Solaris - a short review
#26
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I could go on for pages, but I'll say simply this: Tarkovsky's version is infinately better and more rewarding.
Soderburgh's version is light and trivial. It feels like it was tossed off with little thought or care. No one in the film seems invested with much care for what they are doing either. Tarkovsky's 1972 version is as weighty as a stack of encyclopedias. Soderburgh's is a brochure.
I liked the music though.
And for the record, neither version is anything like the book. Soderburgh remade the movie not the book.
Soderburgh's version is light and trivial. It feels like it was tossed off with little thought or care. No one in the film seems invested with much care for what they are doing either. Tarkovsky's 1972 version is as weighty as a stack of encyclopedias. Soderburgh's is a brochure.
I liked the music though.
And for the record, neither version is anything like the book. Soderburgh remade the movie not the book.
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Soderburgh's film is a nice treat for the right crowd. That crowd being people such as myself who are fans of the novel, previous film, or sociological (aka "soft") science fiction generally. I didn't care for Soderburgh's characters the way I cared for Tarkovsky's, but Soderburgh did manage to create an an atmosphere that I found compelling. I'm not sure that I'd recommend that film as a stand alone feature, but it's a nice companion piece to the previous film and book. It's focus on
was nicely done, though rushed for my taste. I'd like to see Soderburgh have the 2:48 minutes given to Tarkovsky to tell this tale, but I doubt that a serious sci-fi film will ever get that amount of screen time again.
Spoiler:
#29
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Trekaholic
I'd like to see Soderburgh have the 2:48 minutes given to Tarkovsky to tell this tale, but I doubt that a serious sci-fi film will ever get that amount of screen time again.
I'd like to see Soderburgh have the 2:48 minutes given to Tarkovsky to tell this tale, but I doubt that a serious sci-fi film will ever get that amount of screen time again.
I really liked this.
Last edited by Matt925; 12-29-02 at 07:00 AM.
#30
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Illustrious State of Fugue
Posts: 6,255
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by BadlyDrawnBoy
Spoiler:
I took from Patman’s reference to Stranger in a Strange Land that he’s also read this book. I think that that makes a huge difference in going into this flick. My only possible beef was that many things were dropped from the story and that a few were added.
Spoiler:
I’ve never seen the original (film adaption) and it will probably be on my rental queue until I actually buy it sight unseen, but I have to say that as a fan of the book, I loved this film. Best sets since (but not better than) the original Alien. Really good cinematography and acting. Natascha McElhone’s naked butt (why does no one freak out about that?). And the agony of loss so deftly portrayed. This was the core of meaning I took from Lem’s work and I saw it mirrored here. I wouldn’t recommend this movie to anyone unless they were to say, “Wow! Have you read that book Solaris? It’s really ****ing good!”
Spoiler:
Last edited by Kudama; 12-12-02 at 08:36 PM.
#31
Originally posted by Geofferson
Great line: "There are no answers - only choices."
Great line: "There are no answers - only choices."
I'm glad someone managed to point this out here, because so many of you are asking "so what happened here? what does this mean? why doesn't the movie tie everything up and tell us what's going on?"
I've never seen the original nor read the book, and I found myself really enjoying this film tonight. I really liked the part where Clooney's wife says that she's predetermined- what Clooney remembered her to be will be what she'll become:
Spoiler:
yes, there are tons of interesting questions being raised in this movie- about love, morals, memories, obsession, forgiveness, and existence. "There are no answers, only choices." If you don't accept that, then those questions or problems will only keep coming back to haunt you.
I'll have to see Tarkovsky's version and pick up the book.
I think it's beautiful.
#32
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Illustrious State of Fugue
Posts: 6,255
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Autotelik I'll have to see Tarkovsky's version and pick up the book.
I think it's beautiful.
I think it's beautiful.
Me too. I highly recommend the original text story (as translated). I took what I took from it and realize that there were other ideas present. It is technically science fiction, but it's a lot more, really. (I loved this story for my own personal reasons.)
#33
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
But that translated text is from a French translated version of the original Polish version, so ... there's still something missing from the Polish version that doesn't quite make it to English.
#34
Originally posted by Kudama
Me too. I highly recommend the original text story (as translated). I took what I took from it and realize that there were other ideas present. It is technically science fiction, but it's a lot more, really. (I loved this story for my own personal reasons.)
Me too. I highly recommend the original text story (as translated). I took what I took from it and realize that there were other ideas present. It is technically science fiction, but it's a lot more, really. (I loved this story for my own personal reasons.)
Thank you. I've found that the movies I've enjoyed most are those that really reach out and touch me. One of the recurring questions in the movie for me was "If we can relive the past again, will we still make the same mistakes?" That's a question that's been bogging me for the last several years.
While some people in the audience walked out of this movie, I did notice a few sniffles from others.
#35
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally posted by Autotelik:
I did notice a few sniffles from others
Are you sure that wasn't 'cuz they weren't gonna get their $8 back? he he...
I did notice a few sniffles from others
Are you sure that wasn't 'cuz they weren't gonna get their $8 back? he he...
#37
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, Tarkovsky's version is an art piece, while Soderbergh's is an art study. With a true masterpiece in existence, why would a talented person wish to attempt to re-create the Mona Lisa?
While the original film left room for the viewers to meditate and walk around the characters and their thoughts, the remake simply preaches Steven's take on the original from the pulpit (and I personally think Steven got it wrong -- which is the beauty of the original -- one can explore the depths and find one's own gems of wisdom).
There was quite a bit of "art" in Steven's version, but again, it was more like a study of a masterpiece (with homages to The Matrix, Blade Runner, 2001, Alien, etc. thrown in to boot).
Oh and one more thing.... Why the "high brow" pronunciation of Solaris? It was So-l-Air-es in the original, but it is So-Lar-us in the remake?
While the original film left room for the viewers to meditate and walk around the characters and their thoughts, the remake simply preaches Steven's take on the original from the pulpit (and I personally think Steven got it wrong -- which is the beauty of the original -- one can explore the depths and find one's own gems of wisdom).
There was quite a bit of "art" in Steven's version, but again, it was more like a study of a masterpiece (with homages to The Matrix, Blade Runner, 2001, Alien, etc. thrown in to boot).
Oh and one more thing.... Why the "high brow" pronunciation of Solaris? It was So-l-Air-es in the original, but it is So-Lar-us in the remake?
Originally posted by Pants
I could go on for pages, but I'll say simply this: Tarkovsky's version is infinately better and more rewarding.
Soderburgh's version is light and trivial. It feels like it was tossed off with little thought or care. No one in the film seems invested with much care for what they are doing either. Tarkovsky's 1972 version is as weighty as a stack of encyclopedias. Soderburgh's is a brochure.
I liked the music though.
And for the record, neither version is anything like the book. Soderburgh remade the movie not the book.
I could go on for pages, but I'll say simply this: Tarkovsky's version is infinately better and more rewarding.
Soderburgh's version is light and trivial. It feels like it was tossed off with little thought or care. No one in the film seems invested with much care for what they are doing either. Tarkovsky's 1972 version is as weighty as a stack of encyclopedias. Soderburgh's is a brochure.
I liked the music though.
And for the record, neither version is anything like the book. Soderburgh remade the movie not the book.
#38
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Illustrious State of Fugue
Posts: 6,255
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by mcarver
Oh and one more thing.... Why the "high brow" pronunciation of Solaris? It was So-l-Air-es in the original, but it is So-Lar-us in the remake?
Oh and one more thing.... Why the "high brow" pronunciation of Solaris? It was So-l-Air-es in the original, but it is So-Lar-us in the remake?
(A pre-“Where’s the beef?” joke.)
(I always said “So-lar-iss” myself. It’s just regional accent. I NEVER say “nu-cu-ler” though and I can even correctly pronounce “ See-A-ne-mon-ee”.)
(BTW: I am really looking forward to seeing the original flick. I didn't know the re-release was going to still be the Criterion treatment. C’mon, economy, I wants me some more stuff! )
Last edited by Kudama; 12-29-02 at 05:15 AM.
#39
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
So if I in no way like 2001, is there any reason to think I'll like Solaris? The DVDFile review today made a lot of references to 2001, and that makes me a little gun shy about seeing it.
Being this unsure, it seems likely that I'll just make it a rental (instead of my preferred blind buy method) but I'm still curious about other people's thoughts on the 2001 parallel.
Being this unsure, it seems likely that I'll just make it a rental (instead of my preferred blind buy method) but I'm still curious about other people's thoughts on the 2001 parallel.
#41
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It's a hoserized 2001...if you hated 2001 (and shame on you for doing so), I'd wager you'll detest SOLARIS. Why? Because at least 2001 wanted to be 2001, whereas SOLARIS wants to be...yup, 2001...
#43
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Filmmaker
It's a hoserized 2001...if you hated 2001 (and shame on you for doing so), I'd wager you'll detest SOLARIS. Why? Because at least 2001 wanted to be 2001, whereas SOLARIS wants to be...yup, 2001...
It's a hoserized 2001...if you hated 2001 (and shame on you for doing so), I'd wager you'll detest SOLARIS. Why? Because at least 2001 wanted to be 2001, whereas SOLARIS wants to be...yup, 2001...
To be honest, I really don’t see that many similarities between the original Solaris and 2001 either. That said, though I’m not entirely sure why, I do tend to agree that someone who hates 2001 will be unlikely to enjoy either version of Solaris.
#44
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally posted by Audrey:
Soderberg’s flick is far warmer
Dead bodies in Alaska have more warmth than any part of this film--it wants to have a heart, but how can it with a cast of cipher characters?
and less sterile than Kubrick’s 2001
I'd put them on equal footing here, but 2001 is certainly far more forgivable for it, considering its creative talents have an accurate and holistic grasp on the intellectual and philosphical concepts in which they traffick...
Soderberg’s flick is far warmer
Dead bodies in Alaska have more warmth than any part of this film--it wants to have a heart, but how can it with a cast of cipher characters?
and less sterile than Kubrick’s 2001
I'd put them on equal footing here, but 2001 is certainly far more forgivable for it, considering its creative talents have an accurate and holistic grasp on the intellectual and philosphical concepts in which they traffick...