Despite repeated attempts, I have never managed to watch this movie all the way through; I usually die of boredom about an hour in, and this is very unusual for me (after a lifetime of enthusiasm about movies, this and Jean-Luc Goddards "Weekend" are the only movies I've ever walked out of).
Does anything ever actually happen? Other than a lot of pretentious yakking?
(Contrariwise I loved the Soderburgh version.)
Not to worry. Now they've made an action version of the film. It's called Inception. You might like that one better. Just remember where you saw it first (if you ever managed to make it through).
share^LOL.
Actually, I just grinned like the Chesire Cat.
Poets are made by fools like me, but only God can make STD.
I just saw this and did not fall for it. Here is my comment I posted at NETFLIX. I think you will see that it is nothing but pretentious yakking. (LOL! I love that word. :)
8/21/10 @ 10:08 PM
I did not find this movie to be "painterly" or "deep" as others have described it. First of all, my major dislike of this movie is that _no_ science is done. Science is about answers, philosophy is about questions. So in a real scifi, there would be information gained through interaction. Instead the characters stand around - with an alien in their midst - and discuss 'what is happiness'. Did you see "Contact" with Jody Foster? When she arrives she has a thousand questions. The reply makes sense. Now that's how it's done. This? "If you are happy you never ask about the meaning of life." WHAT?? WHO CARES! A freakin' alien life form is standing in front of you and all these guys can do is get pensive??? So ok, here's the REALITY about this movie - it's typical Russian over self-indulgent mental gymnastics. Don't waste your time. You will learn nothing from this drawn out psycho-babble philosophy paper. See The Seventh Seal for a much better film. (Now I have to go see the modern American version of this.)
--
Edit: (before any one flames me for not knowing what I am talking about) I have been a professional photographer, I have a Masters in physics, and a Bachelors in philosophy (Heidegger was my interest: Dasein, there where being manifests itself, and Husserl's Phenomenology - reducing the experience to its essence) and even studied jazz dance, modern dance, and ballet. (Currently I have returned to school for a degree in Anthropology with a concentration in Archaeology.) So please, I have a very broad taste, and information base, for all things art.
-LD
____________
my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
Edit: (before any one flames me for not knowing what I am talking about) I have been a professional photographer, I have a Masters in physics, and a Bachelors in philosophy (Heidegger was my interest: Dasein, there where being manifests itself, and Husserl's Phenomenology - reducing the experience to its essence) and even studied jazz dance, modern dance, and ballet. (Currently I have returned to school for a degree in Anthropology with a concentration in Archaeology.) So please, I have a very broad taste, and information base, for all things art.
My two cents: It better penetrates an open mind, I suppose. Probably an yet uneducated mind. I first saw it in my childhood and had awe before the mystery and the melancholy of the whole creation. Years went by, the movie grew easier on me with each subsequent watching and different aspects of it coming to the front, but love for it stays the same... I think Solaris reduces experience to its essence ok :)
DOOOD... THE AMERICAN VERSION WAS SO AWESOME B/C IT WAS AMERICAN AND COOL TOO B/C IT WAS AMERICAN AND BEAUTIFUL B/C IT WAS A BIG MONEY PRODUCTION WITH A *FAMOUS* AMERICAN PRODUCER AND DIRECTOR!!! HA HA HA...
Ok, now that I got that off my chest... here's what I really think.
I just saw the American version again. It turns out I reviewed this the first time I saw it (7 years ago) and gave it a 5/10. Now however, b/c I saw the Russian version I had to change my score - it's now a 1/10. The American version is beyond stupid. At least the Russian version made an honest attempt at consistent discussion - the American version is all over the place. So in the end it _makes_no_sense_ whatsoever. (I just edited it to lower my score etc. and it isn't posted yet.)
So after being disappointed by both versions (now I have to see the Russian version again!) I also did a search for the book. Wikipedia.org had it and the story line as they explain it is wonderful. So NOW I have to _read_ the book! ... which I suspect will be about a billion times better than the American piece of caca and about 3 times better than the Russian version.
PS: this reminds me of the difficulty of putting any great book into a movie. Wait ... then again maybe it's not difficult at all - look at both the "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings" movies. They were wonderful! ... oh, then again they weren't made by suits who only think of making a profit. A good example is how Monty Python rips Hollywood a new one with their characterization of an American movie mogul.
There is no art in America - only profit.
-LD
____________
my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
I love the book, but it should be borne in mind that it isn't chiefly about the romance, but a send up of science.
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
That's great to hear! The last thing I want to read about is some yucky thing where boys kiss girls ... cause we all know girls have cooties. :P
(thx btw :)
-LD
____________
my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
I'm not sure you've paid attention to the beginning of the film. They've been studying Solaris for 40 years with no results. The initial discovery of it happened long before the movie takes place, so it isn't a surprise that they are not shocked by it, they're exhausted from failing to comprehend it.
--
"What goes on out there, is a disgrace": http://deathwishcreeps.com
Thanks. I do plan on re-watching it ... "soon" and will keep your comment in mind. But I was aware that it wasn't sudden, just not that it was being studied for 40 years.
BTW, i spoke to a Russian about it and he told me this: "Yes, I know the film. The first 40 minutes nothing happens." He may have been polite since, me being a typical American, always look for _something to happen_ in order to keep me interested. So the next time I watch it I will _PAY ATTENTION!_
Also, the book, according to Wikipedia.org sounds far more interesting and the American version of this movie was horrible.
Thanks for the tip.
-LD
____________
my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
Manners and civility on the internet?!? Say it isn't so!
When I first watched the film, I was also baffled, mainly because I'd never seen anything quite like it - and I was quite familiar with Fellini, Bergman, etc. at the time (early 90's) - though it's visual beauty drew me in for repeat viewings, which I've found very rewarding. The "testimony" scene with the arguing "Solarisists" at the beginning is actually disorienting and riveting (at least to me), what with the camera swiveling around and people standing up, sitting down, and also the way it's framed between two scenes of children encountering the unknown (first boy meets strange girl, they go off and play. then, the boy meets a horse, and needs his aunt to tell him not to be frightened of it, to remind him that it's beautiful). The beginning of the film is the whole movie condensed (sort of - "in outer space, we're all children"). It's also full of beautiful serendipitous shots, as when the dove lands on the branch outside the window during Burton's testimony, and the man standing in the way becomes a silhouette.
You'd probably love Lem's book, given your background. It's more specifically about science, Tarkovsky's film is about knowledge in a general way. Tarkovsky appeals to emotionally sublimated people, to romantics.
I also love that the Russians have built this beautiful library on the space station, filled with beautiful artifacts of civilization. Would Americans ever think to do such a thing? We love our technology too much.
--
"What goes on out there, is a disgrace": http://deathwishcreeps.com
Your descriptions make the movie much better than I saw it. I guess by growing older I forgot about symbolism. Although having some pre-knowledge of the movie is helpful for me. So, again, thanks for the tip and now I HAVE TO WATCH IT AGAIN! :)
-LD
____________
my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
I just started watching it. Knowing the story line has helped and I am enjoying this _much more_ than I expected I would have. So kudos to all of you who pegged this movie as a great one ... b/c it is.
Again, the key is knowing the story line. Also PAYING ATTENTION! (my bad) is a must.
I missed the symbolism of the children, but now having seen the 1st 40 mins, and read your comment, I see how perfectly that makes these scenes.
So this is not just a movie, it is more a film.
As for me I see Solaris as a mirror. A planet that mirrors the mental state of the viewer:
confused - you see a confusion,
suicidal - you commit suicide,
in love - you see your lover,
child-like - you see children.
Thanks again for the help.
Finally, I apologize to all for my original post. This movie is quite exceptional. Come to think of it, it reminds me of that Star Trek (TOS) episode where the planet creates anything you think of... maybe this is where Roddenberry got his idea for that story??
-LD
____________
my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/
surely within its time the film could actually tell the story and you would not have to refer to the book to understand or "get it" - hardly great imho as NO film not even an average one shold make you do that
share[deleted]
You people don't know what Dull is until you watch Stalker. I tortured myself a little watching it and sometimes I even forwarded a minute or two of the extremely slow scenes. I know many people loved that film and liked the visual art style but I hated it, since almost nothing interesting happens in the film and the things that do aren't exciting enough to grab my attention. Then again, maybe I had the wrong frame of mind since I think I watched it after finishing the PC game Stalker: Shadows of Chernobyl and the third one. I wanted to see more radiated wastelands and maybe some mutants, but nothing :(
As for Solaris, I think it was great. The chemistry between the two protagonist was great and I think it made me love the film even more. Also the psychological aspects in it were extremely well done. To me, Solaris is more watchable than 2001: A Space Oddysey. Though both are very good, 2001: A Space Oddysey takes a while to get interesting.
I loved it just as I loved 2001 - A Space Odyssey. Solaris is very slow but not pretencious. If this is pretencious, almost every good writer is pretencious. However, my "top of the list" in Science Fiction is still the AMERICAN "Blade Runner" (as a portuguese, I'm sick of some primary anti-americanism comments). I liked Inception, it's entertaining. I liked this, it's art.
shareThoroughly agree about Stalker. Tarkovsky's fault was his self-indulgence. Ironically, living in the statist Soviet Union allowed him this indulgence.
My only fault with Solaris is the car scene, which according to Tarkovsky himself was a calculated insult at the viewer. He said something like "This ought to get rid of the idiots in the cinema", which I think is intellectual snobbery and shows a lack of humanity.
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
Oh. will you just come off it with the car scene? So what if he said something crappy. It's still a great scene.
--
"What goes on out there, is a disgrace": http://deathwishcreeps.com
TRUST me the MOVIE is BORING...
Apparently its a DEEP movie about HUMANITY...
well HALFWAy through it I was like "I dont give a *beep* about HUMANITY! GET ME OUT OF HERE"...
though i did watch all of it...
its not tht i dont like ARTISTIC slow movies..
I DO! But SOLARIS is just TOOOO BORING!!
lets just stick to that.... for now.
i tried to watch this when i was 28. it was too slow. i was bored. i watched it again at 38 (i'm 40). i thought it was brilliant and gorgeous. the cinematography prevents it from being boring, to me.
to me, it's the best film about emotional baggage ever made. really.
however, i can't imagine anybody born after the advent of the internet and cellphones could sit through this. that's not a generational slam. i didn't get internet until i was 26, which was 1996. since then, my attention span has shrunk.
I struggled a bit and missed out on some stuff. Had to rewind it a few times. I never finished Stalker. I have to revisit.
Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega
[deleted]