2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is one of my top three favorite films of all-time, I just found the entire work to be a mind-blowing artistic masterpiece far ahead of its time. Naturally, I also enjoyed Sunshine (2007) quite a bit.

That said, I am curious about Solaris (neither of which I have seen). In particular, what did you think of the original 1972 version of the film, what did you think of the 2002 remake with Clooney, and which do you prefer? Should I check out both, and which first?

I haven't seen the Soderbergh version. I hear it's either a love it or hate it film. I thought the original was amazing, dare I say one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made. I certainly recommend it if you are a fan of 2001. IMO, I think Solaris is superior.

I stayed away from the Clooney film for the longest time because I heard bad things about it, but then when I saw it I absolutely loved it - a very moving, beautiful film IMO. On the other side, I found the Tarkovsky film an absolute bore and have no desire to see it again.

Michael

Solaris (2002) is definitely worth watching.

The original is one of my favorite films of all time. If you're not afraid of deliberately paced, cerebral science fiction, it is definitely recommended. It has some things in common with 2001 (another one of my favorites), but they are two very different films, so liking one does not guarantee that you will like the other. (Supposedly, Tarkovsky did not like 2001.)

I enjoy the Soderburgh film as well, although it is very polarizing. I watched both versions back to back one night, and I think it suffers in comparison with the original. Still, I think it is an elegant (and much shorter) counterpart to Tarkovsky.

If you like the 1972 Solaris, you might also want to check out Tarkovsky's other science fiction film, Stalker. Again, no guarantee that you will like it, but it is a very challenging, rewarding flick.

I've been thinking about trying out Clooney's Solaris, but I'm afraid that it might be too depressing. Anyone think it is?

I didn't kill myself after watching it, so no.

Tarkovsky's Solaris is brilliant. Soderbergh's Solaris is shit.

If you haven't seen them, Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev and Stalker are essential viewing as well.

Tarkovsky thought that 2001 possessed no spark of humanity in it, and deliberately made Solaris as a response. Personally, I love both, but I much prefer 2001, as I think it's the greatest film ever made. But Tarkovsky's Solaris has a lot going for it, and is very much worth seeing.

I don't know why Soderbergh felt compelled to remake that particular movie, but I didn't see it and more than likely never will.

Solaris 2002 is really good. I loved the overall mood and what was going on with Clooney's character. The soundtrack is also amazing.

Haven't seen Solaris. I'll have to check this out.

I will keep that in mind.

I made this post because I had prior seen a lot of positive feedback for Solaris 2002, more than I had expected, honestly. You all seem to reinforce the notion that I should check out both versions of the movie then. Thanks!

Although Tarkovsky didn't regard it as one of his better films, I love Solaris and have seen it more times, as an adult, than any other film. That said, I also enjoyed Soderbergh's film, and of course, Stanislaw Lem's original novel is worth reading too. I'd rank 'em as follows:

Tarkovsky's film -- essential
Lem's novel -- great
Soderbergh's film -- very good

I guess I'm in the minority, but I hate the 1972 original. The 2002 version is definitely worth watching though.

You might appreciate Soderbergh's film better if you think of it less as a remake of Tarkovsky's film, which it isn't, and more as an examination of another aspect of Lem's novel, which it is.

i personally feel that Tarkovsky's film is one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made and Soderbergh's take on the story is very well done.

Solaris 2002 is a good movie. Haven't seen the original but heard it's quite a bore. I think I'll pass.

I avoided the 2002 Solaris for some time, but finally picked it up on behalf of a friend's recommendation and needing to fill the spot in a buy two get one.
I was pleasantly surprised.

wow- the original must be to generate such a contemplative and reasoned analysis.

I haven't seen the original- I read part of the book (and enjoyed it) and the Soderbergh adaptation seemed fairly close to what I could gather.
I loved the Soderbergh film. And as trendsetting and 'great' as 2001 is, I don't find it very emotionally (or intellectually for that matter) engaging. Things like Solaris and Blade Runner hit these areas for me much better.

How could anyone see the remake and not the original? I don't think I've ever done that with any movie.

What about Scarface, or Cat People?

Seen both Scarface versions and never saw any version of Cat People.

Okay, fair enough.

That's impressive. So I see you own Romeo + Juliet; that means you've seen Clément Maurice's 1900 version then?