Solaris
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.42 You Save: $6.56 (66%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.30 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Solaris
Movie Review: A haunting and mesmerizing look at human loss
Summary: 5 Stars
Solaris is a film that not everyone will walk away embracing. Many will, in fact, walk away loathing it, carrying a reaction of boredom and anger at wasting their money to see it. But others, such as myself, will come away delighted from a wonderful, cerebral film that carries with it a heavy question: What would you do if you could regain an artificial version of something you lost?The reason many will hate Solaris is because of its deliberately slow pace with little action or dialogue. Everything spoken and seen has a significant purpose, not a moment is wasted. And many expecting a certain genre of film won't get what they want out of it, either. It isn't science fiction exactly, and it's not really a romance or horror. It's a film that takes elements of all these to create a simple story about irreplaceable loss and what you might do if you somehow found a way to replace it with a shadow of its former self.
The film, a remake of a 1972 film of the same name, and based on a book by Stanislaw Lem, follows psychiatrist Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) who is assigned to visit a space station orbiting the planet Solaris. Something strange is going on and a team sent to investigate it never returned. Kelvin, who has some experience with the crew, is the owning company's last chance before giving up on the station. When Kelvin arrives, there are only two crew members left. When his deceased wife suddenly appears at his bedside, Kelvin gets wrapped up in the strange goings-on, and tries to get to the bottom of things. But one of the themes of this film is some things in life have no answers, as Kelvin soon discovers. What really makes this film work is the way it presents questions and ideas such as these, leaving the audience time to ponder them. As Kelvin learns his resurrected wife isn't quite real, the viewer is forced to consider if they would want to live with an imitation of a lost love, or rely only on memories. And the question of the accuracy of memory is also raised. How well do we remember how people truly were?
What really aides the tone of Solaris is its mixing of genres. There are many science fiction touches, and the film seems to use much of the visual style of 2001, A Space Odyssey. But the experience is more human and intimate then that large scale film. It uses some horror elements, including an unsettling score and a potentially scary situation, much like in the film Event Horizon. But it never becomes in your face scary, it's held back a notch. There is romance through flashbacks, as Kelvin remembers the love he once had, and how he lost it. But the somber tone drowns out any happiness there once was. This mix, combined with wonderfully scripted yet simple dialogue create a haunting atmosphere that will open the door to hours of discussion after the film. Much of that discussion will revolve around the film's cryptic ending. It's a conclusion that everyone will have to decide for themselves what happens. After all, as the film so eloquently states, there are no answers, only choices.
The film uses some simple methods to keep the story flowing and avoid confusion. Most apparent is the use of blue lighting on the station, and yellow lighting on Earth to keep straight the flashbacks with present time. The results are subtle but unmistakable. Also, director Steven Soderbergh wisely keeps the film length exceptionally short, as the slow pacing of the film, a necessity to its subject, makes the film seem longer then it is. The acting is also top notch. With a very small cast, Clooney plays his role perfectly, seeming to carry a great weight of grief throughout, and Jeremy Davies as one of the remaining crew members manages to bring a little light-heartedness to the dreary nature of the film.
As stated before, this film isn't for everyone. If you look at film as simply entertainment, then skip Solaris. But if you want to see something intelligent, thought provoking and stunningly beautiful, then Solaris is highly recommended.
Movie Review: Great Science Fiction Film
Summary: 5 Stars
First, this review is intended for those who just didn't "get it". Iintentionally leave out most of the details in the movie, because if
you haven't seen the movie, I think you'll enjoy it more if I didn't
tell you the story line.
The key to enjoying this film is given by a wonderful quote in the
movie: "There are no answers, only choices."
Do not try to come into this film wanting to know what it is 'all about?'
You will only be confused. Instead, immerse yourself into the themes
presented in the movie:
1. Free will/determinism
2. How is it that we know a person.
3. Our own ideas of a love one, and how those ideas relate to us.
4. Love.
5. Identity.
6. How does an intelligence so alien to us communicate with us?
7. God.
8. Rebirth.
9. Morals.
10. Who dunit?
11. Who escaped?
12. Being
13. Memory
14. Murder
Many of these themes ideas presented in the great movie BladeRunner.
Whereas BladeRunner gave us the themes which we can point out. This
movie gives us a Rorschach Test, a Chinese Puzzle; a rich enigma that if we
try too hard, you will only torture yourself.
I mean look at this list. It ranges the gamut of humanity, and also
the mundane details of a cop show. It is a testament of the complex
tapestry of the movie.
If you are practically minded, you will want to know the physical
evidence. If you Star-Trek minded, you may think this an interesting
movie about contact with an intelligence so foreign to us. If you are
hopelessly romantic, you will see this as a lovestory. And if you are
30 something -like myself-, thinking about a career change, the phrase
"There are no answers, only choices" will haunt you after leaving the
theater.
And, if you are a bottom-line thinker, I believe you can add two more
things to the list:
15. Boredom
16. Confusion.
So be warned, some of you will find this movie too slow.
But go ahead and see this movie, and enjoy the imagery, and the
questioning. Here are some that I have right now: Why does the planet
look like an egg cell? If beings are constructed from memory, then
who constructing at the end of the movie?
I don't think there is a clear cut answer to any of these questions or
themes; much like there is no clear cut answers to life.
Finally, let me comment on the comparison with Kubrick's 2001. I
can't make a fair comparison at all, since I could only watch a part
of 2001 before being too disappointed in it.
See Kubrick was interested in many scenes of just living in space, and
in technology. What would it be like to live in space? And this is
evident in many scenes that don't present anything but that. We have
Kubrick being a futurist, showing us his vision of the future.
Witness the scene where a person walks away from the camera down a
hall, flips upside down, and away from the camera. This chews up like
2 minutes of film, which I thought was rather useless.
As a programmer in real life, I think I have enough experience to say,
"technology? who cares!"
In the end, technology is present to solve a human problem. Data is
ultimately a record of human activity. It is the human that is
interesting not the technology, and this is why I can't sit through
2001, because for me it needs a good editor.
Soderbergh hasn't forgotten that the star of the show is not PDA's, a
whirling spacestation, an embryonic E.T. homunculus, phasers or the
like. It is humanity.
Science fiction is just a wonderful device for highlighting human
issues, drama, and emotions in a way that may not be possible or as
terse in other genres. And with such a masterpiece as Solaris is, it
is evident that Soderbergh hasn't forgotten this at any point in the
movie.
Movie Review: Soderbergh Pays Tribute...
Summary: 5 Stars
As several other reviewers have noted, Soderbergh's Solaris is as much a tribute to 2001: A Space Odyssey as it is to the Russian original. Like 2001, it uses the trappings of science fiction to ponder the big questions in life. Like 2001, the pace is slow and languid, and may be a turn-off to many Sci-Fi buffs. Unlike 2001, Solaris lacks an explosive climax like the sequence in 2001 where Dave communes with the Monolith. But the ending of the film (which I won't give away) provides the kind of emotional payoff that Kubrick was incapable of ever giving to his viewers.
Clooney, breaking from his usual role of charming cad, plays Chris Kelvin, tormented by the suicide of his wife Rheya, played by the luminescent Natascha McElhone (currently being wasted in NBC's dismal doomsday drama, Revelations). Soderbergh is obviously enchanted by McElhone's saucer eyes and womanly radiance and he clearly wants us to be as well. Huge chunks of the movie are composed of tight shots of McElhone's alluring gaze and mischievous, toothy grin. You never knew hard SciFi could be so sexy...
Kelvin's grief has broken him, and the film shows him sleepwalking through life. But his stupor is broken when he is summoned to a space station orbiting the planet Solaris to deal with an undisclosed emergency. When he arrives he finds only two remaning members, Gordon (Viola Davis), a senior officer consumed by raging paranoia, and Snow (the always terrific Jeremy Davies), a manic stoner/geek type, given to Method-y tics and spontaneous outbursts. He soon discovers that Solaris is recreating flesh and blood apparitions of the crew's loved ones and that phenomena has led to the crisis about the station. Following a tantalizing dream sequence where the courtship of Chris and Rheya is replayed (made even more hypnotic by Cliff Martinez' mesemerizing score), Chris finds himself unknowingly making love to the reincarnated Rheya. He wakes to find her in his bed and the drama begins.
This is a very talky movie and the viewer is required to pay attention. But what Soderbergh is striving to do is create a sense of absolute reality, so the incredible nature of Solaris' regenerative power can be made manifest. Instead of injecting the story with the kind of nauseating "action" pap that Hollywood bilge like Paycheck or Total Recall inflicts on poor, blameless Philip K Dick, Soderbergh goes in the exact opposite direction and uses intimacy and mundanity to drive home the metaphysical drama.
This is a film that Dick would have loved, and is more in tune with his ouevre than with Stanislaw Lem's (who write the original story). What hasn't been commented on however is the big issues that Solaris ultimately raises. Solaris produces these pseudo-people ultimately to colonize other worlds, a fact that Gordon raises in a row with Chris. I want humanity to win, she says cryptically, and Chris doesn't realize the full weight of those worlds until the film's conclusion. If Solaris produces humans simply to colonize other worlds, why does Earth?
Solaris' pleasures are many. Martinez's soundtrack is one of the most beautiful in recent memory. The acting is flawless and the chemistry between Clooney and McElhone is hypnotic. The film's few special effects are artfully done. The DVD's extras are extraneous and actually detract from the power and majesty of the film, so don't watch them together.
Movie Review: A subdued romance disguised as a sci-fi movie
Summary: 5 Stars
I can recall seeing Solaris (2002 version) about a year after it came out on home video. The movie appeared interesting and it seemed like a different type of film for George Clooney. I had no real expectations for the movie, I do remembering I rented this movie several days after I broke up with a girlfriend. This might have added to my fondness for the film.
Solaris is a very much a film of atmosphere, it is quite, mellow, dark, dreamy, devoted and has flares of intense energy. It sounds like it might be action pack, yet it really isn't. As a matter of fact, this movie is rather slow and takes awhile for the plot to reveal itself. I never found that to be a problem, while other viewers might. The lush colors painted in outer space and wonderful ambient soundtrack by Cliff Martinez (one of the best pieces of ambient music, I ordered the soundtrack as soon as the movie was over) was paramount in my viewing of this film. The soundtrack along with the images makes this movie a vision of beautiful tapestry.
It wasn't until after I watch Solaris (2002) that I realized this film was a remake of a Russian film. I did seek the original and have to say that in juxtaposition, both movies are very different. The original (also called Solaris made in 1972) is very philosophical and focuses more humankind, where the remake is also philosophical, not as much as the 1972 version, but really focuses on a romance storyline. I have to be honest I feel many romance centered plots are cheesy and/or insipid. Nevertheless, I found the romance storyline in Solaris to be absolutely divine.
I also felt this was a strong performance for George Clooney and it seemed like it was a role that he hadn't tackled at that point in his career. I also felt Natascha McElhnoe was hypnotic in this film. There were times she appeared malicious and others where she was figurehead of love. Viola Davis and Jeremy Davies also provide some wonderful acting jobs in this movie. I give Steven Soderbergh credit, he was brave enough to allow music, atmosphere, editing and set design play a huge part in this movie. This can be a difficult ruse to pull off and I feel he did a fine job.
There is a fair amount of people who feel that this version is inferior to the original. Perhaps if I had seen the 1972 version first I might share that opinion. However, I feel this remake can stand on its own two feet. I don't think Steven Soderbergh was trying to recreate the original, just add some new texture to it. It was interesting to see a Russian version and an American version of the same film. That would be a wonderful social sciences endeavor. For instance, in the American version all of the actors/actresses are very attractive where in the Russian version they are more "average" looking.
Overall for a "Hollywood-ized" remake of a classic sci-fi film, I found Solaris to be a great film and a deviation from the standard Hollywood movie i.e. flat characters, tons of CGI, shoddy editing, pointless plot and poor directing. I can totally understand if Solaris isn't taken in by everyone. It is slow and is really more of subdued romance disguised as a sci-fi movie. I can also see how people who love the 1972 version might find this remake as heresy. Consequently, I enjoyed and own both versions of Solaris and recommend them as wonderful and intelligent pieces of cinema.
Movie Review: A refreshingly intelligent and adult Sci-fi film
Summary: 5 Stars
This is the second film version of Stanislaw Lem's magnificent Sci-fi novel SOLARIS, which is, in my opinion, one of the half dozen greatest novels the genre has produced. What is perhaps as remarkable is that we now have two quite remarkable film versions of the novel. Andrei Tarkovsky, arguably the greatest Soviet director after Eisenstein, made a contemplative, magnificent version in 1972. Objectively, it is probably a stronger film than Soderbergh's new film starring George Clooney. Nonetheless, Soderbergh's version of the Lem novel is also first rate, and the mast of film goers will find it to be far more accessible than Tarkovsky's slower paced, more meditative version. I would like to stress, however, that neither, for me, comes up to the level of Lem's great novel. There are significant differences between both movies and the novel, almost all to the novel's benefit.George Clooney turns in one of his finest performances in this films, creating a character that has nothing in common with his previous roles. Instead of the infinitely confident, sex symbol we see in other films, he portrays a wounded, unhappy, prematurely aging soul. The sadness and loss and guilt he feels about his wife's suicide makes his unexpected reunion with her departed form all the more poignant. The story of their relationship, both past and in the very strange present, give this Sci-fi film an emotional complexity light years beyond anything else that Hollywood has created before. Some will find this disappointing, those who feel that Sci-fi should be about space ships, aliens, and good versus evil. Others, among whom I count myself, will find a highly intelligent Sci-fi film about the enormous complexity of human relationships and about what constitutes personhood to be stimulating and refreshing.
Jeremy Davies is superb as Snow, one of the crew members. His slow, hesitating, reflective, and quirky replies to Clooney's many questions makes for many of the movies more enjoyable moments. Natascha McElhone is extremely fetching as Clooney's wife, and handles all the nuances of her character magnificently. The photography is first rate, Cliff Martinez's original soundtrack is so stunning that I would think about purchasing it (there is a Philip Glass feel to much of the music).
There is one missing character in Soderbergh's film, or, at least missing in the manner in which it is portrayed in Lem's novel: Solaris itself. One of the glories of the novel is realizing the nature of the planet around which the space station revolves, and how it is self-aware and is attempting to communicate, albeit ineffectively and ambiguously, with those on the space station. This is a serious transformation, because it changes significantly the meaning of the story. The Soderbergh film becomes an attempt to recover the irrecoverable, while the Lem novel embraces both that and stresses on a deeper level the difficulty of communication. Physically, the planet is represented far less interestingly on a purely physical plane than it is in the novel, in which it has islands upon which people can descend, and whose surface fashions recognizable shapes and forms. Soderbergh's planet is vastly more abstract and indistinct, more a beautiful blob than a mystifying concrete entity. Anyone enjoying the movie (or perhaps especially those who do not) should definitely read the novel by Lem.