Does this movie ask the questions that original book? Lem's idea was to pretend The Ocean as something everyone of us trying to ask whole life without getting answers - yourself, God, other people, etc. Space theme is just a sample... so making thriller or action movie behind the original, fantastically developed idea is brutal.
The central character in Solaris is a sentient ocean that humans find impossible to communicate with. The Earth space-station orbiting the planet is practically a death sentence, as everyone who serves on it seems to get the urge to commit suicide. Lem asserts we should accept that there are things we will never understand.
Tarkhovski has pure talent, he delivered in solaris, he delivered in the wrestler and he delivered in the blackswan. All despite of a lack of support and backup.
@AgulaMala They don't get in deep w/ Solaris because it's a LOVE story that happens to be set in space. Soderbergh says so himself. That's why the story focuses on Rehya and CVhris so much.
As Solaris' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled Solaris and not Love in Outer Space.
Lem himself called Soderbergh's film a "remake of the Tarkovsky movie", sharing the opinion of many film-goers, and criticized it as departing far from his original intentions in writing the novel by focusing almost exclusively on the psychological relationship between the two main characters, while reducing the vast and alien ocean to a mere "mirror" of humanity:
I thought this movie was very eerie, which madei t all the more enticing to watch; a bit too short though, and not detailed enough as I hoped, but nonetheless a remarkable movie in it's own way.
why do people of the station or ship complain about questionable disturbing people to clooney's character instead of they themselves kicking them off the ship/station? doesn't the lady/other guys have proper authority to remove certain people who likely don't belong on premise off the station since they're the ones who were assigned to maintain it?
Watch this movie to try sth different and you won't be disappointed I agree with some other users The trailer doesn't give you a hint of what the film is about
Tarkovsky's filim and this are simply two different animals. They both draw from Stanislaw Lem's novel; Soderberg's version is arguably closer to Lem's original. If anyone is interested, by the way, Lem's books are some of the most intelligent, serious, well-written and mind-stretching out there. Powerfully original mind. His death in 2006 was a huge loss - not only for sci-fi but for literature in general.
A good film version for the extroverts, whereas us introverts need no more complexities of loud music and sound effects and glorified colour. We can get blown away from the simpler art and amazing cinematography from the original.
We're not saying we are better than extroverts - just that we tend to get things better.
@leenicklen i'm an introvert with great skills of imagination, I really like the Tarkovsky version, especially the highway-scene. The story makes no sense, but I look up on the movie as a beautiful painting.
why do most commentspeople make are a bunch of yippidy yap and nonsense? why can't people keep on the subject about the story, about the movie, wouldn't be interesting to hear what people think about where this fictional planet may be, how far it is from earth, did he went on to live on this planet etc... instead most of these comments are "this is a remake" "this movie suck" "this movie is based on a book" blah blah blah, who gives a fuck about your smart ass info and comments
I need to watch the film, it looks good to me though I will always prefer novels.. :) The story itself is creepy, I still don't know what to make out of it.. Is the film anywhere on youtube?
I don't get why there's all this hate towards this movie; it's indeed one of my favorite movies of all time. Soderberg actually gave me a reason to care about the characters in the movie. In addition to that, every scene is just aesthetically pleasing and beautifully crafted; the sepia hues of the past provide a breathtaking contrast between the present and it's cold and lifeless atmosphere. You simply want to immerse yourself in the world and never come back.
I read the novel written by Stanislaw Lem and i think the book was better than the moovie.Its was a bit like the Shining by S.King.I didn't put it down, it grabbed my atention!
bad trailer, the whole reason i loved this movie was its calm attitude to what was a pretty freaky subject, doesn't need drums and deep-voiced narrators...
no. yes. well he kinda did. its complicated. you remember the scene where he cut his finger? it heals quickly, just like Rheas Body did after she drank the liquid oxygen. That could mean that a copy of Calvin traveled to earth instead, OR Calvin entered some kind of "paradise" on Solaris. After all, you don`t see the space station crash.
That's funny, because the mainstream audience didn't take to this film at all.
I find it quite ridiculous that you are suggesting that this film was designed for a mainstream US audience when that was the very same group of people it alienated.
am i suppose to be watching a horror movie, because i thought this was the oscar worthy epic love story that sooo many of us love that got sold really short. espically because of dumb ass trailers like this.
That's the Hollywood propaganda machine for you. Though "horror" is a little extreme - this isn't "Alien". I think "suspense" is more descriptive. And in the end it is a love story - in a twisted, sci-fi kind of way. Would you able to love something that looks, acts and feels like a dearly departed but you know isn't? Clooney's character learns how to.
i really feel the tone the trailer set is its more horror then anything. an i very much so understand the meaning behind the movie, setting aside the crappy trailers that promoted it.
this is not official trailer right ? because this music in 0:07 - 0:22 is from game : Medievil 2 OST it's Call : Wulfrum Hall ( sorry for my english it's not my language )
Better yet! Prior to watching any of the two movies, read Stanislaw Lem's novel.
In my opinion, both films failed at capturing the book's original atmosphere and message. That said, Tarkovsky's movie is amazing, whereas the 2000-something remake... is too much of a love story to be treated seriously.
Soderberg himself said that he was NOT trying to copy Tarkovsky's version. He used Lem's novel. The word "classic" is thrown around far too easily. I saw Tarkovsky's version and came feeling frustrated and confused. Tarkovsky made an "art" movie not a sci-fi movie. Soderberg's version's maybe not a "classic" but is certainly more easier to connect to than theTarkovsky version. At least there isn't a very slow close-up into Kelvin's ear!
Exactly! Neither movie comes close to Lem's novel - which is typical of movies based on books. But the 2002 version kept my attention until the end. And even by Hollywood standards Soderberh's version was considered "slow". Maybe the ultimate movie version would be halfway between Tarkovsky and Soderbergh. Until then I'll stick with the latter.
Well, reading a book takes several days at least. In my case a month, because I was reading and rereading whole chapters. So why the movie should be fast as Concorde if book is a 747?
The problem is that it does not make us think of many things we should. Lem hates both movies. But he hates Tarkovsky's one because director interpreted book in different way, and hates Soderbergh's movie, because it's simply not good enough to be compared to the book. Nice sci-fi movie, not much more...
I was under the impression that Lem never saw the 2002 one. Can you find a link to his reaction?
Why does the film need to do the same as the book? You complain that it doesn't make us think of the 'things we should', but it's up to the director to decide what he wants the film to say.
The film is a seperate entity, why does it have to be compared to the book anyway?
Lem died in 2006 and did get to see Sodebergh's film. I can't find a direct quote but it seems he did like it more than Tarkovsky's film. Lem's one criticism is that Kelvin's emotional turmoil wasn't expressed strongly enough. Also the scientists in the movie seem to know nothing about the planet. In fact it was studied for decades. The information is inconclusive but causes lots of speculation. Finally, the book is a classic in SF - any film based on it has to be consistent with it.
Film-book adaptations range from being slavishly close to the original text to being completely different.
Does it really matter? You can still read the book if you like, it's not going anywhere. The release of a new film version is only ever going to increase the likelihood of new people discovering the book. That's a good thing isn't it?
Why people have to be so precious about the novel is beyond me. The film doesn't damage the book. Both can exist and be appreciated by different audiences.
Absolutely! But Hollywood tends to do things especially sci-fi stories. Either they add action and violence (with the all-important countdown to doom at end) OR they turn it into a space romance. They decided on the latter -which is better. Gotta sell them tickets. BUT leaving out an entire planet's part in the story...that would be like no Enterprise in Star Trek *gasp!*
Secondly, I'm glad Lem got to see Soderbergh's version and that he at least appreciated it to some extent.
Also, you can't fit everything from a book into a film. Film adaptations often get criticised for sticking too closely to the book. But then they also get criticised for straying too far, these discussions happen every time a book is adapted. The filmmaker cannot please everyone.
Again, I agree with you 107%! I tend to be a fan of directors rather than actors. Soderbergh did an awesome job with such a complex story. When I was reading the novel I came to realize the planet was a living, sentient being. I didn't get that feeling at all from either movie. Just one of the sacrifices made when you add all that lovey-dovey, smoochy stuff. I love the book, I love Soderbergh's vision of it. Everyone should read this awesome book.
I know what you mean about the planet surface. Lem wrote about those formations called mnimoids that often looked like Earthly objects. I remember one looked like a gigantic baby drawn from the minds of a pilot. But then the idea of taking a sci-fi novel from the 1960s, written by a Polish writer, and turning it in to a big budget Hollywood movie is very close to a miracle itself.
@spacecowboy5000 Of course it's easier to connect to the Soderbergh version, it's designed to sell, not to offer an artistic view of a great story. Your implication that the Soderbergh version is "better" than the Tarkovsky's is simply laughable. Tarkovsky had a million dollar budget under the soviet regime and made a film that will be seen and discussed for many years; Soderbergh had a fifty million budget and made a B-movie that is worth watching only one time with cheap pizza to go with.
@monsterballs321 Don't tell me what's laughable and what not! I was reading Solaris when you were just a glint in your daddy's eye. I know the book in and out, upside down and backwards. NEITHER movie does the book justice. Both are light years away from what Lem created. Calling Tarkovsky version "art" is like calling Soderbergh's "the movie of the century". Both statements are bullshit. Bottom line - I saw Tarkovsky's version 3 times and really didn't like it.
@spacecowboy5000 Tarkovsky added enough of his own interpretation to completely change the story. Yes,Soderbergh did exactly the same thing while practically cutting half the novel.BUT his version was easier to understand and "get into" because he brought it down to audience level.I don't watch movies to appreciate "art" - I spent enought time doing that in college. I wants something that's intelligent but visceral.How can you take what's probably the best sf novel and squeeze it into 2 hours?
@spacecowboy5000 I think we got a generational problem here, I'm in college and really into what you call "art" films, I can also enjoy a trashy Hollywood flick but I don't dare put them in the same league, which was my problem with your original comment. I really hope my standards don't get lower as I get older. Other than that I stand corrected because I haven't read the book yet. Respect, old man.
@monsterballs321 All is good, man. I still enjoy art films especially when the foreign film festival is in town. But even the best of independant films are being corraled towards the main stream. Incentives like bigger budgets are hard to resist even for indie producers. It makes me kinda sick. Pretty soon all we've have to watch are these homogenized Holywood pablum - like "Battlefield: LA". You're standards won't change but the industry's standards will. Keep supporting indie movies.
This film is superv. Even if the book is not centered around a love story, the message is the same, its' all about limits of human knowledge. If you don't understand what is the Planet, or why those thing happens, it's normal, it's meant to be this way. It's about our limits.
This film is very weak but book is very good and like Lem's other books is very philosophic. Even P.K.Dick have a obssesion about that is Lem is better than him in fact he even do not belive that Lem is a one person because Lem in his books use many diffrent styles.
This trailer sucks - it paints the film as some kind of tense thriller with a fast pace, rather than the slow artful film it is. Was an interesting film, not the best by a long shot but definitely a thought provoking one.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The very very crappest supposed sf movie...
Soderbergh, do you really want people like me to think your lonely income is generated by George Clooney ? I like this actor, I like Dany Ocean but Solaris is just tiring... I am a sf fan, I am pretty widely accepting every single crappy sf movie but CAN NOT watch this one, over ten mins ?! would I get an explanation for that ?
Best of all, it is now ads time in the movie and I am writing this rather than watching the ads...
I hate russian movies but original russian Solaris was better and very scary, deep, emotional. Yes, this one was good too and first sex scene with Clooney was very hot. Great visual effects
I thought that this was the most BORING film I've ever seen. I can hardly stay awake during it. Also,I can't even work out what the hell is going on. What IS Solaris?!
I agree. I liked that. But it can't be compared to Solaris. Space Odyssey had a decent plot.
The plot of Solaris:Clooney goes to Solaris.
He spends hours standing still doing and saying nothing.Nobody on the station makes any sense and he goes to sleep and has weird flashback dreams about his wife.He wakes up and his wife is alive and he murders her. She comes back and kills herself. More flashback dreams that explain nothing. The station explodes with him aboard. But he survives, or does he?
I just finished reading the book, which despite being written 50 years ago, does not seem dated at all. Personally I couldn't understand the eagerness to kill off Rheya. After all, there were no other women on board the station...LOL
I might read the book if it's any good. And there was that other women. Who when asked what the fuck was going on said "Until it starts happening to you, there's no point in discussing it!" and the slammed the door in his face. Wtf?!
The book goes into much more detail about what Solaris possibly is (without any conclusion being reached). In the book, there are no other women that interact with Kelvin other than Rheya. I would have kept her around for pleasure...
Lem said: "That poor president Bush, who thought that democracy is a kind of a plant in a flowerpot, which you can transplant into another flowerpot. That doesn't work.".
I agree some kinde of nation cant live in democracy.
In the novel it is cosidered an alien lifeform. and basically it's motives can't be understood because it doesn't think like humans at all. But it seems to have a tendancy to provide people with the opportunity to make up for the things they regret. and reunite with people they miss.
The Trailer is not good because it bring another mood to this movie, the movie is really great but its not an action movie!
tinotrivino 1 month ago
wait, so is this better or worse than the original?
ZOINKSation 1 month ago
@ZOINKSation no, the original was more accurate to the book and it was a masterpiece but this was good too! But from another approach!
tinotrivino 1 month ago
Why is this NOT on bluray???
Danthehorse 1 month ago
This is a really bad repesentation of this movie....
truckcompany 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
worst movie of all time
DesmondEzio 2 months ago
Does this movie ask the questions that original book? Lem's idea was to pretend The Ocean as something everyone of us trying to ask whole life without getting answers - yourself, God, other people, etc. Space theme is just a sample... so making thriller or action movie behind the original, fantastically developed idea is brutal.
smoleale 5 months ago
@smoleale
The central character in Solaris is a sentient ocean that humans find impossible to communicate with. The Earth space-station orbiting the planet is practically a death sentence, as everyone who serves on it seems to get the urge to commit suicide. Lem asserts we should accept that there are things we will never understand.
bram221 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tarkhovski has pure talent, he delivered in solaris, he delivered in the wrestler and he delivered in the blackswan. All despite of a lack of support and backup.
Kingportable 5 months ago
Wow, they really tried to sell this film as some kind of action thriller! But the film is much much better...
the81kid 6 months ago 12
OPne of Soderbergh's BEST screenplays EVER!
rachelsOne 6 months ago
Amazing
MultiSolarpower 6 months ago
This is a very good movie; different, but good. It just sucks they never get in-depth with Solaris
AgulaMala 6 months ago
@AgulaMala They don't get in deep w/ Solaris because it's a LOVE story that happens to be set in space. Soderbergh says so himself. That's why the story focuses on Rehya and CVhris so much.
rachelsOne 6 months ago
looks like LOST, but in space...kinda.
HarunDanyal 6 months ago 2
@HarunDanyal LOST in space. :]
n3rdbear 5 months ago 2
This is adaptations book Stanisław Lem very good polish author and very inetligents;-)
Baybywomen 6 months ago
This is adaptations book Stanisłąw Lem very good polish author and very inetligents;-)
Baybywomen 6 months ago
i am confused by this movie
pacrox2 8 months ago
As Solaris' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled Solaris and not Love in Outer Space.
apocryph5 8 months ago
Lem himself called Soderbergh's film a "remake of the Tarkovsky movie", sharing the opinion of many film-goers, and criticized it as departing far from his original intentions in writing the novel by focusing almost exclusively on the psychological relationship between the two main characters, while reducing the vast and alien ocean to a mere "mirror" of humanity:
apocryph5 8 months ago
Who made the casting?....
MordecaiTennenbaum 8 months ago
"We dont want other worlds, we want mirrors" Best quote from the film.
TheSjpatrik 8 months ago 4
@TheSjpatrik agree
sertronasora 8 months ago
the trailer makes it look fast paced when really the movie is slow paced and mind boggling.
TylerMontana 8 months ago
Watching it just coz it's James Cameron
kaziabir1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really enjoyed this film.
punkempireinterviews 9 months ago
am kinda confused by the movie, did he die n went on to live on solaris with his wife...
smiley5284 9 months ago
Tarkovsky > Soderberg
Alos21 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I love this movie, I watched 15 times
TurkiyeCumhurbaskani 10 months ago
Hated the black chick she was really racist I mean from all the people she should be the most understanding.
WatchmenDrManhattan 11 months ago
@WatchmenDrManhattan Maybe she's returning the favor if you know what i mean
TheGnomelandSecurity 10 months ago
I thought this movie was very eerie, which madei t all the more enticing to watch; a bit too short though, and not detailed enough as I hoped, but nonetheless a remarkable movie in it's own way.
SymphonicSequence 11 months ago
This is what happens when you let the smoke monster off the island...
alkalinecuban 1 year ago
Reminds me of The Sphere
Koolkattj 1 year ago
why do people of the station or ship complain about questionable disturbing people to clooney's character instead of they themselves kicking them off the ship/station? doesn't the lady/other guys have proper authority to remove certain people who likely don't belong on premise off the station since they're the ones who were assigned to maintain it?
MrConundrum2020 1 year ago
Watch this movie to try sth different and you won't be disappointed I agree with some other users The trailer doesn't give you a hint of what the film is about
karenteacher2008 1 year ago
looks alot like Event horizon. heck, event eh design of the ship looks like the Event Horizon
dairyduck 1 year ago
I haven't read the book nor have I seen the first movie, but I found this version of Solaris a complete wonder.
This film never got near enough the credit is deserves, and the acting was first rate from all the cast.
Eedgit 1 year ago
Suck
intensity123 1 year ago
Good film, bad trailer. Silly corporates, you don't even understand your product! :)
BVargas78 1 year ago 5
Watched this movie before I ever watched Lost, and after watching this trailer I barely noticed Daniel Faraday is in it! Lol
Calakaz 1 year ago
creatures impersonating people we know? sounds an awful lot like the first ever episode of star trek
lozzag13 1 year ago
@lozzag13
Invasion of the Body Snatchers predates Star Trek by 20 years; try again.
brxust 1 year ago
The trailer doesn't represent the film AT ALL
nicck 1 year ago
@nicck it totally does.
MrConundrum2020 1 year ago
underrated
steelfukksw 1 year ago
Tarkovsky's filim and this are simply two different animals. They both draw from Stanislaw Lem's novel; Soderberg's version is arguably closer to Lem's original. If anyone is interested, by the way, Lem's books are some of the most intelligent, serious, well-written and mind-stretching out there. Powerfully original mind. His death in 2006 was a huge loss - not only for sci-fi but for literature in general.
headoforpheus 1 year ago
I don't like this version, too much american values inthere...
lepivert 1 year ago
@lepivert For example?
Emuji7 1 year ago
A good film version for the extroverts, whereas us introverts need no more complexities of loud music and sound effects and glorified colour. We can get blown away from the simpler art and amazing cinematography from the original.
We're not saying we are better than extroverts - just that we tend to get things better.
leenicklen 1 year ago
@leenicklen i'm an introvert with great skills of imagination, I really like the Tarkovsky version, especially the highway-scene. The story makes no sense, but I look up on the movie as a beautiful painting.
JonasE1969 1 year ago
Such a ridiculously misleading trailer...
sibeliandrift 1 year ago
why do most commentspeople make are a bunch of yippidy yap and nonsense? why can't people keep on the subject about the story, about the movie, wouldn't be interesting to hear what people think about where this fictional planet may be, how far it is from earth, did he went on to live on this planet etc... instead most of these comments are "this is a remake" "this movie suck" "this movie is based on a book" blah blah blah, who gives a fuck about your smart ass info and comments
aonng1 1 year ago
this looks way too much like event horizon...damn ripp off!
TheWarmhole 1 year ago
@TheWarmhole this is a remake of an older Russian film by Tarkovsky, predating event horizon.
Jomolocon 1 year ago
Daniel Faraday!!!!!!
ZharekRaldeesh 1 year ago 28
Comment removed
Impro3000 1 year ago
I need to watch the film, it looks good to me though I will always prefer novels.. :) The story itself is creepy, I still don't know what to make out of it.. Is the film anywhere on youtube?
Ranja86 1 year ago
I don't get why there's all this hate towards this movie; it's indeed one of my favorite movies of all time. Soderberg actually gave me a reason to care about the characters in the movie. In addition to that, every scene is just aesthetically pleasing and beautifully crafted; the sepia hues of the past provide a breathtaking contrast between the present and it's cold and lifeless atmosphere. You simply want to immerse yourself in the world and never come back.
xJ00ce 1 year ago
This is totally superior to Tarkovsky's pretentious vomit of a film.
Soderbergh actually brings the great space enigma of the book to life.
It's quite sad that Soderbergh & Clooney won't be making more books by Lem into films.
VitzTheLocutor 1 year ago
Interresting movie, the atmosphere and soundtrack work very well together. Some people like it, some don't. See for yourself
Cyproduction 1 year ago
Ich finde jede Interpretierung von Solaris interessant. Jeder Mensch versteht Lem's Solaris auf seine Art und Weise.
In Musik habe ich einen Künstler gefunden, der ähnliche Weltwahrnehmung hat:
Bernhard Kretch, PalatinProject. Seine Website präsentiert intelligente elektronische Musik. Fans von Solaris werden sich freuen!
vilaverlag 1 year ago
I read the novel written by Stanislaw Lem and i think the book was better than the moovie.Its was a bit like the Shining by S.King.I didn't put it down, it grabbed my atention!
circumpunct33 1 year ago
One of the worst movies ever. Don't watch!
khaka1987 1 year ago
The worst movie - I can see why there are so many bad comments here. Don't watch!
khaka1987 1 year ago
best movie ever seen
jjomolloy23 1 year ago
One of the worst movies Ive ever seen. Suggest it to people you hate.
emmkats 1 year ago
@emmkats let me guess, no storyline an explosions is more your thing?
Dakatske 1 year ago
@Dakatske This is one of many American cinematography attempts for art witch have a sub cultural result.
emmkats 1 year ago
@emmkats This is one of many American cinematography attempts for art which has a sub cultural result.
emmkats 1 year ago
Listen to the soundtrack, read the book and please, forget about the re-make film!
chrisgimeno 1 year ago
What kind of idiot made this trailer. Did they even watch the film?
PoddaJawada 1 year ago 3
@LONEstudios
I'm pretty sure he is well known in Poland.
Powierza101 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThorHyte 1 year ago
bad trailer, the whole reason i loved this movie was its calm attitude to what was a pretty freaky subject, doesn't need drums and deep-voiced narrators...
Marnerbanana 2 years ago 11
It makes me fell bad to know that Stanisław Lem, one of the best science fiction authors in the world is almost unknown in Poland
LONEstudios 2 years ago
right dude, right
Herflik600 1 year ago
apoco significa el niño con clooney la pintura de miguel angel la creacion?
compadre002 2 years ago
man i need to watch this movie again... so much more applicable now that i'm an adult
Thizzmotion 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ThorHyte 2 years ago
doors
PeterVarsavik 2 years ago
clooney fits in a science fiction movie as an urinal into a wide range of trees
moccakoeng 2 years ago 3
The movie was short compared to the novel,haltf was left out
Qulopuaa 2 years ago 2
@Qulopuaa thats how it is with movies
fgzf 2 years ago
didnt get this film at all!! did he kill himself in the end or what!!!
EasternVibez 2 years ago
no. yes. well he kinda did. its complicated. you remember the scene where he cut his finger? it heals quickly, just like Rheas Body did after she drank the liquid oxygen. That could mean that a copy of Calvin traveled to earth instead, OR Calvin entered some kind of "paradise" on Solaris. After all, you don`t see the space station crash.
Zwetschgenzwoggl 2 years ago
Isn't this just a space version of The Sphere?
temporos 2 years ago
"Isn't this just a space version of The Sphere?"
--You could say it's "Sphere" meets "Event Horizon."
NoGuff 2 years ago
Soderbergh did a good remake,but Tarkovsky is unbeatable...the original was less thriller more interior,but the two versions are something amazing.
rod2d3dbz 2 years ago
Gr8 Movie!!!
I luv IT!!
obioblax 2 years ago
it looks like event horizon
pengubaby 2 years ago
Why Hollywood like to spoil great masterpieces of the literature and a cinema?The American version is a philosophy for an audience chewing popcorn.
JoeLolikon 2 years ago 2
That's funny, because the mainstream audience didn't take to this film at all.
I find it quite ridiculous that you are suggesting that this film was designed for a mainstream US audience when that was the very same group of people it alienated.
sanjuro4 2 years ago
I've just read this book today, a really good book.
foxym3 2 years ago 2
am i suppose to be watching a horror movie, because i thought this was the oscar worthy epic love story that sooo many of us love that got sold really short. espically because of dumb ass trailers like this.
Caj92185 2 years ago
good comment
sanjuro4 2 years ago
That's the Hollywood propaganda machine for you. Though "horror" is a little extreme - this isn't "Alien". I think "suspense" is more descriptive. And in the end it is a love story - in a twisted, sci-fi kind of way. Would you able to love something that looks, acts and feels like a dearly departed but you know isn't? Clooney's character learns how to.
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago
i really feel the tone the trailer set is its more horror then anything. an i very much so understand the meaning behind the movie, setting aside the crappy trailers that promoted it.
Caj92185 2 years ago
this is not official trailer right ? because this music in 0:07 - 0:22 is from game : Medievil 2 OST it's Call : Wulfrum Hall ( sorry for my english it's not my language )
tomekkwiatek14 2 years ago
It's like a parody trailer.
tynansylvester 2 years ago 3
and this trailer blows sells the movie short
CrossYourHeartxSL2 2 years ago 3
read the book, enjoyed the flick. haters suck
CrossYourHeartxSL2 2 years ago 2
great movie, whatever the Book or someone tells and especially the music by Cliff Martinez
funeralforyou 2 years ago 2
This is basically a copy of soviet unions Andrey Tarkovsky's movie Solaris, which is recognized as a world classic sci-fi movie.
This cheap remake is quite pathetic, and does not reach even half as much as the soviet movie did.
Instead of watching this, better watch Tarkovsky's Solaris.
9K58 2 years ago 3
Better yet! Prior to watching any of the two movies, read Stanislaw Lem's novel.
In my opinion, both films failed at capturing the book's original atmosphere and message. That said, Tarkovsky's movie is amazing, whereas the 2000-something remake... is too much of a love story to be treated seriously.
Sickstie 2 years ago 3
why giving -1 ?
Youre absolutly right ! This is a copy of the original soviet movie "Solaris" by Tarkovsky
kmR47 2 years ago
Soderberg himself said that he was NOT trying to copy Tarkovsky's version. He used Lem's novel. The word "classic" is thrown around far too easily. I saw Tarkovsky's version and came feeling frustrated and confused. Tarkovsky made an "art" movie not a sci-fi movie. Soderberg's version's maybe not a "classic" but is certainly more easier to connect to than theTarkovsky version. At least there isn't a very slow close-up into Kelvin's ear!
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago 16
I agree. Tarkovsky's one gets talked up way too much (I own both and the book by the way).
I love the Soderbergh film and think there are many elements of the 70s film that would alienate many viewers.
People who trash the 2002 film make me laugh. Excellent performances, beautiful direction, standout score...what's the problem?
sanjuro4 2 years ago
Exactly! Neither movie comes close to Lem's novel - which is typical of movies based on books. But the 2002 version kept my attention until the end. And even by Hollywood standards Soderberh's version was considered "slow". Maybe the ultimate movie version would be halfway between Tarkovsky and Soderbergh. Until then I'll stick with the latter.
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago
Well, reading a book takes several days at least. In my case a month, because I was reading and rereading whole chapters. So why the movie should be fast as Concorde if book is a 747?
Mmaesstrro 2 years ago
The problem is that it does not make us think of many things we should. Lem hates both movies. But he hates Tarkovsky's one because director interpreted book in different way, and hates Soderbergh's movie, because it's simply not good enough to be compared to the book. Nice sci-fi movie, not much more...
Mmaesstrro 2 years ago
I was under the impression that Lem never saw the 2002 one. Can you find a link to his reaction?
Why does the film need to do the same as the book? You complain that it doesn't make us think of the 'things we should', but it's up to the director to decide what he wants the film to say.
The film is a seperate entity, why does it have to be compared to the book anyway?
sanjuro4 2 years ago
If so, it has no right to be called "Solaris".
Mmaesstrro 2 years ago
Lem died in 2006 and did get to see Sodebergh's film. I can't find a direct quote but it seems he did like it more than Tarkovsky's film. Lem's one criticism is that Kelvin's emotional turmoil wasn't expressed strongly enough. Also the scientists in the movie seem to know nothing about the planet. In fact it was studied for decades. The information is inconclusive but causes lots of speculation. Finally, the book is a classic in SF - any film based on it has to be consistent with it.
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago
Film-book adaptations range from being slavishly close to the original text to being completely different.
Does it really matter? You can still read the book if you like, it's not going anywhere. The release of a new film version is only ever going to increase the likelihood of new people discovering the book. That's a good thing isn't it?
Why people have to be so precious about the novel is beyond me. The film doesn't damage the book. Both can exist and be appreciated by different audiences.
sanjuro4 2 years ago 37
Absolutely! But Hollywood tends to do things especially sci-fi stories. Either they add action and violence (with the all-important countdown to doom at end) OR they turn it into a space romance. They decided on the latter -which is better. Gotta sell them tickets. BUT leaving out an entire planet's part in the story...that would be like no Enterprise in Star Trek *gasp!*
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago
@sanjuro4 nicely put
JoshBHC 1 year ago
@sanjuro4 say that to the fans of the book Dune, lol
SuperHeroMania 7 months ago
@sanjuro4 I agree with you but the Lightning Thief movie was a horrible rendition of the book.
honkingonbobo 6 months ago
Secondly, I'm glad Lem got to see Soderbergh's version and that he at least appreciated it to some extent.
Also, you can't fit everything from a book into a film. Film adaptations often get criticised for sticking too closely to the book. But then they also get criticised for straying too far, these discussions happen every time a book is adapted. The filmmaker cannot please everyone.
sanjuro4 2 years ago
Again, I agree with you 107%! I tend to be a fan of directors rather than actors. Soderbergh did an awesome job with such a complex story. When I was reading the novel I came to realize the planet was a living, sentient being. I didn't get that feeling at all from either movie. Just one of the sacrifices made when you add all that lovey-dovey, smoochy stuff. I love the book, I love Soderbergh's vision of it. Everyone should read this awesome book.
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago 3
Still I was hoping to see the planet more I read the original and watched the movie the movie made me go to sleep its to much that love duffy stuff
Staszek1987050806 2 years ago 3
I know what you mean about the planet surface. Lem wrote about those formations called mnimoids that often looked like Earthly objects. I remember one looked like a gigantic baby drawn from the minds of a pilot. But then the idea of taking a sci-fi novel from the 1960s, written by a Polish writer, and turning it in to a big budget Hollywood movie is very close to a miracle itself.
spacecowboy5000 2 years ago
haha you can say it again its a miracle in deed
Staszek1987050806 2 years ago
"the planet was a living, sentient being. I didn't get that feeling at all from either movie"
--Neither did I. It seems the movie treated it as a "phenomenon." Either way I thought it was a good movie.
NoGuff 2 years ago
Because in Poland an adaptation is an adaptation meanwhile Hollywood translaited the original work into something it wanted to see
Staszek1987050806 2 years ago
And you could actually see hair in his ear. What was that all about anyway?
Vantir 2 years ago
@spacecowboy5000 Of course it's easier to connect to the Soderbergh version, it's designed to sell, not to offer an artistic view of a great story. Your implication that the Soderbergh version is "better" than the Tarkovsky's is simply laughable. Tarkovsky had a million dollar budget under the soviet regime and made a film that will be seen and discussed for many years; Soderbergh had a fifty million budget and made a B-movie that is worth watching only one time with cheap pizza to go with.
monsterballs321 10 months ago
@monsterballs321 Don't tell me what's laughable and what not! I was reading Solaris when you were just a glint in your daddy's eye. I know the book in and out, upside down and backwards. NEITHER movie does the book justice. Both are light years away from what Lem created. Calling Tarkovsky version "art" is like calling Soderbergh's "the movie of the century". Both statements are bullshit. Bottom line - I saw Tarkovsky's version 3 times and really didn't like it.
spacecowboy5000 10 months ago
@spacecowboy5000 Tarkovsky added enough of his own interpretation to completely change the story. Yes,Soderbergh did exactly the same thing while practically cutting half the novel.BUT his version was easier to understand and "get into" because he brought it down to audience level.I don't watch movies to appreciate "art" - I spent enought time doing that in college. I wants something that's intelligent but visceral.How can you take what's probably the best sf novel and squeeze it into 2 hours?
spacecowboy5000 10 months ago
@spacecowboy5000 I think we got a generational problem here, I'm in college and really into what you call "art" films, I can also enjoy a trashy Hollywood flick but I don't dare put them in the same league, which was my problem with your original comment. I really hope my standards don't get lower as I get older. Other than that I stand corrected because I haven't read the book yet. Respect, old man.
monsterballs321 10 months ago
@monsterballs321 All is good, man. I still enjoy art films especially when the foreign film festival is in town. But even the best of independant films are being corraled towards the main stream. Incentives like bigger budgets are hard to resist even for indie producers. It makes me kinda sick. Pretty soon all we've have to watch are these homogenized Holywood pablum - like "Battlefield: LA". You're standards won't change but the industry's standards will. Keep supporting indie movies.
spacecowboy5000 10 months ago
Fantastic film, dreadful trailer!
The trailer is very misleading. It wasn't a thriller or action movie, which the trailer seems to suggest.
Pity, because it kept me from seeing it for many years.
Kaspersma 2 years ago
This film is superv. Even if the book is not centered around a love story, the message is the same, its' all about limits of human knowledge. If you don't understand what is the Planet, or why those thing happens, it's normal, it's meant to be this way. It's about our limits.
distiler 2 years ago
This movie needs to be remade by George Lucas. Throw some talking robots and laser pistols in and you'd have a hit!
siasti 2 years ago
This movie has a deep message.
Just few people can get it...
It´s great movie..
I love it..Thanks!
UbuntuBird 2 years ago
This film is very weak but book is very good and like Lem's other books is very philosophic. Even P.K.Dick have a obssesion about that is Lem is better than him in fact he even do not belive that Lem is a one person because Lem in his books use many diffrent styles.
revcorey12 2 years ago
This trailer sucks - it paints the film as some kind of tense thriller with a fast pace, rather than the slow artful film it is. Was an interesting film, not the best by a long shot but definitely a thought provoking one.
Joyfulcheese 2 years ago 3
completely agree with you, deep voiced action movie guys all wrong
alexw1981w 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The very very crappest supposed sf movie...
Soderbergh, do you really want people like me to think your lonely income is generated by George Clooney ? I like this actor, I like Dany Ocean but Solaris is just tiring... I am a sf fan, I am pretty widely accepting every single crappy sf movie but CAN NOT watch this one, over ten mins ?! would I get an explanation for that ?
Best of all, it is now ads time in the movie and I am writing this rather than watching the ads...
pauladenisefatagnus 2 years ago
I really liked this movie...
zero2blur 2 years ago 4
Faraday (Lost) is the best.
rbk17 2 years ago
can't help but notice, how high is that motherfucker on this movie
myndwork 2 years ago
Good movie, but most misleading trailer of all time.
dangman87 2 years ago
I liked it,
its ludicrous but i haven't seen 2001 yet.
fitzykid1990 2 years ago
this is complete trash compared to the original russian Solaris
Zynche 2 years ago 2
if you're going to be a snob, at least do it right. the book's polish, not russian.
efgftw 2 years ago
yes, but the movie is russian
myndwork 2 years ago
that wouldn't exactly be the "original" then, would it? it'd be the russian film adaptation.
and for the record, the american film is actually closer to the original story.
efgftw 2 years ago
wtf dude
myndwork 2 years ago
there's absolutely nothing original about the russian version. what's so confusing about that statement?
efgftw 2 years ago
I hate russian movies but original russian Solaris was better and very scary, deep, emotional. Yes, this one was good too and first sex scene with Clooney was very hot. Great visual effects
Magnolia296 2 years ago
Cretin.
hvitmink 2 years ago
I thought that this was the most BORING film I've ever seen. I can hardly stay awake during it. Also,I can't even work out what the hell is going on. What IS Solaris?!
Cupit29 2 years ago
It did get to be really slow but I liked the idea behind the movie. Solaris is the planet that they're supposed to be studying.
BrownBearProduct 2 years ago
Lol, try watching the original Russian version.
FramedHamProductions 2 years ago
Have you seen 2001: A Space Odyssey? It's also slow-moving but totally entrancing the whole time. Agree or not?
siasti 2 years ago 3
I agree. I liked that. But it can't be compared to Solaris. Space Odyssey had a decent plot.
The plot of Solaris:Clooney goes to Solaris.
He spends hours standing still doing and saying nothing.Nobody on the station makes any sense and he goes to sleep and has weird flashback dreams about his wife.He wakes up and his wife is alive and he murders her. She comes back and kills herself. More flashback dreams that explain nothing. The station explodes with him aboard. But he survives, or does he?
Cupit29 2 years ago
I just finished reading the book, which despite being written 50 years ago, does not seem dated at all. Personally I couldn't understand the eagerness to kill off Rheya. After all, there were no other women on board the station...LOL
siasti 2 years ago
I might read the book if it's any good. And there was that other women. Who when asked what the fuck was going on said "Until it starts happening to you, there's no point in discussing it!" and the slammed the door in his face. Wtf?!
Cupit29 2 years ago
The book goes into much more detail about what Solaris possibly is (without any conclusion being reached). In the book, there are no other women that interact with Kelvin other than Rheya. I would have kept her around for pleasure...
siasti 2 years ago
Lem said: "That poor president Bush, who thought that democracy is a kind of a plant in a flowerpot, which you can transplant into another flowerpot. That doesn't work.".
I agree some kinde of nation cant live in democracy.
chaber16041980 2 years ago
America is big pussy on the face of earth, i think we should attack this bitches and israel jewish bitches
samalhoodman2 2 years ago
Learn how to speak english faggot
DCMeds 2 years ago
I really liked the movie. I loved watching the character development. Moving film.
LeSsThAnZeRo1982 3 years ago
fucken americanos think they can make good movies , but half of them are pornos
samalhoodman2 3 years ago
whats your nationality?
diegomont406 3 years ago
it doesn't matter
samalhoodman2 3 years ago
nah.. it does... it really does...
diegomont406 3 years ago
Some of the greatest films ever to grace the silver screen have come from America. Jealousy is rampant in your words!
Occrameq 2 years ago 2
I just got threw watching the movie. What is Solaris exactly? Is it a planet, star, Artificial Intelligence.
CentauriAB 3 years ago
It's an Operating System!!!!!!111
lol
xXbrokenskaterXx 3 years ago
If it is it's far more advanced that anything we've got. haha
CentauriAB 3 years ago
"If you keep thinking there's a solution, you'll die here.
akakkios 3 years ago
FFS microsoft....
Jeeez, bring out a sp2 sometime soon..this is one buggy piece of shit.
Lol.
Is this film any good? Im considering getting it.
w3bmatt 2 years ago
That wasn't funny actually it kind of frightened me that you believed your comment was going to make people laugh.
Gordanfreeman456 2 years ago
In the novel it is cosidered an alien lifeform. and basically it's motives can't be understood because it doesn't think like humans at all. But it seems to have a tendancy to provide people with the opportunity to make up for the things they regret. and reunite with people they miss.
DelScorcho11 3 years ago