Solaris...

Well because we live in a society that is so egotistical and sheltered from non-american cultures, "if it's not american, it's crap", it's kind of neccesary to remake the films if you want people to see it in this country.

I've seen plenty of great Italian films, and if they were american, they'd be blockbusters. But since they are italian, no one here has seen them. Hell.. it's gotta be a really good british film to be shown over here and we speak the languange.

Pretty sad really.

Anyways... about Solaris. Never saw the original, but it seems like an interesting movie so I'll check it out.

 

i haven't seen the original Solaris either (it's damned hard to find) but Tarkovsky was an absolute genius. Can Soderburgh and Clooney make good on his work? is the question

 

It was hard to find. On Tuesday, November 26th, it won't be.

http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=164

Criterion is awesome.

 

I haven't seen the original either, but does it disturb anyone else that the TV commercial for the remake makes it look strictly like a run-of-the-mill romantic drama, almost a chick flick in fact? You wouldn't know it's set on a space statoin by looking at the commercial.

 

Looks like it could be a very good movie.
Here's the trailer:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/solaris/

Lucid, couldn't agree with you more. Sad, isn't it?

 

Here's an analysis of Tarkovsky's 'Solaris', as viewed alongside '2001'.

http://www.underview.com/2001/solaris.html#revwslis

I'm not a big science fiction reader, but a Polish friend turned me to Stanislaw Lem and I think he's great.

 

*thread resurrected* (dunno if there was another thread that died in the second BS crash last month)

saw Solaris a few days ago and was totally blown away. I couldn't believe how good it was! Much more intelligent than you would expect after seeing the trailers. It's beautifually shot, the sets are beautifully-designed (not too over the top, which is what I was afraid of knowing that Jim Cameron was producing), no over-reliance on FX.

The film concentrates on human psychology, questions about life/death, perception/reality, the nature of desire, etc. Also the story is masterfully told, with lots of suspense and carefully ambiguous moments and subtle revelations that require you to pay attention and search for clues to understand what exactly is happening in the film - which mirrors the psychological experience that each of the characters (there are only 5 actors in the entire film - much more like a play than a movie) is going through. Clooney and McElhone are very good and I was really, really intrigued by Jeremy Davies performance (you may have seen him in the recent indie sleeper hit "The Secretary" where he nails the supporting role of the loser-geek boyfriend).

Anyway, some of you must have seen this film by now, right? Does anyone have an interpretation of the film that they want to share vis a vis the ending, who the little boy was, did Kris Kelvin (or his double) make it back to earth or was that a dream sequence? (where he cuts his finger and it heals - I didn't see that as "reality"/something that really happened, but as a signal that Kelvin was beginning to lose his grip on reality and that distinctions of past/present/future and his own identity were being seriously blurred in his thoughts. dunno though, have to see it again) Red pills, blue pills, etc, etc.

I need to see it a second time to try to figure out what I think for sure. I thought the ending came a litttle too quickly/abruptly. I really want to see the DVD in the hopes that there are lots of outtakes, director commentary, etc. Maybe they can release a longer cut ala Lord of the Rings extended version...? *fingers crossed*

I also want to read the original book by Stanislaw Lem and watch the Andrei Tarkovsky film (which I have only seen small parts of due to the fact that my friend and I had just gotten incredibly high before we rented the video. Not a good idea when you just rented a 4-hour foreign film that features poetic non-narrative sequences for 10 or 20-minute gaps and it's late at night...)

Also, I am interested in hearing from anyone who didn't like the film. It seems like there were many people who loved the movie and an equal number who hated it, but the complaints that I have heard were all limited to moronic comments like "too slow, too confusing, not enough gadgets and shoot 'em up scenes" which leaves me to think that those people are not exactly intellectuals and were expecting to see a terminator film or something. Is there anyone who can put together a cogent analysis of what they disliked about the movie?

Anyway, count me in the raving fanatics camp. It's like a cross between "Bladerunner" (Ridley Scott/Philip K. Dick) and "2001: A Space Odyssey" (Stanley Kubrick/Arthur C. Clarke) with a splash of "Last Tango in Paris" (Bernardo Bertolucci) (without the anal rape) - all of which were fantastic films.

Goodsport, you sound like the type of guy who would dig this film, no?

some discussion going on here, but nothing too great:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/board/threads/

also a musical cameo by insane clown posse in the film, which lead to one great line on the other boards something to the effect of "is anyone else concerned that in the future (22nd or 23rd century at least) they are still listening to ICP?"

 

I was lucky;my local Blockbuster loc. had a copy. Saw it.
Err...it was a decent movie. (butthen again I remembered being very tired on that day,,,zzzz)

Probably need to watch it again; would probably find its appeal considering I'm a big fan of movies i.e. 2001:Space Odyssey and Blade Runner etc.

 

Bandwagon,

No problem with you resurrecting this thread. I thought it was the best film I've seen this year. Loved it. The film is so open to interpretation and generous toward its audience. The fact that traffic got almost universal praise while this film got only warm but not overpowering (and in truth somewhat mixed) reviews demonstrates the sorry state of film criticism Apparently a lot of critics would rather be sitting around watching things get bludgeoned in Lord of the Rings

The ending is completely up to the viewer. You can choose to think that he returned to Earth and is imagining what it would be like to have stayed. You can choose to believe he stays on the station imagining what it would be like to have returned to Earth. You can choose to believe that he created a visitor in his own identity, and one stayed and one went. That's the wonderful aspect of this film -- so much of it is left to the viewer..

The final scene seems to me to turn on the question of whose idea is it. Is it an actual after-death meeting? The final hope of a man who returned to Earth lonely? A meeting of two incomplete, rose-colored facsimiles imagined by Solaris? Does the audience create in essence its own visitor.-- a happy ending projected from our inner hopes. iF so, doesn't that imply that the film, like Solaris, understands that it's being watched, and is aiming to please? Personally, I like this interpretation because it makes the largest comment about reality (that our perception stems as much from our own inner psyche as from the facts on the ground) as well as filmamking (that's it's an interactive enterprise that exists as much in our head as it does on the screen). .

Here's a link to a review I wrote on the film over at epinions.com.

http://www.epinions.com/content_83653660292

 

It has now made its way to my local cinema that shows 'slightly old films' for a mere two bucks. I can't wait to see it, regardless of learning about the presence of an Insane Clown Posse tune.

 

Michael K. and Mike Lastort, I rented the original film yesterday on DVD and Mike is absolutely spot on regarding Criterion. The DVD is beautifully restored and is letter boxed in the original aspect ratio (Russian with English subtitles). The film is extemely personal. It is very different from 2001 by Kubrick that is much more detached. It's all about relationships and regret. I am looking forward to renting the Mirror. Solaris works on many levels because of the ambiguity and the pacing of the film. I would venture to say that it would be rejected by Bruckheimer types, but without it's pacing it would lose it's meaning. There is also a version on the DVD with two professors of film very familar with Tarkovski's work, talking about the film as it plays that adds a lot of insight particularly after you have viewed the film.

Do not read further if you plan on seeing the film.









The last scene is clearly ambiguous, but I 'll give it a try. I believe Kris Kelvin does not go back to earth. One of the telling things that happens before the last dreamlike sequence is a conversation between Kelvin and Snout, where snout states that while he was asleep he sent a beam of Kelvin's alphawaves to the planet below and that the surface of the planet is responding with the creation of islands.

The last scene with the camera zoom from a personal level to a planetary scale (similar to the Eames powers of ten film) leads one to the conclusion that Kelvin does not return to earth and is on the surface of Solaris, or perhaps he is in one large tape loop of consciousness since the closing scene of the film mimics the ending except in a surreal fashion. Is the water there to remind us of the connection to the planet? Is it Earth or Solaris?

Even with technology and distance man cannot escape his inner demons and ultimately his humanity. Only by the carefull examination of life and introspection does man achieve a higher level.

 

Greatest delayed reaction in BigSoccer history?

Mr. B's post was number 569876 in BigSoccer history (minus the stuff from the Great Crash); Goodsport announced having watched the film i post number 23535027. Nearly 23 million posts later.