MovieChat Forums > Solyaris (1972) Discussion > Overrated and flawed

Overrated and flawed

posted 14 years ago by bladerunnerbluesuk
38 replies | jump to latest

I bought the Criterion blu-ray hoping for a great foreign film , to say I was dissapointed was an understatement.

Before people accuse me of being an Hollywood lover , I am far from that.

The film though deserves merit for certain areas , This coming out of the Soviet Union at a time of communist rule is nothing short of remarkable , some scenes are
beautifully shot and the early car ride scene is dull (my interpritation of this is that life has become that way in the future and the depression Berton suffers from coming back from Solaris) and is a clever way of showing the future to a Soviet audience by shooting in Japan..

I have seen the modern re-make of Solaris and although it is rushed in part I find it a more entertaining film and is better told then the Andrey Tarkovskiy version.

I watched it all the way through and although it should be applauded at effort , but it is a poor film and certainly doesn't warrant the 8.0 score it currently holds..

6/10

[–] eckerds22 12 years ago

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you, about pretty much every aspect of that reply. While I can certainly appreciate this film for what it is and when and where it came from, to say that someone doesn't understand the beauty of the natural and the abstract because they didn't enjoy this movie as much as you is completely asinine. As a Geologist by profession I am certainly not unaware of the intricacies of planetary growth, scale, evolution and magnitude of the Geological Time Scale. In fact, I am acutely aware of the 'invisible' forces that shape our world, many taking millions, even billions, of years to induce visible results. I am also a nature lover, spending most of my free time outdoors or travelling. So to make those assumptions is unfounded and inane. Even with my professional and personal appreciations, this movie failed to 'resonate' with me. I thought it was boring and it failed to keep me interested. It's as simple as that. I don't mean to pick a fight, I just wanted to express why I felt your comment to be absurd and why I disagree.

[–] Suskis 12 years ago

I have given this movie a 7 1/2.
Tharkowsky didn't like it. Lem didn't like it.
So, why so many smartasses in this board think this is a masterpiece?
Are you more clever than the director and the novel's writer?

This movie has some brilliant insights, some beautiful images and some interesting ideas. But it is BORING, so boring it's almost impossible to stay awake (half of the 1st part of the movie can be skipped without any harm).
Why shooting a movie long 2 hours and 45 minutes when you have interesting material for 1 hour shorter movie?

'What has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof.' (Euclid)

[–] preppy-3 12 years ago

"Tharkowsky didn't like it. Lem didn't like it.
So, why so many smartasses in this board think this is a masterpiece?
Are you more clever than the director and the novel's writer?"

Good point. I agree with you--it's dull BUT it was cut here in the US by about 30 minutes originally. It wasn't till 1989 that a full print was released here. Critics were falling all over themselves calling it a masterpiece. Some people blindly agree with whatever critics say and I'm guessing they're the ones who are writing raves about it while sneering down at us "idiots". This happens with a lot of foreign films that critics love but puzzle others. Just look up any Fellini film board and see these "intelligent" people attack us "idiots" who are just so stupid we can't see how "masterful" the work is. Well--if being intelligent means you have to be obnoxious and judgmental then I'll stick with being an idiot:)

[–] mattstevens 12 years ago

I do think there was a full-on love-fest by the critics in 89 to shower adoration on this film. When I saw it for the first time (rented the old Criterion DVD) I was left a little bit cold. There were parts of the film that haunted me, while there were also parts that caused me to lose patience.

Since then I have viewed the film two more times and liked it more with each viewing.

The remake is a guilty pleasure of mine. Despite my not being a fan of Soderboring's work I found myself enraptured with it.

[–] preppy-3 12 years ago

I've been thinking about seeing it again but the length bothers me. We're talking almost 3 HOURS!

[–] nephihaha 12 years ago

Anthony Burgess thought that he was a great composer, rather than a writer. Needless to say he isn't much remembered as a musician.

Strangely this film DOESN'T have some of the flaws that later Tarkovsky films do have, but it does share one chief flaw, which I've discussed it elsewhere. I suspect Tarkovsky (like the planet Solaris perhaps) was on the autistic spectrum, and that he can't see the contradiction in trying to find inner humanity while failing to understand much of outer humanity.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] tnzk 12 years ago

I suspect Tarkovsky (like the planet Solaris perhaps) was on the autistic spectrum, and that he can't see the contradiction in trying to find inner humanity while failing to understand much of outer humanity.

I'm not sure if I agree with you there. The "problem" he has is that not only is he deeply philosophical, he is unashamedly spiritual. Being an Orthodox Christian, Tarkovsky tries to relate the gospel of Christ in his films while trying to limit himself from that reality. Thus, the more obscured that reality is in his films, the harder his film is to understand e.g The Mirror. The closer to Christ his film is, the more comprehensive and wholesome it's regarded e.g Andrei Rublev. He understood the human condition fantastically, but without fully revealing to the audience what his intentions were, his depictions do seem peculiar.

Terrence Malick had this problem as well. With each film, Malick (an Episcopalian, who famously used a lot of devout Catholics in his films) increased the discussion of the redemption of man without ever directly addressing the Redeemer, until finally, he blew the lid off in the Tree of Life, a film entirely about Jack's need for a saviour, without ever really showing the Saviour himself. Due to that "flaw", The Tree of Life remains his most impenetrable work, and naturally the most divisive.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nephihaha 12 years ago

My problem with Soderbergh is that he didn't go back to the novel. He could have done... pulled other stuff out of it.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] rallinale 11 years ago

Just because Tarkovsky and Lem didn't like this movie, doesn't mean it invalidates the opinions of people who think this movie is a masterpiece. Fans of the movie are allowed to like this movie as much as they do just as much as Tarkovsky, Lem and others don't.

[–] bonzi 12 years ago

I have seen the modern re-make of Solaris and although it is rushed in part I find it a more entertaining film

I don't think that Tarkovsky's intention was to entertain (and neither was Lem's).

[–] somebodyls 12 years ago

I think a film needs to entertain. Even to make an audience think is entertainment of sorts. To make a film without the intention of entertaining is pointless and won't give you an audience. Four of he people I saw this film with (and me) fell asleep at different points.

[–] shozzas15 11 years ago

Some films just transcend simple notions of entertainment. I watched the film with no real idea of what to expect (I think I'd seen the part where the main protagonist attempts to blast his 'wife' into space), & adverts saying it was "Russia's answer to 2001!", so the opening came as a complete shock.

I just got shivers down my spine remembering that Bach chorale, sounding like it was recorded 100 years ago on a wheezy decrepit organ in a country church; it's not my favourite Bach piece by any stretch, but there is an infinite sadness, tenderness & sense of resignation about that performance.
Then it cuts to the man watching the sinuous movements of that beautiful green water weed that only grows in clean, fast-flowing rivers. He is as transfixed as I used to be when I went fishing. People have said they couldn't connect with the characters; well I was gone - hook, line & sinker. The film had got me & it didn't let go.

It's probably 30 years since I've watched the film, but it will never leave me. I will watch it again before I die, but it's so much part of me that I don't really need to.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thependragon-1 12 years ago

I'm not sure about 6/10, but I realise it won't please everyone and I have been ridiculed for having negative views of Stalker. I happen to think 'Andrei Rublev' is the greatest Russian film ever made and Tarkovsky's work since is a little subtle for mainstream cinema audiences but does get better on repeat viewings, (although if you found the film dull I'd probably have trouble convincing you to watch it again). The car scene is supposed to be a little boring and was included as something of a joke by Tarkovsky. I would also add that I watched it a second time with my girlfriend who is half Russian and she felt that the English subtitles were far too literal in translation at times and some of the cleverness and intrigue of the Russian dialogue was lost. As for the Clooney remake, it just didn't seem as real to me.

www.thependragon.co.uk

[–] ommik 11 years ago

I absolutely loved the visual side of the movie, and I also enjoyed the slow-paced hypnotic feel, but I still felt that something was missing.

I somehow got the impression that there were so many different symbols and themes introduced in the movie, but none of them were thoroughly explored. So, I felt that the director himself wasn't sure of what he wants to say with the movie.

Overall, the movie was enjoyable, but for me the "philosophy" of the movie felt more or less vague.

[–] ivanmessimilos 10 years ago

I didnt like the movie also.
I considef myself as SF fan, but I gave it 4/10.

Movie was too lang and booring.

[–] Errington_92 9 years ago

My criticism of Solaris is its slow pace. Although slow pacing is a trait within Tarkovsky's films and can work for thematic purposes i.e. The Mirror, it does not hold up in Solaris. Instead it makes you as the audience wish something would happen. Though Solaris' thematic context does pick up later in the narrative.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.