So Unbelievably Underrated.... - Solaris (2002) Discussion

[–] Karl_Hungus3 15 years ago

Very much agreed. I've always stood up for this film, even though I get constant streams of s h i t sent my way from my friends for loving it. I watched Solaris a couple years ago and was memorized from start to finish and stuck with me for days.

It leaves you so many questions and interpretations. What were Solaris' true intentions? Who was Gordon's visitor? What would you do in Kelvin's position?

Daniel-Day Lewis was initally suppose to play Kelvin, but turned it down. Would he have done a better job than Clooney? Yeah, probably, but I think Clooney does a damn fine job. One of the biggest contributions to this film's greatness is definitely Cliff Martinez and his breathtaking score. With a generic score instead of his the film would've been immensely different for the worse.

Everything from the cinematography to the acting in this film is exceptional and I will continue to love it and hopefully someday meet someone in person who shares my views.

reply

[–] kreemer 15 years ago

I love Solaris, and it's no re-make.

It's one of those film's you can come back to time and time again and find yourself still immersed in.

Love it.

reply

[–] fullmetaljackie 15 years ago

i come back to it time & time again when im in the mood for cheesy acting and bad dialog

reply

[–] bobshankjr-2 15 years ago

Right on, Jackie. and don't forget the terrible script. Why Clooney subjected himself to this is beyond my reason. Good director, lousy script.

reply

[–] david-111-311796 12 years ago

Reality check you two (above, who didn't like this): what IS a great film to you?

This film is going to work for anyone with spacious presence, depth of curiosity, and emotional bravery to let got into this artful inquiry into the mystery of being human, being here.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jure2402 13 years ago

Ofc its a remake. I could tell by looking at it for 5 seconds.

reply

[–] cinerepo 13 years ago

Agreed KarlHungus3.

This is one of the most under-rated films in the past decade. Its effect will haunt for a long time. The music by Cliff Martinez is one of the most nuanced, brilliant scores for a movie -- needling, longing, hypnotic.

The ending has such depth/poetic beauty: 'We don't have to think that way anymore'.

It is one of my favorite movies of all time as well.

reply

[–] HellRaidertr 15 years ago

Thank you for your great response. People downrate what they cant understand. Attention span of an intelligent person is stable no matter how slow paced a movie is. Most miss the points and they misjudge. I have watched the old Solaris(Solyaris) they are very different as you said. This surely is not a popcorn flick, it is highly thought provoking, intellectual masterpiece. This movie uses Sci-Fi as an auxiliary element, so it shall not be judged as other Sci-Fi s which include lots of blood, gore, aliens, useless graphic language etc.

Happy endings are just stories that haven't finished yet

reply

[–] JohanHancock 14 years ago

People downrate what they cant understand. Attention span of an intelligent person is stable no matter how slow paced a movie is

That statement is hilarious!
1) If someone doesn't like something that you do, it does not mean they don't necessarily understand it, it means they do not like it.

2) No offense, but you are obviously not that intelligent if you think that intelligent people's attention span is always "stable". Actually, quite the opposite.

I think, without stating whether I am intelligent or not, that Solaris is a provoking movie, but very boring. I like movies and books that make me think, but I don't like to be bored in the process. 2001 was a ridiculously great film in making you think and holding your attention. This was slow and not even that intelligent. Maybe I just didn't understand it.

reply

[–] HellRaidertr 14 years ago

That statement is perfectly valid in my opinion, but it is not the case of every downrate. They may understand but hate it but they cant both not understand and like it at the same time? You get it?

This is my reply to your first point.

The intelligence I am talking about is not the I.Q points, it is the capability of understanding, evaluating and analyzing the context successfully. Yes the researches show that hyperactive kids are quite intelligent but lack even the average persons attention span. I am not talking aboutt that kind of intelligence.

Have you even watched the original Solyaris of Tarkovsky or Stalker? Add ten layers of boringness to Solaris. Not quite for you I suppose. And I dont think 2001 was that much of a great movie, actually it even fails at pretentiousness.

Hey, Soldier. Do you know who's in command here?

reply

[–] JohanHancock 14 years ago

I do understand what you are saying. But I perceived in the way that it is most commonly used, as more of a defense as to why people don't like this. You're right, if someone does not understand this film then they are not going to like it. Absolutely true. There is no real "Hollywood" action to entertain someone that is unable or unwilling to understand the point. So I did misinterpret, to some degree, what you are saying. I just felt I understood this film, yet still found it boring. Although, I do have to compliment it on being almost hypnotic. And I do mean that as a compliment. It had a soothing, calming pace and tone to it rather than making you just squirm and keep looking at your watch.

Very funny about 2001 even failing at pretentiousness. I am not sure I would agree there. I just felt the conflict/arch in 2001 was more compelling, terrifying, and -finally-rewarding. Completely to each is own.

I apologize for getting a little in my last post. Just sat through Solaris. Maybe it wasn't that calming. LOL

reply

[–] HellRaidertr 14 years ago

No problem, everybody is entitled to their opinion. You are 100% right to call this movie boring. Interestingly over time I have found myself enjoying the boring movies more than action movies, that has long artistic shots, with not much dialogue, which tells the storie visually. May I ask you what are some other boring movies besides 2001 you have enjoyed? Just curious.

Hey, Soldier. Do you know who's in command here?

reply

[–] JohanHancock 14 years ago

I'm a huge Paul Thomas Anderson fan (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will be Blood), the latter two might be considered boring by some. I really like One Hour Photo, which is slow but has a really cool look to it. And a lot of older Italian films. Took an Italian cinema class in college and got hooked on them.

reply

[–] microbit 14 years ago

Hi Johan,

I just posted before midway-ish seeing Solaris 2nd time (and now liking it a LOT so far). This is on your thread with Hell Raider or some such.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think of 'Cinema Paradiso' ?
Probably not (enough non-commercial? or - ) older Italian movie, but a VHS copy of it close to my heart in my collection, to be secured on DVD one fine day :-)

I once saw an older Italian movie, but I can't recall the name of it or a lot of the movie. It screened on SBS here in Australia (plays "foreign" movies a lot).
It was hilarious comedy, it mainly took place on a boat of some kind, can't recall whether it was a larger fishing or some such vessel or a smaller commercial/tourist boat. I think it revolved around 2 couples & their confrontations, which became down right clever & hilarious. The better part of the movie must have been away from the boat (which was at sea first I thought)

Probably too vague, but perhaps one day I'll come caross it again :-)

Ciao,
Kris

reply

[–] microbit 14 years ago

Hi HellRaidertr & Joh(a)nHancock :-)

I watched Solaris on DVD rental several years ago and - admittedly - it bored me a lot.
Yesterday evening I picked up - what I thought - a nice deal DVD set at the local supermarket : Solaris, Day Earth stood still (original, tnx very much ! :-), Fantastic Voyage, Journey Centre of Earth (original) and Voyage to Bottom of the Sea (John Allen's).
I paid $22 (Australian $), which I considered a good deal, considering I looked for the original Day Earth Stood Still (just before the Keanu Reeves abortion came out actually :-), found it and paid $27 for that one alone.
So, done deal, 5 DVD-9 set, subtitled and neatly packed etc.

My thought was "shame it's got Solaris on it".
So, kicked back, watched Jules Verne with girlfriend and 10 yr old boy, loved it. Waited till girlfriend & 10 yr old asleep and saw Fantastic Voyage again, great ! That was 2 AM.

Then I put on Solaris... whoa. I'm 0:47:39 into the DVD and I needed to come up for a bit of air.
Perhaps it's the late hour (~ 5 AM) and the totally dark room that put me in a trance, dunno, but this movie suddenly started on me like a Juggernaut.

I'd be interested in some discussion and I'll post again later when I finish off the movie, but a handful of brief comments so far.
(Before starting to watch Solaris I read the early part of this thread between you 2 guys, which seemed by far most insightful, intelligent... and with the most contrast :-)

- I was about to tune out until character (I think called Snow) asked Clooney "Do you want her to come back" ?
I then actually realised the movie had already taken an abrupt turn and trance was in progress :-)..... I just can't exactly recall when that was ...
(one factor amongst many other to see this many times 'over time').

- Since that moment I've been watching a stage where the interaction is only between Chris & Rheya. (Incidentally, my first name is Kris).

- Something quite weird and clever has taken place since a while, just dunno when : I've suddenly (involuntarily) been dragged into a triangle relationship between Chris, Rheya & myself.... huh ?

My interest piqued even further when the 'religion vs Evolution' argument takes place. More specifically, Chris' mention of the time factor into the inevitability of emergence of species....
(This is one of my big hobby horses, I'm an Electronics Engineer with a specific - on the side - interest in Neural Network software. This is where the evolution aspect strongly resonates. Evolution is not speculation, it just *is*.
But that's a whole different story... it just needs a massive source of energy : time... IOW "Nature" trying the "this works better than that" approach in mutation, with predators' important presence to "filter out" the gene pool. Anyway, I digress..)

- As a final thought for now, am I really participating in the interaction between Chris and Rheya (as I wrote, I took a short break to come up for air) ?
Or, even the interaction between Rheya and "Rheya" (questioning/investigating) her own "memories" ?

- Perhaps Solaris is already the 4th man in the equation while I watch, present in my living room, heh .

I'm not even really sure why I posted already instead of finishig off the movie and having a good rest & ponder.

All in all, I found your thread provocative - not to jump in on it, but to give a shot at a Solaris DVD I now own. So far it's looking great !

Cheers
-- Kris

reply

[–] HellRaidertr 14 years ago

Thats a very nice deal indeed, I would not miss such offer either.

Yeah, Solaris puts the viewer into a trance like mood. The atmosphere is overwhelming.

I don't remember the exact dialogues you have mentioned. I have lost the count of how many times I have watched solaris, I can watch it again. I am not type who watches a movie over and over again just because I enjoy it very much. Interestingly, some movies are just not memorable(or maybe just for me).

I personally approve of the philosophy of confrontation, and try to apply in real life. But, movies such like solaris, provide surreal moral dilemmas wrapped with fancy Sci-fi stuff. When a movie, makes you question the certain acts of characters, without injecting the viewer a predetermined moral. I mean, many movies shove the so called ethics in our throats, like trying to educate us. Solaris, is a neutrally aligned movie in my opinion, there is no right or wrong, thats why I praise solaris so much.

Tarkovsky chose to direct Solyaris, because of the reasons I have mentioned. I am a big fan of Tarkovsky, his sacrificial dedication to his art. I am yet to watch all his works, but so far, Stalker and obviously Solaris was awesome. I had chance to peek at some of his photographic works, which are great too. Apparently I have been highly influenced by him.

Btw, Interestingly, I am studying computers like you. I am currently interested in Computer graphics. I cant help but particularly enjoy films featuring, artificial intelligences, artificial realities etc. I could recommend some films about those topics as well if you want.

Enjoy the movie!

Hey, Soldier. Do you know who's in command here?

reply

[–] microbit 14 years ago

Oh, and enjoy I did.
I'm just in & out quickly, great to hear someone in a similar field to mine.
I have been designing custom HW & embedded firmware (in microconroller systems)
for some 20 yrs though, but I'm certainly still studying just about every day.
(you really have to).
So, basically, I'm not a student in its literal sense :-)

Oh, I quickly clicked on your profile, will pick up later on this thread, perhaps even PM, dunno, your earlier posts were provocatively interesting (well, I thought).
While there (your profile) I couldn' help myself, I noticed the post about Iron Man 2 (haven't seen it yet) and saw the chest beating nonsense of the "hate to break it to ya" fella.
I hope I somewhat got him to rethink his silly comments (well, they're actually absolute crap :-) with a brief post to put him back on the rails of reality.

PS : Suggestions of AI movies quite welcome. Warning : I've recently become a die-hard SG-1 & Atlantis fan :-) (partially because it's - for the most part -exceptionally well researched)

Will discuss more soon.

Cheers,
Kris

reply

[–] HellRaidertr 14 years ago

You are working in a nice field, I may focus on embedded systems in future as well.

I admit that my imdb profile is not the brightest profile out there, I used to use imdb more of than I do, but now my posting quota is increased to 1 hour for some reason and all the threads are being deleted after some point since imdb is running out of space, I have lost respect for imdb, and its users, thus I really dont bother to post meaningful messages as much as I did before.

Btw, how were you able to browse through my earlier posts, I cant actually see them, it says they are deleted by imdb staff?

http://www.imdb.com/keyword/artificial-intelligence/?title_type=feature

here is the list of artificial intelligence movies.

Btw have you watched "Moon" ? I havent but I am looking forward to it.

Hey, Soldier. Do you know who's in command here?

reply

[–] jackluminous1965 10 years ago

...but they cant both not understand and like it at the same time?...

I just dare you to drop that comment into any thread about David Lynch movies - seriously I hate the guys movies but you will be torn apart... On a personal level I like several movies I dont particularly understand...Hausu,964 Pinnochio and The Sylvian Experiments come to mind

reply

[–] rossrjensen 14 years ago

I just rated Solaris with a 7, which in my books makes it an okay movie but not outstanding and it wasn't from a lack of understanding.

Spoilers of course...

Solaris certainly had some interesting elements and explored some downright intriguing topics, but it was the things that movie didn't do that ended up leaving me slightly unsatisfied. I didn't feel much of a character arch. Throughout the movie, I half expected Clooney's character eventually to let go of his ex, resulting in Solaris not re-creating her again - and him learning an important lesson in the process. Of course, that's not what happened - which is a good and bad thing. Instead, Clooney's character didn't change, he didn't move on...which was realistic and somewhat touching (and unpredicable compared to my expectations). At the same time, he didn't change! People are hardly able to understand or learn about the human condition if we are presented with static characters reacting statically to unusual/supernatural conditions. This was cemented by the ending, which was either telling us that Solaris made it to earth somehow in the form of Clooney's character or (and certainly the ending the film seemed to want to promote) that he was in the afterlife and could now finally spend time with his true love again (rather than a copy made from his biased memories).

It was a little sentimental and not what I wanted to see out of the character's of the movie. They didn't really learn anything from their experience - and instead of trying, Clooney's character focused on how his projection may have been inaccurate. They didn't learn how to move on, but attempted to continue a sad existence (even if Clooney's character was in the afterlife, he still insisted living a sad life until his realization of what or where he was).

So, for me, it was the ending that ultimately led me to downgrade my rating from 8 (a good movie) to a 7 (an okay movie). Still an interesting movie, I just find some of the elements the movie narrowed its focus on to have been well...interesting choices.

I haven't yet seen the original film interpretation, but I did buy both versions at the same time and plan on checking it out once I have a chance. I am pretty excited for it considering what I have seen and read.

Since I have been on this Sci-Fi kick lately, I would like to recommend to anyone who has taken the time to read this, the movie Primer. Talk about a mind-trip.

reply

[–] jase-morris 15 years ago

I'm glad I saw this version first. This version is an above average Hollywood production, whereas the Tarkovsky is a stone classic - I'd have hated it if I'd seen the Tarkovsky first. The two films are different eras, different genres (apart from obviously being SF), and have different intended audiences. Maybe, on the strength of this, someone will decide to check out the Tarkovsky movie, and/or the original Lem novel. No, this isn't a bad movie at all, and waaay above the curve for a "remake".

reply

[–] AndromedaRoach 8 years ago

I saw the Tarkovsky first. Gave it a 9, this an 8. (This was maybe a week apart.)

The Cockroach Honor Award
2008: WALL-E
2009: G-Force
The cockroach is a noble beast

reply

[–] MikeyBabyBooBop 15 years ago

I agree with all of you. This is the type of movie that fully captivates the viewer who gives it a change. There is so much to like here. I think all of the performances are stellar, especially the minor cast. Snow was a great character.

When I watched this movie, I couldn't stop thinking about it. There are so many ways to take to it and many things to take from it. So good.

- dying ain't much of a living -

reply

[–] CameronWalker01 10 years ago

The book is far superior to the movie in every way. Don't get me wrong I liked the movie, it was decent, but it does not do the book justice. It misses the entire point of the novel and cuts out a lot of important aspects from the story. If you want something intellectual, I highly suggest reading the book.

reply

[–] caree2020 15 years ago

Totally agreed Such an outstanding cast!!! It is not very usual to find a movie where all the actors fit perfectly into the characters. Special mention to Jeremy Davies. The music could not have been better! The spectator is most of the time trying to elucidate what's going to happen next. After watching the film, I would like to get the book by Stanislaw Lem. Definitely Solaris is one of my favorites!

reply

[–] bryan-293 15 years ago

"The spectator is most of the time elucubrating what's happening or what's going to happen next."

There's no such word as "elucubrate".

reply

[–] omoxus 15 years ago

I agree. Though not on the level of 2001. I liked it. Some films require thought and hard for the average viewer to take in.

.

Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega

reply

[–] subterranean_catalyst 13 years ago

I agree..
P.S.
I like that book Snow Crash.
And Sunshine...and etc which seem to be common among all of us Solaris fans.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] caree2020 15 years ago

thanks! I've coined a new word!

reply

[–] skl2003 15 years ago

'There's no such word as "elucubrate".'

Actually there is, but it means 'to produce something by the expenditure of "midnight oil"' (according to the OED).

reply

[–] Randy-the-Ram 15 years ago

I agree. This movie has one of the most profound impacts on me than any other film I've ever watched. I don't know whether it's the cinematography, writing, or score...

Easily in my top 3 of all time.

reply

[–] JimTheGreat 15 years ago

Yeah it is very underrated. I really like it. It has a great feel to it, the music is brilliant (Anyone know if the soundtrack is available?) and the mellow shots of the planet are very good looking. It's a great film to fall asleep to in a good way. Like Blade Runner and the Thin Red Line (Two of my favourite films) it is a good to snooze to.

"There's a dog lose in the wood"

reply

[–] Randy-the-Ram 15 years ago

yes, soundtrack is by cliff martinez. look it up!

also, I've never read the book, and this movie is not in the least bit baffling to me...

reply

[–] Skaven252 15 years ago

The issue here is not whether it's a remake of the first film adaptation of the book or not. They both miss the point.

I agree with the user comment "Disappointing if you've read the book; baffling if you haven't, 3 September 2003" - I was disappointed in both films how they didn't embrace the concept of alien so well handled in the book. If I hadn't read the book, I'd be baffled by this film.

In the book, the reappearance of the wife long gone was only a plot device secondary in importance to the planet itself. The film turns this upside down, and Solaris the planet is almost completely ignored. But I understand the choice. People are usually oriented more towards people and their relations than odd philosophical concepts. The film focused on human drama so it would not alienate the mainstream viewers.

reply

[–] johnmichael-2 15 years ago

I love the story of "Solaris." But both versions--Tarkovsky's 1972 version and Soderbergh's 2002 version--are lacking something. Tarkovsky's version moves too slowly--not that that's a problem (I love 2001: A Space Odyssey, and EWS is my favorite movie). What's a problem is that it moves too slowly while capturing plenty of images that in no way forward the characters or the plot. It's a good film, but it's 30 minutes too long. Meanwhile, Soderbergh's movies takes the opposite route and moves too quickly, leaving many of the scenes feeling half-fleshed and glossed over. I feel both movies did a pretty good job hitting on the philosophical elements of the story, but neither strung the ideas together quite as well as they could have. Tarvosky's version spaced the ideas too far apart, and everything seemed a bit flabby and loose. But Soderbergh packed the ideas too close together, and they didn't get their proper breathing room.

Maybe I should read the book. I feel an unbelievably awesome story trying to force its way out of these two adequate-but-not-quite-satisfying adaptations.

Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)

reply

[–] Karl_Hungus3 15 years ago

Randy-the-Ram

The soundtrack by Cliff Martinez is unfortunately out of print. Which makes no sense because the songs "first sleep" and "don't blow it" are constantly used in commercials and for temp music in movie trailers. If your lucky you can find a copy on ebay every blue moon for around $30-$50. Otherwise here are a couple links you could download the audio from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StICDw9aCYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPNDrsZ2MAE

reply

[–] LookinGood 15 years ago

"The soundtrack by Cliff Martinez is unfortunately out of print."

But it is still available: I bought my copy a few weeks ago from Amazon Germany for 10 Euros (http://www.amazon.de/Solaris-Cliff-Martinez/dp/B00008IHLL. Amazon USA has it for 21$ as an import.
--
"Nobody ever said the IMDB was polite company." MichaelD on the Luther (2003) board.

reply

[–] Karl_Hungus3 15 years ago

Wow good fvcking find. I know European dvd's require a region 2 or multi-region dvd player. Is it the same case for their cd's or do they play on anything?

reply

[–] LookinGood 15 years ago

No, CDs play everywhere (I have Australian and US CDs here, and they play on my CD player). So you should be safe.
--
"Nobody ever said the IMDB was polite company." MichaelD on the Luther (2003) board.

reply

[–] Randy-the-Ram 15 years ago

oic. I already have the soundtrack, and it's grrrreeaaat!

reply