Solaris (2002) -- why was this film so despised?

[Jepthah]

I regret having missed this in theaters. I just rented the DVD of Soderbergh's Solaris and I really liked it. In fact, after another viewing, my estimation of it might go up. Tarkovsky's 1970s version is actually the only film of his I have seen and not cared for.

I thought the film was very emotional, beautifully scored and photographed and well-acted for the most part, and very well-directed. I think it's astonishing that Fox gave them a nearly $50 million budget--maybe that was a mistake for the bean-counters in retrospect. I think Cameron's involvement had something to do with it. :) In any case, while some critics gave it good reviews, audiences hated it. Maybe it should have been given a limited release at first, although I doubt that would have helped.

I really like to see thought-provoking science-fiction, and this definitely fits the bill. As I was discussing with a friend of mine, the secret of science-fiction is that it is neither 'science' nor 'fiction'...rather something that deals with the problems of human existence in the present.

I guess this just proves that my tastes only occasionally agree with the general public's...for better or worse.

[audrey]

Agree completely; it’s a wonderful movie. However, I tend to think the film was less despised than avoided; for reasons I fail to understand, people shunned it at the theater. I hope the movie finds new life on DVD.

[Sierra Disc]

I was just kind of neutral about it. I haven't seen the original, but I found this one to be unfocused -- beautiful to look at, but sterile somehow. It's a shame most of the press coverage of the remake seemed to be about Clooney's ass -- because his moving performance was actually one of the best things about the film. I just never got particularly emotionally involved by the story, I guess. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't particularly memorable to me, either. I hesitate to even call it "science fiction" at all myself, it could've been set at anytime, anywhere with a similar bare-bones plotline, really.

[audrey]

Originally posted by Sierra Disc
I hesitate to even call it "science fiction" at all myself, it could've been set at anytime, anywhere with a similar bare-bones plotline, really.
I agree; though I don’t think that’s a bad thing. DVD Savant raised much the same issue in his review of Solaris. Since I’m not above re-posting (yes, thank you I know I’m shameless), the following is how I responded to that point in a different thread…

Not to nit pick on Savant’s review, but one of his criticisms that bothered me was this comment:

Since this Solaris concentrates on Kelvin's personal predicament to the exclusion of other concepts (even Lem's basic investigation of the idea of interstellar communication), what we're left with is the examination of the emotional-romantic problems inside Kelvin's head. Telling them doesn't really need an interstellar backdrop. 1 He could just hallucinate new Rheyas on Earth, or clone them physically, if that's all that was necessary.

And expanded upon in a footnote:

This happens all the time in more feeble science fiction stories, that honor the hardware but feature ideas that don't need hardware [emphasis mine] . You don't need a time-travel story, just so the hero can remember something from the past. And Kelvin doesn't have to go halfway across the universe, just to do a romantic self-inventory.

I view this approach in a favorable light. Most truly great genre movies explore universal themes that rise above or in someway transcend their genre---we see it time and again in westerns, war pics, sci-fi, etal, where the usual trappings of the genre serve primarily as a backdrop from which the central drama/themes emerge. The motifs of the genre serve the larger story, rather than become the story. The Searchers, for example, could be set just as successfully in outer space, the Middle Ages, or on 20th century city streets. To me, this element is the hallmark that separates a mere genre pic from a greater work of art.

[wendersfan]

I think the film was disliked because it didn't have an audience.

By that I mean, most people who would be inclined to like a slow, contemplative, and philosophical science fiction movie have already seen (and already like) the "original" Solaris. They would be inclined to dismiss the "remake" (I know it wasn't really a remake) as an exploitive ripoff. Those to whom a slow, contemplative, and philosophical science fiction movie is anathema wouldn't like it anyway.

[Jericho]

I think a part of it is that this film is definitely more artsy so to speak, which means a limited audience appeal. And the audience that it did appeal too, many of them hated it simply on the fact it was a remake. So many people on this board alone cry foul whenever a new remake is being put into production. So in the end, many people just didn't go to see it.

Personally I found it pretty good though, so I hope more people check it out.

[fumanstan]

I thought it was boring... can't really explain it. Things just seemed to take forever to happen.

[Suprmallet]

I have seen and love the original Solaris. It's a great, thought-provoking film whose pacing allows the story to unfold in a very unique way. When I heard about the remake, all I could think was, "Good god, next they'll remake 2001: A Space Odyssey." I just don't understand why someone would try and redo or outdo something that is so fantastic. Just re-release the original.

Another thing that made me want to avoid this like the plague was George Clooney. I find it very hard to watch any film with George Clooney and not be aware of the fact that I'm watching George Clooney. His "acting" never seems to penetrate past his face. It always takes me out. I wish Soderbergh would wise up and start using real talent like Luis Guzman and Don Cheadle in bigger roles instead of hobnobbing with Clooney and Julia Roberts.

I saw Solaris as another sign of Soderbergh finding himself in a situation that most directors can only dream of: a mainstream filmmaker with indie cred, able to do whatever he wants. Unfortunately, I think this ability to do anything has turned him around so that he ends up making dumb decisions (Ocean's 12, anyone?). I did like Full Frontal, but I wish he would get back to his guns and make some great art again, like sex lies and videotape or Schizopolis.

In the final summation, there are so many movies out there that I would rather see that even if I had a slight interest in Solaris, I would spend the whole time thinking about how I could be watching something else in which I have more interest.

I'm probably sounding pretty closed minded right now, and I realize that, but I stand by my points, and will continue to stand by them for many useless remakes. I don't want to give those films my money. It promotes complacency.

[Johnny Zhivago]

Originally posted by wendersfan
I think the film was disliked because it didn't have an audience.

By that I mean, most people who would be inclined to like a slow, contemplative, and philosophical science fiction movie have already seen (and already like) the "original" Solaris. They would be inclined to dismiss the "remake" (I know it wasn't really a remake) as an exploitive ripoff. Those to whom a slow, contemplative, and philosophical science fiction movie is anathema wouldn't like it anyway.

Agreed 100%.

I liked this film, quite a bit actually... But, the market for "thinking man's" science fiction is not a large one.

[The Nature Boy]

I think it's largely reviled because despite the very vocal, blatant and omnipresent words to the contrary from Soderlooney itself, people were expecting something akin to the snappy banter to "Out of Sight" and "Oceans Eleven". But count me in as one who enjoyed it. But I"m not sure I would on DVD, it was actually a marvelous theater experience.

[Josh H]

Originally posted by fumanstan
I thought it was boring... can't really explain it. Things just seemed to take forever to happen.

I haven't seen it, but a friend who caught it in the theater said more or less the same thing. It was boring and nothing happened. She hated it, and said it was one of the worst movies she's seen.

I'll still check it out sometime if I have a chance to see it for free. I'm not willing to spend in $ as my opinions tend to mirror hers almost exactly on movies.

[Sheky]

I didn't give a rats ass about the characters, I was hoping he zapped her with the ion gun just so it would be over and the ending was predictable.

[garmonbozia]

I just avoided this film like the plague because I am not a fan of remakes in general.

Why remake a Tarkovsky film? That's as pointless as trying to remake a Kubrick, Hitchcock (which has been done several times with horrid results), or Lynch film, IMO.

[Jericho]

Originally posted by garmonbozia
I just avoided this film like the plague because I am not a fan of remakes in general.

Why remake a Tarkovsky film? That's as pointless as trying to remake a Kubrick, Hitchcock (which has been done several times with horrid results), or Lynch film, IMO.

I disagree. While many Hollywood remakes aren't the greatest ideas, I wouldn't want to eliminate versions of, oh say Hamlet, because it's been done before. Granted you did not mention Hamlet or Shakespeare, but many consider him a great writer. Should all the greats be left untouched?

Furthermore if a director (or producer) are fans of a particular book, should they not do a version simply because they were born too late and someone already did the book first?

And I should also point out that many remakes are not shot by shot remakes a la Psycho, but instead take an idea and run with it their own way. I see nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean the film will work, but I don't mind people trying.

[garmonbozia]

Originally posted by Jericho
I disagree. While many Hollywood remakes aren't the greatest ideas, I wouldn't want to eliminate versions of, oh say Hamlet, because it's been done before. Granted you did not mention Hamlet or Shakespeare, but many consider him a great writer. Should all the greats be left untouched?

Furthermore if a director (or producer) are fans of a particular book, should they not do a version simply because they were born too late and someone already did the book first?

And I should also point out that many remakes are not shot by shot remakes a la Psycho, but instead take an idea and run with it their own way. I see nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean the film will work, but I don't mind people trying.

If someone else wants to try to re-interprate a book into film form, more power to them. I don't mind people trying either, but it is rare that it is something I want to see. This is just my opinion of course, but if filmmakers are going to make films from books, etc... that have already been made into films, pick books whose resulting films weren't so good!! Why remake something that already has a film considered to be a masterpiece? It's almost begging for failure.

[SunMonkey]

George Clooney.

At least that was what turned me off from watching it.

[shill66]

Originally posted by Suprmallet
I have seen and love the original Solaris. It's a great, thought-provoking film whose pacing allows the story to unfold in a very unique way. When I heard about the remake, all I could think was, "Good god, next they'll remake 2001: A Space Odyssey." I just don't understand why someone would try and redo or outdo something that is so fantastic. Just re-release the original.

On the other hand, I also love the original Solaris, and Tarkovsky is my favorite director. And when I heard about the new Solaris, my reaction was "Cool! I can't wait to see it!"

Why was I about the only one who reacted that way? Because I'm willing to give things a chance before dismissing them?

The remake is good, although it's too short. It hits the major points but omits too much background information, and almost completely ignores the planet itself which I thought was a huge mistake. Heck, even about half the book is philosophizing about the planet. So, yes, I'm saying the remake should have been longer (as the people who hated it shudder in disbelief).

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by shill66
On the other hand, I also love the original Solaris, and Tarkovsky is my favorite director. And when I heard about the new Solaris, my reaction was "Cool! I can't wait to see it!"

Why was I about the only one who reacted that way? Because I'm willing to give things a chance before dismissing them?


Even as I typed my post, I knew I had criticized people for dismissing things without giving them a chance, but I suppose everyone is allowed their anachronisms, and mine is Solaris.

[Scot1458]

while beautiful to watch, (the planet/ship scenes were incrdible) it was very, very, very boring. Nothing happened.

[Jepthah]

Originally posted by Scot1458
while beautiful to watch, (the planet/ship scenes were incrdible) it was very, very, very boring. Nothing happened.

Obviously we didn't watch the same movie. Even if you discount the more 'interior' nature of the story, there was plenty going on that held my interest--surprises, conflict between characters, difficult decisions and even physical danger.

[garmonbozia]

Originally posted by shill66
Why was I about the only one who reacted that way? Because I'm willing to give things a chance before dismissing them?


I always thought this argument was a bunch of crap, no personal offense, as it gets used daily on this site with about every new film by just about everyone.

we ALL dismiss things without seeing them, otherwise we would want to see every film ever made, and few of us, if any, have the time, the money, or the opportunity to do that.

so the Solaris remake gets scratched off my list of films I would like to see because it's a remake of an already great film (or a re-interpretation of a novel that already has a great film, whichever way you want to look at it). There are other things I would rather do with my time and money. EVERYONE makes similar eliminations in what movies they want to see. People use the "don't dismiss it until you see it" defense to defend movies they liked all the time. I just find it pointless and silly......and hypocritical since it is something we all do....whether it be knowing a film was directed by a director you don't like, stars an acotr you despise, got horrid reviews from critics you trust, or was despised by someone you know who has similar tastes to yours. We decide what we want to see based on what we are more probable to like (at least non-masochists do). It's difficult for me to imagine a version of Solaris better than Tarkovsky's, so I know before seeing it that I will most likely be disappointed.....so why should I see it?

[Crate Diggler]

i didnt really consider it a sci fi flick, but more of a love story. i loved it. i have yet to see the original (dont crucify me) but if you watch this with an open mind, and go in knowing that it isnt really a science fiction movie, i think you can enjoy it. i dont mind slow films. i thought the score by cliff martinez was outstanding, and the cut flashback scenes were great. the visual aspect was great as well. what can i say? i loved it.

[gutwrencher]

Originally posted by Suprmallet


Another thing that made me want to avoid this like the plague was George Clooney. I find it very hard to watch any film with George Clooney and not be aware of the fact that I'm watching George Clooney



mark me down as another who likes the original. but the casting in todays films really is lame at times and above is a perfect example. he has never sold me any role he's played. the remake didnt stand a chance with this guy on board..IMHO. he needs to stay away from sci-fi and horror films...please. I saw the remake..prefer the original.

[Pants]

While the remake is of interest and should be seen it is no where near as good as the 1972 Solaris and anyone who has gone ahead and watched the new version without seeing the '72 version has robbed themselves of one of a great film experience. The '03 version is like reading the Cliff's Notes and now you'll never be able to view the '72 version with eyes unclouded by the remake. That's sad.

[Breakfast with Girls]

I don't get the lauding of the original. It was mind-numbing.

[Hokeyboy]

While the remake is of interest and should be seen it is no where near as good as the 1972 Solaris and anyone who has gone ahead and watched the new version without seeing the '72 version has robbed themselves of one of a great film experience. The '03 version is like reading the Cliff's Notes and now you'll never be able to view the '72 version with eyes unclouded by the remake. That's sad.
That's not necessarily true. Tarkovsky's film is such a meditative piece, especially in comparison to Soderbergh's, that it achieves a life of its own that transcends Lem's narrative. You might know the "story" after seeing Soderbergh's Solaris, but that in no way diminishes the experience that is watching Tarkovsky's masterpiece.

I like curvy black girls.

[shill66]

Originally posted by garmonbozia
I always thought this argument was a bunch of crap, no personal offense, as it gets used daily on this site with about every new film by just about everyone.

we ALL dismiss things without seeing them, otherwise we would want to see every film ever made, and few of us, if any, have the time, the money, or the opportunity to do that.

so the Solaris remake gets scratched off my list of films I would like to see because it's a remake of an already great film (or a re-interpretation of a novel that already has a great film, whichever way you want to look at it). There are other things I would rather do with my time and money. EVERYONE makes similar eliminations in what movies they want to see. People use the "don't dismiss it until you see it" defense to defend movies they liked all the time. I just find it pointless and silly......and hypocritical since it is something we all do....whether it be knowing a film was directed by a director you don't like, stars an acotr you despise, got horrid reviews from critics you trust, or was despised by someone you know who has similar tastes to yours. We decide what we want to see based on what we are more probable to like (at least non-masochists do). It's difficult for me to imagine a version of Solaris better than Tarkovsky's, so I know before seeing it that I will most likely be disappointed.....so why should I see it?
But you're not talking about the same thing, really. You're talking about making a reasoned judgment call based on things you already know about a movie, I suppose my words were meant to refer to instant kneejerk reactions without knowing anything. I'm talking about the people who, upon hearing the simple words "Hollywood is remaking Solaris," reply, "It's going to suck." That is NOT a reasoned judgment call, that's someone dismissing it blind. And I'll point this out: remakes fall victim to this far more easily than most movies, because the title itself presents a known quantity, or so people think. The reality is that the people might know the story, but they'll have no idea whatsoever about how the story will be presented.

[JimRochester]

Originally posted by fumanstan
I thought it was boring... can't really explain it. Things just seemed to take forever to happen.

Finally saw this last night. Tried on Saturday but kept dozing off. The concept was interesting but the execution just didn't do it for me.

[Goldberg74]

I sat there the whole time tonight trying to figure out if I was watching Solaris, or Somewhere In Time... at least by the end of the movie I figured out I was watching the later.

Didn't really do anything for me. While I won;t say I hated it, I didn't really like it either.

The camera work was elegant. Clooney was great, I really felt for him there for awhile.

But I have a question... and I guess I'll use a spoiler tag:

Who was she talking too and what was he looking at after he saw her, but before he took those two pills and then she was ontop of him again? I tried to pause it and get a good look, but I couldn't tell what it was...

[Cusm]

I watched this last night, and it just did not do it for me. I thought the pacing was painfully slow. I can handle slow, but this just seemed to drag.
I do have a couple of questions though.
What happen to the troops that were sent in?

Was that his twin brother, or himself?

[audrey]

Originally posted by Cusm
I do have a couple of questions though.
What happen to the troops that were sent in?

Was that his twin brother, or himself?
IIRC what happened to the troops is not explained. I assume the planet destroyed them before they reached the station.

It is the simulation of his twin brother.

[Pants]

The corpse is the real Snow. His visitor was a manifistation of himself. This version of Snow killed the real Snow. The Snow we meet (the one Clooney meets) is really the duplicate manifestation Snow.

I won't put spoilers because that paragraph doesn't make a lick of senses :)

[Cusm]

I knew it was not the real Snow, but I did not know if it was a manifestation of himself or a twin brother, since he said it was his brother.
I think Snow said the troops made it to the station, and that they were the ones to kill the other guy in the infirmary.

[eXcentris]

Originally posted by shill66
I'm talking about the people who, upon hearing the simple words "Hollywood is remaking Solaris," reply, "It's going to suck." That is NOT a reasoned judgment call, that's someone dismissing it blind.

You're dismissing it based on the fact that 99% of remakes suck. I would call that a reasoned judgment. :)

[milo bloom]

I finally saw this today, and I loved it. My only complaint is that it was too short! There were several instances where I would have held a shot a few seconds longer, or added a few more lines to really increase the mood. I haven't listened to the commentary yet, but did Soderbergh originally have a longer cut of this? I know it didn't do well at the box office, but I would have expected Fox to try to make it up with a little nicer DVD.

I've never read the book or seen the original, but I think this version was a very thoughtful and beautiful movie. I'm not sure about the Clooney bashing either. Now that you mention it, he does seem to always be playing Clooney, but I think Clooney has many facets that are allowed to shine in different ways in different films.

As much as I respect Savant, I also have to disagree. It's movies like this that are closer to true Scifi than the usual exploding ships and horny aliens stuff we usually get. Good science fiction makes tells a regular story, but the setting makes you consider it in a way you might not have before.

Definitely underrated flick. I will try to pick up the original asap.

[TCG]

I liked it too. I rented Solyaris, but that one didnt work for me. The Soderbergh version is better, IMO. I intend to buy it one of these days.

[slateef]

umm,maybe because it was a SNOOZE-FEST...

[Jepthah]

Originally posted by slateef
umm,maybe because it was a SNOOZE-FEST...

How very articulate.

"Only the boring are bored."

[Grimm1]

Who was she talking too and what was he looking at after he saw her, but before he took those two pills and then she was ontop of him again? I tried to pause it and get a good look, but I couldn't tell what it was...I took it that she was talking to Gordon. She was telling her things to convince her that it was alright to use the device on her. The second part I'm not sure....it looked like a hole that had been blown through the wall or something. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be a real or a halucination.

[Jake77444]

I took it that she was talking to Gordon. She was telling her things to convince her that it was alright to use the device on her. The second part I'm not sure....it looked like a hole that had been blown through the wall or something. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be a real or a halucination.
2 years later.

[chente]

2 years later.

Isn't that that point of having the discussion in threads on a forum? The movie is still worth discussing and what has been discussed before is available for those who want to begin or continue discussing it. If the poster would have started a new thread, we'd be hearing "duplicate thread" or "do a search" comments.

[ShagMan]

I took it that she was talking to Gordon. She was telling her things to convince her that it was alright to use the device on her. The second part I'm not sure....it looked like a hole that had been blown through the wall or something. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be a real or a halucination.

The blown up door is a continuity error that started with the cutting of a a scene where the tears the door apart. It just ends up in the frame, whoops. See the extra features for more information, and a LOT more about what the director's and Clooney's interpretation of what really happened.

[bdshort]

I don't remember too many details, but I did like the Clooney version of Solaris. Maybe I need to watch it again. I have great respect for those of you who can watch the original. I've seen it, and I had to split my viewing into 2 nights, because I found it so mind-numbingly boring. Probably the most painful experience I've ever had watching a movie, yet I was determined I would finish it.

[Rizor]

I loved this movie for what it was. It is a love story in space, but what I love about it is the tragedy. It's about a guy who's haunted by one stupid mistake and has to endure the suffering of having loved someone and also causing her death. It's just a beautiful story that's also beautiful to look at. I never felt it was boring. I guess it can seem slow due to the film's feel, but it's only 90 minutes. Not at all long.

[Giantrobo]

I loved the movie and the soundtrack.

[hermes10]

The only trailers I saw for the movie portrayed it as a "romance" or sci-fi thriller. People came to this movie expecting something else, and I think the deceptive marketing of the movie attracted the wrong audience (though I agree with others commenting here that there probably wasn't much of an audience in this country for a movie like this), and produced a lot of blow-back.

That said, I liked the movie, though not as much as the original. The Soderberg version is a good example of how Hollywood dumbs down a movie for an American audience. Other good examples of dumbing down that come to mind are: Obre los Ojos versus Vanilla Sky, and Dominion: Exorcist Prequel, versus the dumbed-down and pumped-up Exorcist: The Beginning. All three of these movie pairs are worth watching if for nothing more than insight into just how low the intellectual bar is set for the multiplex audience.

[WallyOPD]

I'll just say that to this day I'm still not allowed to pick the movie when going with my circle of friends because I chose Solaris when it was released. :( Half of our group walked out halfway through.