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: Don't blink or you'll miss something important...
Summary: 5 Stars
In truth, that is the case with both the 1972 Russian version (subtitled in English) and the recently released one I throughly enjoyed with George Clooney. I originally went 'seeking' "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" but the matinee was sold out. In spite of my disappointment over this, both "Solaris" movies were excellent substitutes. I was afraid to blink because I might miss something vital to the movie and not understand what was going on. I was on the edge of my seat most of the time. In both of the movies, the lead characters went into space seeking something they lost on Earth. They were also on a misson that would decide the outcome of the space station orbiting Solaris.
The closer they got to this mass of energy, the more strange things started to occur to the remaining crew. Were these people real or figments of Clooney's and his predecessor's imagination? What would Clooney'sand the other person's character do if they could regain the losses suffered on Earth? It didn't surprise me that the crew was somewhat spooked by these apparitions on the station. But it was shocking what Clooney's character discovered.
I liked the way both movies handled their plot. Clooney wanted something totally different from the man in the 1972 version. At any rate, I highly recommend both the 1972 version and the recently released remake of "Solaris".
Movie Review: Beautiful and haunting
Summary: 5 Stars
First of all, why do all of the people who are waiting for Diehard- 9 to come out feel compelled to tell us how bored they were with this film.It's not your cup of tea, fine, keep it to yourself.
And the criticism that it doesn't explain enough is such a shallow criticism. Inspiring wonder and firing your imagination is what great art is supposed to do. It's like saying I don't want to see the great pyramids unless someone can tell me exactly how they were built. Tieing things up in neat little packages isn't great art and for that matter isn't even real life.
I found this film thoroughly engrossing on so many levels and am not surprised at all, considering the reality TV that most Americans subsist on, that it didn't go over here. For one thing, I almost never watch a movie twice but I couldn't wait to watch Solaris again and discovered even more layers upon second viewing which inspired more fascinating thoughts-questions about the nature of mortality, love, religion and the human condition. It also really struck an emotional nerve about loss which I suspect makes some people uncomfortable. But it's all done with such grace and poetry from the acting to the cinematography to the haunting musical score. I only wish there were more filmmakers as courageous as Soderbergh who aren't afraid to make a film that speaks quietly and holds to the maxim- still waters run deep.
Movie Review: Challenging, mesmerizing, heartrending
Summary: 5 Stars
I'm really not surprised to see so many negative reviews for this wonderful, dreamlike film; it's certainly not for everyone, especially those who prefer their films pre-digested & undemanding. But for those who are willing to give themselves over to its rich, subtle rhythms, an astonishing experience awaits. An extended meditation on love, loss & memory, this film takes the viewer deep into the heart of Being, far below the trivial layers of the Everyday. George Clooney gives a superb & nuanced performance: a modern Everyman struggling with grief & the limitations of his own imagination, he hopes for that precious second chance we all long for so desperately ... and does he find it? Like so many of the questions raised by this film, the answers are yours to determine.Walt Whitman once said, "Great poems demand great audiences." And so it is with this film: passive, spoon-fed viewers need not watch. The filmmaker trusts in the intelligence & depth of soul of those who do watch. Everything contributes to the establishing & sustaining of its mood: gorgeous cinematography, haunting music, a tasteful underplaying of special effects.
No, it's not Tarkovsky's masterpiece -- but it's not meant to be, either. Rather it directs a fine & powerful focus on one aspect of its source material, striving for & achieving an emotionally luminous work of Art. Highly recommended!
Movie Review: THE Best Film of 2002
Summary: 5 Stars
When most people ask me why I chose Solaris as the top film of 2002 out of a year that had BLOCKBUSTER written all over it, I round it up into one simple sentance; "This is a SCI-FI film that shows man's relationship to God. Before you start thinking I'm some religious zealot, let me assure you that I mean what I say only in a latteral sense. Kelvin's character is that of a man who creates another being just by the will of his mind, by a love that he can neither control nor respect. Clooney finds Kelvin's quiet dispair with gusto. But it is the two women in this movie, Nastasha McElhone (whom I loved since The Truman Show)and Viola Davis that are the show-stealers. McElhone as Rheya has the hardest job in the movie, especially near the end when she comes to realize the woman she was. Most actresses would overact in these situations, but not her. She plays it with a calmness that fits the character and Kelvin's tone. Viola Davis has the role that could have been easily typecasted as The Witch In Space. But she remains the voice of logic in the story when it seems everything is going to Disneyland. At this time, I think it's fair to mention Steven Soddeburgh's contribution. This is the perfect follow-up to his epic Traffic. And there you have it, just a little of essay I could write on this movie, explaining how this is THE BEST FILM of 2002Movie Review: Could Have Been Longer...
Summary: 5 Stars
About the only "problems" I have with this film are:1) I've grown accustomed to longer films. This one feels longer than it is, however. From the commentary, apparently a lot of this film was cut.
2) Personally I would have liked to have seen SOME specific discussion as to the location of the planet and the propulsion systems invloved in getting there ( although that stuff admittedly isn't the point of the film ). As a storytelling device, the film is seemingly set in the "near future" ( complete with the constant rain and corresponding streetwear from Blade Runner ); the urban yuppie scenes are mostly indistinguishable from the actual present, and how interstellar travel has been developed is a mystery. Unless Solaris is supposed to be in the outer reaches of our own system, which I doubt. To summarize, the film mixes a relatively familiar Earthscape with interstellar human travel, which realistically is a **LONG** way off if it's even going to happen at all.
3) In a later part of the film the music seems to be almost a direct ripoff of the music used in the 2001 Stargate sequence. Hopefully this was done as a homage, not based on the theory of "these idiots don't remember 2001."
Overall, this movie is very cool, and benefits from a modern Soderbergh-esque cinematography.