Solaris (1972)

Don't Believe the Hype

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

As many said here already, this movie is not about a story. You have to follow a sequence of images and allow them to hypnotize you. It creates a mood. Or, in some cases, it does not ))

Here's a relevant and true-to-life story that completely validates and justifies my low opinion of 1972's "Solaris".Of course - As we all know - "Solaris" (the film) was adapted to the screen by director, Andre Tarkovsky from Sci-Fi writer, Stanislaw Lem's 1961 novel of the same name.So - As the story goes - After a 6-month collaboration - Lem and Tarkovsky's work together ended in a nasty and bitter conflict over unwarranted changes and additions that Tarkovsky was making to the original story.When interviewed about the split - Lem angrily claimed that Tarkovsky had turned his novel into a flimsy and shallow outer space soap opera."He was moving in the opposite direction from my book!" Lem stated.... In other words - Tarkovsky's film ruined the whole essence and philosophical flow of Lem's book.And, after seeing this grossly over-rated disappointment for myself - I couldn't agree more with Lem in his utter outrage towards Tarkovsky and his precious, little picture.

it is easy to say - a film by Andrei Tarkovski. symbols, poetry of image, old and great themes . and the need of discover yourself. but, like each film by Tarkovski, "Solaris" is not exactly a film of its director but the film of its public. a kind of mirror, in which you recognize crumbs from the novel by Lem and the fight to reconquest the pillars of the past. a past like the only certitude. the film is a masterpiece not only for the artistic reasons. but for the science to become, scene by scene, a personal story. a story about testimony and about the impact with truth about love as only tool for ignore the death and the fundamental choice. as a form of revelation. and as remind. about refuges and meanings and truth.

Andrei Tarkovsky's cerebral science fiction outing is widely considered by his fans to be a work of genius. He's adored for creating an intelligent masterpiece, rich in beautiful cinematography, and delivering a haunting storyline tackling the topics of loss and obsession. That's all well and good, but he forgot to make his near-three hour film entertaining along the way.I admit, I hated this film. If the dialogue-free opening ten minutes, composed entirely of landscape shots, hadn't warned me that this wasn't going to be my cup of tea then the next half an hour, consisting entirely of back story via flashbacks, convinced me of it. Then there's a car journey through Moscow that takes ten minutes, and I couldn't help thinking how much more interesting Paul Greengrass's car chase in the same city at the end of THE BOURNE SUPREMACY was. Finally we move to space, but if anything the story slows down even more, so much so that I lost interest in it entirely.Yes, it's a mood piece and yes, it's a clever film that doesn't pander to the masses. But it's also the slowest film I've ever watched, and I can't help thinking there's something more than a little pretentious in the director's efforts to drag his viewer's attention spans out to breaking point. As a result I absolutely hated this non-entity of a film and have no desire to ever go near it again in future.