Solaris

Silver, you are stupid.

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

What's eating you?

__________________
"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."

Probably Gilbert Grape.

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

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

What 's the point of that??? And the fun???

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

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.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

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

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.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

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

__________________

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

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

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.

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.
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 out of

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

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

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.

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)

I cared about it

I was scared off by George Clooney shiny butt.

__________________
Let us go, Through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells

From The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S.Eliot

You mean hypnotized, don't you?

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

__________________

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