Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Solaris (2002)

This is topic Solaris (2002) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000460

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 11-27-2002, 03:05 AM:

I go to very few films where I'm in total awe at the end of the film. Solaris is now one of these. George Clooney delivers a flawless performance in a real rarity of a story... a sci-fi film that doesn't involve horror, gore, or a big explosion at the conclusion. The entire film is a great story investigating how emotional attachment affects our memory and our desires. Throughout much of the film, the only sound (Coming from the screen channels) is the sound of the space station, which gives a great, far-out presence.

This is a movie for lovers, sci-fi fans and anybody else who wants to see a movie that will make them think, but not totally confuse them. [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2002, 07:36 AM:

The actors wonder what's going on, cut to pretty light, the actors wonder what's going on, cut to pretty light, the actors wonder what's going on, cut to pretty light...
[sleep]

Jeremy Davies did give an excellent impersonation of Crispin Glover though. [Razz]

Posted by Will Morrow (Member # 792) on 11-28-2002, 06:35 PM:

Yes, I agree with Brad on his critique of this film. However, I think it should go like this...
Cut to pretty light, actors wonder what's going on; audience wonders what's going on, cut to pretty light. Rinse and repeat. Minus the rinse of course.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-28-2002, 09:09 PM:

I think I can catch my zzzzzzz's when I go to bed tonight without having to pay to do it in a movie theatre. I have found that movies that are designed to make you think often does that to me. I think I will watch someting else tonight instead of "SOLARIS". "SOLARIUS should be a very good cheap rental when it is released on DVD in a few months. Thanks Brad for the heads up! [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-29-2002, 10:49 AM:

Has anyone seen this new version and Tarkovsky's original? If so, how do they compare?

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-29-2002, 03:13 PM:

I had the (can I call it pleasure) of showing the origional Solaris at the 2001 Telluride Film Festival.

I got up at 3 AM in Santa Rosa and took the bus to the San Francisco Airport. I got to change planes in Denver and arrive around 4:00 PM in Telluride. I checked in, found my housing and went to dinner. I then was asked to show Tarkovsky 9-reel opus to the staff at 8:30 PM. Salman Rushdi had suggested the film. Also I met my girlfreind in the booth.

All I can tell you is that there is one, twenty minute reel where all that happens is that you sit in the back seat while our "hero" drives an automobile in to a city, without talking.

I did three changovers,
Payal did three changeovers,
Graef did three changeovers.

So, no I guess I haven't seen the origional.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-30-2002, 04:51 PM:

11/30/2002, 11:20AM, Cinemark 17, Spfld OR, #17, SR•D but with not much LFE. Attendance about 30. Image was tilted, drooped on the right. Soft, diffuse image.

I wanted to like this, but it didn't quite get me fully involved. The performances are sometimes deliberately distant and a little surreal. It held my attention enough to get me to stay with it, but that's not saying a whole lot. Wants to be quiet, thoughtful, and "dream-like" (literally) but just plays unnecessarily flat. Presumably Soderberg (sp?) made the film he wanted to make, but the same story could have been told with a little more energy and been more involving for the audience.

Nice use of sound and occasional lack of it to help set up the mood they wanted.

I didn't hate it, but I wouldn't recommend it either.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-30-2002, 11:29 PM:

I have been a long time subscriber to the internet CinemaScore report and have just learned that "SOLARIS" received a big fat "F" from all age group. I have never seen a report like this before because no matter how bad any film is, the lowest grade was a D-. With a report like this, the movie must suck big time. I am glad I did not make an effort to see the movie in a theatre. It is very likely that I will also pass when the movie becomes available for rental on DVD.

-Claude

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 12-03-2002, 03:45 AM:

I liked it, not love but like.

This Clooney vehicle is good, but if you edit out an hour of the original, it would kick this ones ass. Soderberg has too large a head to do things like this movie(maybe its the material that attracts these artsy farts), give this to a director like Spielberg who wouldn't let it get out of hand, He knows how to film and pace a love story, although I doubt he knows it.

Soderberg is not hungry enough to make a film like this work on most levels, he only captured a few(not that spielbergs hungry, just couldn't think of a fresh director that would have got the point across easily).

I liked it.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-12-2002, 08:26 PM:

Attendance: 2002/12/11 19:40, Regal Hollywood 18, Huntsville, AL, Auditorium 15, Scope (shot with anamorphic lens)

I didn't really know what to think about this movie. I went into it having only read one positive review, and before reading this thread. Parts of the movie reminded me a lot of scenes from "2001: A Space Odyssey", while at times I feared that the movie was going to become like "Event Horizon". It was definitely a different, bizarre movie, so I must give it points for that.

All I know is, one that stuff started happening to the crew, why didn't they just get the hell out of there then? It's like the question Eddie Murphy asks in "Delirious" (1983) about people in haunted houses that I won't repeat here.

My review of the movie would probably be more like Brad's on the second viewing, since I had no idea what was going to happen on the first viewing. I don't remember any opening credits for this movie. Were there any or did I blink and miss them?

Another note: they pronounce it "SO LAHR ISS" rather than "SO LAIR ISS" like everyone around here calls the Sun UNIX oeprating system.

Even though work is currently being done to install adjustable masking in all auditoriums of this theatre, this particular auditorium is still "1.85:1-only", so I saw this movie with the scope image cropped to that ratio. The image went slightly beyond the left fixed masking and onto the left auditorium wall a bit at times. The Regal policy trailer was spliced in one perforation out of frame.

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 12-13-2002, 03:43 AM:

For all of the demands that Steve Soderberg made for the presentation of this movie, you would think it was for a good reason! I mean, we had someone come in from Fox to inspect our setup in the theatre it was being shown. After seeing this done, I figured...must be a kickass movie. Went to see it...woke up just before it ended...nuff said!

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-13-2002, 12:46 PM:

This version is much shorter and more entertaining!

(rated R - not for kids or easily offended adults)
Masterpiece Movies: SOLARIS

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-13-2002, 01:06 PM:

quote:
I mean, we had someone come in from Fox to inspect our setup in the theatre it was being shown.

Not to get off-topic of the reviews here, but Fox would have been delighted to know we showed this in our smallest, mono house from opening day until it left yesterday. The 5-10 people that showed up at each show didn't care. Most of them were sleeping when I came in to check the auditorium. [Roll Eyes]

=TMP=

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 03-01-2003, 05:19 AM:

Hi all

I haven't seen the 2002 remake (yet) but I plan to.

I recall when I saw the 1972 original. It was back about 1981 and the Federal Government had just started a new television station called SBS (Special Broadcasting service) which at the time featured a lot of presenters with accents, foreign films, very basic sets, a lot of soccer and a lack of professionalism. Notwithstanding this shaky start the network has gone on to become a very chic, classy, professional operation (with a lot of soccer).

Being in my later teenage years I liked alternative things (I still do) and I chanced to catch some interesting films on SBS. One of these was a very long but visually fascinating film called Solaris. It was totally unlike any Hollywood film I had seen. Yes it was long, yes it did get bogged down, but it really made the viewer think and the visual aspects of the film were stupendous. I reckon it must really, really have looked good up on the big screen and would have had a huge impact. 2001, with which it is sometimes compared, doesn't have quite the sense of scale. In the 1972 version, the Planet Solaris is filmed in such a way as to convey a sense of it awesomeness and to leave the audience in awe.

The film conveyed a real sense of mystery and although it dragged on and on the mystery aspect compelled the viewer to watch to the end.

I have just ordered the original book by Stanilaw Lem and I plan to read this, and then if possible watch the original 1972 film on vhs, dvd or tv, and then finally watch the 2002 version.

The reason for this approach is to compare the endings of each. I understand that the director of the 2002 version changed the ending from that used in the 1972 film. From what I have read of people's comments the 2002 ending is just plain confusing whereas I understood the 1972 ending ok.

Which film did you prefer - the Russian version (it's amazing to think that this film was made in Communist Russia) or the newer American version?

Incidentally from what I have heard about the 2002 film, the Director spends long periods of time focussed on a swirling, mystical orb whose presence throughout the film, and whose relevance to the other elements of the story remains largely a mystery.

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

I understand that in the latter part of the film the camera focusses intently on the orb and then slowly draws back to reveal that the orb is in fact Clooney's tush!

[Eek!]

cheers Peter

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-29-2003, 03:32 PM:

I didn't mind this film. But bear in mind that I saw Russian Ark beforehand, so Solaris didn't have much of a role model to live up too. Some nice SDDS-8 music. There is a lot of Clooney's ass.

So like:

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

Was Clooney dead in the end?

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 05-29-2003, 04:19 PM:

>>Was Clooney dead in the end?

Well, he was, and he wasn't.

It's not very well brought out during the course of the film, but the planet Solaris, which they were orbiting around, was itself a living, thinking entity (the whole planet, that is). And it was causing these physical manifestations of people's deceased loved ones (Clooney's wife, the little boy) to appear on the space station just to dick with their minds. At the end of the film, Clooney goes down with the station and burns up in the atmosphere of Solaris, only to have the planet reincarnate him and his wife on the surface, to presumably live together happily ever after.

I've never felt more like the Lone Ranger when posting something here, but I thought this film was magnificent, probably the best picture I saw last year. I don't care that it got all Fs in the preview polls, I can't wait for the DVD.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-10-2003, 11:41 PM:

I just watched this film for the second time. I found it intriguing and haunting. I though Clooney did a "much better than I thought he could" job of acting. I thought the music was great too. Guess I'm just not mainstream. The more I see this the more I like it. Another one of my favorite films suffered the same reviews. "Not enough action not enough explosions not enough ray guns." Blade Runner is one of my favorites just the same. Guess I'm down the road less traveled. I like it
PS The title and credits are at the end

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 10-13-2003, 08:00 AM:

I'm surprised I didn't post a review on this film. I actually liked it. My wife hated it. I would have liked less of Clooney's rear end, though. I'm not a sci-fi fan other than things like "Blade Runner" or "The Matrix" franchise. I thought this was very well done, and spooky. I expect I will watch it again now that it's out on DVD.