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).
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?
he was Polish.
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 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.
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?
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?
Solaris takes another look at you.
You know, if I hadn't seen this one so many times before now, I'd have given you quite a bit of credit for the reference to the fact that the original film (of which this is a remake) was in fact made in Soviet Russia.
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.
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.
Good thing they didn't call it 'Outlook'. We'd probably not only never make it to the end of the movie but also at any time a long the way, our chairs would either fall apart or hot dog suddenly explode for no reason.
It's wrong for women to feel offended if someone says "his", but it's equally fucking stupid for you to be offended that someone wrote "her".
If it's no big deal, why did you feel the need to post? There's nothing politically correct about using the feminine gender, just as their is nothing politically incorrect about male gender. The poster didn't make any sort of political statement, and (ironically enough) it wouldn't have occured to anyone if you hadn't pointed out that, proper English be damned, the male gender is the one you prefer.
So, take some solace, friend: you're both morons.
Incidentally, I'll agree that the PC and Solaris just shouldn't go together.
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.
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
Apparently Neuromancer has a Sci-Fi setting but isn't Sci-Fi, because it makes use of a lot of philosophy. Apparently Stranger in a Strange Land isn't Sci-Fi either. Or Ender's Game. Or anything by Phil K. Dick. Or anything by Harlan Ellison. I mean, these aren't sci-fi...they aren't nonstop space battles and good-vs-evil. They're complex character and philosophy driven material. So I guess they're just not sci-fi, huh?
Truth is, Star Wars isn't even Sci-Fi by the general definition; it's a space opera. Sci-fi (with the exception of the original Gernsbackian stuff) has almost always had some degree of philosophy and exploration of the persona. So Solaris isn't Star Wars. Big deal.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
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!"
and it's for this very reason that i won't touch the new one.
andrei tarkovsky was an amazing, one-of-a-kind director. it makes me absolutely sick to see yet ANOTHER great foreign film being remade like this. they did it to "insomnia", too, which features the remarkable stellan skaarsgaard. it's one of my favorite movies, alongside many of the films of andrei tarkovsky and krzystof kieslowski. the new one, from what i can tell from the previews for it, completely missed the point. christ, robin williams is cast as the "villian"! i won't spoil the movie by saying why this is completely untrue to the original, but if anyone else here sees it/has seen it, you will hopefully understand what i'm getting at.
is it so hard for the average american to watch subtitles? is the reading ability of the average citizen so low that they can't quickly read a line of text, and still pay attention to what's going on in a film?
y'know, i'm sure soderbergh's intent was probably just to put out his own take on the original novel..but i can't help but feel it's just "another one". another sad attempt to cash in on a great foreign film, and make it acceptable for the average, illiterate american. it really sucks to see films that i love essentially being reduced to just a watered down copy.
after working for a video store for 2 years, though, i'm not surprised. true to "clerks", most customers pick out the most intellectually devoid movies out there: "ooh, double jeopardy! ooh, the santa clause!" pff.
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 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.
You are correct, but basically to make an accurate portrayal of the book would be extremely long and probably boring. This movie does the right thing - it focuses on one aspect of the book, and hints at the rest. If it did too much, it would surely lose focus.
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.
the new one, from what i can tell from the previews for it, completely missed the point.
Aren't you being a little harsh toward a movie you haven't seen? I haven't seen it myself, so I can't say whether it's any good or not, but it sounds like you're rushing to judgment here.
another sad attempt to cash in on a great foreign film, and make it acceptable for the average, illiterate american.
Gee, snobby much?
Apart from your rudeness, I can tell you without reservation that Soderberg's Solaris is definitely not dumbed down. If anything, it's inacceptable to the American audience. It's a challenging movie that asks questions without providing answers. You may or may not care for the questions, or the way they're asked, but it's going too far to say that the movie was dumbed down.
I write in my journal
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
> It's a challenging movie that asks questions
> without providing answers.
If it failed to do that it would _really_ be crap, since the whole point of Solaris (the book) is such questions... The point is, the questions it's asking are not nearly as challenging as the ones that it _could_ be asking (and that that book _does_ ask).
And just like the Hollywood remake of Insomnia, it grafts on a happy ending.
Um. Did you actually see Soderberg's Solaris? It's a tragedy, dude. There is nothing happy about that ending. Everybody dies, no one is redeemed, nobody lives happily ever anything. It's a hell of a downer.
I write in my journal
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.
Thanks swordfiche, that is a good mini-review and makes me want to read the book and puts the Tarkovsky film, which I love, in a new perspective. I wish your review had been the one posted to /. main page.