Slashdot Mirror
Solaris: Another View
Fundamentally, it's about a man (George Clooney) mourning about his suicide wife (Natascha McElhone, best known from the incomparably better Ronin). The science fiction is there only to provide a mirror for Clooney's moping about his lost love. It could have been done with drugs, dreams, insanity, spirits, reincarnation, or any number of other conceits (and in other movies, it has been done, with all of those), but Solaris does it with a huge sentient planet capable of reading minds and reforming matter at subatomic levels. What does this stupendous cosmic power do? Create replicas of whoever the people on the nearby space station dream about. Like Clooney's dead wife.
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup.
The Jedi Knight and the light saber will definitely get the can, and get it open in a jiffy. But the contents are a mess. And one never seems to have a light saber around when one needs one. Much less a light saber attached to a willing Jedi Knight -- "Follow our mandate from the Jedi Council, we must! Mmmm!"
Like the light saber and the soup can, Solaris the sentient planet mostly just gets in the way of the real substance of the film. Solaris the planet looks pretty on the screen, but so does iTunes when you turn on the visualizations -- they've got about the same level of emotional content. We need clumsy faux-jargon exposition: "Are you or are you not made of sub-atomic particles?" (of course -- everything is made of subatomic particles, usually organized in the form of atoms, duh) -- to even know that Solaris the planet has anything to do with what is going on.
Comparisons with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey are as inevitable as they are inaccurate. Both films are set in space. And both films have a slow pace, driven largely by beautifully shot scenes of some space-scape. But that's the extent of the similarity. If this is Soderbergh's tribute to Kubrick, it falls short. Thematically, they have little to do with each other. Kubrick's long space shots establish tone and realism for a film shot before the Apollo moon walks. They are always placed to make a point relevant to the plot, whether it is the mind-numbing isolation of a long space journey or a parallel between the first bone weapons of proto-humans and the incomparably more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction of the near future. Soderbergh's long space shots show off some very pretty particle system effects and convince us, over and over again, that, despite all indications to the contrary, this film is taking place in a Strange Place.
What interesting shots Soderbergh does come up with tend to be film-studenty tricks like a dream-like tracking shot that suggests that there might be more than one replica of a particular character. Of course, by the point we start seeing these kinds of shots, we've already seen multiple replicas of the same character come and go. And he never goes anywhere with it. Even the supposedly trick ending is as obvious as the end of The Sixth Sense ("I see dead people" -- well, duh, we can see what the end is right there). Soderbergh brings this loaded gun on stage and never really fires it. The science fiction conceit of this super-powerful planet never goes anywhere.
Which just brings us back to the fact that this isn't really a science fiction movie. It's a character study. Unfortunately, I don't think Clooney's a good enough actor to really pull that off. He's got tremendous charisma and screen presence. But he doesn't do emotional depth well, and when he does, it either comes across as lust (the problem with his role in Out of Sight) or as bad melodrama (which is his problem here). The other actors are decent -- Jeremy Davies is good in a truly neurotic and twitchy role, but saying Jeremy Davies is good at playing neurotic is like saying that Jack Nicholson is good at playing crazy macho -- they can sleep through the role and still do it. McElhone is suitably cryptic, but again, it's something she does well. Viola Davis strikes me as perhaps the best of the lot, but I'm unfamiliar with her work, so she may be similarly snoozing through the role.
Soderbergh started his film career with a bit of sexual obsession, in the highly-regarded sex, lies, and videotape (yes, the title is all in lowercase -- never seen a satisfactory explanation for that little bit of conceit either). In the end, Solaris comes across much the same. Clooney sees McElhone on a train, they play a little eye footsie, and end up going to the same party at the home of a mutual friend. Breathy lines and bare butts soon ensue. Eventually, McElhone kills herself over a misunderstanding (Clooney walks out in a snit and she thinks he's not coming back). This is barely sexual obsession, and more like a pretentious drama student trying to redo the tragedies of Shakespeare. It just isn't compelling, and Clooney getting emotional distraught over it was silly (the New York audience I was with broke out into laughter -- maybe that's just New York cynicism, but I don't think so).
So in the end, what are we left with? Some pretty pictures of a purple planet. George Clooney's angst-ridden mug. A "trick" ending that is broadcast throughout the movie. And a conceit somewhat larger than a fully grown blue whale, lying in the middle of the movie doing nothing.
I wanted to like it, really I did. Soderbergh has done better, and we sure can use better directors on science fiction films than we usually get. Alas, this ain't it.
Slashdot welcomes reader-submitted features and reviews. Thanks to nellardo for this one!
Is this really a proper Solaris? I thought that the next Solaris was supposed to have GNOME in it, and I still don't see that silly little "foot" menu anywhere in the film! Are they going back on their promises?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
The link to Stansilaw Lem novel goes to http://slashdot.org/index.pl
Were is the real link?
You know that feeling you get, when you start to read a review of something, and then you encounter a statement that is so nonsensical that you read it 3 times, looking for the irony/joke/sarcasm? And it isn't there?
Yeah. Ronin. Oooookay. Move along kids, nothing to see here.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I don't think LOTR had as many posts about it. What is the big deal with this film?
As any time I see something over advertised and the salesman yelling "Please, please, just take a look, oh PLEASE take a look, I BEG YOU", I run the other way, and FAST.
Subliminal advertising? OSDN invested in the film? Someone knows someone, and is trying to "help" spread the word? Whatever the case, it is too much hype for me.
It's turned me off. Sort of like when you see the same commercial 10 times in an hour TV show. It is usually the last time I buy that product (if I ever did).
of the loud laughter everytime there was a Solaris preview in a theater close to a Computer Science department?
Women can be Jedis too!
Should it possibly point: Here or possibly Here?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
He does take shots that pay homage to the 2001 movie. Albeit, like you say, he doesn't do a quality job of them. Like the shots where he in his suit, and they have a close up of his helmet. The lighting and pretty much everything in that scene matches up with another scene in 2001.
:-)
Other than that though, I was quite disappointed with this movie. Esp. considering I was waiting for it to come out. The book Solaris is far better than the movie. I just found the movie was trying to hit on far too many points to successfully get any one particular one well.
There is a discussion of the existance and substance of God throughout the movie (with Solaris being a "God-like" entity)
There is a question of nihilism that slides through, but really isn't hit upon well.
There are "Star Trek"-like scenes, where all of a sudden a buch of techno-babble is spouted that solves everything and advances the plot.
But overall, he seems to be trying to discuss the existance of love, and what love is... Personally, I feel he failed miserably, or his definition of love is quite shallow.
The book Solaris, written by Lem, a French author (Thus, you'd need to be able to read French or find a translation to read it.) is a good book, and I recommend that it is worth reading.
The movie on the other hand... Well... like the review says...
~ kjrose
sigh. looking at it from a sci fi perspective you're going to be disappointed. the sci fi element is just a vehicle for the philosophical questions the movie raises (and then doesn't really answer, leaving me pretty confused at the end as to the point.)
the film was an interesting "journey", but not one with a very defined destination. i don't think it needs to get rocked as badly as it has in these slashdot reviews
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
solaristhemovie.com
Any takers?
YOU ARE MASSIVE FAIL! No fp!
> This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her
> light saber to get at a can of soup.
How patronizing, politically correct! So, if you were to say "his light saber" women world over would feel offended, marginalized? I have seen a few ridiculous things in my life, but PC is the most ridiculous one ever.
Solaris takes another look at you.
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup.
No, that sort of grammar is not gonna get you laid. The average so-called (non-lesbian) 'feminist' will fall for the first man who gives her a good thorough beating. The hard part is to get the skanky bitches to stop calling you afterwards.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Internet sensation 'Goatman' was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even though you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to troll culture. Truly an American icon.
he was Polish.
I guess if Sun weren't wasting their time harassing Microsoft, they'd be suing these guys over the "Solaris" name.
he really was Polish. Apparently the English version of Solaris was translated from a French translation of the original Polish novel.
http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/solaris.html
I also had watched the Russian version the night before, so maybe that had an effect.
Whether or not it is a 'Sci Fi' movie or a character study set in outer space I think is irrelevant. It was a sharp contemplative movie that was filmed beautifully and dealt with a man's guilt over the sucide of his wife.
And, by the way, no one said the planet was 'sentient' --it may have been, they were never able to communicate with it. But if it was, it probably had little understanding of the humans. Its creation of the 'visitors' was probably its attempt at communication. But you never know (since they couldn't communicate).
I think it was a smart movie based on an original story. Don't be afraid to see it.
--t
I thought that the next Solaris was supposed to have GNOME in it
I guess Ximian couldn't cough up enough money for product placement of Ximian Desktop software.
Or are real-world desktop environments such as the GNOME desktop unsuitable for placement in movies such as Soderbergh's Solaris? Movie operating systems seem to have big, dramatic alert boxes with bold text, bold colors, flashing icons, and sound. The GNOME desktop doesn't seem to do this.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The criticism of the premise could as well apply to Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and every other episode of Star Trek. In fact, the characters explicitly question why Solaris would be doing what it is doing, why if it has such capabilities it didn't just destroy the space station or choose some other way to engage the characters. They are eventually left with the conclusion that there may not be an answer that they can understand, though they continue to struggle for understanding. That process of trying to understand is exactly the human dilemma that the film as art is trying to explore.
The role was a gutsy move for George Clooney and the subject matter itself was not the kind of thing someone would expect from a major director who is undoubtedly under pressure from the studios to provide the world with action-packed blockbusters. If you enjoy movies such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Being There" in which the subject matter and pacing is more about intellectual and artistic achievement than maximizing profits, you will enjoy this movie.
I think the reviewer entirely missed the point and recommend this film to anyone who enjoys thoughtful, provocative films.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
Anyone that make starwars comparisons in a review about a Steven Soderburg movie is an instant goon. Grow up.
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup.
The best Science Fiction, IMO, puts the familiar against a backdrop of the strange. How can we possibly understand the motivations of a planetary intelligence with this cosmic power? Maybe it's Solaris' idea of an experiment, or perhaps entertainment of some sort. I suppose our pets wonder why we use our cosmic powers to eat celery or watch TV. No, our pets are more sensible than amateur movie reviewers and don't bother to wonder at things they can't understand.
What is happening here is strange in the extreme and is just a given. What's interesting is how the characters deal with it.
Gee, maybe it's both a science fiction movie AND a character study? Are they necessarily mutually exclusive? What's the problem? Not the requisite lack of depth in the characters for a science fiction movie?
Yeah, try Compupic, at
u x. html
http://www.photodex.com/downloads/platforms/lin
It's so easy, you can use it with one hand!
I don't think so. Traffic was a bit more of a socio-political picture where Leonard's work is more criminology rap. So I would agree: Out of Sight, Oceans 11 and one you forgot to mention, The Limey are all in that vein. Traffic though was less of a wacky picture and more about social content.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Did you by any chance watch it in SOVIET RUSSIA? Because in Soviet Russia, Solaris takes another view of YOU!
LOL.
now, any seti grinder would tell you that one of the most intriguing aspects of space exploration is the possibility of encountering beings totally Other than ourselves. the book and the tarkovsky film ask whether we can really understand anyone or anything. it goes without saying that kelvin and the others have failed to understand and communicate with solaris. moreover, kelvin has failed to understand his wife in either incarnation. because he has failed in that most basic task, he loses his own moorings. in this sense, the psychological bits are absolutely central to the science fiction.
perhaps this sort of philosophical science fiction has more in common with other genres than more familiar science fiction tends to have. even if that's true, that's not a bad thing. how many times can you watch star wars? (which is just a recycled western anyway?)
nor does it mean that it's unlike other science fiction. look at 2001. in some way, all of the stories deal with human encounters with the non-human. there's a nietzschean thread running through 2001, but there's also a pessimism about the encounter with the Other. kubrick seems to be saying that when we do have that first encounter, we'll deal with it in the same way we deal with everything else: we'll send bureaucrats. in essense, kubrick is still operating in the satirical mode, and that is what makes 2001 most different from solaris.
I haven't seen this movie yet, but the russian original (ca. 1972) was a great movie in the tradition of 2001. Both films are based on the book of the same name by polish writer Stanislaw Lem.
"Holy instant noodle"
And what's wrong with a journey and an undefined destination?
I dunno, why does evey sci-fi or any film have to be this or that? It's like we can't look at something for what it is; we have to compare it to 2001 and Star Wars and what not. This makes me think that some people, who can't digest anything new, always need something else to compare it to in order for it to make 'sense'. Kinda nice that there is no big triumphant music and predictable ending. That all the effects don't overshadow a....., unusual story. I liked the fact that there were no opening credits and such. It's not the same 'ol same 'ol.
In a society where a few dictate foreign policy, we're bombarded left and right with what someone else says are the best products, and where a lot of people feel like they're just punching a clock, it's nice to have something once and a while not decided and ultimately in the end, left to us to interpret and to have it mean what it means to us as individuals. I found it somewhat Eastern and refreshing in the way it kinda just presented things and left me feeling like I can think about what it meant to me. Instead of 'yay, Yoda looks like a frog on crack with a laser sword'.
And btw, if fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate, why did Yoda get all pissed when he fought Dooku? Much contradiction i sense in these films..
Well thank god we have another pretentious reviewer bragging about how the ending of the Sixth Sense was so obvious. His analytical mind is clearly far superior! I bow before his massive intellect.
Sure and while we're at it, we'll keep tanks rolling, helicopters dispensing missles and killing kids on both side. Both are to blame, not just one!
Look, it's a YANSR -- Yet Another Negative Solaris Review. How is this 'another view', exactly? The first Solaris-related story (a few months ago) concluded that 'it'll probably suck'. The recent review proclaimed that 'it sucks' (in so many words), and now this 'new perspective' reveals that -- whoa there -- it _really_ sucks.
I mean, come on. Soderbergh guilty of being a film student (I guess I'll have to boycott Taxi Driver and Raging Bull from now on)? A 'trick' ending (I'd love to hear an explanation of what was so 'tricky' about it)? A cynical, jaded New York audience not giving George 'what a plebeian' Clooney the benifit of the doubt (SHOCK!! HORROR!!!)?
Granted, the movie does have some very real faults (hint: it's not the 'conceit somewhat larger than a fully grown blue whale'. God, that's the worst fucking simile I've ever had the misfortune to chance upon). Sadly however, none of them are addressed in this 'new review'. On the other hand, it _is_ so terrifically 'biting', 'cutting' and 'cynical' in that wonderful New York way we all know and love -- I should think that alone places it a cut above the sort of review that attempts to honestly 'discuss' the 'content' of the 'movie at hand'.
Perhaps 'Solaris bashing' should be added to the list of Slashdot topics. I can see it now:
Step 1: Bash Solaris
Step 2: Bash Solaris some more
Step 3: Profit!!
or maybe even
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, Solaris bashes YOU!
P.S.
For a far more balanced (if not uncritical) perspective, you might try
the Salon review
God, why does all of slashdot seem to hate a really good movie? I mean, it's not like I come to /. for movie reviews, and I sure won't now, but really...
Ok, so what's your point? That Solaris isn't "science-fictiony" enough? That the planet doesn't do anything cool? Um...ok. We could, I suppose, get into some kind of argument about this, but if you don't see why that's a really, really stupid point to make to begin with, I'm not gonna bother.
There are, surprisingly, some good points made against the movie (though they're probably accidentally made). Such as: Clooney's a bad actor. You mention the scene wherein Clooney has a really, really corny set of lines, and might I add, it's the only one where he doesn't really seem believable. Most of the time, he does fine. Not great, but fine. Jeremy Davies, on the other hand, is just kind of annoying, laying it on with a forklift where really, a knife would be more appropriate.
You compare the movie to 2001, and then basically argue that they're different, only because of the cinematography. Ok...2001 is about man's hubris finally catching up with him: he (pardon the gendered language) goes too far, and eventually, his creations bring about his demise. Not all of man's demise, but the point is made. Solaris is, on some level, also about the failure of man in the face of his presumed greatness: why is the station out by Solaris? To see if it can be used as an energy source. Just getting there, and building the station, are remarkable acts of engineering skill, but we can't handle what happens to us when we get there. Just like in 2001, we're smart enough to build it, but not smart enough to ask whether or not we should, and not smart enough to know what to do when something happens.
Moving back to your review, you finally get that it's not really a science-fiction movie, but a character study. Good job. You do, however, make fun of the relationship between Clooney and McElhone. Well, ok. But whether or not it "works" is really more up to the viewer. If the viewer can't realize what's going on, though, namely that they are in love, and that the object of Clooney's love just killed herself because of him, well... You also cite the laughter of the audience as, implicitly, a reason not to see the movie. I have noticed that audiences laugh at this movie, and that there are a number of people who walk out of it. Both of these, to me, are indications that people go to Solaris expecting a "George Clooney movie", and thank God, that's not what they get. The American movie-going public being what it is, however, and giving millions upon millions of dollars to Harry Potter and other similarly bad studio productions while sneering derisively at the incomparably better foreign films that are lucky to find an art-house release, I'd say that if the audience thinks a movie's bad, odds are it's good, and if an American public thinks a movie is stupid, well, by God, if Rob Schneider can keep making movies, I want to see what they consider a "stupid" movie.
"McBane to base: Under attack by Commie Nazis!" -the Simpsons
Anyway, given that take on the novel, I've been pessimistic about the film ever since I saw the trailers. When you're expecting deep statements about psychology and epistemology, and Voice-Over Man goes on about "blah blah love story blah blah deep in space ", disappointment seems inevitable. Perhaps if I adjust my expectations, I'll enjoy it.
Or maybe I should just stay home and watch Tarkovsky's movie.
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
It might be a nit, but saying that Soderberg has lately been focusing more on Elmore Lenoard style thrillers as a departure from his earlier character driven work is just silly.
As evidence for this assertion, three movies are listed.
1. Out of Sight
2. Traffic
3. Oceans 11
Never mind that most of these more caper-flicks than thrillers. They are also only about half of his output over the last 5 years, and, in the case of out of sight, have strong introspective character driven components.
But please, don't forget Erin Brockovitch, The Limey & Full Frontal, all released since Out of Sight. Taken togeather, think it is hard to charactarize his recent output according to some simple trend.
If anything, you might say that he seems to alternate between more commercial and more artistically focused efforts, but even this breaks down.
Out of Sight might fit as a commercial film, but really only in retrospect. George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez weren't big stars when it was made, and its complex narrative structure would seem at odds with the success it enjoyed.
Erin Brokovich looks like a play to make a commercial picture, what with it featuring an established star, but Soderberg's subsequent engangeent with Clooney and Roberts looks more motivated by friendship or artistic interests than simple commerce.
It's in a SCIFI setting! It doesn't have to be actual Sci-Fi! Imagine people within those Genres having actually emotions rather than corny ham handed "feelings of love" (Star Wars).
The science fiction conceit of this super-powerful planet never goes anywhere. Ever learned another word other than conceit? You use way too much. There are magically books called Thesarus.
Stop bitching about Solaris not being Sci-Fi enough. It's not meant to be! Space is the setting , not the plot, not the theme! Yet Another Stupid Review of Solaris written by some nerd who doesn't get movies and thinks he does.
I never read the 1st or 2nd review of a movie on Slashdot. Waiting for the 100th review posted here. I'm sure either timothy of chrisd will get right on it...
Look at this screenshot comparing Photodex and Konqueror. Can someone tell me what it is that Photodex does better than Konqueror?
Follow me
Many people seem to be concentrating on the idea that Solaris is an attempt at homage to Kubrick, and in some senses, I can understand how that could be seen. Take this movie on its' own, however, and it's a very interesting piece of cinematic work.
What if it's not about the science fiction? What if it's not about man's failure to relate to fellow man or even the rest of the universe? What if it's not about greiving over a long-lost woman?
What if it's about an unusual problem, and the possible solutions? The movie presents quite a number of different solutions to the same problem, through each of the characters on board the space station - even several times through the same character. I think that the film proposes that there are so many possibilities and outcomes - and each one of them is valid and successful in its' own right. I left the movie feeling very dissatisfied, but not because of the acting or the special effects. It was because there wasn't solid closure to the film like there is in so many other mainstream films. I definitely like a movie which doesn't leave me feeling the same way as every other movie when I walk out of the theater. I also completely saw the twist coming at the end of the movie (if you can call it that), and it didn't bother me one bit that I could predict it.
It's like Lord of the Rings - everyone knows or can figure out the end of the story; how you get there is of tremendous importance. I think Solaris did a good job of taking me on that journey, and leaving me three hours after the credits thinking about it.
I recently saw Solaris, without much hope that it would be good....and I wasn't disappointed. In my opinion, the real main character of the book was the ocean, and Lem would go on for pages and pages about how it behaves, what it creates, and its history of interactions with humans. This movie had none of that whatsoever...in fact, I don't remember hearing the word "ocean" ever mentioned...Solaris was this cheesy looking purple and pink ball.
Either the reviewer hasn't read the book, or he has accepted the fact that the movie has little intentions on sticking to its namesake. However, I do agree with him that using Solaris to try to tell the message it seems to be trying to send is overkill. It would have been better maybe to adapt the story of his wife coming back some other way, sort of like how apocalypse now gives a different setting for heart of darkness.
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup.
The Jedi Knight and the light saber will definitely get the can, and get it open in a jiffy. But the contents are a mess.
Dammit man, a lightsaber is an elegant and simple way to open a can - not as clumsy or as random as, say, a blaster!!
Perhaps YOUR lightsaber skills are not up to snuff when opening a can of Campbells finest. But a REAL Jedi Knight can open a can, shave his face, or pick YOUR nose without you even noticing using his/her lightsaber!
Disgrunted Jedi everywhere blow you a big rasperry, sir.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup.
The Jedi Knight and the light saber will definitely get the can, and get it open in a jiffy. But the contents are a mess. And one never seems to have a light saber around when one needs one. Much less a light saber attached to a willing Jedi Knight -- "Follow our mandate from the Jedi Council, we must! Mmmm!"
"Scotty, we can't make it all the way on pompous hot air! I need more from the Jedi Soup Can!"
"Cap'n - I can't get any more rhetoric out of this analogy! It's strained beyond its limit! She'll break up for sure!"
That's the whole movie.
It would be nice to see a pan free solaris
both the newest version and the older version.
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Tarkovsky,+Andrei
:-)
Mini biography
The most famous Soviet film-maker since Sergei M. Eisenstein, Andrei Tarkovsky... (show more)
Talk about recursion
What a shallow review, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know that the book delt with more complex issues than some guys sex life. Either the movie was really bad or the reviewer is unable to grasp it's meaning. Please! Don't let this review discourage you from reading the book!
nonsensical
Not only that, it's just plain WRONG.
Fundamentally, it's about a man mourning about his suicide wife
No; it's not. The film is about IDENTITY. How we perceive ourselves and others. The vehicle is their relationship.
Anybody who missed that shouldn't be writing a review. Then again, I'm not surprised; most of the people in the theater were too distracted by what they thought the movie was about (ooh! Clooney!).
Don't get me wrong, this movie isn't great, but the concept is interesting. It requires a bit of thought OUTSIDE what's on the celluloid. People, I've discovered, are wholly incapable of that.
Sorry for the rant, I am.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
And if you really want to be drawn into that question, the only way to do it is to read the book.
This movie is notable in that it fails to pull people into that state of mind in the way Lem's novel did; that's why people can come out of this movie shaking their heads and wondering why anyone would want tell this story.
Don't shoot the messenger-- he's just telling it like it is.
Thematically, they have little to do with each other. Kubrick's long space shots establish tone and realism for a film shot before the Apollo moon walks.
Are you confirming that it's Kubrick who made the moon walks clips?
Solaris is one of the most poignantly beautiful movies that I have seen in a long time. Yes, it is about a man mourning his dead wife. It is also about confronting the unknown, and towards the end, about embracing the unknown. The latter is a characteristic of sci fi films, and also, the aspect of this movie that our reviewer has failed to note. It is utterly irrelevant to this film what action movies the actors have previously starred in, or what thrillers the director previously brought forth. Anyone going to this film expecting chases, chills and flashy fight scenes should go see a James Bond movie. This is a love story in a sci fi setting, beautifully set, and conveying accurately the spirit of Stanislaw Lem's novel.
This is a fucking idiotic review. You don't know anything about movies or science fiction. Shut the fuck up.
Solaris may suck, but you're too fucking stupid to understand the real reason.
This movie is notable in that it fails to pull people into that state of mind
I have not read the book. I agree that the film did not do this as well as it could have (or the story/concept deserves), but there were 3 or 4 scenes where they actively discuss this theme rather pointedly. It's clearly supposed to be the driving theme.
I plan on reading the book between Christmas and New Years, if I happen to find it at the bookstore.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
this is lame.
the same way that everything that a human is "natural" because we are humans and part of nature, soderberg cannot depart from things that are soderberg.
you just havent seen this before.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Thank you! Before reading your post, I didn't know that Insomnia was a remake, or that Skaarsgaard (a wonderful actor) was in the original!
I too hate the dumbing-down of foreign movies for American audiences. I hope that the success of films like "Amelie" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien" in the US will help get more good foreign films here, without being first processed through the Hollywood grist mill.
I will definitely see the originals of both "Insomnia" and "Solaris" before (eventually) getting around to seeing their remakes.
-dex
I haven't seen this new version of Solaris, so excuse me for being somewhat off-topic. Why is it that 'Americans' automaticly use 'art house', to describe somthing that isn't Hollywood gloss?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
There was nothing thought provoking in Solaris. It was pathetic.
It's a tale about a very bad psychologist who failed tragically, publically, and through his own cruelty, who is trusted greatly by people spending billions of dollars, and friends who had to be aware of what he did to his wife.
The film is so riddled with internal inconsistancies, that any mental masturbation Soderbergh wishes to engage in becomes contrived and idiotic.
The Sixth Sense told the same tale better. And more recently The Salton Sea did too.
And then the brutal cliches. Soderbergh is a merciless ass.
If you have to see something Clooney and Soderbergh had a hand in, see Far From Heaven. So good they may just have put up their money.
Solaris is a bad scifi exposition made for idiots who want to think of themselves as smart. Ed Wood couldn't have done it worse.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
People didn't complain about the sci-fi ness of Gattaca. Sure the White House didn't get destroyed by a 20 mile wide alien spaceship, but it had a really fucking great story and excellent acting. *gasp* Yes, that can happen in sci-fi movies. Unfortunately it's rare.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Basically, this review tells us that the author expected something different from what he got. Perhaps he had the wrong expectations? Of course, this might also be due to the way the move is being marketed... It also seems like he couldn't imagine Soderbergh as a sci-fi director and went into it trying to see how Soderbergh failed. I haven't seen it yet, but this review certainly won't dissuade me.
Just finished my marathon of the Tarkovsky version of Solaris, the current Clooney version and the book. I think the Tarkovsky version is more visually lyrical than the Cameron/Soderberg production. I think the newer film has a "cleaner" story line. I think both films leave all the money on the table when is comes to what Lem was interested in talking about. While both movies give lip service to the idea that we as humans may not be ready or even have the capacity for relating to non human intelligence, once the lines have been said, the theme is not explored very deeply. Ironically, by running to the love story, they both prove Lem's point. We can't begin to grasp what alien contact might really be like, but we DO know about love and failure and the desire for redemption. It is safer (more marketable) ground. Both films cave in at the end, although I think Tarkovsky gives us the more startling visual/conceptual ending of the two films. Neither has the courage to leave Kelvin on the station as Lem does,hoping for more "horrible miracles." Neither film takes much trouble to discuss that in that universe, people have been trying to make contact with Solaris for over 100 years. Neither film deals with Kelvin's speculation that consciousness as we know it may just be emerging for the Solaris entity and that humanity has been trying to contact a galactic infant. Or that the appearance of an infant may in fact be a vaster intelligence who is just starting to figure out how to talk to humans. My thumbnail review to friends about Solaris is that it is difficult to make an intellectual film in a era that is so hostile to intellectual ideas. Both Tarkovsky and to a greater extent Soderberg lose courage. Given the subject matter, as beautiful as both films are, they are both disappointing.
Yes, this is somewhat off-topic, but I feel it important. Photodex has more of a Windows Explorer feel to it, which is good to get more users to switch over. Konqueror looks scary to new users, atleast to some extent. With more and more user friendly tools for Linux, I think we can expect to see more and more users flock to it.
Soderbergh is nowhere near the filmaker he's made out to be. He's not bad, by any means; he's just not that special. Ever since sex, lies, and videotape, the next Soderbergh film is always "going to be an instant classic", but if you look at his resume, he's got his share of crap (imdb page).
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
you bring your wireless keyboard and mouse to a movie and try to pull a shell window up on the big screen.
Allow me to relate how grateful I am that you informed me the movie has a surprise ending. It always makes them better when you know they are coming don't you think?
I know the reviewer is obviously very smart, but maybe some of us slower folk wouldn't have caught on to the surprise until it SURPRISED us. The review wouldn't have been any worse off (if that's even possible) if said reviewer had neglected to mention the ending.
I'm glad you got so much out of it
What I got out of it, so to speak, is that I should read the book
At any rate, my first response to the review was a bit harsh, but it was only because
credit
I'm going to choose to believe that's not sarcasm, lol. I should add, though, that even though this is a 'site for nerds' it's gratifying to find people (you) willing to attempt to DISCUSS the driving ideas of a film/book/piece of code/anything.
And for the 2 people that read my comments: I just found my old
.sig last updated March 9, 1894
I think the movie was slow, but I only found myself looking at my watch in the last 10 minutes or so, and then I found myself disliking Soderbergh for putting in the obvious happy ending.. I mean, I like movies to have happy endings, but they could have cut it just as they were about to leave, perhaps with that backing out frame (don't want a spoiler here, but people who've seen it should kno what I mean).
As some other have said, the review seemed to miss the point of the movie, its not about angst, it about the nature of personhood and inter-personhood perceptions, and what constitutes reality.
I'd give it 3.5 out of 5. With a 3 being, I'd have been happy to pay to see it on video. 4 being worth going to the theatre for.
Winton
i'm a snob because i don't like seeing movies i love get rehashed? i'm a snob because i'm sick of having bullshit movies shoved my way? hardly.
look, i'm not denying that soderbergh or nolan have proven that they can do work. like i stated above, it's seeing movies that i love, which were incrediblly well-done in the first place, being rehashed. you mention that 95% of people in the theater hadn't heard of tarkovsky's version..
is it because it's a bad film? nope. it's because, once again, american's won't watch subtitles.
back to the point at hand, howeve: i've *rarely* ever seen a remake done that isn't artistically hollow. that isn't what annoys me, though. my problem with all of this is that movies are being reworked for NO PURPOSE. why remake insomnia? why not just watch the original?
look, maybe this IS a snobby attitude to take, but think how you would feel. let's say that "a clockwork orange" is one of your favorite movies, of all time. i don't know if it is, but let's just use that as an example.
so, you love this film. steven spielberg or whoever comes along, pops out a remake of it, only this time, it's less violent, less effectual, and stars george clooney in the lead role. the droogies are played by al pacino, robin williams, and doogie fucking howser. would you REALLY want to see this film? ignoring who's in it, would you really see a point or have a genuine interest in seeing a remake of a film which, in your eyes, can not and should not be remade? probably not.
again, maybe this is a snobbish attitude to take. however, methinks you'd get sick of coookie-cutter film, unnecessary remakes, and "blockbuster" hits eventually, too. when you work in a video store for 2 years, you eventually rent virtually everything the store has to offer. rather quickly, you start to draw a really fine line between what you consider good, and what you consider bad.
i don't need to see the remake of "insomnia". in the original, skaarsgaard was, for all intents and purposes, the real villian. the person who you're led to believe is the villian, accidentally committed murder. looking at the ad with robin williams, it's obvious to me that they didn't play this properly, because the few times i saw it, he was portrayed as playing mind games, etc with the cop. the only person doing that in the original was skaarsgaard's character.
technical details aside, i just don't see a point.
if trying to be a disseminating moviegoer makes me a close-minded elitist, so be it...but i don't need to rent film like "double jeopardy" just to know they're crap, and i don't need to watch a remake of "insomnia" just to find out that the original was better.
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup.
The Jedi Knight and the light saber will definitely get the can, and get it open in a jiffy.
Of course she will make a mess because she is a fucking, dipshit, useless woman. Now if the Jedi knight in your terrible analogy were male then one would be sure he'd get it right with no muss, no fuss.
Please die a painful death.
I suspect that the only reason it got any hype at all was because of George Clooney's butt. And, BTW, you've seen one guy's butt, you've seen them all.
There was no action at all. Not 'action' like in an action movie, but action as in 'movement'. Long shots of this glowing planet for no apparent purpose. Tedious dialog. Lines that don't make sense (something about the planet "increasing in mass at an exponential rate". Doesn't E=mc^2 mean that would take fantastic amounts of energy?) Zero character development. There is no explaining of how the situation in the movie came about or any resolution of any 'why' question. It was sort of like the first star trek movie (star trek: the motionless picture), only without the interesting stuff.
I understand that this Sodenheimer guy is supposed to be a great director. Great directors must really be overrated, because he really made an awful film here.
As we left the theater, we (not just me, but just about everybody who had just seen the film) warned the people buying tickets not to see it.
A movie consisting entirely of static would be a better choice. At least you know it's not supposed to make sense.
I've sent my ticket stub to 20th Century Fox, asking for a refund. I'll follow up if I get it.
it's because, once again, american's won't watch subtitles.
if trying to be a disseminating moviegoer...
I hate f*ckers like these who, having worked in a video rental jig, are therefore superior aesthetes and cannot deign to vulgar populism. Jackass, movie IS a popular medium. Always has been. Never forget it. Take it from someone who knows far more about films than you do.
For someone who rails so pronouncedly against American illiteracy, you sure have a funny way of showing your superior literacy through experimental grammar. This is not to mention that you haven't even the decency to watch the damn movie before bitching about it. WTF does even a "disseminating" moviegoer mean? Is it a movie-goer who stains semen on the theater seat? If so, you qualify eminently.
The mother fucker who modded this down is retarded. This post was intelligent and had grounds. Burn in fucking hell bitch.
Konqueror looks scary to new users, atleast to some extent.
Based on your scientific double-blind controlled study of, what, three people?
...not French. The book was translated to english from a french translation.
But that's the thing. People are generally incapable of digesting anything new, they are usually only comfortable with what they know and relucant. That's why every single song on the radio sounds like every other song on the radio.
Neither my expletives nor your faux-Kulturkritik rantings changes the fact that you were waxing masturbatory on something you hadn't even seen. For one thing, I doubt that anybody, including Soderbergh himself, or Fox studios, expected this Solaris remake to be a moneymaker. And who the hell is 'forcefed' to see movies he doesn't want to see? No one, and no one is doing the forcefeeding, either. I went to see Solaris, and left the cinema feeling ambivalent about the film. But whatever my feelings about it, I did go see it. Too bad you lack the courtesy of doing even that before christening it with your holy semen.
Man o man, that was one of the dumbest reviews I've read in a long time (maybe ever). Is he 15 years old or something. Here are my takes on his takes, warning, there may be some spoilers (don't know since I haven't written them yet):
This is a bit like using a Jedi Knight and her light saber to get at a can of soup
What the hell is he talking about. How lame of an analogy can you have, Jedi's? Then he has an entire paragraph about this and it makes no sense at all.
"Are you or are you not made of sub-atomic particles?" (of course -- everything is made of subatomic particles, usually organized in the form of atoms, duh)
Unless of course they are entities that exist entirely in your head. And even if one was thinking hologram, and even holograms are made of subatomic particles, that misses the point entirely.
Comparisons with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey are as inevitable as they are inaccurate. Both films are set in space. And both films have a slow pace, driven largely by beautifully shot scenes of some space-scape. But that's the extent of the similarity.
What, the docking sequence was not similar enough for you, man, it looks like he replicated some frames verbatim not to mention the "addition" of the "no sounds in space" effect. Hell I expected the Blue Danube to start playing (and no, I had not heard previous to watching the film about any homages to Kubrick).
The science fiction conceit of this super-powerful planet never goes anywhere.
Why should it? The planet was a device, something that drove plot points. Just like the monoliths in 2001. You are never explicitly told what they are or what they're doing, and they don't really factor in the actual film, though they are obviously central to the film. He talks about 2001 like a artsy fartsy film student, and then totally misses these points.
Which brings me to the next issue, his overuse of the word conceit. Talk about pot/kettle/black. But then again I have to remind myself that he did pull the Jedi thing early in the review.
in the highly-regarded sex, lies, and videotape (yes, the title is all in lowercase -- never seen a satisfactory explanation for that little bit of conceit either)
Maybe he just liked the way it looked, who cares? Once again with the coneit word. Is this guy an old roommate of Soderburghs that never made it big?
A "trick" ending that is broadcast throughout the movie.
Maybe the problem is that the author of the review thought it was supposed to be a "trick" ending. A "trick" ending is one in which nothing or little in the story leads one to expect the ending that occured. That was hardly the case here. One could imagine a few different endings, but the one that happened was definitely one of them. And it had nothing to do with telescoping, it was just natural story progression. A trick ending would have been "George Clooney goes back to earth and marries a 18yo white trash chick and develops a beer gut" or "a spaceship full of space marines show up with Sigourney Weaver to flesh out any "bugs"". In this case the ending brings up the question (though admittadly other movies have done the same) of "what is really real" and which reality _should_ we accept (yes, similar to "The Matrix"), which is completely consitant with the story.
Sorry for the verbosity (though coming in as late as I am, I doubt that many will end up suffering through this), but this kind of drivel is very disappointing. Hell my submission about the interview with Sun's Scott McNealy gets punted (and he actually has some very interesting things to say about their Linux strategy, god forbid an "on topic" article) and crap like this makes it in. Oh well, "if ya don't like it start yer own damn site" I guess.
I haven't seen this new movie, and was hesitant to watch it for fear it would not live up to the Tarkovsky version, which I loved. Unfortunately, I don't find this review helpful, for some of the same reasons discussed above.
Perhaps when a new movie/book comes out Slashdot should invite reader reviews, then a subset of the /. audiance (eg those who have time to meta-moderate) would pre-screen these reviews, and we the general audiance could be presented with pre ranked set of reviews.
ps. I do appreciate nellardo's writing this review, I just didn't find it helpful.
The SF (?) book I'd most like to see made into a movie at this point is Samuel Delany's Dhalgren. Very little SFX needed and a truly moody, strange, story. But it'd be difficult to mute the sexuality enough to make it viable for mainstream. And the homosexuality themes would make it too controversial for the average american to handle. Then again, Oz has had a good run on HBO.
Tarkovsky is in the same league with Fellini and Kurosawa - why even bother comparing? 30 years from now I doubt anyone will even know that Soderbergh's Solaris existed.
grisha.org
This review (and many of its replies) show that either: 1) you (will) hate the movie because it's not the usual Hollywood tripe or 2) you (will) love the movie because it's the usual Hollywood tripe. Why does every movie have to be one or the other? While I agree that there are some films that do make me question the quality control coming out of California (Not Another Teen Movie, The Animal), I don't see that there's much of a point getting your knickers in a twist over a film that may be thought-provoking but not viscerally stimulating.
Having seen Solaris I was teetered between intrigue and boredom. The shots of the "planet" were pretty to look at but didn't add much to the film and certainly didn't advance the story or really give me a sense of being out-of-place. I kept waiting for one of the tendrils to engulf the station or something. The movie starts very abruptly and left me quite confused about what was going on, who people were, and why things were happening. The begining of the film seemed to rush through just to get him on the station (which I can understand), but it felt too forced and impatient.
Not having seen 2001 completely, I'd place this movie somewhere in between 2001: A Space Odessey and Bladerunner: The Director's Cut if you take all the dialog out of Bladerunner. The concepts are interesting, but a little bit of soundtrack probably wouldn't hurt (at least 2001 and Bladerunner had that).
In all, I'll probably rent it one more time in the future, but it's also probably not a movie I'm going to buy for it's replay value.
P.S. I enjoy the Harry Potter movies and the Tom Clancy-based films as well as a myriad of other types of films including comedy, drama, and science fiction.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Oh, yeah, at least it's not Katz.
That is why other sites moderate heavily postings before allowing them to see the FP daylight.
The Jedi thing is one of the most stupid paragraphs I have read in several days, with so many politicians in the news recently that is a very damning statement.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion