MovieChat Forums > Solyaris (1972) Discussion > Russia's answer to 2001 A Space Odyssey

Russia's answer to 2001 A Space Odyssey

posted 11 years ago by No 6
6 replies | jump to latest

This movie, which is hailed by some as Russia's answer to 2001: A Space Odyssey (One of my favorite films) is the worst film I have ever seen.

It's wafer-thin plot could have been easily covered in a 60 minute episode of the Twilight Zone (complete with plot twists & melodrama, and a punch-line ending).Instead this film is 3 hours long and goes nowhere slowly. The tagline for this movie should have been : "in space no-one can hear you cry!")

I definitely recommend everyone to avoid this film. I found this film to have the following defects :

1) 3 hours long with virtually no plot

2) There is virtually no soundtrack to the film.

3) Most of the photography is static, as most of the film is shot in various rooms.

4) There is very poor editing and pacing (everything a character does is in real-time)

5) The sets & FX are dirt cheap

6) The costumes are laughable. The main protagonist is an astronaut who wears futuristic trousers complete with yellow (and sometimes white)string-vest, looking like a star wars version of Rab C. Nesbitt. He also spends much of the film in a pair of monogrammed Jim-jams. Interestingly enough the lead female in the films has to remove her futuristic knit-wear using a pair of scissors (it's that futuristic!!)

7) There is a weird sub-plot about a midget which is never really explained.

8) The protagonist keeps fantasizing about a woman in her nighty that later turns out to be his mother (did I mention that this film is weird?).

9) The movie 2001 A Space Odyssey boasted a 10 minute Star-gate sequence for its viewers. But this movie boasts a 20 minute journey through Russian motorways in a Lada (did I mention that everything in this movie is in real-time, including the boredom you feel watching it).

10) plot-holes. The main protagonist's dad appears to be 10 years older than him).

11) The dialogue is mind-numbingly awful, complete with characters doing odd things during a conversation, like randomly picking up a book or moving a candelabra (yes a candelabra in a space station!!).

12) The exotic interior of the space station in question looks like a horrible & messy Eastern European tenament buidling of the cold-war era.

13) The recurring & annoying plot-point of the space stations's library. The main character is invited to a meeting in the station's library around 5 times during the film (he finally attends goes into the library for said meeting in the last quarter of the film to continue the same crap as he did in every other room in the space station)

14) The amazing depiction of "a loss of Gravity" in this classic film (in the much foreshadowed Stations's Library scene, no less) puts both films like 2001 and Gravity to utter shame!!!

15) Near the end of the movie it becomes something like "End-credit porn" complete with so many fade-out & cut-aways to tantalize into thinking that movie is about to end. I almost had an orgasm when the title card for "The End" in Russian finally appeared.

16) I think everyone in Russia was brain-washed into liking this film in the 70's which is probably why it is hailed as a classic.

17) If you are still reading this after not being put-off by the comments above then you have nerves of steel (or you are one of the brain-washed Russian fans of this movie)

18) This movie is indeed like 2001: A Space Odyssey (with all the goods taken out, including the direction & soundtrack).

19) I have not seen the recent re-make but it cannot be as bad as this shuttle-wreck of a movie.

If you have not seen this film yet then you are indeed a most fortunate individual.

NOW STAY AWAY FROM IT!!!!

"Be seeing you!"

No6

[–] cosmic_surveyor 11 years ago

Turner Classics scheduled it yesterday, Saturday morning 3am-6am. By then, I had already had a Friday evening of prime time viewing: Bones, Grimm and Helix 8pm-1130pm with an attempted repeat viewing of Helix.

I was curious about the film and about the mystery, since I did not see Clooney's remake. I could not make it past the second hour into the third hour. I have a feeling I didn't miss much since there wasn't much presented in the first two hours.

The ONLY complaint I have were the LOOOOOONG quiet drives on the motorways and tunnels in this film. IF the last hour contained a payoff for viewing the LOOOONG drives that had no exposition, then I must withdraw the complaint.

The film IS worthy of a ponderous study on filmmaking in historical context, not for entertainment value.

__________

When animals forage, is it for grocery, hardware or medicine?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rueiro 11 years ago

To No 6:
There's no soundtrack... What do we need a soundtrack for? Maybe you would have liked Tchaikovski's Swan Lake to set the mood in the sequences at the space station?
The sets and FX are dirt cheap...What the film is about is human relationships, not lavish set designs and explosions every five minutes.
The costumes are laughable...Where is it stated that the action takes place in the future? The sequences on earth show a contemporary environment both in the country house and on the clothes people are wearing.
A journey on Russian motorways in a Lada... Where does it say the action takes place in Russia? Actually, that sequence was shot in Japan.
Characters doing odd things during a conversation... You mean when you are talking to someone you stand to attention looking front with your chin up all the time? SIR YES SIR!
Everyone in Russia was brain-washed into liking this film... Actually, none of Tarkovski's films was ever successful in Russia during his lifetime.
If you like this then you are one of the brain-washed Russian fans... Well, I happen to like it and I am Spanish. You've got something personal against Russians or what?
This is the worst film I have ever seen... Obviously, you haven't seen many. But then of course everyone is entitled to express their own opinion.
And if the film is the crap you say it is, then why did you watch it all the way through to the end?

[–] vladivostok-1 11 years ago

And if the film is the crap you say it is, then why did you watch it all the way through to the end?

Because he enjoyed it

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Then why did you watch it all the way through to the end?"

So he could at least legitimately bitch and moan about it?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] garausamuele 11 years ago

you clearly didn't understand much of the movie's plot if you say such things.

The plot is, in the style of Tarkovsky, very minimalistic but solid. The things happen under your eyes, piece by piece, during the movie. You have to pick up each piece and make it together, hence you find out the plot (which is minimalistic but solid).

There are many untold things: it's by director's choice. The director wants you to create your own version of the movie, not impose his vision, yet he gives all the material to come up to a full plot, obviously presented in a not linear way.

Few more things:

1) 3 hours that went away beautifully. These kind of movies are indeed difficult, but they flow well, if given the right attention.

2) That's part of Tarkovsky minimalistic style. In the specific case of Solaris, it helps creating a lonesome, dry mood. I've found the last scene's soundtrack very powerful, giving the viewer a real slap.

3) The photography is beautiful (the shots at the house, the lake, the rainstorm) and well, the rest of the movie is happening on a space station. It serves well the movie.

4) Again, Tarkovsky style. I love it, you hate it. Honestly, I think it creates a lot of tension/release motion and keeps you there, making you active part on discovering things along with Kelvin. That's the reason of the "real-time" pace, IMHO.

5) The set is verosimile and futuristic and serves the movie enough. You have to put things in context, too. This movie was filmed in Soviet Russia in 1972, probably it didn't even have a large budget, yet it came out a great piece of art.

6) You mention Star Wars: it's 70's sci-fi. Obviously it shows the weight of time a bit (but not so much). The thing about the cloths being cut by scissors are part of the plot you didn't understand: since that's a reproduction of a Kelvin's dead wife, the clothes are not perfect, not real functional clothes. This happens at least another time during the movie.

7) Another part of the plot (and according to you, the plot was missing) you didn't get: the midget is Sartorious' guest (or part of his guests). Sartorius is the scientist, he works a lot to discover what's going on. We don't know exactly what he does with the midget, but it's clear that it's just part of the Ocean's creations.

8) That's part of the theme of the movie: the alienation of human nature, the need of love and the constant lack of it due to misunderstanding.

And the other user replied to your other points.

Next time, pay more attention to the movies you watch, especially if they are not Transformers. It's fine if you don't like it, but understand it before saying you don't like it.