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

Overrated and flawed

posted 13 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

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nephihaha 13 years ago

Disagree. Art is a form of entertainment. You can may be extend that to religious iconography and art as a form of instruction, but it is ultimately there as a form of entertainment, for people to enjoy.

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

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

"I have seen the modern remake of Solaris and although it is rushed in part I find it a more entertaining film".

Tarkovsky had no intention of "entertaining" you or anybody else.

"But it is a poor film".

Any actual reasoning as to what led to such a conclusion... any at all?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

The fact that it is unnecessarily boring is quite enough to earn that remark.

In nearly three hours, we learn almost nothing, and the end is entirely predictable. This isn't a masterpiece of philosophy. It's an endurance test.

I fell asleep halfway through and had to start over.
6/10

[–] StaunchWoman 11 years ago

A bit slow paced at times, yes... But boring???? Absolutely not!

We've met before, haven't we?

[–] kingofbizzare 13 years ago

While I was never bored with this film (I even found the driving scene to be wonderfully hypnotic), I did find it flawed in a way I can't quite put my finger on. Compared to Stalker (one of my favorites), it just wasn't all that amazing. Is it a bad film? Definitely not. It's extremely well constructed and quite watchable for its running time. It just feels like it's missing something.

[–] mandeep_basarke 13 years ago

Well I tried to watch it on Monday evening I was exhasted from lack of sleep as my mum had been in a car accident the night before and I started viewing at 8:30. So I fell asleep. I will watch it tonight and see if I fall asleep again, from what I remember about what I saw of it the word I would use to discribe it is "serene".

"Gentlemen, This is a War Room, There's no fighting allowed in Here!"

[–] mligorio 12 years ago

It just feels like it's missing something

If it is missing something, it's answers to question's like 'Who am I?', 'What am I?', 'Where did I come from?', 'Where am I going?', etc, etc, etc. But, of course, Tarkovsky can't answer those questions for us. A quote from the 2002 version, 'There are no answers, only choices'.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jedan-covek 12 years ago

Is there at least one movie on IMDB without a "this movie sucks" topic?

[–] nephihaha 12 years ago

"Is there at least one movie on IMDB without a "this movie sucks" topic? "

Not really, but I can't stand the polarisation, "sucks" vs "cinematic great". Little middle ground, I love Solaris, but it IS flawed.

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

[–] sage2112 7 years ago

If there is, it's bound to be one crappy flick.

[–] pjk84 12 years ago

I must agree with kingofbizarre. I also watched Stalker before this, and even though it's also unnecessarily slow in parts, I got much more out of it. Stalker had much more beautiful scenery/photography and I thought it was deeper in philosofic aspects too. Most of Solaris wasn't really much to look at.

I also got a feeling the film was somehow lacking in content, and it felt all the more emphasized because of all the many slow parts. The characters are left almost undeveloped, and because of that the film felt cold and void of feeling, despite the (attempted) romance. Because of the slowness I often got lost in thoughts that had pretty much nothing to do with the film, and was left wondering if I'd missed something important - I don't think I did.

I can't say I was completely bored, but that may as well be merit for my own imagination, and not the film itself :).

6/10

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bluedusk 12 years ago

"By the way, I loved the driving sequence in the beginning of the film and I honestly don't know why."

The lack of a driving wheel perhaps ?

[–] mligorio 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 and is better told then the Andrey Tarkovskiy version.

I like Tarkovsky's version better. If I could put my finger on it, it's because Tarkovsky's version is more frightening and mysterious. I really get the impression that Solaris is truly alien. In Soderberg's version, I get the feeling that Solaris is God and God is love, etc.

Here's my take on Tarkovsky's vision

Life began in the ocean, and what emerged from these unfathomable depths was a conscious. A conscious that didn't know where it was, where it came from, or where it was going. Those beings that appear mysteriously on the space station reflect this enigma. And, this enigma is the human psyche. To truly understand life it is first necessary to understand ourselves. To understand ourselves, we must probe beneath the surface and explore our own subconscious. Only then can we slowly make our upward ascent towards higher conscious, greater knowledge, and further enlightenment.

[–] slayerjmk95 12 years ago

I actually like both versions because they both have different ways of conveying a certain message, but what i WANT to see is someone adapt the book the way the BOOK is; how the planet is alien and how humanity would react to nature in space.

Don't get me wrong, the original Solaris is phenomenal and the re-make is just good Hollywood fair, but i'm just hoping someone will adapt the novel through the way the story was first told. For this film though, i give it an 9/10. The remake: 7/10

Hogarth, you stay. I go. No following.

[–] nephihaha 12 years ago

I agree, that would be interesting, but it would also be a very different film.

It's something that isn't really tackled often in science fiction films.

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

[–] EvangelionManFromTheOtherSide 12 years ago

So... what's the flaw?

Drugs; they're a bit dangerous.

[–] jondavid888 11 years ago

I think the only flaw in this this film is the Donatas Banioni,
the expressionless actor who played Chris Kelvin.

Hari seemed more human than he was,
and she was supposed to be only a replica.

I mean, if your wife died, then you met her,
you would be overjoyed.
Even if you didn't like her,
you would still feel something when you watch her die again.