Genres

Visitors Review

Frank Ochieng 2012-05-24 17:33:07

As a thoughtful but self-indulgent showcase, Solaris has its rare moments of chilly reception. The film's pathos is in the pudding but the taste has the welcomed flavor of a crunchy moon rock.

mshenga 2012-05-23 21:22:13

Either love it, if tune into it,

Or you will hate it, if you don't catch its wave. As for me, it stirredmeup to the bottom of my soul. Good test: if you didn't like "A.I.", don'tbother going.In some movies knowing the plot ahead of time spoils everything. Hereenjoying the movie without knowing the plot ahead of time would be aseriousimpediment (I was lucky to have red Stanislav Lev story beforehand). Icanimagine myself watching this movie over and over, and definitely plan tobuyit on DVD when it is out.This movie made me think what is real in life and what is not, what is ofvalue in life and what is not, what is a true life, what does it mean tobehuman, if there is anything after death - then what, what is God, etc.Themultitude of themes subtly collide at the unusual angles under thesurfaceof the seemingly slowly developing movie, which makes it difficult to getinto. But if you will get into it, you may end up thinking about it - andabout values in your life - for a long time, finding source of strengthandinspiration.Most people in the theater hated it. I think it is one of the movie youhatethe 1st time around and love more and more with each consequent time. Thetempo, presentation, polyphony of the plot - everything is so unusual,thatthe ideas of the movie may go "under the radar screens" when you watch itthe 1st time around

2012-05-22 21:18:21

Very relaxing film....

This film is a boring remake of a boring movie based on Stanislaw Lem's fascinating book. The original film is a real endurance test; I have never made it through once without napping. This remake is shorter but coffee is still needed to get through it. Solaris is a beautiful film, the music is wonderful and it is a faithful homage to the original film, which is part of its problem. Both film versions of the book have long (endless) scenes of the main character looking sad and nothing happens. To its credit, Clooney's Solaris has some of that boring fat trimmed off but I was hoping that there would be more scenes showing Solaris as described in the book (hello, special effects department?). The original film took the same "men trapped in a floating tin can" approach. I was hoping for a film with a larger scope. It is true that Solaris is not so much about the strange planet but how people in the space station orbiting this weird planet are affected by it. But Solaris is represented by a big glowing ball, looking like something taken from an old Star Trek episode. No details are explored in this film, and I was expecting that in 2004. Solaris is not bad but it could have been better. Its boring in (lots of) spots but if you are in the right mood then this will not bother you too much.

2012-05-22 13:00:40

this movie hits hard, leaves you stunned

I entered this movie with trepidation, as I remembered, vaguely, that it had bombed at the box office, being described by reviewers as impenetrably boring.Once it started, I was hooked! The dialogue is not always realistic, but then again, given the circumstaces, who is to say that it isn't? Solaris manages to tackle complex ideas while at the same time wrapping those ideas in fairly normal dialogue and reaction by those on screen. We can be in awe and mystified by the events, even as we completely understand what the space travelers are saying and feeling. Have we not all seen people lash out at what they cannot understand? They react, sometimes cruelly, out of fear.Everything must be questioned--what truly motivates us, as humans, to do what we do, to consort with whom we "like".Why? The movie asks us that, and lets you, the viewer, answer it in your own way, just as each traveler on screen answers in their singular fashion. Different people, different response, different outcome....a different life. We all live different lives, due to choices and circumstances.Anyone who gives this one star, does not understand it. Then again, different people watch movies for different reasons. Myself, I like to watch all types of movies, and I don't demand that they all feature light sabre battles and cartoonish villains. This movie is heavy duty. Check it out!

Liz Braun 2012-05-18 05:29:10

I loved every frame of Solaris. I'm just not sure why.

2012-05-17 19:27:14

A great science fiction psychological tale

A Science fiction movie like it should be: catching, cerebral, intriguing, and opening up inumerous possibilities. Very respectful of the original Russian movie, and Stanislaw Lem's book. Great acting, great directing. The environments that are created are very compelling, realistic, and the perfectly minimalist soundtrack keeps you in the mood. I recommend watching the original and this remake in a row!

Elias Savada 2012-05-15 03:46:55

Solaris fades to a less than satisfying conclusion, where its blending of space, time, reality, remorse, redemption, and George Clooney's naked butt might even have Albert Einstein pinching himself to see if he's still with us.

Warcod 2012-05-14 17:01:16

Dentist's Chair (May contain Spoilers)

When I was young and had teeth, one of the things I used to dread the mostwas a trip to the dentist. If I was to write synopsis of my dentistvisits,I think it would be very similar to a synopsis of this film, towit:Pay someone my hard earned money, followed by lots of waiting,interspersedwith short painful periods of activity. If I was lucky enough to get gasandair, then I might be treated to a nice colourful lightshow.To fully convey the ennui and entropic crawl of this film I need to usetheancient Japanese poetry form, haiku.First nothing happensSomething happens to ClooneyThen nothing happensBasically the film poses some "interesting" philosophical questions, byinteresting I mean dull.Personally I think I would feel quite freaked out if I was making love tomydead wife, for a start I'd wonder how she got out from under thepatio.If you're tempted to watch this film, maybe you would be better off makingavisit to your dentists, maybe for a nice polish, or gumclean.On the dentistometer this is Root canal treatment.

pontifikator 2012-05-13 08:20:27

Good, but it can't quite carry the weight of Stanislaw Lem's complex novel.

This film, directed by Steven Soderbergh, is based on a novel by cultfavorite Stanislaw Lem. I read the novel after I saw the movie, andSoderbergh made a film that is different from the novel, not unexpectedbut perhaps unhappily for Lem's fans. George Clooney plays Dr. Kelvin,a psychologist or psychiatrist, who is called out to deep space to findout what's gone horribly wrong on a space station. People are killingthemselves on the station, and the survivors are clearly insane. Kelvinsoon finds out why.The movie unfolds like a flower blooming, but we're still leftconfused, I'm sorry to say. Lem's point in his novel (at least as Iunderstand it) is that aliens and humans will have absolutely no way toestablish communications. Zero chance. None. Totally alien creatureshave no basis for understanding, no way to grasp what is intended, andno way to communicate effectively. Soderbergh takes a part of the noveland makes his Solaris a love story of longing and loss. AlthoughSoderbergh does this quite well, he still has hung his story on theframe of Lem's novel, and there's no fit. The alien novel can't supportthe human film.As a love story, Soderbergh's Solaris is compelling and heartbreakingas the story of Kelvin and his dead wife Rheya (played by NataschaMcElhone) unfolds in bits and pieces of flashback and dreams finallybecoming fully developed, and we learn what Kelvin's problem is.Clooney is masterful with his tired, sleep-deprived face showing allKelvin's internal confusion, loss, and anguish.But the ship is staffed by the remaining crew of lunatics. JeremyDavies is particularly good as the totally insane Snow, and Viola Davisdoes a competent job as Gordon, the only one with a scrap of sanityleft. Whatever damage has been wrought by the alien presence is leftunexplored and unexplained, and the ending is terribly unsatisfying,despite the tinkling music by Cliff Martinez, which I enjoyed.Overall, I like the movie, but it can't quite carry the weight ofStanislaw Lem's complex novel.

2012-05-13 02:52:55

Completely BORING

I love all types of movies but, let's call this like we see it ok?This has GOT to be one of the most boring movies I have ever seen in my life. It seems as though the director was trying to copy a Stanley Kubrick style film and most assuredly DID NOT accomplish this.The story made no sense and had no resolution! TERRIBLE.Buy this if you have trouble going to sleep at night because believe me, it will put you RIGHT OUT.

Sven Jissom 2012-05-09 23:19:24

Out of this world

If you see only one movie this millennium, this should be it. The premiseisunprecedented; the execution is exemplary; the undertones areoverwhelming.If this sounds like the type of movie you would like, free free to watchit(unless you live in America).

CoCo-42 2012-05-09 09:59:07

Excuse me?

What the hell was THAT all about? That HAD to be the most DISJOINTED,UNEXCITING, SORRY excuse for a movie that I've seen in a long time. Iunderstand the concept, and I actually believe in another plane ofexistence. But this movie did nothing to bolster those beliefs. Actually,I'm not REALLY sure WHAT the movie was trying to tell us, except thatsometimes you just have to let GO! JEEZ! I thought George Clooney wasacceptably attractive, and LOVED the character of Snow. Very quirky, alaDennis Hopper in Apocolypse Now. But WOW! Enough's enough already. Bottomline . . . BORING!

twitchyx 2012-05-05 13:08:18

The most boring movie I have ever seen.

I have never seen the original version of Solaris, but after seeing theremake, I do not care to. This movie reminded me a whole lot of my seniorBiology class. It lasted forever, it made no sense to me, and it wasincredibly dull. Quite frankly, this movie is unwatchable. I have never seena film creep along at a slower pace. For every 30 seconds of actual dialougeor action, we are forced to sit through 10 minutes of close ups on GeorgeClooney's face, and views of stars out in space. This makes the plotincredibly difficult to understand because by the time you are done staringat the 10 minute closeup of George Clooney laying down on a bed, your mindhas wondered and you can't really remember what is going on. I spent most ofmy time watching other people in the theatre. When the show started theplace was nearly full, by the end of the movie almost half the viewers hadwalked out. Unfortunatly I was not one of them, although the thought hadoccured to me over and over again. When Solaris finally ended everyone stoodup in unison and began piling out as quickly as possible. Bottomline, unlessyou are a raging insomniac who is in dire need of sleep, there is absolutelyno reason to see this movie. Save your self the $7 and just sit at home andwatch the paint dry on the walls.

Jonathan Rosenbaum 2012-05-05 02:22:47

[Soderbergh] tends to place most of the psychological and philosophical material in italics rather than trust an audience's intelligence, and he creates an overall sense of brusqueness.

fimetic 2012-05-04 12:10:26

.....did I just dream this? Hell I know I liked it whatever!

Steven Soderbergh, it seems to me, can direct just about anything(book, play or just an interesting idea) and make the best of what ithas to offer. Solaris has a lot to say and maybe a little too much forsome us. It is never just entertainment, it has much more to offer.Sometime ago I read an article about dream states. The main idea ofthis article was that we are all of us living in a dream; and allliving matter is in a dream state peculiar to it's own species andindeed peculiar to each individual within that species. Something ofthis idea is being worked out in Solaris. Death does not end theexistence of an individual but simply transfers him or her to adifferent dream state. One of the questions which this raises (if youaccept the validity of the 'dream' state idea) is which of these dreamstates may, with authority, consider itself to be the ascendant state;is any of these states entitled to consider itself the one which is thesole arbiter of truth regarding the nature of existence. Solaris,somewhere out there - where doesn't matter, is a planet which has thepower to allow individuals in different states of 'being' to see andcontact one another with all the attendant confusion that thisobviously brings to all parties on both sides of the existence/dreambarrier. This moves on to pose many more questions and dilemmas e.g.does time continue upon changing states? If it does is it synchronouswith all other dream states? Etc. This film isn't really just a sci-fiflick or for that matter, a romance it's in a category that's otherthan that. Decide for yourself what and where it is. Soderberg floatsmy boat. Always has. If you're a fan too this one's for you.

David 2012-05-04 01:37:43

This movie was great. Not for the average Yahoo.

When I read many of the reviews here, I saw many a negative review.My friend rented it, so I didn't have to pay to see it. But after I did, I realized that this baby is a keeper!If you are the type of person who enjoys a surreal, sci-fi movie, then watch Solaris. I found much of the movie to be similar to 2001.There are no explosions. This is a creepy movie... puts questions in your head throughout.Made me jizz.

Nat Darke 2012-05-02 12:38:50

Love and loss

There are many ways in which you can lose someone. Death is one of theways. Rejection is another. Sometimes we are rejected but theboundaries are not clear enough and we cling on to shreds of hopebefore we accept the pain of reality. Mix the two and you have Solaris,a place where we can be tempted to believe that even the most profoundand terrible loss can be redeemed.For what this film sets out to do, it does impeccably. The acting, paceand ambiance of this film do everything to allow us to reflect on, andbe moved by, the themes that are explored: namely, love and loss.This film will not to be to everyone's taste because it reliescompletely on the audience being engaged and moved by these themes, butif you are not bored then you might possibly be moved to tears.

John R. McEwen 2012-05-02 02:22:01

...A thoughtful and troubling excavation into the depths of human nature.

2012-04-27 04:33:30

SACRELIGE!!!

When the remake of Tarkovsky's Solaris was announced, I went ballistic. I cursed, I threw things, I went into a rage because they were remaking (don't give me that "reimagining" crap) one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made, and were remaking a Tarkovsky film (!). Remaking a Tarkovsky film?!?!?!? Absolutely sacrelige. Next, they will be "reimagining" the Sistine Chapel. I saw about half of this film, and I had to shut it off to prevent myself from doing bodily harm to myself and the TV. How many times did the sod (a British slur term in which I will refer to Soderbergh as for the rest of this review) watch 2001 and Solaris before making this? The cover box on the DVD is a blatant ripoff of the famous picture/poster of Dave Bowman in his spacesuit with the blinking lights on it. There are shots that look just like HAL 9000's eye in 2001 (except the eye is bigger. Wow, what an amazing idea, Sod! Make it bigger!). The dialogue is on the level on a high school drama. Clooney (who is a good actor) is too straightforward and is not haunted enough. He just looks old here, not necessarily sad, which is the way he should look. Nastasha McElhone reads her lines without any emotion at all. The rest of the crew (especially Jeremy Davies turn as the "stoned" guy) are a bad joke. In Tarkovsky's original film, every member of the cast had dignity, and the film was really profound and mysterious, a true epic sci-fi film worthy of comparisons to 2001. Here, it's dumbed down. It takes the guise of an "important" film, but it isn't. It's just a remake, and a bad one at that. Sod has a rep for being an artistic filmmaker, but a lot of his films are remakes of much better foreign films (Traffic is a remake of a far superior British miniseries, for example). He is very overrated. He said this was his most ambitious film. Ambition doesn't mean copying Kubrick and Tarkovsky, sod. Avoid this. Stanislaw Lem, the author of the original novel, didn't like either version, but he acknowledged that Tarkovsky had a vision at least. He said the sod was a hack, and he's right. Watch Tarkovsky's original masterpiece. It's wonderful, absolutely wonderful.

Don Sarcasmo 2012-04-26 10:42:19

one of the slowest , worst movies I've ever seen

i didn't even finish watching it ... and i cant say that about manymovies ..me and my GF, both fell asleep about 3/4 of the way through ..maybe I'm a bit bias, cuz i don't want any "love story" in my sci-fi ,and i require some sort of thought provoking dialog every 20 minuets orso ... this is why i didn't like the movie .. in fact i cant think of asingle reason i would like the movie .. the directing was prettyterrible, the casting was mediocre and the story didn't seem to existin any thought provoking sense at all.. whether or not i am bias, dueto my obsession with sci-fi .. imho this movie was complete trash and awaste of time for everyone involvedmaybe if you enjoy being tormented with a inkling of suspense for overan hour straight and then falling asleep this movie is for you .. ifyou really love recent Hollywood sci/fi movies that try to be overlydramatic and artistic, you would probably enjoy this .. but i don'tknow why anyone would enjoy that hehe