DVD - 2003
Average Rating: 2.5 stars out of 5.
On a space station orbiting the mysterious planet Solaris, terrified crew members are experiencing a host of strange phenomena, including eerie visitors who seem all too human.

Publisher: Beverly Hills, Calif. : 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, [2003]
Edition: Widescreen ed
Branch Call Number: DVD SciFi SOLARIS
Characteristics: 1 videodisc (99 min.) :,sd., col. ;,4 3/4 in


From Library Staff

On a space station orbiting the mysterious planet Solaris, terrified crew members are experiencing a host of strange phenomena, including eerie visitors who seem all too human.

A psychologist on a space station orbiting the planet Solaris begins to see inexplicable apparitions from the past. This is the newer version by Steven Soderbergh; those with a strong constitution will also watch the very classic Russian version. The even stronger will read the original book by S... Read More »

From the critics

Community Activity


Add a Comment

Jul 04, 2014
  • caelang rated this: 2.5 stars out of 5.

Not one of the worse sci-fi movies I've seen. Nothing wrong with the acting. Essentially a re-write problem. It still deals with the essential themes that make the best of the genre: what makes us human? what is space exploration? why do it? But at a pace where nothing sinks in, and invariably, therefore, a viewer doesn't feel anything in the end.

As a distillation of Tarkovsky's work, I suppose the producers' meeting was one where they prioritized making palatable an otherwise glacially-paced film into a tight 99 minutes. This waters down many of the interesting themes of the work.

The question of god, and god-hood, whether humankind invented It or vice-versa: this debate is introduced bluntly -- in flashback -- and re-introduced in a cavalier moment, one tense meeting on the space craft. No time to consider who is making these hallucinations real, nor to what implication it has to be the re-animator of a being. To resurrect some one is essentially selfish act and the film leaves no time to delve into this ambiguity before "Gordon" starts jabbering some mumbo-jumbo Higgs particle dialogue. This pseudo-science detracts from an essential tension by reducing the question to a technical one. Who cares how the planet and the cosmonauts are *making* the hallucinations real: rather what does this power do to the people who can do it?

This typifies the sub-optimal revision of a great work. Making something easier to read, doesn't necessarily improve it.

Feb 22, 2014
  • Gary Geiserman rated this: 0.5 stars out of 5.

Hold on now.... What the hell happened here? Soderbergh? James Cameron producing? They talk smartly in the commentary. They “Hollywooded” this thing. Took out absolutely every bit of idea and left Clooney and 2 of the worst ‘actors’ working. Clooney without shirt, pants, or both. Clooney seems like Brando compared to Jeremy Davies and Natascha McElhone—can’t even speculate how these 2 get jobs; Davies ruined season 3 of Justified; they both have ruined anything they’ve been in. >>>>> The Lem novel sounds interesting (quantum, Heisenberg’s Uncertanty Principle), the 1972 Tarkovsky film likewise. >>>>> There is a sequence where metaphysical questions are beginning to be asked which is quickly muted. I listened to the commentary desperate to find out how this film got to be made and found 2 intelligent ‘Hollywoods’ living in a ‘film phantasmogoria’. Everything was in their head, not on film; like at a drugged party in ‘the hills’ (of privilege). >>>>>There already is too much value put on the video over sound—after all, this is what these fake ‘artists’ spend all their time on. These MOVIE directors now are much like photographers—they think they are artists. They play out all kinds of fantasies during the shooting weeks thinking color themes for characters have meaning, thinking symbols strewn throughout have meaning, they think all kinds of things have MEANING—hell, we’re all movie watchers; we know where meaning is better than any ‘professional’. Poets they’re not! >>>>> DIDN’T ANYONE TELL THESE FOOLS THE FILM STUNK? They could have ended it before it got this far.

Feb 16, 2014

dicaprio likes

Sep 10, 2013

In my list of the WORST movies i have seen in my life - this will make the list. Along with Gigli.

Sep 02, 2013
  • Monolith rated this: 3.5 stars out of 5.

It was decent. Clooney was good; Viola Davis, excellent, as the frazzled Dr. Gordon. Natascha McElhone is an attractive woman, but... she's kinda creepy looking, too. She *looks* like an alien. She has big, bulbous eyeballs. And an annoying perma-grin. The ending was somewhat predictable, and slightly anticlimactic. Mostly a slow-burning romantic drama with an added splash of sci-fi for variety.

Nov 16, 2012
  • DraftVader rated this: 5 stars out of 5.

If you cannot think, do not watch this movie. This is a very good movie BASED on the book Solaris. Nor an adaptation neither a film about the book. If you read the book, you will notice they are not the same. Very good actors. Do not miss the special features, specially the auditions.

Oct 10, 2012
  • aaa5756 rated this: 2 stars out of 5.

It was O.K for a home TV movie. I was entertained and interesting. But it was NOT worth the long library wait or the price to rent from a Red Box. "I fast forwarded a lot but not all the way.”

Aug 21, 2012
  • Maja_0001 rated this: 0.5 stars out of 5.

"Solaris is a 1961 Polish science fiction novel by Stanisław Lem. The book is about the ultimate inadequacy of communication between human and non-human species. In probing and examining the oceanic surface of the planet Solaris from a hovering research station the human scientists are, in turn, being studied by the sentient planet itself, which probes for and examines the thoughts of the human beings who are analyzing it. " This version is very, very, very, very DISAPPOINTING!!!! TOTAL DESTROYED THE BOOK THEME!!!! AND the 1972 movie adaptation - Solaris, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. So sad - when wonderful ideas are cut out and replaced with garbage :(

Jun 02, 2010
  • historyquest rated this: 4 stars out of 5.

Good movie, well paced. No an action film, more pyschological.

Mar 31, 2010
  • inescudna24 rated this: 4 stars out of 5.

a very well acted and wonderfully made film

View All Comments


Add a Quote

Sep 02, 2013
  • Monolith rated this: 3.5 stars out of 5.

Chris Kelvin: "...And death shall have no dominion. Dead men naked, they shall be one... with the man in the wind, and the west moon. When their bones are picked clean, and the clean bones gone... they shall have stars at elbow and foot. Though they go mad, they shall be sane. Though they sink through the sea, they shall rise again. Though lovers be lost, love shall not. And death shall have no dominion."

Sep 02, 2013
  • Monolith rated this: 3.5 stars out of 5.

Chris Kelvin: "...Am I alive, or dead?" Rheya Kelvin: "We don't have to think like that anymore. We're together now. Everything we've done is forgiven. Everything."


Add Age Suitability

Feb 22, 2014
  • Gary Geiserman rated this: 0.5 stars out of 5.

Gary Geiserman thinks this title is suitable for between the ages of 99 and 1


Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.


Add a Notice

There are no notices for this title yet.

Find it at MCL