So Unbelievably Underrated....

DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU WANT THE TRUTH...

YES, Unbefudgingly Unbelievably Underrated.

Many years ago in college (no kidding!), my english teacher said that science fiction had no place in modern literature. She was not well read in science fiction and made this statement from a learned establishment perspective. Science fiction is supposed to expore human possibilities under futuristic situations. Well this beautiful film does that in grand fashion. The script is simple but extremely well thought out. The score is hypnotic and excellent. The acting is captivating with near perfect characters. The plot has so many nuances that one could hypothesize forever (as evidenced in these forum pages).

Category: Psychological Sci-Fi Drama

On a personal note:
This is one of my favorite films of all time from an "importance" perspective. This is not an epic film nor a pure entertainment piece but something I would recommend to anyone to think about on a personal level: metephorically, spiritually, psychologically.

With that said (I am speaking to those that say it is boring):
I am one of those types that have to have the TV on ALL the time and CANNOT go to sleep with out it (unless I have a migraine). I have watched this film more than anyone in all likelyhood. I am thankful that this film exists because it helps me go to sleep. There are no aliens eating people, nor loads explosions nor agonizing screams, nor bright constantly changing screen changes. Only a beautiful score and equally stunning cinematography with purposefully darkened scenes which are conducive for sleep (an unintentional side consequence that helps me).

Now with that all being said and in summation:
The low rating is because people want to be entertained not thought provoked. You have to think to maintain focus on the movie. But, I bet you a sum of money that a channel surfer would stop dead on any of the perfect cinematography shots or hearing the score (the Athena coming to the space station orbiting Solaris, any of Natascha McElhone intense gazing, upon listening to any of Martinez' score, nude love scene McElhone/Clooney, shots of Solaris, etc).


"I believe in coincidences, I just don't trust them." Source debatable.

Underrated indeed. I had seen the 1972 Solyaris and thought it was ok, but this version really brought it to life by exploring the aspect of human psychology. Tarkovsky seemed more intent on making metaphors about existence at large (resulting in the characters seeming rather soul-less) while Soderberg took the opposite approach and brought us into the mind of the protagonist--not just observing from a distance.

Unfortunately, half the audience (including the original writer Lem) missed the point and hated the movie for deviating from the original presentation. The other half of the audience were the "Bad Boys 2" crowd, as you said, and evidently they couldn't focus on a concept that lasts more than 0.6 seconds. Not enough laser guns and chicks in black spandex, I guess. (Note to them: Tarkovsky would send you into narcoleptic shock.) In any case, kudos to the few folks who avoided falling into either of the above categories.

Having just seen Solaris last night, I was interested to know how it rated here, and yes it is underrated. But that’s the nature of movies really, if they don’t ‘speak’ to us on some or many levels, then we fail to connect with it.

I can see how this film would not appeal to the average movie goer, to many ‘concepts’ and not enough bang-bang! Just be thankful that most of the mainstream audience sector obviously doesn’t visit a fan-based site such as IMDB, otherwise the rating would be much lower.

Admittedly, I haven’t read the book, or even seen the earlier version, but I am interested to know how the themes posed in this version are treated. I wouldn’t call it a criticism, but that we are only given a tantalizing taste of the philosophical dilemmas explored here, namely- humanity, consciousness, memory.. but perhaps that’s the point, it is thought provoking. And this movie does at least present them. It is handled well here, with coherency and intelligence.. to go deeper would only bore the mainstream audience member, so better to try to at least get them thinking. But for the rest of is, it kind of poses the question, how far can a film maker go in relation to exploring concepts which can be a matter of very personal interpretations.

This is a great film though, the set pieces, the cast, production design.. top quality stuff, making this whole experience all the more watch able. Clooney was a strange choice, but he does it justice.

How rare is it to find a film with this kind of depth pitched at the mainstream. An admirable task considering the usual crap on offer to them.


Now it's dark...

I loved this movie. I was never a big Natascha McElhone fan, but she was great here. And Clooney was solid.

Also, the soundtrack by Cliff Martinez is available for purchase at the iTunes store, if anyone's been looking for it. Wish the movie itself was!

I agree...very underrated...I love this film. It is far from perfect but it has such a great tone and mood to it and makes you think.

"Leon" absolutely deserves the high critical praise it has garnered. IMHO, Gary Oldman's performance alone elevates it into the upper stratosphere of film.

"Superbad" was a wonderful comedy that was sweet, funny, outrageous, awkward and had some very relatable characters and situations. Certainly a 7.8 isn't too far off the mark, is it?

That said, I will agree that "Solaris" is *criminally* underrated. I gave the film a 10 as I feel it's a masterpiece. The performances were pitch perfect, the soundtrack was haunting and beautiful and I could say much the same for the visuals. The brilliance of the story, of course, goes out without saying - it's difficult to watch this film and not have it haunt you months afterward. I truly believe this film is Soderberg's finest work.

As an aside, both "Solaris" and "Solyaris" are both variations of Stanislaw Lem's novel so they contain a great deal of the same material/concepts, however, Lem himself felt that both films failed to capture the nature of the Solaris ocean. Anyway, both films are very different in terms of pacing and approach. Frankly, I feel both are masterpieces but Tarkovsky's version requires intense patience to get through (which seems indicative of his style). I actually prefer Soderberg's version. :-) You are right though that "Solaris" should not be considered a remake of "Solyaris" -- they are merely adaptations of the same source material.

[deleted]

I to also think it's underrated.




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