Anyone seen Solaris? (The 2002 version with Clooney)

I love this movie. I don't really understand why people hate it and think its so boring and mundane, given its nature as a really slow movie. I think it's one of those films that is more of an interactive experience, the huge sci-fi plot holes leave a gnawing sensation for thinking about the plot, whats going on, and whats happening. When I saw it back in theatres it was a great experience, many of my friends didn't think so however =/ . I watched it again last night, great experience imo.

I think whats really captivating about this movie are three things:
The acting and interaction between the actress who plays Rhea and Clooney..
The soundtrack
The cinematography

anyone else share these opinions about this movie?

I hate it. alot. so slow, it could be at least an hour shorter.

i like it.

Stanislaw lem is a good sci fi writer that needs more attention.

I thought it was good.
People who complain about movies being "too long" aren't the kind of people that deserve to watch movies.

Originally Posted by MaximiIian

I thought it was good.
People who complain about movies being "too long" aren't the kind of people that deserve to watch movies.

I don't mind watching long movies, but Solaris fails too keep my intrest, why would I want to sit through a dull film.

Originally Posted by Modern Life is Rubbish

I don't mind watching long movies, but Solaris fails too keep my intrest, why would I want to sit through a dull film.

Why did you watch it, then?

Twas kay, that woman was a pretty hot cougar though.

Originally Posted by Thorn777

Twas kay, that woman was a pretty hot cougar though.

oh dear lord what i'd give to tap that.

Originally Posted by Thorn777

Twas kay, that woman was a pretty hot cougar though.

I don't know man after a while she got kind of scary, its just that her face when she was a visitor was just ... creepy.

I definetly wouldn't want to see my dead wife again for the first time in space, out of nowhere. I think I would of acted like Clooney did (or perhaps rather, left Solaris!)

Originally Posted by TheHarbinger

anyone else share these opinions about this movie?

Good film.

But it has little to do with Lem's novel Film's plot is reduced to love interest. It's more psychological, which I like. But many of crucial philosphical problems raised in the novel, are gone in the film. So, there is no sense in doing a comparison, the film is almost completely different piece of art.

I thought it was an excellent film. The atmosphere was nailed perfectly by Steven Soderburgh, an excellent filmmaker. His most notable work was Traffic.

I think that despite it being more focuses on his love, it still had so many psychological aspects. Ultimately, Clooney's character although driven half-mad by the experience, cannot bring himself to leave the planet and would rather stay and die a happy man living a dream.

Watch the original Soviet version and be amazed.

Originally Posted by therussian

Watch the original Soviet version and be amazed.

So true. The Hollywood version is just lame and infantile compared to Tarkovskij's vision.

Originally Posted by therussian

Watch the original Soviet version and be amazed.

I was amazed, didn't know that you could get away with an acid trip in the Soviet Union.

I liked that movie very much. I must read the book some time. Very philosophical and thought provoking. I've also seen the original version, which was also good, but to be honest I enjoyed the American version more.

Originally Posted by Lützower

I liked that movie very much. I must read the book some time. Very philosophical and thought provoking. I've also seen the original version, which was also good, but to be honest I enjoyed the American version more.

I have read some Stanislaw Lem many years ago (although not Solaris), and I also have vague recollections of the Tarkovsky adaptation (which was fascinating).

Despite the Soderbergh version departing from Lem's story, I still think it stands very well on its own. It doesn't attempt to cover all of the material (especially the philosophy), instead concentrating on the relationship between the protagonist and his wife, but it succeeds remarkably well at this.

The brilliant music sets the mood for the film, I think it enhances the sense of inevitability which pervades it, and George Clooney plays his character with understatement and emotional depth (it was a big risk for him to depart from the loveable rogue characters that made him famous).

Solaris is far from standard Hollywood fare since it breaks many of the rules: there is no action; there are no heroes or villains; most of the mysteries are never explained; and the only resolution the protagonist can find is to commit suicide.

The flash-back sections are sequenced so that they explain the flip-flopping of Clooney's attitude to his "wife", and when he makes his, objectively insane, commitment to saving her, we can actually understand emotionally why he has made that decision.

I was particularly satisfied with the ending, since its meaning was conveyed entirely by implication from the cut-finger.

The concept of Solaris as a truly alien life-form is superb, it trumps almost every description of aliens in science fiction down the years and leaves you with plenty to think about long after watching the film, thank you Stanislaw Lem.

The only part of the Soderbergh film I didn't like was the crass conversation over breakfast about harnessing the Higgs Boson to make a zap-gun for destroying the alien constructs. It reminded me of a cop-out used in many Star Trek plots where the main characters got together on the bridge of the Enterprise and some arbitrary answer just popped out of their conversation like a rabbit out of a hat.

Ive seen the movie but it's almost over My head. So cloony die's in the end and live's in side Solaris with he's Fake Wife?

I haven't yet seen the original. Only bits and pieces.

I like the Soviet film better. Though the hollywood one isn't *that* bad.