Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Solaris (1972)

10

davezJul 20, 2007

I was unemployed the 1st winter after graduating college and decided to watch foreign films to see the difference. The standard by which I rate films is strongly influenced by masterpieces such as "Solaris." Do yourself a favor... don't I was unemployed the 1st winter after graduating college and decided to watch foreign films to see the difference. The standard by which I rate films is strongly influenced by masterpieces such as "Solaris." Do yourself a favor... don't watch the American remake of this film (it does this film no justice at all... would you watch a remake of star wars by any other director than Lucas?). See the original and let yourself open up to a movie that although slow, is paced for you to contemplate rather than merely watch. Would I watch it again? Only if showing it to someone who has been blinded by the myriad amounts of garbage that is mass produced by Hollywood for the insatiable appetite of American dvd junkies. (sorry, the movie is a little long like my explanation of it).… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

9

psyquickSep 4, 2018

A dreamlike examination of first contact, which gave me an insight into the story and its philosophy by creating an equivalent of schizophrenia. I have found kinda dynamics similar to horror movies, the stillness creating anxiety, theA dreamlike examination of first contact, which gave me an insight into the story and its philosophy by creating an equivalent of schizophrenia. I have found kinda dynamics similar to horror movies, the stillness creating anxiety, the slowness almost bringing fear and the sheer beauty of the imagery causing conflict.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

ryancarroll88Aug 27, 2010

A philosophical sci-film film of the likes of '2001,' but the ideas presented are a little more contained (as in they don't completely question the formation and meaning of life and the universe). There is no doubt that this is a trulyA philosophical sci-film film of the likes of '2001,' but the ideas presented are a little more contained (as in they don't completely question the formation and meaning of life and the universe). There is no doubt that this is a truly gorgeous movie, and anyone who gives a hoot about cinematography will tell you that, but sometimes I feel like Tarkovsky is a little uncompromising in his visual artistry. There's literally a scene that follows a car driving on a stretch of highway for 8 minutes. There's the camera motif of zooming in on random objects for almost every scene in the second half of the movie. I could go on. I guess I just have to say that the only way to enjoy this movie is from a truly philosophical perspective, which is fine because at the end of all things, that's effectively what this movie leaves you thinking about, and as a person heading into a science career, it is especially pertinent to me.… Expand

6 of 7 users found this helpful61

All this user's reviews

10

mcfryOct 18, 2015

There are emotional and philosophical "spoilers" here. If you have not seen the movie and want to experience it yourself, do not read past this sentence.

Recently, I re-watched Solaris, for the 4th time. Originally I was looking forwardThere are emotional and philosophical "spoilers" here. If you have not seen the movie and want to experience it yourself, do not read past this sentence.

Recently, I re-watched Solaris, for the 4th time. Originally I was looking forward mainly to wonderful dreamy interludes, childhood memories, reminiscent photos, multi-layered video recordings, epic paintings ... accompanied by Bach's powerful organ prelude (639). And I was prepared to be stressed for the rest of the duration. But this time I found a more complete picture. Watching in solitude, with undivided attention, it seems that it took as much and as many times to truly appreciate this film in all of its facets. Even though it disturbed me several times, on a level very hard to locate, I was able to follow with little distraction.

The movie is alienating from beginning to end. Referring to YoonC's fantastic user review: Solaris first recalls the world, and then takes us away from it - we get to see human society and human personality as something fascinating, but often mixed with disgust. We are thrown back to a distant scientific objectivity, perceiving human beings alien-like, while in fact helpless.

This way, Tarkovsky fulfilled a very important theme of Stanislav Lem's, one of the dominant threads throughout the oeuvre of one of the most accomplished writers and critics who ever lived. Both masters should not have been too unhappy about this rendering of the novel: Although it emotionally strays off of the book's course, and even though it is not exactly masterful in creating dialog (too much info-dropping and often mediocre phrasing, *in the translation, that is!*) - its patience and rigidity, when received with care, do create lingering feelings and brooding thoughts that must be very close to Lem's own premises. When we look into the blackness behind the station's windows, we are in space. It is the wrong place to be.

Driven by a desire to understand the living ocean of Solaris, trying to establish some kind of communication, the crew despairs over their failure. But in truth, the ocean shows what human communication, in the broadest possible meaning of the word, truly is: not a means primarily to gain knowledge or to organize society, to understand the universe or to remember the past; but a process that evokes - and fortifies - and varies - images of ourselves and our environments. These images are our self's pulse. To witness them being stripped of any rational meaning is devastating - at least, for compulsively rational minds.

Tarkovsky goes his own way treating Kelvin's development. Upon looking inside him, we feel incredible suffering, self-torturing and self-betrayal, and we acknowledge the joy and pain of memory, but also a certain ... uselessness of those feelings. From this point on, I could proceed in different directions, but I leave you to it.

Despite the horrible dialog, not-so-well handled goofy moments (the dwarf.....), and a slight structural imbalance, this is a life-defining movie for me.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

8

kellanjApr 29, 2011

Extremely slow and contemplative and completely mental. This movie is not for everybody. It definitely tried my patience, Im glad i made it through to the end. Utterly fantastic film.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

9

SpangleDec 9, 2016

My first Tarvoksky and well, his works definitely live up to the hype. I was always pushing off his work purely through intimidation. Boy was I wrong. Yes, this is slow, but it is never boring. The themes are effortless woven into the veryMy first Tarvoksky and well, his works definitely live up to the hype. I was always pushing off his work purely through intimidation. Boy was I wrong. Yes, this is slow, but it is never boring. The themes are effortless woven into the very fabric of the film and Tarkovsky's camera work, use of color, and meditations on human existence are brilliant. In Solaris, Tarkovsky explores various themes, most notably grief. However, ideas regarding the meaning of life, why we want the meaning of life, and why we want to have contact with extraterrestrials, are all considered in this master work. A truly hypnotic experience, the film's long runtime would have flown by if the stream I used actually worked in the beginning. However, even with that inconvenience, it was impossible to look away.

One of the best elements here is grief. As in the remake, which I also loved and still do, the mystery regarding the planet's behavior is tremendous. With the planet creating versions of people from the pasts of those on the Solaris mission, it becomes clear that the planet is forcing these people to confront their pain. In particular, Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is forced to cope with the loss of his wife, Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk). Though he knows she is not real, he cannot accept that she is not real, which clearly causes him to experience the pain of losing her once again. As one of the main thematic endeavors of Solaris, grief gets the most screentime. However, the questions it provokes certainly tie into other elements of the film. In one brief monologue, fellow scientist Snaut (Jüri Järvet) questions why humans are obsessed with finding and establishing contact with other planets, stating: "We don't want to conquer space at all. We want to expand Earth endlessly. We don't want other worlds; we want a mirror. We seek contact and will never achieve it. We are in the foolish position of a man striving for a goal he fears and doesn't want. Man needs man!" In this quote, it really ties in with some of the questions the "guests" cause to arise. For example, why does the planet do this? What is its purpose? To make us overcome our grief? To what end? Is this a defense mechanism to drive us away, due to our inability to cope with grief? Do any of these questions truly matter because we are, in fact, running a fool's errand by trying to find new worlds anyways? I do not have the answers here, but they are interesting questions that are provoked while watching the film.

In terms of its plotting, Solaris is certainly very deliberate. With long takes of various images, Tarvoksky weaves a film that feels more lyrical and poetic than anything else. Utilizing a visual medium, Tarkovsky strives to sew together images that tell the real story of what is going on and, to do this, the camera often lingers in one spot. Spliced together, the end result is a gorgeous film where, at any moment, the film can be paused and the imagery is guaranteed to be gorgeous. One of the best elements here, as well, is that the camera never rushes to catch up with the characters. Often the camera loses the characters and slowly glides its way back to focusing on them.

Interestingly, through this style, Tarkovsky is also able to create a great sense of dread. In particular, the scene when Kris Kelvin first arrives at Solaris and no one is there to greet him. This scene is slowly revealed with Kelvin meandering his way through the space station, allowing the dread to increase considerably the longer scene takes to progress. Next, the ending features a similar sense of dread. However, in addition to visually, this scene unfolds sonically as well. Though initially seeming safe and otherwise unremarkable, the camera slowly rises up into the sky, revealing what the true situation is, Tarkovsky creates an ending with a level helplessness matching a true horror such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers. This helplessness is matched within the film by its theory regarding shame and how it is the true source of helplessness. Given Kelvin's regrets regarding his wife, it is not implausible to suggest that this situation was born out of his shame for his life up to that point. However, the scene does not just unfold visually, but through the score. As the establishing shot is set and the film begins to fade to white, the viewer's ears are assaulted with a discomforting and unpleasing musical score that, personally, left me feeling completely uncomfortable.

My first foray in the work of Tarkovsky, watching this version of Solaris was long overdue after I loved Soderbergh's take on it with George Clooney. Though this film is indisputably superior, the remake is still a brilliant work that is unfortunately plagued with being compared to this one, though I definitely need to rewatch it anyways. As for Tarkovsky's film, it more than lives up to it reputation as one of the, if not the, best science fiction films ever made.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

ahmedaiman9999May 31, 2018

I can see why many people compare between Tarkovsky's Solaris and Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Despite both films have completely different themes, It's so clear that Tarkovsky was inspired by 2001 while making Solaris. But the influencesI can see why many people compare between Tarkovsky's Solaris and Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Despite both films have completely different themes, It's so clear that Tarkovsky was inspired by 2001 while making Solaris. But the influences have nothing with neither the themes nor the messages and the philosophy of the movie. Tarkovsky influenced by the style and the technical aspect of 2001: A Space Odyssey; the tone. some of the camera shots, the way of using the imagery (in some cases), and even the production design. With that said, I don't think there should be any comparison between the two films.

To be honest, I hate 2001, because I think it tells its relies so heavily on its message that there's almost no story to tell. It keeps repeating its messages, that we have already recognized from the get-go, throughout its running time. Adding insult to injury, it tries to be riveting by showing how wonderful the camera work is,how mesmerizing the cinematography is, how fascinating the production design is, how masterful the editing is, etc. While all these technical points made this movie the most beautiful movie I've ever seen, instead of relying on the technical aspect, I think it should have engaged us with the use of narrative elements, such as a dramatic plot, well-wrought and fleshed-out characters, or in a worst-case scenario, a mysterious event or even character. Fortunately, I think Solaris is way better than 2001. It has a fair share of metaphors, and also has fully-developed characters, a coherent plot, and powerful messages. The result is a movie that has a very comprehensive and engaging story that tugs at your heartstrings. Needless to say, the acting is great, the direction is masterful, and the cinematography and the production design are nothing but art! It's just the slow-pacing that sometimes I felt it wasn't necessary. Specially, before the climax as this should exactly be the time when I should be entirely focused, but I found that I get a little bored.

Some may find the messages are presented in a direct way and somehow in your face, but that was completely intended. It's the first Tarkovsky film I watch, but it's obvious that presenting the message in the dialogue is kinda his trademark. The characters don't reveal the message to put an end to the story. instead, they keep involving the viewers with the messages they discover along the movie. Can't wait to watch The Mirror and Stalker!

(9/10)… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

BikerjamesApr 16, 2012

I wish I could say I liked this film as much as others, but it was simply too slow, too contemplative, and too philosophical for my taste. It was even amateurish in parts. There is a scene towards the beginning of the film where it startsI wish I could say I liked this film as much as others, but it was simply too slow, too contemplative, and too philosophical for my taste. It was even amateurish in parts. There is a scene towards the beginning of the film where it starts raining on a bright sunny day. You can see shadows behind the obvious bad water effect. There is a camera transfixed on a pond for several minutes, a freeway sequence that goes on for about 10 minutes (a bathroom break I guess), and the camera showing close ups of various parts of a painting. There is even one scene where a rocket ship takes off inside a small room, and he stays in the room when it takes off. In real life he would be fried to bits. Here the back of his uniform catches fire and he gets a few blisters. I do think the film set of the inside of the space station looks pretty good, and overall the acting is good, and there are a few good visuals, but it really needed some editing. I say this as someone who loves slow paced films, like the film this one is always compared to, the great "2001 - A Space Odyssey" by Kubrick.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

10

Angel1711Oct 26, 2013

why ever would anyone give it a bad rating?
this movie still stands along the "my fair lady", "The umbrellas of Cherbourg", the ideas are grand, Lem is a huge talent, to understand it is not easy, well, how was to write it?
I watched thiswhy ever would anyone give it a bad rating?
this movie still stands along the "my fair lady", "The umbrellas of Cherbourg", the ideas are grand, Lem is a huge talent, to understand it is not easy, well, how was to write it?
I watched this movie many many times, and yet I find something new every single time I watch it.
Reading it is just as pleasurable as watching, we need more talents like Lem… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

2

gracjanskiNov 7, 2021

The pace unbelievable slow, so I almost fell asleep. The atmosphere and the dialogues are serious, and sometimes very boring. You can see the low budget and the cheap pictures. So after 40 minutes I ve had enough.