Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Solaris - a short review

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Solaris - a short review

Old 12-02-02, 11:42 AM
  #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.
Old 12-02-02, 02:57 PM
  #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
Spoiler:
subjective and imperfect memory
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.
Old 12-02-02, 05:25 PM
  #28  
razorbackfan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There weren't any Wookies. I wanted Wookies.
Old 12-04-02, 10:08 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Matt925's Avatar
 
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 don't know what else could have been accomplished if it was three hours long. I've seen Tarkovsky's film twice and I can't say that I like it. I appreciate that he has his own style, but I don't see what the point of it all is.

I really liked this.

Last edited by Matt925; 12-29-02 at 07:00 AM.
Old 12-12-02, 08:33 PM
  #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:

Who or what was Gordon's visitor
[spoiler]In the book, Gordon was a white male and his unseen visitor’s only clue (as to what it was) was a straw hat briefly glimpsed by Kelvin. In this I was led to believe by Gordon’s comment on “these resurrections” and her extreme disturbance and insistence on them not being human that hers was a lost child. I think that because of these things and because of her extreme reticence to let anyone see it that it was also a living miscarriage that was flailing around and causing all that ruckus.[spoiler]I would love to ask Soderbergh about this one point in particular

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:
It’s been a while, but I don’t recall Snow ending up to be a construct of himself at the end. I wish I still had a copy of the book to check, I could be recalling it erroneously (ha ha, get it?)
The pacing was sped up drastically and characters were altered to reflect a more realistic (or PC maybe) environment. Being a purist doesn’t necessarily make this un-enjoyable, though, because we still have the book. I think that was as close as they could’ve gotten and still retain even a slight audience of people that weren’t into the original story.

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:
I kinda wished that Soderbergh had kept the concept of Solaris being made of living water. I always read that as an allegory for tears.

Last edited by Kudama; 12-12-02 at 08:36 PM.
Old 12-18-02, 02:30 AM
  #31  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 6,368
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally posted by Geofferson
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:
killing herself again
. Then Clooney realizes that if he had remembered her in another way (perhaps recalling only happier memories and not be obsessed with the final outcome), his visitor would be different.

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.
Old 12-18-02, 02:57 AM
  #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.


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.)
Old 12-18-02, 03:48 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Duluth, GA, USA
Posts: 37,797
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
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.
Old 12-18-02, 04:57 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 6,368
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
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.)

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.
Old 12-20-02, 10:04 AM
  #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...
Old 12-20-02, 02:51 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 6,368
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
Old 12-26-02, 08:54 AM
  #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?

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.
Old 12-29-02, 05:10 AM
  #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?
“Dat’s OK. I can’t say Chever-eh.”

(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.
Old 07-08-03, 07:05 AM
  #39  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Maumee, OH, USA
Posts: 3,565
Received 44 Likes on 33 Posts
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.
Old 07-08-03, 08:24 AM
  #40  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Duluth, GA, USA
Posts: 37,797
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
It's less dry than 2001.
Old 07-11-03, 06:31 PM
  #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...
Old 07-11-03, 08:53 PM
  #42  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dark City
Posts: 4,218
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Loved the book but was bored with both movies.
Old 07-12-03, 12:59 AM
  #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...
Are you thinking of Soderberg's remake? Sure both are ponderous, both are long and deliberate in pacing (or slow depending on your taste), and both deal loosely with man’s response to alien intelligence, but in terms of theme and style they differ greatly. Soderberg’s flick is far warmer and less sterile than Kubrick’s 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.
Old 07-12-03, 03:43 PM
  #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...

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.