The most pretentious Science Fiction film?

Had some problems following the plot but after reading some analysis I am good to go. It might have been slow but also relaxing and calm, so when a emotional loud scene shows up it has double the effect than it normally would. Also it isn't pseudo-intellectual it is just philosophical. As they are talking about abstract(love, life, death) concepts of course it can be interpreted in many ways I don't see the problem there.

But on one thing I agree the editing really was badly done.

1. It is filled with pseudo-intellectual philosophical nonsense that can be interpreted in any way that suits the interpreter.

and this same description can't be said for Stalker? Pretty much all of Tarkovsky's films have that form of dialogue, with Ivan's Childhood being the only exception I can think of. Why is it okay in Stalker, but not Solaris?

Though I disagree with "it can be interpreted in any way that suits the interpreter". For one, that can apply to anything. I've seen the most straight forward things interpreted in such abstract ways. Second, the dialoge really isn't that hard to understand or interpret for me. Sure, there mightt be one or two puzzling lines, but I'm not going to assume because I don't get them that they don't have meanings.

2. Tarkovsky doesn't know how to communicate with the audience. Simple plot points are almost impossible to understand. Russian being my native language didnt help at all.

Again, I had little trouble understanding the plot.

3. There is absolutely no world building and no attempt is made to create an interesting or unique future.

How is that a flaw? That would be like if I complained that 2001 didn't have enough humor. Tarkovsky had no interest in world building, and pretty much used the novel only as a basis to divulge into emotional themes. There's nothing wrong with that. THis isn't a space opera.

Characters wear simple early 70's clothes. The car scene takes place in a normal 70's city with cars from the early seventies.

So if the movie had flying cars and people dressed like the Jetsons, it would make a better movie?

These things make me unable to suspend disbelief and instead of pulling me into this world it pushes me away and makes me realize that i'm watching a dated movie.

So because there are clothes and cars in it that are old, the movie's dated? Okay, so pretty much any movie made before the present that has (then) present day fashion and technology is obsolete now. That's going to cut at least 95% of the greatest movies ever made out of the picture.

Solaris will never be dated for two reasons:

1.Most films of today don't look a thousandth as good as Solaris, which, like all of Tarkovsky's movies, are visually amazing.

2.The themes are absolutely timeless. Solaris's themes will be relevant as long as humans exist.

4. There is absolutely no sense of pacing. Whoever edited this is clueless. At least 40 minutes can be cut out to make it better.

and again, how does this not apply to Stalker? Stalker's pretty much the same length, give or take 10 minutes, and is paced in a similar manner.

Though no, I wouldn't edit a thing out, because much of the dialougeless moments are integral to the atmosphere of the movie. Tarkovsky's movies are an experience, and the slow pace is key to that. The grandeur, and thus the movie as a whole, would suffer from the editing.

Much like with "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie"'s edits. Yeah, the 1978 cut is much tighter, faster and focused, but it doesn't pack the punch of the original 1976 cut, because seemingly "needless" scenes were taken out that actually added, and making the flow tighter and more plot focused made it less unique.

"It's just you and me now, sport"-Manhunter

I don't think there's very much philosophy in this film at all. Subtract the science fiction elements, which are really just a means to an end, and what you have is a film about a man trying to come to terms with his past.

The story is also very simple. Maybe the subtitling is better than the original dialogue, but I had no trouble at all understanding what was going on. Man meets planet, simple as. Certainly easier to understand than the final part of 2001, great movie though that is.

I can't think what I'd cut out, let alone how I'd lose 40 minutes. As another contributor said, "Stalker" is similarly paced, in fact all of Tarkovsky's films are, and most European art house movies of the time. The editing is designed to disorient sometimes, but never interrupts the flow of the film.

Tarkovsky wasn't overly keen on "Solaris" in fact, so you can at least take comfort from that I suppose, but to say it's complete nonsense is, well, complete nonsense.


I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[deleted]

Dear, oh dear. It's hard to know where to start!

Amen, Tiger!! You make a GREAT point. 2001 was long and slow, but mesmerizing! This film is long, slow, dull, boring, incomprehensible and pretentious. It's a total mess.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, and / or doesn't.

i don't see how the first point you made could be considered a bad thing





so many movies, so little time

Agree. This was pretty slow and boring. I found myself nodding off at times since nothing seemed to be happening.

And no, I don't expect Star Wars with cute, fuzzy little aliens and laser beams blasting all over the place, but I did expect more, maybe along the lines of 2001 A Space Odyssey or something like that.

Your observation was spot-on. Arty types will disagree with you though, as is apparent in many of the responses up above me.