Customer Reviews

Solaris (Widescreen)

5 star:		(45)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(22)
2 star:		(25)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

Très satisfait du produit. Pas cher et sans aucune défectuosité. Livraison assez rapide. Cependant, je ne comprends pas pourquoi ce produit a été expédié de Schiedam, Hollande! Mais peu importe l'origine, l'important c'est que le produit soit en bon état et cela me satisfait.

Personally I found this to be an amazing movie, and have watched it many times. Many people do not truly understand this film, and because of this they say lots of bad things about it. This isn't a thrilling sci-fi movie, and its really not aboutsci-fi in the first place. its more of a philosophical movie, which questions our opinions in life. If you're looking for a movie that is truly fascinating, and will leave your mind in deep, deep thought, then you should love this movie. It keeps you thinking about it long after its over. In fact, I watched this movie several times before fully understanding it. If this movie seems interesting to you, I would definitely check it out. But if your mind can only be satisfied by nonstop action, look elsewhere.

For some reason, most science fiction films in the last 20 years have really been horror movies set in outer space: hideous alien monsters threaten good looking 90120 types, maybe with a token black or foreign accent character thrown in for some comic relief, yadda yadda yadda. Solaris is a welcome change of pace from all of that. It is beautifully photographed, well acted, and tells an amazing story that - gasp - makes you think instead of spoon feeding you a Hollywood ending. It's a fantastic, moving, and very compelling film. So if you want some Big Mac science fiction, get something lame like Starship Troopers - if you want some real science fiction, get Solaris.

part philosophy,alternate reality,God.human existence.this movie seems
to ask a lot of questions.it is compelling for most of it's running
time,although it i found it quite deep,with very little action.I also
thought George Clooney took awhile to grow into his character.at 1st,i
didn't find him convincing in his role,but somehow that changed
throughout the course of the movie.the problem i found with this movie
is that it for much of the time it is a deep,thought provoking movie.I
don't believe in some of the views put forth,but nevertheless,the movie
was engaging.however it drew me in, and then the ending was a cop
out,too neatly tied up,and not at all realistic.i don't mind watching a
'pure,shut off your brain' action movie,because i no what i am
getting.and if a movie stars out compelling and engaging i expect it to
end appropriately.in my view,this movie does not do so.i would have
given it 4,but because of the ending i am deducting 1 star.as a
result,my vote for "Solaris" is 3*/5

This movie really felt like it was going somewhere. The acting is good, dialogue is good, cinematography is good, but the ending is indefinite. It really does not explain what happens in the end, and we are left to infer our own conclusion, despite conflicting messages we get from the movie itself. With a few minor tweaks, this could have been a real killer movie, but alas, it is not. It did however, make me dislike George Clooney a lot less. He, as well as everyone else, is really good in this movie. If you get this DVD for cheap from a bargain bin like I did, it's actually not a bad addition to a home library. Good if you're messed up on drugs. ;)

This movie was not worth the time it took to sit there watching it. I strongly recommend not wasting your money on this. Rent it or find some other way of watching it if you must.

Visualy and auditorily stunning and artful, but a bit scarey. It's a psychological thriller as well as a love story, scarier than 2001, and it contains blood, corpses and psychosis. Worth watching though, and not gorey, but one fears to see gore at any moment in the tense bits. It also contains nudity. It leaves you thinking with a very interesting ending. Excellent performances, but not for everyone.

On the up side, good sets and costumes. Lame special effects combo with a plot so crippled that it's wheelchair needs crutches. George Clooney, bless his handsome heart, is unable to rescue this total waste of mind with his limited acting range, although you can see him painfully trying. Unless you are really into abnormal foresnic psychology then within 15 minutes of watching Solaris you will be asking yourself if you really want to sit through the rest of it. I did, and I did sit through the rest and it wasn't worth it. Buy another movie.

There's no reason why more than one strong movie version of Solaris can't exist. But they don't.

I looked forward to this version. The web site was well-done: I wonder if the budget for the web site exceeded Tarkovsky's budget for his entire movie (in the same currency and adjusted to today).

I had seen Tarkovksy's version about 5 times. I had not read Lem's novel. I didn't mind Tarkovsky''s pace but I was intrigued to see what I had heard would be a more stream-lined movie. I was surprised to find that Soderbergh's version, although an hour shorter, was painful to sit thru. The final half hour I found excruciating. Oddly, despite all the modern special effects, Tarkovsky's version towers over this one in the imaginativeness of the space station and the ocean.

Soderbergh's Solaris is one of the worst movies I've seen. Bad casting, poor acting, awful flow, mangled vision: it's the kind of film that makes one appreciate how good a job most filmmakers do. Most films may not interest me, they may not be well-acted, but most seem to have some flow and basic sense. I don't think this one did.

I paid $1 to see this film: it had made its way quickly to a more than half-empty discount theater. Much more than a usual number of viewers walked out early.

If you do want to see this film, first read Lem's novel "Solaris". I did recently and loved it. It makes sense so it may help make up for this lack of sense in Soiderbergh's movie. After reading the book, if you don't like it, I'd still recommend seeing Tartovsky's movie. You may not like it but its visually so compelling that it may realize Lem's vision (and Tarktovsky's) for you. If after experiencing Lem's Solaris and Tarkoveky's Solaris, you're still curious, by all means see Soderbergh's take if it still intigues you. But if you see Soderbergh's Solaris first, you may decide that any Solaris is rubbish and fail to experience what Lem and/or Tarkovsky have in store for you.

Risks are welcome. But having made an awful movie, it would have been better, if not short-term financially then certainly for artistic integrity and even future commerical respect, to have never released this movie. Or at least to have reworked it heavily before releasing it. Not because of how good Lem's work is, not because of how good Tarkovsky's work is, but because if failures, espeically big failures like this one, are not acknowledged and learned from, one is apt to repeat them.

What do I know? Just how much I enjoyed and will continue to enjoy Lem's Solaris and Tarkovsky's Solaris. And what a waste Soderbergh's film was. An insult. Not to have made but to have released. I remained silent about this film, even in spite of how weak it is next to Tarkovsky. But when I read Lem, it's too much.

If you want to understand Solaris, go read the reviews for Lem's book, go read the reviews for Tarkovsky's movie. Don't lose time here. This is a story about the most extraordinary intelligence, but this film seems devoid of intelligence.

What happened to that talented and original director who took quirky subject matter and made it brilliant?
Who is this imposter making nothing but half-baked remakes of perfectly good movies?
A pod person?
If you want to see Solaris, a very good film of it was made in the Soviet Union back in the 70's. It was mysterious and tragic and, at the same time, hopeful.
All qualities the 2002 version lacks. Characters are merged. Families obliterated.
George Cloony may be a pretty face, but any demanding character is beyond him. Solaris is far to subtle a project for him. He needs much more obvious formulaic roles to really shine.