Solaris

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: November 27, 2002

6.7	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 144 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

aslanmaneSep 22, 2013

This is a disappointing movie. It has a rendering of a beautiful planet but forgot that it was supposed to be mostly ocean and not mostly plasma like the consistency of a star. Most of the movie was spent lingering on Clooney and McElhone,This is a disappointing movie. It has a rendering of a beautiful planet but forgot that it was supposed to be mostly ocean and not mostly plasma like the consistency of a star. Most of the movie was spent lingering on Clooney and McElhone, neither one seeming to have any need to blink (which I found really disturbing). I didn't really feel any more empathetic towards them with all of those close ups, really. It could have saved at least 10 minutes of pointless slow panning and closeups. Also, please put a shirt on Clooney and wipe his sweat. Another sore point I have was the kid: he has the ability to corporealize on will depending on the plot, the other creatures didn't have this ability. I gave it one point because I believed Viola Davis' character really went through something difficult and was the only one who I felt was a real human being. I gave it another point because aside from the time wasted on Clooney and McElhone, the movie didn't feel like it was too slow.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

oDjentoJan 2, 2015

This film was very underwhelming. Trying to sell it as being better than the original by having A-listers doesn't make your film better. The acting is fine, but not stand out, and the story plods along exceedingly slow and it's very boring.This film was very underwhelming. Trying to sell it as being better than the original by having A-listers doesn't make your film better. The acting is fine, but not stand out, and the story plods along exceedingly slow and it's very boring. There is a noce atmosphere over the whole film of isolation, loneliness and higher presences being in control, bit it still does not save the film from being over all boring. The ending is nice though as it leaves enough ambiguity to make different conclusion to how YOU want to see it, and saves the film from being a 2 or 3 out of 10. You can give this a miss and watch the original instead. Some people may enjoy it more though because of it's ending though.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

ALFSep 25, 2011

This is yet another example of why Americans should not remake foreign films. They messed up the 7 Samurai with "Tthe Magnificent Seven", turned the original Japanese Ring films into a mess losing the plot, then with this classic RussianThis is yet another example of why Americans should not remake foreign films. They messed up the 7 Samurai with "Tthe Magnificent Seven", turned the original Japanese Ring films into a mess losing the plot, then with this classic Russian film, tried condensing it into the usual "slot" on time and cut and paste all the meaning out of it. Please Amerian film makers. Leave foreign films alone so that people can see for example, this beautiful haunting Russian arthouse film rather than dross. To anyone who liked this American version, you should see the Russian version and the actress Natalia Bonderchuk is much better and far more convincing than Natasha McElhone.… Expand

1 of 7 users found this helpful16

All this user's reviews

AveryO.Dec 4, 2002

Brainless?

0 of 1 users found this helpful

BroyaxFeb 29, 2020

D'un côté, j'ai envie de dire que c'est nettement mieux que le Solaris soviétique et je ne fais pas allusion aux moyens ou au budget (pas comparables du tout évidemment) mais au scénario et au rythme général beaucoup moins soporofiques... carD'un côté, j'ai envie de dire que c'est nettement mieux que le Solaris soviétique et je ne fais pas allusion aux moyens ou au budget (pas comparables du tout évidemment) mais au scénario et au rythme général beaucoup moins soporofiques... car ici le film ne fait à peu près qu'une heure et demi !

Mais ça reste encore trop, hélas... le problème doit venir du bouquin original aussi chiant et ballot qu'une séance d'hypnose chez le marabout du coin et cette nullité absolue transpire jusque dans les deux adaptations à des décennies d'intervalle.

C'est donc passionnant comme un épisode de Derrick et aussi stupide finalement que cette pauvre psychanalyse de comptoir qu'elle est censée être... et dans tout ça le gars Clooney ne s'en sort toujours pas... du tout. Il devrait retourner faire des Nescafés au lieu de prétendre faire l'acteur parce que ça ne va pas... du tout. Il n'est pas le seul à dire vrai, car seul Ulrich Tukur se débrouille vraiment ainsi qu'un autre inconnu au bataillon, l'Irlandaise quant à elle sourit bêtement et la Noire est vraiment très laide en plus de mal jouer, très mal jouer. On se demande comment on peut jouer aussi mal que ça ? il faut demander à What Else.

En bref, mieux que Solaris premier du nom mais encore trop, beaucoup trop mauvais et chiant.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews