hundred sixty gigahertz.
See, if I were writing the story, Kelvin could have saved himself a lot of trouble by cranking up the Higgs to a full one eighty, thereby reversing the mass exponentiality of the Solaris gravitational field. Then, by switching to decoupled internal power, he could have calibrated the external high-grain antenna and set a course back to Earth, one that wouldn't have jeopardized the possibility of bringing an alien life force back with him. If he wanted to see Rheya again, he could have depressurized the spin turbines on the Athena, settled back with a brandy, and made love to his heart's content. I guess the simplest explanation is just too obvious.
Eternity has just gotten a new name.
ailinon7 February 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Reading the reviews of this movie, I cannot help but recall a short comedy clip which I saw somewhere. It featured a modern art gallery, full of well-dressed high-class people, walking around and commenting on various wacky paintings, until the camera pans over to several elderly men surrounding another example of art on another wall. They point at it, comment how surrealistic it is, how the author managed to capture this and that, how perfect and how brilliant it is - until the "painting" begins moving, and drives off, it being just a piece of a soft drink advert pinned to the side of a truck that was parked outside a gallery window.
"Deliberately slow-paced"? I don't mind slow-paced movies, not at all, but watching minute after minute of slow walking and talking about nothing in particular while the important issues remain completely unmentioned, is a bit too much. "Brilliant in its meaning"? _What_ meaning, excuse me? I cannot find any possible interesting explanation of its ending, really - the only two meanings I can see is one horribly shallow, cheap sappy excuse for a romantic sacrifice dressed in an old "meaning of humanity" robe, or a big twist beyond any possible reasoning. The former being surprisingly more likely.
** SPOILERS ** - my quick overview of what, in my opinion, went wrong in the movie.
First of all, who in their right mind sends a single civilian to a space station, when previously a military task force failed in there?
Next, suppose your deceased beloved one materializes next to you. Would your first impulse be to chat a bit and then simply kill that person again (as they're not real anyway), then watch them reappear, and then become emotionally attached to them again? Sounds weird, doesn't it? But that's what Clooney does in there.
This only gets worse in the ending. Clooney sees a vision of his own "clone" (cloone?:) on Earth, and decides to stay on the crash-coursed station. Why? For the sake of his dead wife that wasn't even there? Come on. But if it is so, what does this "Clooney-clone on Earth" stuff mean? It just doesn't make sense at all. The only thing that comes to my mind is "we are all clones created by someone", but I refuse to believe in such a banal idea, which actually doesn't fit in that moment anyway.
** END OF SPOILERS **
So what point the movie is trying to make, remains a mystery to me. "We live only for the ones we love, even when they're dead"? Please. "We only exist when someone remembers us"? Not explored enough. "Everything is just an illusion"?? Puh-leeease...!!
In a nutshell, the biggest problem with this movie was its pride. It presents itself like a piece of deep, meaningful art, giving time to think, to absorb, to conclude... but there is nothing to think of. The message is shallow and undecided, jumping from Harlequin romance to weary existence questions, like a hamburger served on a silver plate. There is nothing new in this movie, except exceptional boredom. It failed as a "cerebral movie", it failed as a SF, it failed as a romance. I'm sorry, but it is simply a bad movie defended only by an old "you don't like it because you don't understand it!" line. Yeah, been there, done that. 2/10.
"Deliberately slow-paced"? I don't mind slow-paced movies, not at all, but watching minute after minute of slow walking and talking about nothing in particular while the important issues remain completely unmentioned, is a bit too much. "Brilliant in its meaning"? _What_ meaning, excuse me? I cannot find any possible interesting explanation of its ending, really - the only two meanings I can see is one horribly shallow, cheap sappy excuse for a romantic sacrifice dressed in an old "meaning of humanity" robe, or a big twist beyond any possible reasoning. The former being surprisingly more likely.
** SPOILERS ** - my quick overview of what, in my opinion, went wrong in the movie.
First of all, who in their right mind sends a single civilian to a space station, when previously a military task force failed in there?
Next, suppose your deceased beloved one materializes next to you. Would your first impulse be to chat a bit and then simply kill that person again (as they're not real anyway), then watch them reappear, and then become emotionally attached to them again? Sounds weird, doesn't it? But that's what Clooney does in there.
This only gets worse in the ending. Clooney sees a vision of his own "clone" (cloone?:) on Earth, and decides to stay on the crash-coursed station. Why? For the sake of his dead wife that wasn't even there? Come on. But if it is so, what does this "Clooney-clone on Earth" stuff mean? It just doesn't make sense at all. The only thing that comes to my mind is "we are all clones created by someone", but I refuse to believe in such a banal idea, which actually doesn't fit in that moment anyway.
** END OF SPOILERS **
So what point the movie is trying to make, remains a mystery to me. "We live only for the ones we love, even when they're dead"? Please. "We only exist when someone remembers us"? Not explored enough. "Everything is just an illusion"?? Puh-leeease...!!
In a nutshell, the biggest problem with this movie was its pride. It presents itself like a piece of deep, meaningful art, giving time to think, to absorb, to conclude... but there is nothing to think of. The message is shallow and undecided, jumping from Harlequin romance to weary existence questions, like a hamburger served on a silver plate. There is nothing new in this movie, except exceptional boredom. It failed as a "cerebral movie", it failed as a SF, it failed as a romance. I'm sorry, but it is simply a bad movie defended only by an old "you don't like it because you don't understand it!" line. Yeah, been there, done that. 2/10.
Absorbing, haunting and gorgeous.
david-winborn13 May 2006
Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick decided to make the 'proverbial good sci-fi movie' when they jointly created the film and novel 2001: A Space Odyssey. There have been few comparably good sci-fi films since. Solaris is, however, one of them.
Whilst the Russian original is an epic and demanding film, Soderbergh's work should not be considered a remake. The director himself considers it his own interpretation of the book, quite apart from the earlier film. Because of this, the two should not be compared.
If you hated Alien 3 because it didn't have any guns or 2001 because the ending was confusing, do not waste your time with Solaris. It is not for you.
Conceptually, the story is standard psychological sci-fi fare, with simple but effective theological and philosophical themes. In this respect it breaks little or no new ground over the Tarkovsky predecessor. It has elements of romance, thriller, and drama, all necessarily set in sci-fi land, as the setting is integral to the storytelling.
Visually, the Solaris future is a conservative, believable vision, reminiscent in look to that of Gatacca. Solaris space is a minimal, beautiful place to be. Not dirty and used like the celebrated Alien 'space trucker' look, Solaris vessels are gleaming, intricate and stylish, but seem to have been designed by engineers rather than artists, such is the practical realism. Their design is complemented by some of the best CG spaceship effects I have seen (incredible that it has taken this long for computer graphics to look as good as the model-based technology of 2001, Star Wars and Aliens in the 1960s and 70s).
Solaris, the planet itself, is a clever piece of art, seemingly evidencing a degree of emotion by its colouring and detail, as no doubt was the intention. In the commentary to the DVD it is mentioned that many of the lingering shots of the planet were cut, which may have been necessary for the pacing of the film, but I found every shot an absorbing spectacle and would have enjoyed more.
The sets and costumes also retain the sense of engineering realism combined with beauty. Soderbergh's eye for detail is evident here, as everything has a purpose and look that fits perfectly with the overall feel. Somehow, this look is original and avoids many of the clichés we come to expect of sci-fi mise-en-scene.
Channel Four recently showed this on UK television and billed it along the lines of a 'George Clooney Sci-Fi Romance'. A tenuous interpretation, perhaps, but you can see why they did it. Whilst Clooney adds Hollywood star appeal, fans will be slightly disappointed, not because his work here is in anyway weak, but because he is understated, convincing and very un-Hollywood. With Solaris he adds another fine performance to an already commendably diverse filmography.
Natascha McElhone too plays a difficult, emotive role without resorting to melodrama. The small supporting cast doesn't put a foot wrong, with a delightfully odd but subtly creepy performance from Jeremy Davies worthy of note.
Solaris is slow, abstract, haunting stuff. The direction is subtle, dare I say almost Kubrick-esquire. The camera work is non-intrusive, solid stuff without gimmick (apart from a touch of shaky-cam in the restaurant scene where Kelvin meets Rheya) or overstatement.
Add to this a beautiful, timeless score by Cliff Martinez and you have one of the better psychological sci-fi movies ever made.
The majority of people will hate Solaris. Let them. Let them have instead the mindless Hollywood trash released every week and keep this treasure for yourself.
Whilst the Russian original is an epic and demanding film, Soderbergh's work should not be considered a remake. The director himself considers it his own interpretation of the book, quite apart from the earlier film. Because of this, the two should not be compared.
If you hated Alien 3 because it didn't have any guns or 2001 because the ending was confusing, do not waste your time with Solaris. It is not for you.
Conceptually, the story is standard psychological sci-fi fare, with simple but effective theological and philosophical themes. In this respect it breaks little or no new ground over the Tarkovsky predecessor. It has elements of romance, thriller, and drama, all necessarily set in sci-fi land, as the setting is integral to the storytelling.
Visually, the Solaris future is a conservative, believable vision, reminiscent in look to that of Gatacca. Solaris space is a minimal, beautiful place to be. Not dirty and used like the celebrated Alien 'space trucker' look, Solaris vessels are gleaming, intricate and stylish, but seem to have been designed by engineers rather than artists, such is the practical realism. Their design is complemented by some of the best CG spaceship effects I have seen (incredible that it has taken this long for computer graphics to look as good as the model-based technology of 2001, Star Wars and Aliens in the 1960s and 70s).
Solaris, the planet itself, is a clever piece of art, seemingly evidencing a degree of emotion by its colouring and detail, as no doubt was the intention. In the commentary to the DVD it is mentioned that many of the lingering shots of the planet were cut, which may have been necessary for the pacing of the film, but I found every shot an absorbing spectacle and would have enjoyed more.
The sets and costumes also retain the sense of engineering realism combined with beauty. Soderbergh's eye for detail is evident here, as everything has a purpose and look that fits perfectly with the overall feel. Somehow, this look is original and avoids many of the clichés we come to expect of sci-fi mise-en-scene.
Channel Four recently showed this on UK television and billed it along the lines of a 'George Clooney Sci-Fi Romance'. A tenuous interpretation, perhaps, but you can see why they did it. Whilst Clooney adds Hollywood star appeal, fans will be slightly disappointed, not because his work here is in anyway weak, but because he is understated, convincing and very un-Hollywood. With Solaris he adds another fine performance to an already commendably diverse filmography.
Natascha McElhone too plays a difficult, emotive role without resorting to melodrama. The small supporting cast doesn't put a foot wrong, with a delightfully odd but subtly creepy performance from Jeremy Davies worthy of note.
Solaris is slow, abstract, haunting stuff. The direction is subtle, dare I say almost Kubrick-esquire. The camera work is non-intrusive, solid stuff without gimmick (apart from a touch of shaky-cam in the restaurant scene where Kelvin meets Rheya) or overstatement.
Add to this a beautiful, timeless score by Cliff Martinez and you have one of the better psychological sci-fi movies ever made.
The majority of people will hate Solaris. Let them. Let them have instead the mindless Hollywood trash released every week and keep this treasure for yourself.
A thought-provoking look at love, loss, and what they mean to us.
Momcat_of_Lomita23 February 2011
Although not a perfect movie, Solaris is definitely a work that can command your attention and get you thinking.
It is not a big, bravura, dynamic action movie, so if you're looking for something that is big on special effects and loaded with dramatic action sequences, this is not the movie for you. The drama and tension in Solaris are quiet and understated, and are mostly inherent in considering one man's decisions about what love, and loss, and the nature of life, mean to him. In this way, it's a very personal movie.
In the end, we don't know much more about the characters than we did at the beginning, and this is a weakness of Solaris. It requires George Clooney's charisma and his visual attractiveness to rope the viewer in and keep the viewer involved, and to this extent whether the movie works for you or not depends to some extent on whether Clooney's magnetism can draw you in. And because we are given so little information about the characters in the movie, and learn so little about them, there are some moments where the viewer may not understand what's going on or why the characters are behaving the way they are. People who don't like those kinds of "hey, wait a minute, what's going on here?" moments will probably not enjoy the film.
But if you're the kind of person who likes a movie that makes you think "what if..." and draws you to think about what you've seen in terms of your own life and experiences, this is a movie you could watch over and over and enjoy in a quiet, contemplative way. I liked it a lot because it got me thinking about things that are bigger than the world I inhabit, and I'm sure I could watch it again and again and enjoy it every time I watch it. At the same time, I know there are a lot of people who will find it boring, puzzling, and not something that works as pure entertainment. For this reason, I recommend it with some reservations.
It is not a big, bravura, dynamic action movie, so if you're looking for something that is big on special effects and loaded with dramatic action sequences, this is not the movie for you. The drama and tension in Solaris are quiet and understated, and are mostly inherent in considering one man's decisions about what love, and loss, and the nature of life, mean to him. In this way, it's a very personal movie.
In the end, we don't know much more about the characters than we did at the beginning, and this is a weakness of Solaris. It requires George Clooney's charisma and his visual attractiveness to rope the viewer in and keep the viewer involved, and to this extent whether the movie works for you or not depends to some extent on whether Clooney's magnetism can draw you in. And because we are given so little information about the characters in the movie, and learn so little about them, there are some moments where the viewer may not understand what's going on or why the characters are behaving the way they are. People who don't like those kinds of "hey, wait a minute, what's going on here?" moments will probably not enjoy the film.
But if you're the kind of person who likes a movie that makes you think "what if..." and draws you to think about what you've seen in terms of your own life and experiences, this is a movie you could watch over and over and enjoy in a quiet, contemplative way. I liked it a lot because it got me thinking about things that are bigger than the world I inhabit, and I'm sure I could watch it again and again and enjoy it every time I watch it. At the same time, I know there are a lot of people who will find it boring, puzzling, and not something that works as pure entertainment. For this reason, I recommend it with some reservations.
In space, no one can hear you snore.
NewDivide170129 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
One tag-line for this movie is "There are some places man is not ready to go," like into the theatre playing this movie. The other tag-line is "How far will you go for a second chance?" Apparently as far as death by boredom.
This movie is about regret, consequences, and redemption. Regret for actually seeing it. Consequences, waste of an afternoon and money for the DVD rental. Redemption, none.
According to the director, Steven Soderbergh, the movie concentrates on the love George Clooney's character feels for his dead wife. And how far he will go to be with her again. But all he did was take 15-20 minutes of useful story, and stretched it into a 90 minute movie by adding on 70 minutes of useless garbage. Also, it seems as though he ignored the enigma of the living planet Solaris.
Where the whole story could have been made on an episode of the Outer Limits, only a part of the story was used into making a major snooze fest.
This movie is about regret, consequences, and redemption. Regret for actually seeing it. Consequences, waste of an afternoon and money for the DVD rental. Redemption, none.
According to the director, Steven Soderbergh, the movie concentrates on the love George Clooney's character feels for his dead wife. And how far he will go to be with her again. But all he did was take 15-20 minutes of useful story, and stretched it into a 90 minute movie by adding on 70 minutes of useless garbage. Also, it seems as though he ignored the enigma of the living planet Solaris.
Where the whole story could have been made on an episode of the Outer Limits, only a part of the story was used into making a major snooze fest.
Powerful, thought-provoking metaphysical journey - A great remake.
mstomaso4 May 2005
My two favorite examples of Hollywood utterly destroying GREAT foreign films are Vanilla Sky and City of Angels, which were abominations of two of my favorite films - Open Your Eyes and Wings of Desire. If you've seen Tarkovsky's brilliant "Solyaris" this film will seem more like an Americanized tribute than a Hollywoodization of a great piece of Soviet cinema. Some will likely ask why Soderbergh bothered to make this film if he couldn't improve on the original. Personally, I could not care less. This is a great film, and shows that it is possible for Americans to remake classic non-American films sensitively, intelligently and well.
To cut to the chase - if you like sci-fi with a soul,which stretches the boundaries of imagination, explores the uncharted realms of the human condition as much as the unknown realities of the universe, and swims upstream against the currents of ethics, physics, and even metaphysics, you will probably enjoy this moody, slow, multi-leveled and heavily textured film. If you're looking for light entertainment, stay away from this. This is a slow, intense film - dominated by dialog - and there is no action to speak of. Also, you need to let this movie pour into you slowly, so if you're not in the right frame of mind to pay attention and be receptive, you should save it for another occasion.
The cast is exceptionally good. This is unequivocally the best performance I have seen out of George Clooney, but the supporting cast and the female lead all blew me away. Soderbergh does have a talent for making actor's look good, even mediocre actors, but there is nothing mediocre about any of the performances in this film.
Though I recognize his talent, Soderberg's dialogical technique has worn particularly thin with me. The once fresh fast-paced, rapid-fire cuts and close-ups with the low-toned exchange of sentence fragments, and the myriad Soderberg imitators, particularly in television crime drama, have really gotten on my nerves. Solaris, however, is a bit different. There are only a few "Soderbergh moments" in this rich remake of the classic bit of 1970s soviet SciFi "Solyaris". Both films are based on a novella by the brilliant Stanislaw Lem. This film, perhaps even more than Tarkovsky's 1972 edgy, dark, and intense original, will appeal to exactly the sort of movie-goer that Lem's writing appeals to. Neither film captures Lem's quirky sense of humor. I am quite glad that Soderbergh chose to make Solaris with very much the same atmospheric eeriness, plot, and intellectual and emotional depth as the original. It is a tribute to his artistic integrity that he recognizes the brilliance of the original work, and imitates it wherever he can do no better, adding subtle and appropriate nuances and embellishments to make it his own. Some examples are the wonderfully minimalistic soundtrack, and the very Soderbergh symbolic use of lighting and color saturation to shift from the retrospective to the live-action shot. Perhaps the best tribute I can give this film is the fact that I am going to watch the original again in a few days for comparative purposes.
In other words, this isn't going to be for everybody, nor, even, for most. I am hardly surprised by the very low (in my opinion) ratings received by this film here on IMDb. Solaris is a love story, a story of exploring the fringes of sanity, and of questioning the very nature of reality, and much more. Enjoy it!
To cut to the chase - if you like sci-fi with a soul,which stretches the boundaries of imagination, explores the uncharted realms of the human condition as much as the unknown realities of the universe, and swims upstream against the currents of ethics, physics, and even metaphysics, you will probably enjoy this moody, slow, multi-leveled and heavily textured film. If you're looking for light entertainment, stay away from this. This is a slow, intense film - dominated by dialog - and there is no action to speak of. Also, you need to let this movie pour into you slowly, so if you're not in the right frame of mind to pay attention and be receptive, you should save it for another occasion.
The cast is exceptionally good. This is unequivocally the best performance I have seen out of George Clooney, but the supporting cast and the female lead all blew me away. Soderbergh does have a talent for making actor's look good, even mediocre actors, but there is nothing mediocre about any of the performances in this film.
Though I recognize his talent, Soderberg's dialogical technique has worn particularly thin with me. The once fresh fast-paced, rapid-fire cuts and close-ups with the low-toned exchange of sentence fragments, and the myriad Soderberg imitators, particularly in television crime drama, have really gotten on my nerves. Solaris, however, is a bit different. There are only a few "Soderbergh moments" in this rich remake of the classic bit of 1970s soviet SciFi "Solyaris". Both films are based on a novella by the brilliant Stanislaw Lem. This film, perhaps even more than Tarkovsky's 1972 edgy, dark, and intense original, will appeal to exactly the sort of movie-goer that Lem's writing appeals to. Neither film captures Lem's quirky sense of humor. I am quite glad that Soderbergh chose to make Solaris with very much the same atmospheric eeriness, plot, and intellectual and emotional depth as the original. It is a tribute to his artistic integrity that he recognizes the brilliance of the original work, and imitates it wherever he can do no better, adding subtle and appropriate nuances and embellishments to make it his own. Some examples are the wonderfully minimalistic soundtrack, and the very Soderbergh symbolic use of lighting and color saturation to shift from the retrospective to the live-action shot. Perhaps the best tribute I can give this film is the fact that I am going to watch the original again in a few days for comparative purposes.
In other words, this isn't going to be for everybody, nor, even, for most. I am hardly surprised by the very low (in my opinion) ratings received by this film here on IMDb. Solaris is a love story, a story of exploring the fringes of sanity, and of questioning the very nature of reality, and much more. Enjoy it!
Intelligent Sci-Fi
Sergiodave28 July 2020
I read some terrible reviews for this film, and the fact that I don't think much of George Clooney as an actor, my hopes were very low. Yes, if you want princesses aliens and comic book heroes give this a miss, if however you're wanting an intelligent film looking at human emotions and the afterlife you might enjoy this movie. PS. Still don't rate Clooney as an actor though.
do they really read the book ?
dimka7524 March 2003
do they really read the book ? The movie shows us only 2 pages from original book of Stanislaw Lem. Only 2 pages describes the love story, but Soderbergh decided to make the whole movie based on it. Why ? Where is the real sense of Solaris from Stanislaw Lem ? Where is Drama and Sci-Fi ? it is only cheap Romance. I'm quite sure he never read the book. I was forced to stop the movie after 34 minutes. I would like to give -1 point to it, but, unfortunately the minimum is 1. My suggestion - watch the movie "Solyaris" from Andrei Tarkovsky (10 points).
Disappointing if you've read the book; baffling if you haven't
charles_knouse3 September 2003
Since I had just read Lem's novel Solaris and had in the past seen the 1972 Russian movie Solyaris, I was interested in seeing the new Solaris. Someone not familiar with the story may well be baffled by the movie. Those who have read the book will recognize the plot up to close to the end, where the movie veers off in its own attempt for a resolution that Lem did not seem to think necessary to provide in the novel.
I was disappointed that the movie had almost nothing to say or show about the sentient ocean of Solaris and humanity's failure to comprehend it. The book went into great detail in describing the fantastic phenomena of the ocean and the various failed theories to explain them. In fact I think that was the central theme of the book which is almost completely lost in the movie.
I was disappointed that the movie had almost nothing to say or show about the sentient ocean of Solaris and humanity's failure to comprehend it. The book went into great detail in describing the fantastic phenomena of the ocean and the various failed theories to explain them. In fact I think that was the central theme of the book which is almost completely lost in the movie.
Decent remake
Tweekums23 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Having watched the 1972 Soviet version of this film I was curious to see how the recent American remake would compare. The most obvious difference is that this film is much shorter, cutting out most of the scenes prior to Kelvin's journey to the space station over the planet Solaris.
Set in the future psychiatrist Chris Kelvin is asked to go to the Solaris space station where something odd is happening to the crew, when he gets there things are stranger than Kelvin could have imagined; the person who'd requested him to come there has killed himself but his son is there... a son who was never taken there from Earth. The two remaining crew members are behaving very strangely. That isn't the strangest thing though, as he sleeps he dreams of his wife and when he wakes up she is there in the room with him... despite the fact that she'd committed suicide many years before. At first he believes he must be hallucinating but when he realises that she is real begins to believe the others explanation that she is a creation of the planet below.
The style of this film is very minimalist, if you like your science fiction full of giant robots or laser battles this might not be the thing for you although it you want something different; about ideas rather than action it is well worth watching. The actors did a good job and it was nice to see George Clooney in a film that was never going to be a blockbuster but who's presence will have brought in some viewers who wouldn't have thought of watching it otherwise.
Set in the future psychiatrist Chris Kelvin is asked to go to the Solaris space station where something odd is happening to the crew, when he gets there things are stranger than Kelvin could have imagined; the person who'd requested him to come there has killed himself but his son is there... a son who was never taken there from Earth. The two remaining crew members are behaving very strangely. That isn't the strangest thing though, as he sleeps he dreams of his wife and when he wakes up she is there in the room with him... despite the fact that she'd committed suicide many years before. At first he believes he must be hallucinating but when he realises that she is real begins to believe the others explanation that she is a creation of the planet below.
The style of this film is very minimalist, if you like your science fiction full of giant robots or laser battles this might not be the thing for you although it you want something different; about ideas rather than action it is well worth watching. The actors did a good job and it was nice to see George Clooney in a film that was never going to be a blockbuster but who's presence will have brought in some viewers who wouldn't have thought of watching it otherwise.
Decent sci-fi flick uses thought instead of action to tell the story.
Rhife7 December 2002
Review: I didn't know what to make of Solaris when I heard about it. Eventually, the previews told me I should give this a chance (with movies like 8 Crazy Nights and Treasure Planet, my options were slim). However, this movie is actually decent, in a weird, erotic sort of way. Clooney proves that he can stretch his acting range as a pyschologist dealing with the death of his wife, which he blames himself for (she committed suicide.) Imagine arriving to a ship and going to sleep, only to wake up with your wife who has been dead for years. Weird, eh? This movie does get REALLY slow at times, which in part is necessary for tension, but at times it draaaaaaaaaaaags. If you're not a fan of non-action sci-fi movies, then skip this. This is a movie that makes you think, but the violence level is zero. No action, unless you count sex. The performances are strong by the supporting cast. The ending is weird as well. You WILL have to watch this more then once to appreciate it. I'll appreciate it again when it comes to DVD next year.
Final Score: 6.4 out of 10 (A decent sci-fi flick that relies more on thought then action. However, that could turn off most people who need that boost of action in their films.)
Final Score: 6.4 out of 10 (A decent sci-fi flick that relies more on thought then action. However, that could turn off most people who need that boost of action in their films.)
A unique idea and script, but not very intense result. A nice recommendation to fans though.
Mivas_Greece16 November 2020
Space movie / fantasy / drama. A psychiatrist is called to meet the space station crew, who had gone to study Solaris, but unexplained events occur. A unique idea where a dead loved one regains flesh and blood through Solaris. He is trying to understand on the one hand, but on the other hand he is sinking more and more into that. A special script and idea, slow pace, something common for a space movie, and an ending that really confuses the viewer. Maybe if they invested more in emotion and effects it would be one of the strongest of its kind. However, the movie is still quite mild overall. Nevertheless, an interesting recommendation to all fans of the genre.
Incredibly banal
guy_lazarus29 November 2002
I did not walk into the movie theater with very high hopes for this film as Andrei Tarkovsky's version of Stanislaw Lem's 1961 novel "Solyaris" is one of my all-time favorite films. However, I was not prepared for how incredibly banal Soderbergh's version turned out to be. This film is, quite frankly, a BOMB.
There is little to say other than the fact that despite Soderbergh's first-rate craftsmanship, as a director, he lacks power; he is not of the first-rank of cinema artists, not matter how much he strives to be. He is not even in Spielberg's class of being an uber-technician/craftsman as at least Speilberg, even at his most banal, can deliver the goods. The new "Solaris" IS BORING.
The film is a terrible misfire. Focusing on the relationship of Kelvin and his "wife" to all else saps the film of the power of Tarkovsky's classic, which I always characterized as a more intellectual "2001." This film lacks the philosophical power of the Tarkovsky film. In sum, Soderberg's version of "Solaris" is relentlessly SHALLOW.
Clooney is not appropriately cast, and his lack of acting chops robs the audience of identification as there is no character development that a fine actor like Kevin Spacey could give this role. Clooney's performance never really develops, his character never really changes; Kelvin, as played by Clooney, is a depressed wimp at the beginning and throughout the film. It's strange to see an actor as macho as Clooney playing a character on the border of hysteria. It might have made sense if we watched the character deteriorate, but as it was played, the character is poorly realized.
As for the other actors, Natasha McElhone is better than she was in FearDot.Com, and this is NOT like saying Pauley Shore was better in SON-IN-LAW than he was in BIO-DOME; she's not only beautiful, but gives a decent performance; however, what she lacks is star power, the charisma that a star like Julia Roberts can bring to a picture, thus making Kelvin's yearning and his ultimate decision more real. McElhone just isn't up to the demands of the role as realized in this film (as opposed to Tarkovsky's "Solyaris," where the character is not quite as prominent). She lacks weight. While I don't think it's her fault as much as the director's, many times she struck me as having been teleported in from a shampoo commercial. She is just there to look pretty in some interminable sequences that scream "STUDENT FILM." I guess this is Soderbergh's way of reclaiming his "art house" roots, but frankly, it's ridiculous, as is some of the dialogue, which is just plain bad, not even bad enough to border on camp (and thus give the audience some pleasure).
Jeremy Davies, who was so excellent in PRIVATE RYAN, quickly is solidifying his reputation as the worst actor on celluloid. Here, he channels the spirit of Travis Bickle, but Mr. Davies, you are no Robert DeNiro. It's becoming excruciating watching Davies in any movie; each movie, he is actually getting worse.
On an upbeat note, Viola Davis was good.
I voted this film a "2" (as the production design is excellent, as is the soundtrack), but is really is a BOMB.
Beware a Michaelangelo-inspired visual motif towards the end when Soderbergh really begins channeling the spirit of Stanley Kubrick.
Stephen, I knew Kubrick and you're not Kubrick, nor will you ever be.
The Web site for "Solaris" presents the film as being from two Academy Award winners, James Cameron and Soderbergh. Just remember: Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks and Martin Scorecese never won a Best Director Oscar; John G. Avildsen did. 'Nuff said.
There is little to say other than the fact that despite Soderbergh's first-rate craftsmanship, as a director, he lacks power; he is not of the first-rank of cinema artists, not matter how much he strives to be. He is not even in Spielberg's class of being an uber-technician/craftsman as at least Speilberg, even at his most banal, can deliver the goods. The new "Solaris" IS BORING.
The film is a terrible misfire. Focusing on the relationship of Kelvin and his "wife" to all else saps the film of the power of Tarkovsky's classic, which I always characterized as a more intellectual "2001." This film lacks the philosophical power of the Tarkovsky film. In sum, Soderberg's version of "Solaris" is relentlessly SHALLOW.
Clooney is not appropriately cast, and his lack of acting chops robs the audience of identification as there is no character development that a fine actor like Kevin Spacey could give this role. Clooney's performance never really develops, his character never really changes; Kelvin, as played by Clooney, is a depressed wimp at the beginning and throughout the film. It's strange to see an actor as macho as Clooney playing a character on the border of hysteria. It might have made sense if we watched the character deteriorate, but as it was played, the character is poorly realized.
As for the other actors, Natasha McElhone is better than she was in FearDot.Com, and this is NOT like saying Pauley Shore was better in SON-IN-LAW than he was in BIO-DOME; she's not only beautiful, but gives a decent performance; however, what she lacks is star power, the charisma that a star like Julia Roberts can bring to a picture, thus making Kelvin's yearning and his ultimate decision more real. McElhone just isn't up to the demands of the role as realized in this film (as opposed to Tarkovsky's "Solyaris," where the character is not quite as prominent). She lacks weight. While I don't think it's her fault as much as the director's, many times she struck me as having been teleported in from a shampoo commercial. She is just there to look pretty in some interminable sequences that scream "STUDENT FILM." I guess this is Soderbergh's way of reclaiming his "art house" roots, but frankly, it's ridiculous, as is some of the dialogue, which is just plain bad, not even bad enough to border on camp (and thus give the audience some pleasure).
Jeremy Davies, who was so excellent in PRIVATE RYAN, quickly is solidifying his reputation as the worst actor on celluloid. Here, he channels the spirit of Travis Bickle, but Mr. Davies, you are no Robert DeNiro. It's becoming excruciating watching Davies in any movie; each movie, he is actually getting worse.
On an upbeat note, Viola Davis was good.
I voted this film a "2" (as the production design is excellent, as is the soundtrack), but is really is a BOMB.
Beware a Michaelangelo-inspired visual motif towards the end when Soderbergh really begins channeling the spirit of Stanley Kubrick.
Stephen, I knew Kubrick and you're not Kubrick, nor will you ever be.
The Web site for "Solaris" presents the film as being from two Academy Award winners, James Cameron and Soderbergh. Just remember: Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks and Martin Scorecese never won a Best Director Oscar; John G. Avildsen did. 'Nuff said.
SF for the Blade Runner/2001 crowd... not necessarily for the Star Wars crowd
Surecure27 June 2004
First off, if you are looking for shoot 'em up, space ship flying through the stars, hunting aliens type of science fiction, don't even bother with this film. If you are looking for a Science Fiction film that explores the human condition in the way that Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey or Contact does, then this is right up your alley.
This film is not about events and actions, it's about ideas and concepts. People looking for plot points to move them along will be bored to death with this film because most of the action of this film are those that will happen in your head. It is about people, desires, regrets and what we would be willing to do if we could have that one thing we cannot have back.
Some people complain about the fact that Clooney's character of Chris does very little psychiatric work in this film. But, the truth of the matter is that his occupation is used more to propel his anti-faith views. I haven't seen it mentioned, but there is a reason why there are a lot of discussion about God, religion and faith in this film.
Throughout the film, Chris questions and belittles Rheya's religious views, seeing the idea of putting stock in something that he sees as fantasy as being useless and just a crutch for people deluding themselves into a happiness based on illusion. Chris comes to realize that he would give up anything to be with Rheya, whether being with her is an illusion or not. His happiness depends on her, and he realizes that accepting what he needs is not a weakness -- as accepting faith is not a weakness -- it is simply a choice to fulfill one's life, whether it be real or illusion. And, as philosophers would argue, who can really say which is which?
For those who want a science fiction film to make you think (like Blade Runner does), this film is it. With a tremendous cast, beautiful production design, excellent direction, and one of the best film scores in recent years (hats off to Cliff Martinez), I have no trouble recommending this film to anybody who is in the need of an intelligent, thought-provoking film.
This film is not about events and actions, it's about ideas and concepts. People looking for plot points to move them along will be bored to death with this film because most of the action of this film are those that will happen in your head. It is about people, desires, regrets and what we would be willing to do if we could have that one thing we cannot have back.
Some people complain about the fact that Clooney's character of Chris does very little psychiatric work in this film. But, the truth of the matter is that his occupation is used more to propel his anti-faith views. I haven't seen it mentioned, but there is a reason why there are a lot of discussion about God, religion and faith in this film.
Throughout the film, Chris questions and belittles Rheya's religious views, seeing the idea of putting stock in something that he sees as fantasy as being useless and just a crutch for people deluding themselves into a happiness based on illusion. Chris comes to realize that he would give up anything to be with Rheya, whether being with her is an illusion or not. His happiness depends on her, and he realizes that accepting what he needs is not a weakness -- as accepting faith is not a weakness -- it is simply a choice to fulfill one's life, whether it be real or illusion. And, as philosophers would argue, who can really say which is which?
For those who want a science fiction film to make you think (like Blade Runner does), this film is it. With a tremendous cast, beautiful production design, excellent direction, and one of the best film scores in recent years (hats off to Cliff Martinez), I have no trouble recommending this film to anybody who is in the need of an intelligent, thought-provoking film.
A lot more watchable than the Russian original, that's for sure
Leofwine_draca23 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The good thing about SOLARIS is that it's a darned sight better than the OVERLONG Russian original – a four hour film in which three things happened. Steven Soderbergh's remake shaves away half the running time and focuses more on the emotional aspects of the story, and as such is by far the better film. It's gorgeous to look at, bringing to life a beautiful view of space travel and existence, and full of the director's trademark stylish flourishes. Essentially, this is a two-hander between George Clooney and Natasha McElhone, two extremely handsome actors who are accomplished performers to boot. I couldn't think of a better cast.
The film delivers an eerie atmosphere despite not a lot happening. It's definitely a mood piece. The romantic scenes between Clooney and McElhone feel authentic, and the many flashback scenes are pretty moving. This is a film that explores all the aspects of the human psyche: love, lust, withdrawal, madness, acceptance, suicidal tendencies, and more. Clooney is great, but McElhone is even better, playing a flawed and sometimes frightening woman. The sci-fi trappings are kept to a minimum, which is good, and the supporting cast members are also particularly fine – most notable is Jeremy Davies in a role just as kooky as the one he took in RESCUE DAWN. I liked this film, but I didn't find it particularly enjoyable. It goes on a journey of the human soul so to speak, but I wasn't left with much in the way of insight afterwards; I didn't feel that it had developed the characters very much. Still, it's worth a watch for fans of this stuff.
The film delivers an eerie atmosphere despite not a lot happening. It's definitely a mood piece. The romantic scenes between Clooney and McElhone feel authentic, and the many flashback scenes are pretty moving. This is a film that explores all the aspects of the human psyche: love, lust, withdrawal, madness, acceptance, suicidal tendencies, and more. Clooney is great, but McElhone is even better, playing a flawed and sometimes frightening woman. The sci-fi trappings are kept to a minimum, which is good, and the supporting cast members are also particularly fine – most notable is Jeremy Davies in a role just as kooky as the one he took in RESCUE DAWN. I liked this film, but I didn't find it particularly enjoyable. It goes on a journey of the human soul so to speak, but I wasn't left with much in the way of insight afterwards; I didn't feel that it had developed the characters very much. Still, it's worth a watch for fans of this stuff.
Pointless self indulgence
stuart-28827 June 2008
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, of course - but I am simply astonished that this film has received so many positive comments here. I have not read the novel on which the film is based and I have watched Tarkovsky's version twice (because it demands it), but by judging this 'Solaris' on its own merits, I think this version is simply a load of old plop. Here's why: this version concentrates almost entirely on the love story at its centre and to carry its ideas through successfully, the relationship at its core has to be believable - which it clearly isn't. There is simply no chemistry at all between the two leads; I've seen more sexual sparks created between Shaggy and Scooby. And whilst George Clooney is competent enough - he's certainly no Donatas Banionis. And the casting of Natasha McElhone is a complete disaster. Why that irritating smug grin throughout the film? A futile exercise in wasting everyone's time and money. Avoid.
A beautiful high romance with existential issues of identity and reality thrown in--what an amazing trip!
secondtake24 February 2010
Solaris (2002)
Some might find Solaris slow, or slick, or opaque, and I think it is all those things and for a good reason. Unlike Moon (2009), which is like a Tom Waits (and simplified) version of the same core theme, or 2001 (1968), which has something utterly impersonal to distinguish it, Solaris is a love story. And you are meant to float--or better, you are meant to be weightless--in the experience.
The music (evocative dreamy music, by Cliff Martinez) alone makes clear we are in suspension. It's a trip, in the druggy sense and in spiritual sense. We have to figure out what these other beings really are (they look human, and some of them are) and we have to decide what it means to be alive (is it simply self-awareness?). We have to even decide whether the characters should live in the lie of some invented reality that feels utterly real, or to go for the old fashioned real thing and leave love behind.
If it's love at all. After awhile you realize it's a kind a narcissism. And then you wonder why not? Whatever works, right?
The movie is gently confusing. The lead is George Clooney. The whole movie is George Clooney. His love interest (undefined for here) is played by the big-eyed Natascha McElhone. If her staring eyes and gentle loving neediness seem a little overdone, it's for good reason. As you'll see (blame George). And the planet itself, exerting some kind of power over the consciousness of the humans on this floating (large) spaceship, represents something approaching God in its power and mystery. It's an atheist's movie, I'm sure, but filled with spiritual and human optimism.
Most viewers don't know that this is a remake, and hard core film buffs dismiss this American Steven Soderbergh version as Hollywood at its worst (big budget, sentimental, pretty beyond reason). The earlier Soviet version (from 1972) is really interesting, too, and parts of it are even slower. On purpose. Other parts seem dated, to me, and if I think of the effects and the idea as ahead of its time, I remind myself that this earlier one is after, not before, Kubrick's Space Odyssey and so the whole progression is skewed. The Soviet version also seems more sexist, more male dominant, and whatever demeaning qualities exist in this more recent one, they seem more in balance, man to woman, at least in a less male gaze way.
But academic analysis creeps in on a movie that is really much more about experiencing its mood, its tragedy and hope, and its delicate floating beauty, which I seem to enjoy without thinking too hard. There are moments, including the Michelangelo creation scene with the boy (yes!), that push it far too far (and seem Kubrick inspired, without Kubrick's icy sensibility). You might also be able to edit it differently to make it more compact. But these are debates to have once you've seen the movie. A warning: it's depressing to some people. To me, though, it's soothing. And the open ended qualities might make you want to see it again.
Some might find Solaris slow, or slick, or opaque, and I think it is all those things and for a good reason. Unlike Moon (2009), which is like a Tom Waits (and simplified) version of the same core theme, or 2001 (1968), which has something utterly impersonal to distinguish it, Solaris is a love story. And you are meant to float--or better, you are meant to be weightless--in the experience.
The music (evocative dreamy music, by Cliff Martinez) alone makes clear we are in suspension. It's a trip, in the druggy sense and in spiritual sense. We have to figure out what these other beings really are (they look human, and some of them are) and we have to decide what it means to be alive (is it simply self-awareness?). We have to even decide whether the characters should live in the lie of some invented reality that feels utterly real, or to go for the old fashioned real thing and leave love behind.
If it's love at all. After awhile you realize it's a kind a narcissism. And then you wonder why not? Whatever works, right?
The movie is gently confusing. The lead is George Clooney. The whole movie is George Clooney. His love interest (undefined for here) is played by the big-eyed Natascha McElhone. If her staring eyes and gentle loving neediness seem a little overdone, it's for good reason. As you'll see (blame George). And the planet itself, exerting some kind of power over the consciousness of the humans on this floating (large) spaceship, represents something approaching God in its power and mystery. It's an atheist's movie, I'm sure, but filled with spiritual and human optimism.
Most viewers don't know that this is a remake, and hard core film buffs dismiss this American Steven Soderbergh version as Hollywood at its worst (big budget, sentimental, pretty beyond reason). The earlier Soviet version (from 1972) is really interesting, too, and parts of it are even slower. On purpose. Other parts seem dated, to me, and if I think of the effects and the idea as ahead of its time, I remind myself that this earlier one is after, not before, Kubrick's Space Odyssey and so the whole progression is skewed. The Soviet version also seems more sexist, more male dominant, and whatever demeaning qualities exist in this more recent one, they seem more in balance, man to woman, at least in a less male gaze way.
But academic analysis creeps in on a movie that is really much more about experiencing its mood, its tragedy and hope, and its delicate floating beauty, which I seem to enjoy without thinking too hard. There are moments, including the Michelangelo creation scene with the boy (yes!), that push it far too far (and seem Kubrick inspired, without Kubrick's icy sensibility). You might also be able to edit it differently to make it more compact. But these are debates to have once you've seen the movie. A warning: it's depressing to some people. To me, though, it's soothing. And the open ended qualities might make you want to see it again.
One of the best sci-fi films of recent years
nathan-25424 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Comparisons with blade runner are certainly apt in the case of this film, not least by virtue of its brilliant visual language, excellent acting and subtle themes. An eerie sense of mystery is maintained throughout, which had me gripped until the end. In fact I felt this film was at least half an hour too short, basically ending as soon as the central theme of Kelvin's desire to resurrect his dead wife - excellently realised by the two actors - is fully played out. I was disappointed, however, that the film failed to explore in any depth the presence of the other "visitors" on the ship, which did not fit neatly in to the "life after death" theme. Of course we are told "there are no answers, only choices", but I would certainly have appreciated a deeper exploration of the choices made by the other characters. It's one of those films to leave a bittersweet taste in the mouth; for example the decision not to include Gordon's "visitor" at all I found a bit galling at first, but in retrospect may have been a brilliant device. I would have liked to have seen more about the moral dilemma facing these humans in the face of the "facsimiles".
Though the acting was brilliantly restrained, I did feel the script denied the humanity of the astronauts to some extent, and would have enjoyed just a touch more psychodrama. None of the characters appeared to take any interest in each other at all, and though this was certainly consistent with the powerful character of Gordon, and though Kelvin was understandably preoccupied, the incoherence of the third character was rendered somewhat pointless by the fact that the visiting psychologist made no attempt to do his job.
While I would like to point out that simply visually suggesting Philosophical themes is not quite the same as exploring them, this is still an excellent sci-fi film that fits firmly in to the tradition of Blade Runner and 2001 and the original Solaris.
Though the acting was brilliantly restrained, I did feel the script denied the humanity of the astronauts to some extent, and would have enjoyed just a touch more psychodrama. None of the characters appeared to take any interest in each other at all, and though this was certainly consistent with the powerful character of Gordon, and though Kelvin was understandably preoccupied, the incoherence of the third character was rendered somewhat pointless by the fact that the visiting psychologist made no attempt to do his job.
While I would like to point out that simply visually suggesting Philosophical themes is not quite the same as exploring them, this is still an excellent sci-fi film that fits firmly in to the tradition of Blade Runner and 2001 and the original Solaris.
WHAT THE
bnewman-819387 January 2022
I'm only at 0:49:47, but I HAVE to ask...is there an actual MOVIE that's gonna break out anytime, soon? I guess, technically, there are frames of images, and the images change from one frame to the next...so, you could call it a movie. But, frames of images, linked together, lacking a story, and lacking direction, acting ability, purposeful dialogue and any redeeming social value....is it still a movie??? The sale of "No-Doze" (sic) must have shot up, when this offering was first released!!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
