Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Review: Solaris 451

Solaris was one of several movies to hit the theaters this Thanksgiving weekend, and it won't be the most successful. The 1961 sci-fi novel has also been the source material for a 1972 film. There are numerous reviews - far more for Solaris than Die Another Day, suggesting that the critics were hopeful (Salon, NY Times), or maybe just tired of Bond, James Bond. I saw DAD as well this weekend, and my capsule review is simple: it sucked, the Bond franchise has definitely jumped the shark (two words: invisible car). But Solaris is worth a few more words.

Lem's novel is a really good work of sci-fi, not light reading but worth the effort to comprehend. The new Solaris movie is only 90-odd minutes long, and at that it's too long.

Comparisons will be made to 2001 and Apocalypse Now, two other slow-moving, philosophical movies. The problem is that both of those movies actually had interesting things to say, and managed to keep the viewer's attention despite being slow-paced. Solaris is simply slow. Long sections of the movie have no dialog and no background sounds whatsoever. When there is background music, it lacks the classical majesty of 2001 and is actually a bit annoying. These flaws might be forgivable if we were truly interested in the plot, but we aren't: it's a trivial love story, told many times before. (Most of the interesting parts of Lem's book have been sliced away to leave only the love tale, and the sci-fi twist is not enough to save it, IMHO.) I found myself nodding off during parts of the movie.

A couple of the reviews I read didn't quite grasp what was going on, especially the end. I found it quite clear and straightforward: the movie gives you plenty of clues so there shouldn't be any doubt left in your mind when the credits roll. Admittedly I approached the film with substantial knowledge about the book, but... it should have been clear to anyone.

Overall: it's pretty. The effects are well-done, at least you aren't short-changed there. As far as sci-fi movies go, it isn't bad - there have been so many worse sci-fi movies that I'll take whatever I can get. And at least they had the decency to make it short; if this movie were 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5, it would be intolerable. I'd recommend it to sci-fi fans. I'm not sure I'd recommend it for non-fans, however; if you want a love story, go see Ghost or something.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review: Solaris

Comments Filter:
  • Tarkovsky's Solyaris (Score:5, Informative)

    by an_mo ( 175299 ) on Sunday December 01, 2002 @06:43PM (#4789504) Journal
    I guess it must be hard to compete against one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.
    Andrei Tarkovsky has made incredible movies that leave undeletable impressions on your mind. Here is the imdb links to Tarkovsky's Solyaris [imdb.com]
  • In Short (Score:3, Informative)

    by Adam.Steinbaugh ( 540388 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {dnerever_doog}> on Sunday December 01, 2002 @06:50PM (#4789555) Journal
    Solaris is one of those movies that tries to make a deeper-meaning point, much like American Beauty did.

    American Beauty made profound statements during its 122 minutes, whereas Solaris could have had a similar impact if it were 4 minutes long.
  • Re:Invisible Car?! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 01, 2002 @07:27PM (#4789742)
    Kind of - the two eyes difference would only matter for a relative short distance (~5 meters ) further away from that you probably wouldn't notice changes in the background (afaik the depth notion our brain proceses from the diference between both eyes only works to about 1 - 2 meters)
    I would assume that for something like this to work one could either have a designeted target, keep tracking where he is and adjust the image accordingly or have directional emiters (like what is used for airport aproach lights or those weird holograms in credit cards) and actually output a higher brightness than the original input in order to compensate for the area that is not lit
    in any case, current technology isn't likely to produce something that is completely invisible, just something that one may not notice agains a background.
  • That review sucked. (Score:2, Informative)

    by freq ( 15128 ) on Sunday December 01, 2002 @07:47PM (#4789845) Homepage


    A more enlightening review can be found here [bigempire.com].

    The filthy critic hasn't let me down yet... see review for DAD [bigempire.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 01, 2002 @08:12PM (#4789965)
    There are several long and gratutitis scenes of George Cloony's Ass.

  • My review (short) (Score:5, Informative)

    by whizzmo ( 239423 ) on Sunday December 01, 2002 @08:18PM (#4789995)
    Good things:
    • Nice CGI for the "planet" Solaris (was it a star?).
    • Decent attempt at a '2001'-style space station.
    • One or two good plot twists (no spoilers here)
    • No unbearable 10 minute sections of people giving head to their mics. (2001, anyone?)
    • Decent symbolism [imdb.com] (WARNING: SPOILERS!)
    • Too many 2001 references to count.

    Bad Things:
    • Nudity=George Clooney's butt?? Natascha McElhone would have been a *much* better choice, IMHO, but I'm XY, so... :)
    • Cerebral movie with only 1 or 2 good 'thoughts'.
    • Too many 2001 references to count.

    Overall: 5/10 Watch it when you are in the mood for a SLOW thinker flick.
  • RTFB (Score:5, Informative)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Sunday December 01, 2002 @09:35PM (#4790306) Homepage Journal
    - short answer answer.

    Long answer - Kelvin is sent to a station (not a space station, but rather a station that float above the planet named Solaris by using antigravity... Now, he enters the station where there supposed to be 3 people. Finds one of them who talks all crazy and tells Kelvin to wait a little to understand what is going on. Apparently one of the 3 people is dead (suicide). Kelvin waits, reads notes etc. goes to sleep, wakes up and sees his long dead wife (10 years ago commited suicide because of Kelvin leaving her...) He is scared, tries to escape her, she goes through a steel plate not to be left behind, and, oh, btw., her wounds heal very quickly. He jettisons her into an orbit in a small rocket (which she almost dismantles before it leaves the station.) Now, he thinks he's crazy and with some complicated scientific calculations proves to himself that he is not. It is all about Solaris - a planet covered with some bio-mass ocean that can be anything and is very powerfull (for example it stabilizes its own planet's orbit in a binary star system.) The ocean apparently is studying people or maybe just toing with them, in any case we do not know what it is doing, if it means to do it or if it just happens to do it without even realizing anything.
    Kelvin's dead wife comes back the next morning (binary star system btw.) So he tries to approach this logically but remembers his love to her and doesn't know what to think to do whatever. Another scientist on the station finds out how to destabilize the field that holds neutrinoes that the clones are made of, and by doing so how to destroy the clones. Anyway, at the end ..... but wait, I am not going to tell you. Read the book.
  • Re:Slightly Offtopic (Score:5, Informative)

    by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Sunday December 01, 2002 @09:49PM (#4790350)
    Solaris is a Latin word (not a coined-up one) Search online for a guide to Latin pronounciation.

    You still have a problem since there is more than one "proper" pronounciation of latin words. There is classical or antiquarian pronunciation, christian or ecclesiastical pronunciation and protestant or english pronunciation. I'm not that familiar with classical pronunciation (I know it pronunces "v" as "w", "c"'s are hard like "k" etc), the protestant pronunciation method is to just say it how it looks to you, christian pronunciation is that used by the Catholic church. Using the catholic church method i believe you would say the "o" as in "for" not "go" the "a" as in "car" and the "i" as "ee" as in "feet". In other words like most other latin words used in english if you do it "right" only your parish priest even understands what you just said, or you come across as showing off - save the latin pronunciation for when you are using it in a latin sentance.
  • attention span (Score:3, Informative)

    by SkulkCU ( 137480 ) on Sunday December 01, 2002 @11:31PM (#4790746) Homepage Journal

    I dont think hollywood audiences have the attention span to see all that Lem encompasses, which might make them think a bit too much, but surely they can stomach a little more than this!

    You're wrong.

    During the screening I went to, dozens of people walked out. More than one person said "That Sucked" right at the end. I didn't hear anyone say anything good about it.

    I thought it was good, but it wasn't nearly as complete as I had hoped (as, I think you're saying).
  • by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Sunday December 01, 2002 @11:32PM (#4790754)
    What was the deal with the door knob?

    It establishes Chris and Rhea's relationship. The first thing he noticed about her wasn't that she was a pretty girl, but that she was carrying, of all things, a doorknob. This demonstrates that their relationship will be unconventional.

    What was the physicist-girl's creation that kept knocking around in her room?

    That's not important to the story, so it was deliberately left to your imagination. Note, also, her line, "I never get used to these... resurrections." She's definitely got some serious issues.

    Why did Chris' wife always have this creepy-ish plastic grin through the first half of the movie?

    Because she's flirting with Chris. Women-- and men, for that matter-- who are attracted to you often smile for no apparent reason. It's possible that you might not be aware of this if you've never seen it in real life.

    What the hell happened to the security detail that was sent in before Chris got there?

    They disappeared.

    The guy that was there said the security detail got there and killed one guy, but... where did the security detail go after that??

    They disappeared. Any more time spent wondering about this will be classified under "missing the point."

    And what about the guy they said just disappeared? that he simply wasn't on the ship anymore? what happened to him?

    He also disappeared. This is what I meant by "missing the point."
  • Re:Bad adaptation (Score:3, Informative)

    by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Sunday December 01, 2002 @11:45PM (#4790803)
    Not having read the boot it was obvious that the filmmakers failed to capture whatever the movie was about. The script was really lame and the woman who played Clooney's love interest only had one facial expression. She simply could not express any emotion whatsoever. No matter what she was supposed to be feeling she looked like a model posing for the camera with the same vacant look in her eyes.

    Also there was too much reliance on silly cinematography tricks. Too many blurred shots, too many false colorations and filters it goes on and on.

    Clooney also had a hard time trying to carry the movie, his acting wasn't that good but the women will probably enjoy his ass.

    The most ineresting character in the movie was played by jeremy davies. Anytime he was onthe screen it was a movie worth watching.
  • Re:wtf (Score:3, Informative)

    by Night Goat ( 18437 ) on Sunday December 01, 2002 @11:49PM (#4790816) Homepage Journal
    The main problem with the review is that after reading it, I still have no idea what the movie is about. I know it was based on a science fiction book by Stanislaw Lem, but as I haven't read any of his books, that doesn't influence my decision on whether or not to watch the movie. The only thing I got out of the review is that the movie was slow-moving and confusing to some audience members. I need more to go on than that, sorry.
  • my schematic review (Score:2, Informative)

    by meshko ( 413657 ) on Monday December 02, 2002 @01:51AM (#4791206) Homepage
    Hints at spoilers, but it doesn't metter because you shouldn't watch this movie :)

    First good things.
    1) The portrayal of future, everything that's concerned with little details like the PDAs that people on the train use and costumes that upper-class people wear on the night out -- everything like that is superb. Creates an atmosphere quite nicely.

    2) The beam generator (what's its name?) they built on the station to destroy the visitors uses some cables with BNC connectors. I think this is a great detail. They've built it out of *real* spare parts and it shows.

    3) The image of the Rheya is well done for the most part. Both Rheya's actually. Natascha McElhone did a really good job and she is fit for the role.

    4) Snow is great. Kudos to Jeremy Davies.

    5) In case you are wondering why the hell did they move the station from the surface of the planet to the orbit -- there is an explanation to that.
    Which brings us to the second part. What sucked.

    1) Changes where made to the plot. Horrible changes.
    1.1) See 5 above. Of course it must be on the orbit: the mass of Solaris started growing exponentially, you see. Of course it did, honey.
    1.2) Was it a happy ending? Was it an attempt to make a happy end which doesn't seem so happy? It's an ending which really screwed it up. Sorry.
    1.3) Anyone remembers that scene from Simpsons, when they leave Australia and a coala is flying back with them, evil grin on his face? I kind of hoped that we won't see an ending like that again.

    2) Clooney doesn't work in this role. And no, I didn't like his naked butt.

    3) Not a single shot of the ocean surface. Yes, Solaris is a planet covered with Ocean. It is beautiful too. But that's in book, not in the movie. The movie only shows you a plasma lamp, er, star, er... planet? from the orbit.

    4) Yes, the book makes you think about God. Sometimes quite explicitly. Throwing in one conversation cut before it actually makes sense and one scene referencing Michelangelo's painting does not make sense and feels taken out of context.

    I guess here is what I'm trying to say: this movie would work beautifully if it was more friendly to the book. Hero's memories of his life with Rheya on Earth a well done and are very enjoyable for someone who read the book. Unfortunately people who have read the book will be alienated by weird changes to the story which don't really make much sense.
    I don't know how this film works for people who have not read the book.
  • Re:Slightly Offtopic (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02, 2002 @02:14AM (#4791263)
    You still have a problem since there is more than one "proper" pronounciation of latin words."

    Of course, I was referring to Cicero's Latin as defined by Wheelock's Latin textbook.

With your bare hands?!?

Working...