One Vote for the Unthinking Response
Added 10/1/2009
Previous reviewers have said about all that needs to be said about the content of the film. Clearly there is a difference of opinion, a sharp difference. While no Sci-Fi buff, I have enjoyed many in the long line of such films that began with the experimental French film at the turn of the century (19th to 20th). However, Solaris is a film in which the science fiction aspects are quite irrelevant. They are used only as a backdrop to a man-woman story that could have been put into any setting with slight adjustment.The story itself might have benefited from a supername on the marque; but, through no fault of George Clooney, his presence does not salvage the lackadaisical script and direction. The actress playing his wife, Natascha McElhone, certainly makes one believe she would be missed, the others were simply playing roles with little definition or opportunity for an actor to shine.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Landmark Movie
Added 9/13/2009
I just find it amazing that Hollywood actually was willing and able to produce such a masterpiece, with most movies there made for minimum amount of brain activity and preferably devoid of any depth.
The Movie capture the essence of the book really well, this is sci-fi at its best and yet a compelling love story. What is real and what is not and how do we define reality, where's the limit between your imagination and the physical universe, this encompasses these endless questions and yet at the same time is an amazing love story about feelings and the human spirit.
I salute the producers for their bravery and all those who had a hand in this masterpiece of love and mistery. I am sure that Stanislav Lem would have approved.
Thank you..
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Tedious to watch.
Added 8/26/2009
Director and producer's inflated ego's are on full display here. The problem is, they are so busy trying to prove to us how witty, intelligent and arty they are that they forgot to make a watchable film. The book is so full of potential for a great film, but they missed the opportunity entirely. I much prefer Tarkovsky's version even though it tends to prolong itself unneccesarily at times.
Here we have people acting completely irrationally. Sure, you'd expect people under mental and emotional distress to act irrationally, but even Charles Manson would probably be scratching his head watching the characters in this movie. A lot of the problems with this film could have to do with parts that were edited out, which it's pretty obvious that there was a good amount of material left on the cutting room floor. I can see why Jim Cameron stepped away from the director's chair. He probably saw where this was headed early on.
And there are two things that really grate on my nerves. One of them is Jeremy Davies' method of acting. The other is obnoxious gum chewers. In Solaris we've got them both and it's a combination guaranteed to ruin any movie.
Read the book or get yourself a copy of the Tarkovsky original. I have the Criterion edition - it's well worth it unless you just can't stand subtitles. But avoid the Soderbergh travesty at all costs.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Unwatchable
Added 7/28/2009
I saw about an hour of it I think...then I just had to turn it off. No pay-off can be worth sitting through more of this. It's just all so lifeless. If I paid to see this in a theatre I would very pissed off! There's just no energy at all. The subject matter seems like it COULD be interesting, but the director apparently fought hard to make it all as boring and dull as can be imagined.
0 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
SOLARIS the re-make
Added 5/29/2009
The first time I saw the Soderbergh remake of Solaris, I was disappointed, because I had seen the original in a theatre in the 70s, and again in a VCR format. The old SOLARIS was drenched in grief. The second time I saw the Soderbergh version, I came to the point where wife says: "hush! we are not to think like that any more". This was the most profound, philosophical advice I have ever heard in my life. This single line takes the movie to one of the greatest ever made.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
One Vote for the Unthinking Response
Added 10/1/2009
Previous reviewers have said about all that needs to be said about the content of the film. Clearly there is a difference of opinion, a sharp difference. While no Sci-Fi buff, I have enjoyed many in the long line of such films that began with the experimental French film at the turn of the century (19th to 20th). However, Solaris is a film in which the science fiction aspects are quite irrelevant. They are used only as a backdrop to a man-woman story that could have been put into any setting with slight adjustment.The story itself might have benefited from a supername on the marque; but, through no fault of George Clooney, his presence does not salvage the lackadaisical script and direction. The actress playing his wife, Natascha McElhone, certainly makes one believe she would be missed, the others were simply playing roles with little definition or opportunity for an actor to shine.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Landmark Movie
Added 9/13/2009
I just find it amazing that Hollywood actually was willing and able to produce such a masterpiece, with most movies there made for minimum amount of brain activity and preferably devoid of any depth.
The Movie capture the essence of the book really well, this is sci-fi at its best and yet a compelling love story. What is real and what is not and how do we define reality, where's the limit between your imagination and the physical universe, this encompasses these endless questions and yet at the same time is an amazing love story about feelings and the human spirit.
I salute the producers for their bravery and all those who had a hand in this masterpiece of love and mistery. I am sure that Stanislav Lem would have approved.
Thank you..
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Tedious to watch.
Added 8/26/2009
Director and producer's inflated ego's are on full display here. The problem is, they are so busy trying to prove to us how witty, intelligent and arty they are that they forgot to make a watchable film. The book is so full of potential for a great film, but they missed the opportunity entirely. I much prefer Tarkovsky's version even though it tends to prolong itself unneccesarily at times.
Here we have people acting completely irrationally. Sure, you'd expect people under mental and emotional distress to act irrationally, but even Charles Manson would probably be scratching his head watching the characters in this movie. A lot of the problems with this film could have to do with parts that were edited out, which it's pretty obvious that there was a good amount of material left on the cutting room floor. I can see why Jim Cameron stepped away from the director's chair. He probably saw where this was headed early on.
And there are two things that really grate on my nerves. One of them is Jeremy Davies' method of acting. The other is obnoxious gum chewers. In Solaris we've got them both and it's a combination guaranteed to ruin any movie.
Read the book or get yourself a copy of the Tarkovsky original. I have the Criterion edition - it's well worth it unless you just can't stand subtitles. But avoid the Soderbergh travesty at all costs.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
