Solaris (remake) 8/10

Wow, couldnt find a review for this true masterpiece of modern cinema.

Just watched this misunderstood gem of a film and was blown away. One of the best cinematic experiences Ive ever had.

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

__________________
******"The Majority Is Always Wrong" Steve Mcqueen in Enemy Of The People******

Kong found it to be interesting, but not as riveting as you did.

*** of ****

Did you think it lived up to the original? Kong prefers the original, and really doesn't understand what the point of remaking it was.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

No new viewers, I suppose.

I didn't like it as much as the original, but I didn't hate it either. I don't think Clooney was all that great.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Donatas Banionis was far more natural in the role in the original. Kong likes Clooney a lot when he's in the right roles though (O Brother Where Art Thou for instance), but here he felt a little wooden.

Not near as wooden as Kevin Costner was in Dragonfly though.

I still enjoy the original more by a nose. Mostly because it did come first and hence steals allot of the originality of the remake.

However I still think teh remake is a cinematic achievemnt seldom reached in modern cinema.

The fact that Soderburgh is willing to let the audience make up there own mind and in no way offers solutions immediately lifts it above 90% of the competition in the modern era. (and is truly groundbreaking for a remake.)

I believe that filmmaking technology was one of the main reasons the remake was called for. The use of modern FX and sound design really lift this idea to a more immersive level.

The story demands undivided attention and relies largely on subtle clues which are more prevelant in the remake, thanks largelyt to the grandeur filmmaking adopted here.

Both are cinematic experiences, not to be missed.......but as stated I agree the original is still slightly better.

[quote=Deckard]I believe that filmmaking technology was one of the main reasons the remake was called for. The use of modern FX and sound design really lift this idea to a more immersive level.[quote]

One of the things that Kong reality liked about the original was how little it seemed to care about special effects. They were there, but they weren't given anywhere near the prominence given to the characterization and dialogue. Kong probably admired that alot because of how much stress is put on FX in recent films.

I agree with the modern overdose we all go through with a lot of the newer movies, but I never saw that as a problem here. As far as Clooney goes, he has the chops for roles like these, I just never really cared about him. O Brother is a perfect part for him, he has a natural ability for humor that many men with his kind of looks can never find. We're in a tight spot...I loved that so much.

I too enjoyed the lack lustre effects that didnt distract from the charecters in the original.

I did find that the same care was still paid to charecters and story in the remake while also allowing the visuals to compliment the story and enhance the over all feel of the vastness of space and indeed the raw power of Solaris itself.

Unlike most modern films, the FX were peripherals to the film rather than the driving force.

Soderburgh's eye is usperb and the use of colour, light and shadow is sublime as are the camera set-ups and angles.

This movie wasn't really a remake, to begin with.



I found it to be somewhat interesting, and overall was worth the time I put into it. I knew it would bomb at the box office, since it's more of a film that requires the audience to think.

I recognize the original Solaris as a brilliantly made film, however I just have really grown sick of Tarvosky as I watch more and more films so I don't care for it as much as I once did.

Overall, it was a worthy movie.


***/****

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Hmmmm, I haven't seen the original so probably an opportunity to rent the remake then