Solaris

Solaris

DVD - 2003
Average Rating:
17
2
1
Rate this:
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

Opinion

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

Comment

Add a Comment

s
soundspace
Nov 15, 2016

It is incredible how much more technically advanced space films have gotten since this came out almost 15 years ago.
This film was too slow paced and dry for me, but the score by Cliff Martinez was beautiful, I ordered it after watching the film.

h
hesselugano
May 04, 2016

I used to have a lot of respect for Stephen Soderberg but that respect evaporated when I watched this mess. A female film reviewer quipped that the only thing she found worth watching was George Clooney's naked butt! I considered Andrei Tarkovski's version of Solaris to be a masterpiece, yet Tarkovski regarded it as his least successful film and Stanislaw Lem detested it.
I was hoping that Soderberg would take be allocated a generous studio budget and take full advantage of CGI to create a film far closer to the book. Alas, Soderberg did nothing of the kind. I believe no director should ever contemplate a remake of any film unless certain he/she can make an indisputably better movie than than the original director's effort. Not the case here I'm afraid, not even close.

a
akirakato
May 03, 2016

This is a 2002 American SF drama written and directed by Steven Soderbergh, based on the 1961 science fiction novel of the same name by Polish writer Stanisław Lem.
It is a meditative psychodrama set almost entirely on a space station orbiting the planet Solaris, adding flashbacks to the previous experiences of its main characters on Earth.
Clooney's character struggles with the questions of Solaris' motivation, his beliefs and memories, and reconciling what was lost with an opportunity for a second chance.
Although it is a nice try, this flick is slow-paced, ambiguous and almost good-for-nothing if compared to the mystical intellectual craftmanship of "2001: A Space Odyssey."
One good thing about this SF is that it offers you an opportunity to think about life beyond death.

Etuq Mar 25, 2016

Love all kinds of sci-fi movies but this.. this was terrible. I've never felt like I've ever wasted time on a movie.. except with this one I did. I couldn't wait for it to be over.

c
callig
Sep 22, 2015

The original russian version is more highly regarded than this hollywood remake, and rightly so. Americans do stuff, things, aren't exactly famous for human relationships, on or off screen.
Lem's Solaris is a 3D Rorschach ink blot test, a metaphor for life, reality. It, and, with varying degrees of competence, these two movies, show us how we project our monkey needs onto it. To that extent calling the book or either movie better is like different people calling a mirror better or worse or whatever.

c
caelang
Jul 04, 2014

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.

g
Gary Geiserman
Feb 22, 2014

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.

kellnerm Feb 16, 2014

dicaprio likes

t
tony1013
Sep 10, 2013

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

m
Monolith
Sep 02, 2013

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.

View All Comments

Quotes

Add a Quote

m
Monolith
Sep 02, 2013

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."

m
Monolith
Sep 02, 2013

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."

Age

Add Age Suitability

g
Gary Geiserman
Feb 22, 2014

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

Summary

Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.

Notices

Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number

Recommendations

Subject Headings

  Loading...

Find it at MCL

  Loading...
[]
[]
To Top