solaris ( 2002 film )
the lucid nightmare: review: solaris (1972) vs. solaris (2002 )
one of the three films that received an
f
cinemascore from audiences upon their release in 2002, along with feardotcom (2002) and darkness (2002) .
421 - walczymy do końca - 2002 r. [ teledysk - film 2018 r. licencja - janusz laskowski
looking for movie tickets? enter your location to see which movie theaters are playing solaris (2002) near you .
solaris (2002). director - steven soderbergh. stars: george clooney, natascha mcelhone. moria - the science - fiction, horror and fantasy film review .
solaris director: andrei tarkovsky year 1972 solaris is a hypnotic russian science fiction film brought to us by the legendary director ...
steven soderbergh’s solaris (2002) is a challenging film. it doesn’t repeat its answers time and time again. it allows you to make up your mind. it mostly takes place in the characters’ heads .
george clooney doesn’t want the moon in his new sci - fi film “solaris” to get all the attention .
solaris (1968), a two - part black - and - white film for russian television by boris nirenburg .
csicsery - ronay, jr. , istvan. “on the grotesque in science - fiction. ” science fiction studies 29 (2002): 71 .
cliff martinez' s score for the 2002 remake is simply brilliant. those docking sequence spacescapes are long and lush, the perfect marriage of music and visual imagery .
welcome to all new and returning film students. welcome also to all who have elected to study film in one year .
we are thrilled to announce that cliff martinez' s iconic score to solaris, previously released on invada records, has been repressed on brand new vinyl colours, each with its own artwork in 425g heavyweight sleeve. martinez' s strikingly atmospheric, beautiful score to the 2002 film' solaris' is hailed by many as one of the most iconic and influential modern soundtracks .
auf jeden fall besser als tarkowskis film. das pacing ist sehr viel schneller und die länge ist passend zu dem gehalt der story. leider hat der film kaum ein gefühl für atmosphäre oder philosophie und so und der 2002er solaris
nur
ein annehmbarer sci - fi film .
two oscar - winning directors have joined forces to make a serious and complex science - fiction film called
solaris ,
and all you probably know about this film is that george clooney shows his naked behind .
he goes back to sleep, and once again solaris re - creates rheya .
jordan, miriam and julian jason haladyn. “simulation, simulacra, and solaris. ” film - philosophy 14. 1 (2010): 253 .
jordan, miriam and julian jason haladyn. “simulation, simulacra, and solaris. ” film - philosophy 14. 1 (2010): 262 .
adam... . yeah the 2002 version is definitely easier to sit through and the freeway drive sequence does tend to drag on. i think what the 2002 version did so well, was to streamline the entire concept and keep the narrative compact enough that it conveyed the same emotions as the original film without sacrificing too much of the story. either way they' re both great films, just executed differently. thanks for checking out the blog .
“, and much of the haunting music, production design and superb cinematography of soderbergh’s film evokes stanley kubrick’s masterpiece. however while the tarkovsky film and
lots of edge enhancement and probably the ugliest picture quality of any hd anything i own, but is wider screen (21: 9 ish ?) & significantly more detailed than the 2002 - 3 dvd .
well - reviewed in its time, steven soderbergh’s 2002 film solaris placed a paltry 124 th on the us box office for the year and its total gross amounted to less than a third of the film’s estimated budget. on the dvd’s commentary track, soderbergh and producer james cameron argue that the film was poorly marketed. there may be some credence to their arguments: the theatrical trailer, used to whet audience appetites, plays up the romance and suspense arcs of the narrative and pitches the film as a conventional psychological thriller with quick cuts and a driving up - tempo score. the actual film is far more contemplative and cerebral and demands being viewed through multiple lenses of critical analysis
though solaris is not entirely intertextual with the source material that precedes it, there are instances where soderbergh chooses to adapt items found specifically in tarkovsky’s film that were not present in lem’s original novel. by actively engaging with both versions of the narrative that came before, soderbergh positions his solaris as a representation constructed of the various pieces of the solaris cannon. combined with his auteur vision, soderbergh’s solaris playfully situates itself in the discourse on reproduction and recreation though avoids the risk of ever truly being considered a third solaris .
does both — and well, i think. how did such an unusual film pass muster with studio bean counters? it’s hard to know, but it probably had something to do with soderbergh’s proven box - office track record (in 2002, he’d recently come off two huge successes :
much like the planet itself ,
solaris
relies on what you bring to it .
solaris, directed by steven soderbergh, is an immensely captivating film that borrows heavily from the original solaris' plot, but streamlines it for a more cohesive narrative that moves along at a brisk pace while keeping true to the nature of tarkovsky' s masterpiece .
that is the central theme of stanislaw lem’s solaris. i was hoping for more mention of it during the film, but no, it got lost in the muddle .
11. in the director’s commentary to the english film, soderbergh discusses whether solaris is either a good or a bad entity, and he quotes stanley kubrick who stated that the universe is neither good or bad, but indifferent. are there any indications about solaris’s motives ?
movie news, screening invitations and reviews from the world of independent film and beyond .
i’ll end up on a note on the book / movie differences: a plot point that got lost in the adaptation is that solaris, the ocean / planet is intelligent and may in fact try to communicate with the scientists by the use of those “phantoms”. i don’t think it adds much, though, to consider this explanation given that solaris (2002) is more or less self - consistent without it. be advised that reading the book in order to have the film explained to you may result in even greater confusion .
i actually preferred the 2002 version, as tarkovsky sometimes overdid some of the sequences (e. g. the freeway drive). viola davis and jeremy davies were excellent as the self - consiously neurotic crew. and the score was superb .
solaris 1971 überbewertete schein kunst die allein davon lebt das angebliche film experten sich daran aufgeilen sagen zu können das sie diesen film geshen haben und verstanden haben. meine erfahrung war folgende ich habe einen 3 stunden langen film mit statischen bildern gesehen bei dem ich mich nach 30 minuten gefragt hab wann die story anfängt nach einer stunde und nach 90 minuten bis ich nach fast 3 stunden gemerkt habe das der film nur so tut als würde er eine story zu erzählen zu wollen die erkenntnis das ich 3 stunden einen film geguckt habe ohne jeh etwas verstanden zu haben hat mich schwer mitgenommen und an alle die sagen der film will garkeine geschichte erzählen sondern ein gefühl…
oh, yes: spoilers follow. do not read if you haven’t seen the film .
a scene from the 1979 film
stalker .
( janus films / janus films )
this is over an hour shorter than the original version, andrei tarkovsky' s solaris (1971) .
, i’ll admit, and i can think of other novel - to - film - to - film transformations that are more interesting to me. off the top of my head, the
the 2002 version of solaris is an enjoyable film that lays out the same concepts of the original, but scales it down a bit for an americanized version of a beloved russian classic. i love both movies and i think what both soderbergh and tarkovsky have done with their films is amazing. tarkovsky gives us a surreal look into a science fiction film that presents itself in a poetic and ambiguously metaphorical vision, while soderbergh goes the more straight forward route, giving us a sleek and beautiful updated science fiction film, that stays true to the integrity of the original while pushing the narrative along by the help of its dramatic and humanized cast .
i love that scene. just watched 2002. absolutely terrible, possibly the worst thing i' ve ever seen. most probably because it' s impossible not to compare it to tarkovsky' s. pretty much summed up americanized consumer ideology for me .
for the record los angeles times saturday november 09, 2002 home edition main news part a page 2 national desk 8 inches; 315 words type of material: correction
solaris
rating - - a story in tuesday' s calendar about the rating given to
solaris
said an r rating prohibits viewers younger than 18 unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. in fact, the rating means
restricted: under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian .
i really dig the mood of this film mostly due to cliff martinez' s great score .
founded in 1999, senses of cinema is one of the first online film journals of its kind and has set the standard for professional, high quality film - related content on the internet .
pseudonyms are generally trouble - free, but they can create headaches around awards season. the academy issues oscar nominations to whoever is officially listed in a film' s credits, pseudonym or not. in 1997, jaynes became an oscar - nominated film editor for
his
work on fargo. likewise, donald kaufman, the fictional alter - ego of charlie kaufman who shared writing credit on 2002' s adaptation, was nominated for best adapted screenplay .
visiting london to promote their new film, the existential sci - fi love story solaris, steven soderbergh and george clooney were onstage at the nft for a guardian interview on february 13. read a full transcript here
regardless, i did enjoy the (2001 / 2002 ?) movie. i found it leaning towards the artsy / philosophical genre while i gravitate more toward hard scifi, but then i am a telecom / network engineer who deals daily with absolutes – cause & effect .
soderbergh cast jeremy davies in the film after seeing a tape davies made of himself playing charles manson. davies was preparing to play manson in an independent film. the tape was passed around within the film industry and became a popular bootleg. davies eventually played manson in helter skelter (2004) .
5 out of 5 stars a classic mind - trip of a film that can never be matched .
being slow, boring and difficult to understand. in fact, more public attention seemed to focus on george clooneys naked butt than any of the films deeper philosophical issues or comparisons with the original film .
and while i buy the positive, progressive nature of the god / solaris parallel, i really like the quantum - like discontinuity in the plotline, and perhaps in the solaris decisions / reactions. perhaps in this corner of this universe, quantum potentiality overrides probability to bring back the dead? solaris’s true power to shape physics. sci - fi indeed !
solaris
has up to now been the better - known of the two, in part for its more easily graspable lost - in - space story line and also for steven soderbergh' s 2002 remake. which makes
stalker
the real revelation of the pair .
stalker
recently broke box office records when it played at the film society of lincoln center in new york city and, incredibly, had the second - highest per - screen average nationwide behind only the opening of
guardians of the galaxy vol. 2 .
( a very different kind of science fiction film. )
the station crashes into the expanding planet. solaris “reaches out” to chris (though the boy phantom), who accepts .
it' s an unusual challenge for a hollywood film with a major star, but worth the effort .
( 1998), which still remains his (and george clooneys) best film. soderbergh went onto make
solaris ,
which opened wednesday, has been sold as a love story, with the space - station setting incidental .
the picture was placed on the fridge after rhea died, and before chris went on solaris. this is also the same time frame that he cut his finger (before solaris). when they show this scene, it is from his memory looking back at the time of his time of mourning. he decides to make the choice to stay on solaris because on earth he is “faking his life”, and if he stays, he no longer needs to mourn her death because they are together on solaris. they are both dead, but death shall have no dominon on solaris, only love shall dominate, as described in the poem
an interview with writer / director boots riley about his incendiary new film ,
sorry to bother you .
brooding soundtrack to soderbergh' s remake of the classic sci - fi film. set adrift in ...
around solaris, the scientists orbiting the planet in the space station start seeing… things. phantoms from their pasts appear on the station, re - created by solaris. the phantoms are usually people (alive or dead) that the scientists long to talk to .
“solaris. it is one of the few soundtracks of mine that i can still stand to listen to. i also think it was a score that made the greatest contribution to the film for which it was written .
- cliff martinez .
before solaris' s release critical fears ran high that re - making a film, seemingly set in stone by andrei tarkovsky, was folly of the highest order. thus, all aspects of the project fall prey to the same harsh scrutiny .
soderbergh' s solution? the pseudonym peter andrews—his father' s first and middle names. a couple of years later, as his film solaris wrapped up, soderbergh encountered a similar issue with his film editor credit. here, he opted for the pseudonym mary ann bernard, based on his mother' s name .
i wanted to pay tribute to my dad, and so when the editing credit became an issue on solaris, i decided to spread it around ,
he says .
slow - moving, cerebral, and ambiguous, solaris is not a movie for everyone, but it offers intriguing issues to ponder .
5. in the director’s commentary to the english film, soderbergh notes that his version of the film has the rheya - creature agonize over her identity, which was not part of the original novel or the russian film. we also see this agonizing in the snow - creature. (in the movie multiplicity, but contrast, the clones quickly accept their clone - status .) if you discovered that you were a creature created by solaris, what would your reaction be ?
i also love the casting of jeremy davies as snow, one of the scientists on board the solaris. he' s such an amazingly estranged actor and can play such a curiously weird character, that this film so desperately thrives on displaying. i' ve immensely enjoyed his parts on lost and ravenous and his disturbingly accurate portrayal of charles manson in the film helter skelter. in solaris, he gets to thrive doing what he does best, portraying an off kilter scientists that makes you wonder, what' s this guy on? i think the addition of his character in the film, breathes new life into the overall feel of the movie, and it made me care a little bit more for the other existing members of the solaris crew .
there are no credits at the beginning. all the credits are at the end of the film. see more »
'' solaris'' was adapted from the polish science - fiction writer stanislaw lem' s 1961 novel, which also inspired a 1972 film by the russian director andrei tarkovsky. the story turns out to be a kind of aesthetic rorschach for filmmakers .
i thought soderbergh completely changed the ending from either the 1972 movie or the novel, and in a way that was completely inconsistent with both the characters' limited understanding of the nature of the visitors and the powers / effects of solaris itself. the 2002 version is beautiful to look at, but imho, it is a dumbed - down shadow of tarkovsky' s classic aimed at an audience which prefers to watch movies which do not require much mental exercise .
solaris is just boring. it' s dull. god, is it dull! dull! dull! dull! dull! dull !
steven soderbergh' s solaris has brought sci - fi back from the dead. john patterson takes his regular look at new us movies .
loosely based on stanislaw lem' s 1961 novel and russian director andrei tarkovsky' s 1972 film ,
solaris
takes place at an unspecified future date aboard a space station orbiting a planet that seems to possess the power to read people' s minds .
“fox leaked the story about the mpaa rating on ‘solaris, ’ how we got an r because i showed my (behind), but i think they’re having trouble selling this film. they don’t know what to do with it, ” clooney tells newsday .
considering tarkovsky' s film is an absolute masterpiece, soderbergh did a solid job with solaris. the use of flashbacks worked well to get the audience to sympathize with kelvin' s pain. it was definitely a more straight forward take on the story. i even felt skeptical when clooney was casted as kelvin, but was pleasantly surprised by his performance. solaris (1972) is a cinematic treasure .
excellent film. great space scenes and a strong love bond between george clooney & natascha mcelhone (one genuinely feels the strength of their love). the film is thought provoking. quality of dvd was good and arrived quickly. strongly recommend .
it doesn' t necessarily cover any huge ground, but it' s a small film that tells something much bigger .
is based much more on the 1972 film than it ever was stanislaw lems novel. forgotten in all of this seems to be the original film version of the book, which had earlier been adapted as a 2½ hour movie for russian television with
'' solaris'' is rated pg - 13 (parents strongly cautioned). it has sexual situations and discreetly photographed moments of nudity .
tense and stately ,
solaris
explores big ideas: fate, faith, predestination, memory, love, god, and the afterlife .
stanislaw lem (the novel' s polish author) said that he never intended' solaris' to be interpreted as a love story, but as a meditation on the nature of human quest to understand the unknowable. this could be in the spiritual or religious sense, or simply in a personal sense of understanding one' s own motivations and desires. his novel reads better than the 3 - hour long film by tarkovsky, but then it really has a life of its own as a film (even if it does not depart from the plot). in contrast, lem admitted in a 2002 interview that he was a bit embarrassed by the soderbergh' s take on the novel, but did not disown it either .
the tomatometer score — based on the opinions of hundreds of film and television critics — is a trusted measurement of critical recommendation for millions of fans. it represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show .
2. in the original english film screenplay, snow states regarding solaris, “personally, i think it' s god. at least, it fits my definition. ” what definition of god might snow have in mind, and is this an appropriate definition of god ?
this 2002 remake of andrei tarkovsky' s solaris manages to be far less ambitious and goes straight to the point. i thought it was a good take on the classic film, but it doesn' t have the epic visuals and terrific, yet simple story that the original possessed. of course, this film echoes what the 1976 film had, but it never goes in depth with its subject, and it doesn' t do anything new or refreshing. with that being said, watch the original film instead, it' s far superior and it' s a classic of the genre. this remake is good, but it never comes close to the original. the acting in this remake is very good, and i thought that overall it was a solid film, but it also rushed through the story a bit. with the original, it took its time to let the story unfold and it worked brilliantly and that' s one of the main reasons that tarkovsky' s sci fi classic is so unique and ultimately memorable. with this remake, you get a far shorter film, one that doesn' t reach its potential and in turn lacks the development that made the original so good. nonetheless, this remake is good, but it could have been better as well. luckily the cast are great, and it' s the film' s strongest asset. however, i would recommend the 1976 film instead of this one, but if you want a more stripped down version, with less ambitious ideas, then this remake is for you. in terms of revamping a classic film, solaris like every other remake before or after it has left a bit to be desired, and makes you want to watch the original film. the ideas expressed on - screen, are things we' ve seen before, and there never is new blood injected into the story. for a remake however, it' s quite good, but it' s nothing compared to the film that came before it .
devil or god, doesn’t really matter, what matters is that kelvin was happy. he had the second chance he hoped for. so looking back if you consider happiness is found in heaven, then kelvin in the end was in heaven and solaris is god. there isn’t really anything to be gained with solaris being the devil. there are no hints for ulterior motives in solaris’s part aside from giving kelvin and his wife the life they really wanted. if solaris did tempt them, instead of just sending them a kind of prophetic message, remember that the devil tempts for people to gain earthly and temporary pleasures and the long term consequence is pain and suffering. this is certainly not the case for solaris, kelvin and his wife longed to be where they were in the ending (apartment), and it was not temporary, their romance would find no end in solaris .
even so, lem refers (disparagingly) to the single biggest difference between the source novel and soderbergh’s film. the novel (as well as tarkovsky’s film) is far more invested in the science fiction elements of the story, using the protagonist’s relationship with his wife (or “wife”) as a way to explore such notions as the nature of identity and reality. soderbergh’s film is essentially
yes wes. you are able to explain what i believed. he is now “living” on solaris and has come to terms with his past. what i find interesting, what will humans on earth do with their information about solaris from gibson? go back? stay away? what would you do ?
phantom - snow points out that solaris is getting bigger every time the phantom - destroyer is used (insert techno - babble here as to why this is so. maybe solaris is angry at the destruction of its phantoms), and that the station will soon crash down on the planet. he recommends evacuation .
he shuts down the door to the shuttle and decides to remain aboard the station as it crashes down on solaris. self - sacrifice out of guilt for not remembering rheya “right”? maybe. but then again, have i mentioned how many people kill themselves at the slightest excuse in this film ?
although visually stunning, solaris is simply a bit dull. clooney gives an uncharacteristically wooden performance that fails to evoke sympathy, and the plot meanders along failing to generate much interest. while the tarkovsky film is an almost three hour long philosophical musing, it still manages to sustain an engaging dream like quality throughout. although soderbergh’s film is atmospheric, it simply comes across as an under developed romance which unsuccessfully aspires to being something grander .
yes, it’s a pretentious art film. it’s a gratuitously self - indulgent piece of cinema that’s not nearly as profound at it may think it is. it’s under - plotted, bloated and would have made a better 30 - minutes twilight zone episode than a feature film .
black orpheus director: marcel camus year 1959 black orpheus is a beautiful and magical film that borrows elements from the orpheus and ...
film this – graphic novels that should be made into feature films hard boiled writer: frank miller artist: geof darrow col ...
steven soderbergh is quoted saying that if the audience does not enjoy the first 10 minutes of the film then they might as well leave .
“he shuts down the door to the shuttle and decides to remain aboard the station as it crashes down on solaris. self - sacrifice out of guilt for not remembering rheya “right”? maybe. but then again, have i mentioned how many people kill themselves at the slightest excuse in this film? ”
lem’s novel is deeply ambiguous in many ways. neither the reader nor the characters ever obtains a full and complete understanding of, among other things, the nature of solaris, how its ocean is able to generate excellent facsimiles of human life, how human “brain waves” interact with the ocean, and many other imponderables. inasmuch as such ambiguity is central to lem’s (and tarkovsky’s) approach to the narrative, it seems to me that lem, had he been a little more open - minded about the whole thing, might actually have appreciated soderbergh’s version. though the 2002 film does indeed emphasize the love story over the imponderables, it presents that love story in a highly ambiguous manner .
some soldiers / investigators are sent to solaris by the company in order to help, but are plagued by the same phantoms. all (!) commit suicide .
anytime someone asks me for a movie recommendation, i always ask ,
have you seen solaris ?
the movie is gorgeous and the score even more so .
i can recall seeing solaris for the first time and being totally taken away by the film. the directing, editing, acting, set design, story, philosophy and psychology of the motion picture. however, none of this would be relevant if it were for the soundtrack of the movie, for it was the glue behind soderbergh' s vision. cliff martinez brings ambient music to a whole new level with the selections from this soundtrack. the music is spacey, aloof, haunting and beautiful all at the same time. i have been able to listen to this music strictly as background or foreground. i can' t recall how many times i put this cd on in the background while i typed papers during grad school. i have purchased other soundtracks by cliff martinez, narc and wicker park. those are also great cds and if one likes the music from solaris, then they should consider those cds as well. however regardless of how good both those cds are, solaris is still by far my favorite. i know there are many mixed reviews about solaris (2002), but i loved it. i also own the original film and the original soundtrack. both of them are wonderful and worth owning. as for the cliff martinez soundtrack, one can enjoy it regardless if they have seen the film, love it or hate it. these feelings take nothing away from the music. a must have for anyone who loves melodies of a remitting tapestry .
soderbergh' s vision of the novel is less of a remake of tarkovsky' s film, but more so a different interpretation and depiction .
also, i like the interpretation that solaris is god - like. it does explain many things. but, having read the novel, solaris was not god - like, just completely alien to us humans. lem seemed strongly to make the point that we should not expect life on other planets to be anything like our expectations .
two character' s names vary a great deal in the different versions of this story. the female character is known as
rhea
in the english translation of the novel ,
rheya
in the film, and
harey
in the original polish. in the 1972 version, she is known as
hari / khari
in the subtitles and russian dialogue, and
carrie
in the english dubbing. the doctor is known as
snow
in the english translation of the novel, and the 2002 film, but in the tarkovsky version, he is known
snaut
in the subtitles and russian dialogue, and
stroud / strowd
in the english dub .
solaris is a planet that orbits a binary. it has developed its own “intelligence”, whatever that may mean to a planet - spanning protoplasmic ocean with powers that appear supernatural .
according to recent reviews of steven soderbergh' s new movie the good german, soderbergh uses the pseudonym peter andrews for his work as cinematographer on his films, and the name mary ann bernard for his work as a film editor. why do filmmakers use pseudonyms to conceal their involvement in a film ?
but once the novelty of the space station has worn off, the movie' s atmosphere begins to feel uncomfortably cramped and stifling. for'' solaris'' is a science - fiction film lacking action - adventure sequences. the absence of boyish friskiness, kineticism and pyrotechnics makes it a film that offers no vicarious physical release. its insistence on remaining cerebral and somber to the end may be a sign of integrity, but it should cost it dearly at the box office .
the rating was based on a couple scenes in which the 41 - year - old clooney’s backside is bare — which soderbergh and the studio claimed wasn’t enough to merit the more - mature designation. the motion picture association of america, which determines film ratings, eventually relented and agreed to release “solaris” with a pg - 13 rating. makers of the film hope the lower rating will draw larger audiences, but now clooney is concerned the attention will be focused primarily on his posterior .
the ballad of narayama
is a japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. what a space it opens…
soderbergh, who picked up an academy award for directing
traffic ,
said he was stunned that the film originally got an
r
rating .
shanghai express director: sammo hung year 1986 shanghai express, also known as millionare' s express, is a dense action comedy film th ...
steven soderbergh is quoted saying that if the audience does not enjoy the first 10 minutes of the film then they might as well leave. see more »
merely grinds to a halt in uncertain confusion. you cannot decry steven soderbergh for aiming at places well beyond the reach of the average popcorn film, but
polasek, ashley. “sherlockian simulacra: adaptation and the postmodern construction of reality. ” literature / film quarterly 40. 3 (2009): 193 .
© 2008 - 2018 the film stage. all rights reserved. | about | privacy | terms of use | advertising | staff | contact | rss feed
i was pleasantly surprised to find myself attracted to the soundtrack of this film, since its subtle weave does not announce itself with a blaze of trumpets .
[ january 2007: i still haven’t had the time to return to the film, but uk cinephile dan wrote in to remind me of the thematic links between chris’s favourite poem, dylan thomas’ “ and death shall have no dominion “, and the ending of the film. if nothing else, the link highlights solaris’ thematic exploration of love after death. chris ends up getting what he most clearly wished for, regardless of the other consequences. true love through death, maybe. ]
something conscious on solaris was able to reach inside the consciousness of the people on - board the space station prometheus and contact them in a way that was both profound and disturbing .
9. in the original english film screenplay, chris describes the physical nature of solaris: “it exists in a continuum that wasn' t proven until ten years ago, a higher mathematical dimension superimposed on top of the universe. an infinite number of them, in fact. it was a violation of all of our various laws regarding the universe, space, or space - time. it was completely counter - intuitive. we had to unlearn everything. ” does this description bolster snow’s contention that solaris is god ?
but there’s no denying that some hints may be required in order to appreciate the film jut a little bit more. if you can tolerate a few paragraphs of random rambling, keep on reading, because i’ll share my own take on the film, and maybe - hopefully! - help you along the way .
the link is clear, solaris is god. the movie touches on a very basic human desire, the do over. chris regretted not being there for his wife, and solaris gives him that chance. back at his apartment, rheya appears, and she says, all is forgiven, and the do over is validated. who but god can forgive sins ?
dr. kelvin is a psychiatrist by trade and certainly well - versed on the school of thought of abnormal psychology as defined by the freudian school. in a candid interview with fellow crew member gordon, gordon assesses her own condition by rattling off a laundry list of disorders she’s begun experiencing due to her proximity to the planet solaris: depression, hypomania, insomnia, amongst others. it is only when second rheya appears that kelvin himself understands the true nature of the warnings raised by snow and gordon. rationalizing the relationship with second rheya proves problematic on a number of levels. firstly: how does solaris create these visitors? while the film wisely never chooses to provide an answer to the impossible, what is revealed is that solaris interacts with a host’s memories to create their visitors. it seems that solaris is a feminine creator that conjoins with the mental output of the host to produce .
[ december 2009: nate writes to add: “the ending to solaris is pretty clear if you follow the literary cues throughout the film. at the dinner party they discuss the idea of god and rhea (named after the greek goddess, the “mother of the gods”) becomes upset with his atheism, apropos the concept of the afterlife. it is clear that he is swallowed up by solaris, but they don’t imply that he “died”. the entire movie is in a suspension, a purgatory. assuming that the last part is part of the afterlife only fits in with the grander stage of the metaphor. he couldn’t resolve his relationship with rhea on earth or purgatory (the land of ghosts) because rhea outside of solaris was nothing but a facsimile of her essence based on his perception. assuming solaris is a metaphor for a platonic god, which is suggested many times, there are mentions of its omniscience, rhea inside solaris would be the quintessence of rhea. the last scene is the afterlife, they will live forever (the cut finger heals). stanislov lem is known for his philosophical and existential theories, and this is very apparent in solaris. when seen through this tradition, the story is actually quite elegant, literal and succinct. ” ]
really enjoyed this film, its a keeper. only focuses on part of the book really but in a really thoughful way. i' ve got the original film, and the book and now this. . somehow all three together all go toward making perfect sense out of lems whole concept. great soundtrack too .
dobermann director: jan kounen year 1997 dobermann is a rabid and fast paced french heist film with teeth to bare, brought to us by dire ...
is based on a novel by stanislaw lem that has already been adapted by russian director andrei tarkovsky in 1972. tarkovsky’s film is sometimes referred to as “the russian
is also a film that comes with no easy solutions and where much of what happens, especially at the end, is left bafflingly ambiguous and unclear. while
tracklistings come from musicbrainz. you can add or edit information about solaris: original soundtrack at urltoken. find out more about our use of this data, and also our policy on profanity
by murtada the studio behind mother! has pivoted their second week marketing towards the bad word of mouth that the film has been receiving from moviegoers. they stopped selling it as a home invasion horror thriller and instead decided to embrace how polarizing it is. some people love it... ... some people don’t it’s a bold move and we like it. what they don’t do though, is mention the f cinemascore that the film recieved. cinemascore is a company that exit polls moviegoers’ opinions on opening night. they have been storing data since 1986, and in that time only 11 other films received the infamous f. those so honored include steven soderbergh' s solaris (2002) and andrew dominik' s killing them softly (2012). and make no mistake darren aronofsky thinks it' s an honor, he told the frame: what' s interesting about that is, like, how if you walk out of this movie are
if there' s one thing that this film excels in it' s creating a story that is so ambiguous in nature yet so specific in its intentions that it literally boggles the mind. we are meant to question the existence of the manifestation and wonder on the validity of the planet' s intelligence. nothing is spelled out in this film and i for one think that it' s better for it. this film thrives in a spiritual sense and it should be different for each viewer to determine what is real and what is of the mind. i think this is a very special way to handle such a strong concept and frankly its the only way to go for this film. even in the beginning of the film, we are placed into a world that never fully felt tangible, always lost in a cloudy like dream. the pacing is so patient and the visuals so vivid that we' re disconnected from any kind of reality right off the bat, so i think that it' s perfect for the film to leave you in a constant state of questions without concrete answers. this very idea is what makes solaris so intriguing and captivating .
zwar besticht solaris mit durchaus gelungenen bildern und einen schönen, unaufdringlichen score, dennoch konnte der film bei mir keine gefühle wecken. so finde ich hier weder philosophische tiefe, noch gut konstruierte science fiction vor. solaris versteht sich mehr als ein
liebesfilm
im weltraum. dadurch bleibt alles halbgar und leicht vorhersehbar. atmosphärisch ist alles ziemlich gut gemacht. der anfang auf der erde sowie die langsame aber stimmige erzählweise haben mir gut gefallen. der anflug auf die raumstation ist eine schöne hommage an 2001. leider verläuft sich dann alles im sande. jeremy davies als snow ist durch sein gesten - acting kaum zu ertragen und bietet eigentlich gar nichts um den plot voranzubringen. generell, wenn es um details geht zeigt sich solaris überaus knausrig. …
run lola run director: tom tykwer year 1998 run lola run is an off the rails, pulse pounding german film that follows a young woman by ...
the movie, which opens this week, drew considerable attention when its r rating was challenged by the film’s director, steven soderbergh, and studio 20th century fox .
one of the proposed taglines for this film was ,
love never dies
. however, this same tagline had already been used for dracula (1992) .
the idea of following in the footsteps of andrei tarkovsky would be an inconceivable feat for most filmmakers, but in steven soderbergh ‘s case, he had his own reasons for providing a new take on stanisław lem ‘s sci - fi novel solaris. while the 2002 george clooney - led film received a divisive critical response, audiences were less than enthused, as it received the infamous “f’ cinemascore — although, one can hardly be surprised, considering its marketing sold an action - suspense thriller from its executive producer james cameron, the man that brought you aliens and the terminator series. as it recently passed its 10 - year - anniversary, we still find a great deal to love in soderbergh’s take, which delivers a striking, emotionally resonant romance, a distinct, worthy deviation from tarkovsky’s meditative masterpiece. – jordan r .
'' solaris'' observes its characters in semi - shadow much of the time. mr. clooney' s eyes glisten through the gloom like shiny black coals studded into a craggy twilit landscape .
but clooney, director steven soderbergh and producer james cameron (oscar winner for
titanic
) think there is more to the $ 47 million film than a love story .
a print was screened at the cinema village theater in new york city in the mid - 1980s that combined an english - dubbed version of the film with sequences from a russian - language print. this version also featured cheesy 1970s - era titles. around this time, this was considered the most complete version of the film available in the united states. it was not until the re - opening of new york' s film forum theatre in 1989 that the complete and uncut russian - language version was shown there theatrically .
poor mugs. the first preview screening would have been a rude crash - landing. for whatever else
solaris
is - thoughtful, moving, intelligent - box - office friendly it isn' t .
a favorite movie. rheya is the woman we could not live with, yet whom we loved and cannot get out of our mind. solaris is sentient. solaris responds to the seeking of resolution in each character’s mind. solaris is compassionate. solaris is here to serve. would we really benefit from what we think we should have done, instead of what we did, or what actually happened? are some things, even the things that haunt us, best left alone? when kevin enters the space station he finds gibarian’s body and a second body. in lem’s original story it was a nubile black woman, of gibarian’s making. dr. gordon’s creation was her drug addicted daughter (not shown in this movie). in the original story and in the earlier russian film by tarkovsky, at the end the main character finds himself in the home of his long dead father after being assimilated by solaris. in the current american version he finds himself in a simulated earth living with rheya. he cuts his finger but it heals, defying the laws of physics, a synthetic world that seems real, yet it is an intricate simluation like the film the thirteenth floor, and vanilla sky. seems to be saying like cipher in the marrix, i prefer to live in a dream existence to living in the real world if i had a choice, the fork in the road i didn’t take .
the purists will be screaming :
you' ve chosen the wrong solaris! andrei tarkovsky' s 1972 version is the real must - have .
fortunately, in space no one can hear you scream .
there’s a wealth of symbolic layering in this film (is it about religion? what about the lock rheya was holding on the train? was it a symbol of a mystery he must unlock? [ * ] etc .), but that type of thing may be be left to better writers and more patient commentators. in the meantime, i’m sufficiently satisfied by the above. solaris is obviously not an audience - friendly film, but on the other hand, it exemplifies a whole lot of what “real science - fiction” is all about. please be kind to it .
ga [ to gc ]: and you' ve set yourself a challenge because you' ve now directed a film - it' s an adaptation of a rather strange book; the adaptation is by charlie kaufman who is renowned for making such straightforward films as being john malkovich and adaptation. it' s a terrific first film; did you enjoy making it ?
i love the
freeway scene ,
and remember being amazed by that scene the first time i took in this film. also
easier to sit through
strikes me as a weak approach to watching a film. solaris is one of the greatest masterpieces of film, as is stalker. this is a question of education and cultural understanding. it is so disappointing that people are into
streamlining
films to make them easier for you to watch. you are confined by your attention spans. soderbergh either bit off more than he can chew, or he is such an egotist that he believed he could improve on a masterpiece. much like the mannerists who followed michelangelo, da vinci and rafael. soderbergh is no tarkovsky, and these films are proof .
semenza, greg colon. “radical reflexivity in cinematic adaptation: second thoughts on reality, originality, and authority. ” literature / film quarterly 41. 2 (2010): 149 .
this is one of those rare soundtracks that can easily stand on its own, deeply moving even to those who haven' t seen the film & have no emotional associations with it .
perhaps this is the only way in which solaris can communicate in a way that has any reference or meaning to the humans on - board the station. however, the result of these manifestations is beyond the humans comprehension, except, perhaps for gibarian, who directly beckons kelvin to come to solaris, because – we assume – that he believes it will provide chris – perhaps singularly – what he seeks – a chance for redemption .
we all agreed that we are not going to cut the film ,
soderbergh said, referring to executives at 20th century fox, which plans to open the movie nov. 27.
solaris is a 2002 american science fiction drama film written and directed by steven soderbergh , produced by james cameron and jon landau , and starring george clooney and natascha mcelhone . it is based on the 1961 science fiction novel of the same name by writer stanisław lem . reflecting on andrei tarkovsky 's critically acclaimed 1972 film solaris ( which was itself preceded by a 1968 soviet tv film ) , soderbergh promised to be closer in spirit to lem 's novel . the film is a meditative psychodrama set almost entirely on a space station orbiting the planet solaris , adding flashbacks to the previous experiences of its main characters on earth . clooney 's character struggles with the questions of solaris ' motivation , his beliefs and memories , and reconciling what was lost with an opportunity for a second chance . 
solaris is a 2002 american science fiction drama film written and directed by steven soderbergh, produced by james cameron and jon landau, and starring george clooney and natascha mcelhone. it is based on the 1961 science fiction novel of the same name by writer stanisław lem. reflecting on andrei tarkovsky's critically acclaimed 1972 film solaris (which was itself preceded by a 1968 soviet tv film), soderbergh promised to be closer in spirit to lem's novel. the film is a meditative psychodrama set almost entirely on a space station orbiting the planet solaris, adding flashbacks to the previous experiences of its main characters on earth. clooney's character struggles with the questions of solaris' motivation, his beliefs and memories, and reconciling what was lost with an opportunity for a second chance.
solaris is a 2002 american science fiction drama film written and directed by steven soderbergh, produced by james cameron and jon landau, and starring george clooney and natascha mcelhone. it is based on the 1961 science fiction novel of the same name by writer stanisław lem. reflecting on andrei tarkovsky's critically acclaimed 1972 film solaris (which was itself preceded by a 1968 soviet tv film), soderbergh promised to be closer in spirit to lem's novel. the film is a meditative psychodrama set almost entirely on a space station orbiting the planet solaris, adding flashbacks to the previous experiences of its main characters on earth. clooney's character struggles with the questions of solaris' motivation, his beliefs and memories, and reconciling what was lost with an opportunity for a second chance.