Solaris [Archive] - Movie Forums

Holden Pike

11-30-02, 07:59 PM

100111

I liked this Solaris a lot.

It was a good variation on Tarkovsky's original, though I still prefer that film more of the two. Soderbergh's movie is less dense and more spelled-out than Tarkovsky's, but not to the point of most American remakes - there was certainly a theater full of confused patrons at the screening I saw yesterday evening. It's still appropraitely dreamlike, and the themes are well examined. Clooney was excellent, as were Natascha McElhone and Jeremy Davies. The music and Soderbergh's own cinematography were perfect, and the visual effects of Solaris itself were just right as well.

I plan on seeing it again in the theater. I think it's easily the best major Science Fiction film since Gilliam's 12 Monkeys (1995).

Grade: A

Henry The Kid

11-30-02, 10:23 PM

I havn't seen it yet. I bet most of the American population won't like it simply because they won't get it. I can give you 99% assurance it won't even walk the ground with Tarvosky's original. I am glad that someone in Hollywodd still has the guts to come out with something meaningful once in a while.

LordSlaytan

11-30-02, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Henry The Kid
I bet most of the American population won't like it simply because they won't get it.

Eat poo Henry, eat poo.

Henry The Kid

12-01-02, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by LordSlaytan

Eat poo Henry, eat poo.

I'm not trying to be elitist, but it's the truth. People nowadays don't want to think about anything, they just want to be entertained. Is that wrong? Absolutely not. I happen to look for more in a movie then some guy running around firing a gun and jumping out of airplanes. I find that quite boring. I think most people will go in expecting an epic love story with sci-fi action.

And please, CinemaScore is all but a harsh reminder that people's tastes have greatly changed. People want flashy distractions, And there is nothing wrong with that, it just isn't for me.

For example, I watched 2001:A Space Odyssey in one of my classes. Being a junior, I was hoping that people would maybe put a little thought into what was going on. INstead of trying to understant the meaning of the film, they simply shrugged it off, calling it the "worst movie ever". It depresses me. I can't imagine them watching Solaris(original) with *gasp* subtitles!

Edit:May I also remind you that we are all afraid of what we don't understand. Don't forget that i didn't like Mulholland Drive. You could say that I didn't "get it" in a way. Peronally, I just didn't get what he was trying to say in the end, what his point was. The movie was all well and good, but I felt incomplete after watching it. But I have been giving it a fair chance and rewatching it several times.

LordSlaytan

12-01-02, 12:51 AM

You're next post kept saying people, you're first post said Americans. There are a lot of thoughtful movies that do well in America. We're all not very dumm kinda personables...sheeze. :rolleyes:

Henry The Kid

12-01-02, 12:53 AM

Oh well, if I said only Americans, then I didn't mean it as just America. It happens all over the world. But it isn't out in any other country right now, is it? Maybe Canada? I really am not sure.

LordSlaytan

12-01-02, 01:06 AM

BTW, I did see both versions, and I liked the original quite a bit more. I thought that the remake was good, but not great. This is supposed to be an emotional movie, but unlike the first, it didn't get me to feel anything at all. Clooney's portrayal was just fine and I am a big fan of his, especially when he does comedy. I have read some reviews that slammed it pretty hard, yet Ebert thought it was done very well. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody asked me if they should see it, I would say yes, but not estatically.

Henry The Kid

12-01-02, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
BTW, I did see both versions, and I liked the original quite a bit more. I thought that the remake was good, but not great. This is supposed to be an emotional movie, but unlike the first, it didn't get me to feel anything at all. Clooney's portrayal was just fine and I am a big fan of his, especially when he does comedy. I have read some reviews that slammed it pretty hard, yet Ebert thought it was done very well. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody asked me if they should see it, I would say yes, but not estatically.

That is what I am worried about. One thing about Soderbergh, I always enjoy his movies, but I never find much emotion in them. I woulda loved to see Aronofsky take a stab at this, but I'll settle for Fountain.

Steve

12-01-02, 01:35 AM

I loved the movie, but I won't deny that the audience around me was hostile. You could feel the recoil of everyone sitting close to you, it was electric. I digress. It fascinated me, and even though one thing in particular didn't make a lick of sense, I think it's one of the better American movies this year, and probably the best studio movie that'll be released this winter (excluding Gangs of New York, which I'm hoping will knock the socks off everyone who skips that second showing of Lord of the Rings to see it). And Clooney is my generation's Cary Grant. Soderbergh is coming ever closer to being our Howard Hawks. And Jeremy Davies' performance reminds me of Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love - he's playing the same character he always does, but it seems brand new because of how it's presented. Wonderful.

Steve, I though it was dull and stupid. Whatever it is Soderbergh was trying to say, it meant nothing to me. Every once in a while I see a hard-to-understand movie, and I can't wait to see it again to get a fuller understanding. This one I don't want to waste even one more second discussing.

What didn't you get, and why do you not want to give it a second chance?

I havn't seen it yet. I bet most of the American population won't like it simply because they won't get it. I can give you 99% assurance it won't even walk the ground with Tarvosky's original. I am glad that someone in Hollywodd still has the guts to come out with something meaningful once in a while.

The reason a lot of Americans won't 'get' it is because of exposure, no more and no less. The American Film Institute is treated to the tune of $100,000 per year. To put this into perspective, the British film institute recieves $50 million. In America, it's an 'event' when a subtitled movie reaches a multiplex; elsewhere in the world, most notably France, it's a common occurence. It sounds like you're saying that Americans are underexposed by choice, and I don't think that's the case.

Henry The Kid

12-01-02, 11:49 AM

Yoda

12-01-02, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Steve
The reason a lot of Americans won't 'get' it is because of exposure, no more and no less. The American Film Institute is treated to the tune of $100,000 per year. To put this into perspective, the British film institute recieves $50 million. In America, it's an 'event' when a subtitled movie reaches a multiplex; elsewhere in the world, most notably France, it's a common occurence. It sounds like you're saying that Americans are underexposed by choice, and I don't think that's the case.
Exposure? I'm afraid I don't see what you're saying; it's in plenty of theaters and the marketing hasn't been lacking.

As for "underexposed by choice" -- yes, they ARE. If America were to show repeated interest in certain films on a smaller scale, those films would be expanded. That's how it works. When Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon starts selling out shows in the handful of theaters it opens in, they look into expanding further. Next think you know it's approaching $100 million domestically.

It is almost always a choice. It's like a survey; they test something out on a small percentage of the population in an attempt to prove that enough people will be interested in it to justify wider release.

Steve

12-01-02, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Yoda
Exposure? I'm afraid I don't see what you're saying; it's in plenty of theaters and the marketing hasn't been lacking.

By exposure, I meant a lack of well-distributed 'art' films readily available to the general public. If there were more Waking Lifes and The Fast Runners in the multiplexes, American film culture would be much more able to easily interpret movies like Solaris.

As for "underexposed by choice" -- yes, they ARE. If America were to show repeated interest in certain films on a smaller scale, those films would be expanded. That's how it works. When Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon starts selling out shows in the handful of theaters it opens in, they look into expanding further. Next think you know it's approaching $100 million domestically.

Crouching Tiger's success tells me that there is an audience for more 'specialized' movies when given the proper marketing campaigns. The problem with moviegoing in America is the fact that large media superpowers & conglomerates own distribution rights to every movie. Since large media superpowers & conglomerates don't want to lose money, 2 out of 3 movies are pedestrian trash because similar ones did well before.

I see it as trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Elsewhere in the world, film is a respected and beloved art form, as intensely important to many as painting or music. But as with everything else in America, it's simply another way to get paid. Business interests take precedent over artistry; this is why it's very seldom that a movie making a profound artistic statement is seen in the multiplexes - 'it hasn't been proven to make money, so we're not even going to give it a chance.'

It is almost always a choice. It's like a survey; they test something out on a small percentage of the population in an attempt to prove that enough people will be interested in it to justify wider release.

Miramax buys hundreds of movies every year at foreign film festivals...the problem is that they only release a quarter of them. The rest remain in obscurity, undistributed and abandoned in the void. It doesn't help that many of the foreign films they release are recut and systematically edited in order to make them more 'commercially viable'. If an art dealer told Renoir to change a color in his painting because, historically, test viewings of paintings with orange in them didn't sell, would that be acceptable? I submit that the American people are smarter than that.

Sexy Celebrity

12-01-02, 10:44 PM

We can't stop the art!

Chris, have you considered websites as works of art? They can't all be stupid fun. They're not all just stops for information on the super highway. Many .com and .net sites truly are MASTERPIECES!

You must work harder on MovieForums! I suggest a splash of red here and a dot of yellow there. You must encourage everyone to post only intelligent, insightful, IMPORTANT posts that make profound artistic statements about movies and life and the world of today! We must give our souls to MovieForums, for many centuries from now, there may be online museums showcasing the FIRST websites in the world, and you, CHRIS BOWYER, may one day be the Michelangelo of classical internet!

We can't stop the art! Work hard, Chris! Work hard! Show 'em what you've got! LET THIS PLACE BE KNOWN. One day, it shall be worth billions! It will live forever!!!!! :scream: :scream: :scream:

FiLm Fr3aK

12-01-02, 11:00 PM

I was really looking forward to this movie, and I got to see it today.

I'll tell you my thoughts on it...
just as soon as I wipe the sleepies from my eyes, and the dried drool from my face.....

:mad:

LordSlaytan

12-02-02, 11:25 PM

Straight and to the point...;D

The Silver Bullet

12-02-02, 11:33 PM

The more I hear:

"I like art."
"I hate art."
"You are stupid."
"No, you are stupid."
"This movie was good!"
"This movie was not good!"
"It was art and I like art."
"It was art and I hate art."

The more I hate opinions. To each their own already. Can't you people just take the opinions of someone else and sayd, without even trying to convince them otherwise, "well, to each their own, I disagree with you"? The end of the story?

Sigh.

Sexy Celebrity

12-02-02, 11:52 PM

I guess so. End of story.

Herod

12-02-02, 11:55 PM

Silver, you are stupid.

:rotfl:

LordSlaytan

12-02-02, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Can't you people just take the opinions of someone else and sayd, without even trying to convince them otherwise, "well, to each their own, I disagree with you"? The end of the story?

Sigh.

What's eating you? :confused:

Sexy Celebrity

12-03-02, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by LordSlaytan
What's eating you?

Probably Gilbert Grape.

iluv2viddyfilms

12-03-02, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Henry The Kid

I happen to look for more in a movie then some guy running around firing a gun and jumping out of airplanes. I find that quite boring.

Usually I think thats boring too, but it sure the hell was entertaining in Commando

Piddzilla

12-03-02, 08:23 AM

The Silver Bullet

12-03-02, 07:50 PM

I'm not saying we can't have discussions regarding our opinions, but flat out arguments where both sides believe that they are quote/unquote "right" when it is clearly subjective...

...it is a little mind numbing.

And yes, Gilbert is eating me.

Out.

:eek:

Piddzilla

12-03-02, 08:15 PM

I hear you, Hi Ho Silver... I agree with you somewhat too. Discussions without clear arguments, just stubborn thickheads, are useless. :yup:

The Silver Bullet

12-03-02, 08:19 PM

But anyway, enough about me, shall we get back to the arguing?

Golgot

08-17-03, 07:31 PM

But anyway, enough about me, shall we get back to the arguing?

Oh yes, lets.

Spoilers and suchlike...

I just saw this today, and i must say:

Mmmmm very stylishly done (if a little emotionless, as people have said, despite the lingering and esoteric character building. Clooney was a little too calm and collected, as ever, for this role perhaps?)

but..

Hmmmm...was it trying to spin a religious line of: there is a place after death where we will all be together and whole? Trying to say that there ARE reasons for life (tho also trying to say we can't know them while alive?) i.e. Rhea was religious, and hated the "there are no answers only choices" style of idea put forward by suiciding-pal-of-Clooney etc.

Was it criticising the idea that C puts forward that "it's all we have" i.e. Rhea and him should make the best of their time together on the station.

It seemed to talk about the standard thing of: we re-work the past/remember how we want to. And it seemed to criticise C's decision that this time with Rhea was his second chance - his chance to not repeat past mistakes.

But what was it saying about:

The bloke who's "other" was his "brother" only actually it seems it was him-himself, and the other-he killed him in self-defense!

The physicist who just couldn't take it, looked for a scientific solution, then legged it.

But over-all....what d'you think the overall message(s) was/were?

If it was: just believe and all will be well - then i say: blerrr. More dream-escapism. Blah.

I like the idea of spirtuality balancing technological advance, but i'm not sure what type of spirtuality we're talkng here. It looked like standard there-is-a-heaven monotheistic-stylee stuff to me.

Deckard

08-18-03, 12:24 AM

Im a big fan of the original and went into this remake with big reservations. Aside from teh fact it was a Soderburgh and Cameron production I didnt have high hopes.

Turns out, I really had little need to worry

I watched this misunderstood gem of a film and was blown away. One of the best cinematic experiences Ive ever had. Ive seen it since on DVD at it really is a titalating effort.

This is a film that treats its audience with respect and inspires intelligent debate and constant evaluation. It's the first true sci fi film since Gattaca, opting for realism and deliberate pacing at every turn.

Over whelming in every sense, visually, philosophically and spiritually. Faultless cinematography is backed up by solid performances and a minimilistic script full of ambiguity that places the films riddles firmly in the viewers lap.

Little things like life, death. love, redemption and indeed heaven and hell are all delved into with a depth seldom seen. Not so much a story as an experience (think 2001) this movie will take you far away from earth and into the depths of the human mind and space-time itself.

Arguably the greatest modern sci fi film, deserving of Oscars and universal praise instead it was swept under the carpet by the braindead masses who do not like to be challenged by there cinema.

For people who like to come away from there movies with questions and dont enjoy things rapped up in a bow. This film is must see for fans of smart sci fi and emotionally engaing cinema.

An instant classic that should rank proudly alongside the best the industry has to offer.

A one of a kind excperience that is Highly recommended

__________________

Miro_312

08-18-03, 05:49 AM

I took it also recently from Zultrax and i must say that i was very disapoint form that movie:((((.I expected much more

Golgot

08-18-03, 06:56 AM

It was a beautiful expeirence - and the control over tempo and perspective was pretty wonderful over-all. I just get annoyed at films that posit a "solution" of sorts but give me no closure to "clues" along the way. i.e. Am i supposed to take away that bloke-on-ship was just self-involved and physics-woman too science-involved?? Am i to take away the idea that epople who die in my life will come back (if i think about them enough/want them too enough??)

The ending just seemed say: you live then you die. And then you go to heaven and get to hook up with your missus again.

All very convenient.

So come, discuss with me then Deck. I take it you don't think this is a floating wreck of philosophies. What emotions/thoughts did this film provoke in you originally?

Incidently, i was wandering whether Rhea's feeling of disconnection from her "creator" - the Solaris- was meant to reflect only on her position or on that of all humans i.e. the idea of (ego) seperation from "the one" that is the universe, or god, or what have you.

I felt there were lots of good themes. Just maybe either too much closure or not enough. The happy ending pissed me off in many ways ;)

EDIT: the stuff about how we half-imagine the nature of our partners etc is all cool tho - i.e. just all the human/relationships stuff. It's just the closure/monotheistic-feel that bugged me.

blibblobblib

03-27-04, 04:08 PM

Finally got to view this today on a hungover Saturday afternoon. I must say i was impressed.Not hugley impressed but definatly not dissapointed with it. I suppose i will find out whther i truly liked it in a few days or so, as i have only just finished watching it and it is most certainly one of those films that deserve digesting. I loved the music for it, i thought it fitted in perfectly and helped create the beautiful yet slightly creepy atmosphere that Sonnenburg (sp?) was putting across. And i agree with you all about the cinematography, absoloutly stunning. Someone said earlier in this post that clooney is their next Cary Grant, id have to say i totally agree with this. His turning into a very good actor, becuase at first i always found him slightl;y boring and un-emotional. howevere i did find the film over all slightly devoid of solid emoiton. I wanted to be thrilled, upset or totally engaged in the love story that was unfolding but i didnt. i was just a spectator viewing what was happeneing.
The ending just seemed say: you live then you die. And then you go to heaven and get to hook up with your missus again.

Incidently, i was wandering whether Rhea's feeling of disconnection from her "creator" - the Solaris- was meant to reflect only on her position or on that of all humans i.e. the idea of (ego) seperation from "the one" that is the universe, or god, or what have you.

I'd say id agree with you here golgot. that is what i got out of watching it. though i think i need to watch it again to compare all the theogical debates that are going on within it to the events on the spaceship.

Good :yup::yup::yup: out of :yup::yup::yup::yup::yup:

Piddzilla

03-28-04, 12:29 PM

Oh, I see I haven't made any comments on this one.... :D

I saw this almost a year ago and of course it is hard not to compare it to Tarkovsky's original. The both films are based on the book by Stanislaw Lem though. And this is the reason to why it annoys me that some people have criticized Soderbergh's version for being totally without the depth that Tarkovsky's version from 1972 posesses. It seems to me that these people wanted Soderbergh to make the same film as Tarkovsky made, and what's the point in that?

I remember that I thought that Soderbergh had turned the story into something that focused primarily on the love story but with some existentialist elements in it. In Tarkovsky's version the love story seems to be just one element in the existentialist journey that his film is. (Correct me whenever you feel like it, it was a long time ago I saw both these films). There is also a big difference in length between the two films since Tarkovsky's film is over an hour longer than the remake. This is because Tarkovsky tells his story much slower (he has to to make his points probably) than Soderbergh.

I liked both the films but in different ways. Tarkovsky's version is one of those films (like most Tarkovsky films, I guess) that you can watch over and over and study carefully because it works on so many different levels and on more than one occasion you ask yourself "What the ****??". In short, the film is weird, but really interesting and beautiful. Soderbergh's version is, even if it sounds odd, more holywoodized. It is an entertaining film but with a lot more substance than most other films meant to entertain.

And I haven't read the book.

jrs

03-28-04, 05:46 PM

When I went to see Solaris I was expecting something exciting and rather well, interesting. It turned out that I had the most boring time of my life. The film wasn't doing that well, and I could tell not that many cared about it in the first place. It was opening weekend, I was LITERALLY the only one there. By the time it ended I felt like going to sleep. I feel bad for George Clooney. :(

I give Solaris an F+ (Would have given it an F- but I'm nice)

blibblobblib

03-28-04, 08:09 PM

and I could tell not that many cared about it in the first place.

I cared about it

bluebottle

03-28-04, 08:35 PM

I was scared off by George Clooney shiny butt.

Piddzilla

03-29-04, 04:40 AM

I was scared off by George Clooney shiny butt.

You mean hypnotized, don't you?

Sedai

04-26-04, 03:26 PM

I saw the Remake this weekend for the first time and absolutely loved it. I fell into the same fugue state watching Solaris that 2001 sometimes drops me into. Something about the overall atmosphere of the film drew me in. As stated earlier in the thread, the cinematography was brilliant, and I thought Clooney et al did a top notch job as well. The spacey, disjointed ending was right up my alley. I think this film, like 12 Monkeys, is either a love-it or hate-it movie. Not much middle ground on this one!

The short soliloquy by Clooney at the end was beautiful, and was placed perfectly in the final sequence. I didn't expect as much as this film had to offer. It was a pleasant surprise. :)

_Cheers

koza58

07-19-11, 07:09 AM

It is other film then Tarkowski's original, both differs from Lem's novel.

genesis_pig

07-19-11, 07:18 AM

I have seen & loved the original, never bothered with the remake.
Still not sure whether I should or not, Sedai has tempted me a bit.

Sleezy

07-19-11, 01:51 PM

Still not sure whether I should or not, Sedai has tempted me a bit.

It's a favorite of mine too. It's got a very methodic, dreamlike feel to it and tips its hat more than a few times to 2001: A Space Odyssey. It'll put you to sleep if you're tired, though, as it's almost "sleep cinema" with lots of slow, quiet shots; low droning sounds; and beautifully hypnotic music.

Sedai

07-19-11, 03:05 PM

It is other film then Tarkowski's original, both differs from Lem's novel.

Whew! FINALLY solved that mystery! :indifferent:

Reading the actual thread of conversation, one would immediately understand that everyone involved in the discussion thus far is well aware of the various incarnations of Solaris. But hey, thanks for playing!

Cobpyth

10-12-13, 04:47 PM

Would it be a sin to watch the new version before watching Tarkovsky's film? Is the remake very different from the original?

The Rodent

10-12-13, 04:51 PM

I haven't seen the 1972 version but I tried to watch the 2002 Clooney version the other night.

I managed 20 minutes and turned it off.
I recorded it as well when it was on but my second try at watching it, I managed 30 minutes before turning it off and then deleted it from the DVR.

Simply tedious.
The 30 minutes I managed to drag my attention through actually felt like over 2 hours. I kept watching the clock as well.

mark f

10-12-13, 04:52 PM

You can watch the newer one first. They're different enough.

Gabrielle947

10-12-13, 06:46 PM

I have no desire to watch the newer one,it seems to be even more boring than the original.Boring as in predictable and Hollywood-ish.Maybe I am wrong.

Guaporense

10-12-13, 10:11 PM

Would it be a sin to watch the new version before watching Tarkovsky's film? Is the remake very different from the original?

Well, it's only much worse. Of course it is not "a sin" but you will be speeding two hours of your time inefficiently, unless you are a hardcore fan of science fiction. I am a huge fan of science fiction and I didn't like the 2002 Solaris. Also, Mark F is right that they are two separate adaptations of the same novel and are quite different (of course, nobody can make a Tarkovsky movie like Tarkovsky).