Featured Audience Ratings

• Chris W

  
  You really have to be in the right mood and frame of mind to watch this and get all the way through. That doesn't mean you need to be high, but that might make things a little more interesting. The comparisons to 2001 are warranted, but only to an extent. Thematically, this movie… More
  You really have to be in the right mood and frame of mind to watch this and get all the way through. That doesn't mean you need to be high, but that might make things a little more interesting. The comparisons to 2001 are warranted, but only to an extent. Thematically, this movie has more in common with something like Vertigo. If you can handle long, slow, "heavy" art films with a loose plot, then this is for you. I'm not a huge fan of films like this, but I was able to get through this without much effort, which is amazing. Brilliant, poetic, visually stunning, and more like an experience than anything else. If you want something different, check this out.

• Adriel Denzel L

  
  A laboriously long science-fiction film gives time for deep meditation about human existence and its perplexing themes. A bit tad too long, but it must be, in all its mystery. Its haunting, and has me rooted to my own life and thinking..

• Devon B

  
  Evolutionary philosopher Brian Thomas Swimme recently hosted an enlightening PBS program called "Journey of the Universe". In it, Swimme postulates that there exists an awareness or sentience to energy "that is more than what takes place in elementary particles but… More
  Evolutionary philosopher Brian Thomas Swimme recently hosted an enlightening PBS program called "Journey of the Universe". In it, Swimme postulates that there exists an awareness or sentience to energy "that is more than what takes place in elementary particles but less than (our) human consciousness". There is a primitive discernment, he says, made by even the simplest cells due to what is suggested to be the "self-organizing dynamics of the universe". When a cell encounters a molecule, the cell must decide whether to incorporate it or not. On a celestial level, our Earth has developed a symbiotic relationship with the sun, "Earth's systems attune to the sun, changing molecular structures to absorb the sun's energy". What motivates life to stay living? Why is existing so important for unconscious energy? 99% of the human body is made up of only 6 chemical elements (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus), and these elements come from the residue of stars exploded billions of years ago. Somehow, through some natural progression, we've come to exist from the dust of stars. It can almost be suggested from all this that life is the driving force of the universe. That the will to progress, evolve and *live* overcomes any other movitating power. In "Solaris" (both the film and the 1961 novel by Stanislaw Lem), mankind encounters a lifeform it cannot comprehend. A "living ocean" on the planet Solaris that seems to cause mysterious hallucinations to the astronauts investigating it. The Solaris Project has spent decades orbiting the planet in a space station, trying to make contact with the alien lifeform, but rather than enlightenment, the project only seems to get further mired in confusion. So, psychologist Kris Kelvin is sent up to the space station to investigate the matter and see if the project might need to be permanently closed. Kelvin is highly skeptical of the supernatural nature of the phenomenon occurring on the station, dismissing them as mere hallucinations, but almost from the moment he arrives there, he's sucked into their existence by the appearance of his dead wife. The scientists believe the alien consciousness ("the ocean") is creating neutrino-based lifeforms from their own repressed memories. Well, the word "lifeforms" might be contested, as some of the scientists believe they are living and others believe them to be just physical hallucinations that exist only as a part of their mind. The manifestation of Kelvin's wife knows she's not the original wife and doesn't share the same memories. She is composed only of what Kelvin believed his wife to be. But given these parameters, she accepts and functions and exists in her "state". By whatever definition you choose for "life", she lives, but is still not human. Director Andrei Tarkovsky's languidly ponderous film isn't about space aliens or body snatchers, but the nature of life and humanity's fundamentally willful isolation in the universe. We don't understand because we choose not to. We fail to make contact because we don't comprehend what we're looking at or looking for. This explains why the planet Solaris' motivation for creating life from the astronauts memories is never learned or even suggested. As the closing scene of the movie suggests, we grasp at things to understand them, but are left fundamentally alone in the universe.

• Jan Marc M

  
  Solaris poses the question, "does the capacity for logic and emotion conceive Humanity?" A source of mysterious energy, Solaris is a fictional ether that renders hallucinations to a group of scientists aboard a laboratory in space. A science fiction feature aware of the… More
  Solaris poses the question, "does the capacity for logic and emotion conceive Humanity?" A source of mysterious energy, Solaris is a fictional ether that renders hallucinations to a group of scientists aboard a laboratory in space. A science fiction feature aware of the world from which conceived, Solaris, in simple terms, is profound and sophisticated. Brilliant.

• Greg S

  
  An astronaut on a satellite circling a mysterious planet that may be alive meets, and falls in love with, a hallucinated version of his dead wife. A fascinating anfd thought-provoking mix of hard science fiction, arthouse drama and heavy existential symbolism; making a… More
  An astronaut on a satellite circling a mysterious planet that may be alive meets, and falls in love with, a hallucinated version of his dead wife. A fascinating anfd thought-provoking mix of hard science fiction, arthouse drama and heavy existential symbolism; making a "sci-fi" movie was writer/director Andrei Tarkovsky's way of getting around Soviet censors who wouldn't allow him to discuss the concept of God. Warning to anyone who thought 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was "too slow-moving": Tarkovsky's pacing makes Kubrick look like Michael Bay.

• Steven C

  
  Now, I will say this first, I like Steven Soderbergh's adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's novel more than Andrei Tarkovsky's. This version of "Solaris" is extremely good in it's own ways mind you. Tarkovsky's film is deeply emotional and deeply… More
  Now, I will say this first, I like Steven Soderbergh's adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's novel more than Andrei Tarkovsky's. This version of "Solaris" is extremely good in it's own ways mind you. Tarkovsky's film is deeply emotional and deeply influential. Though I believe that the film is just too long to actually enjoy. This is one of those films where the point the filmmakers are trying to make comes across clearly long before the film ends (a recent example of this is "The Tree of Life"). "Solaris" is worth your time because of it's endless influence on science-fiction and makes a nice counter point to Stanley Kubrick's sterile, but equally thought provoking "2001: A Space Odyssey." On a side note, I think Soderbergh's film works better because it is a bit more streamlined. Plus, he does away with the obvious philosophical musings and finds interesting ways to insert them into his visuals.

• Melvin W

  
  Although very slow, Solaris is an awesome movie. Many complain about the pacing, but I enjoyed the pace which slowly unveils the great story. It is plagued in mystery and leaves you asking a lot of questions.

• Sophie B

  
  An interesting tale that to me wasn't fully explained. Maybe I need to watch it again but why are they on Solaris, how did they find Solaris, what exactly is going on in the space station... Many questions left unanswered. Some of the extreme long takes were annoying and… More
  An interesting tale that to me wasn't fully explained. Maybe I need to watch it again but why are they on Solaris, how did they find Solaris, what exactly is going on in the space station... Many questions left unanswered. Some of the extreme long takes were annoying and unneccessary.

• Conner R

  
  Very worthy of its reputation as one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made. The way Andrei Tarkovsky manipulates the camera and viewer is extremely unique and powerful. There's not many movies that feel quite like this, it sets itself apart from being another 2001 or Alien.… More
  Very worthy of its reputation as one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made. The way Andrei Tarkovsky manipulates the camera and viewer is extremely unique and powerful. There's not many movies that feel quite like this, it sets itself apart from being another 2001 or Alien. It's not quite sci-fi/horror, but it definitely has a very suspenseful slow-moving pace that keeps you questioning what you see and why you are seeing it. There are no flaws, no bad performances and not an once of change needed. It's as perfect as they come.

• E.J. B

  
  On my first viewing of Solaris, I firmly believed that I had just seen one of the best sci-fi movies of all time. Having watched it a second time, I believe it more than ever. I can only imagine people watching this movie today and writing reviews like this: "Boringest movie… More
  On my first viewing of Solaris, I firmly believed that I had just seen one of the best sci-fi movies of all time. Having watched it a second time, I believe it more than ever. I can only imagine people watching this movie today and writing reviews like this: "Boringest movie ever!" or "Put me to sleep in fifteen minutes." But what else could you expect from people who associate sci-fi with Transformers? Solaris deals solely with the psychological aspect of the genre. A planet has the ability to give you anything you ever wanted. A man, who has just lost his wife, has the chance to be with her again, and not just an image of her. She is completely flesh and blood real, like a clone. What happens next will engage and challenge you. Beautifully shot, acted, and scripted.

• Carlos M

  
  A wonderful meditative film that raises many philosophical and metaphysical questions about human existence, loss and happiness.

• Daniel H

  
  Thoughtful but conflicted, Tarkovsky manages to pull a rather elegant commentary about what it means to be human out of source material that was merely intended to portray something truthfully and scientifically "alien" Bondarchuk is astounding as the Hari, and perhaps one… More
  Thoughtful but conflicted, Tarkovsky manages to pull a rather elegant commentary about what it means to be human out of source material that was merely intended to portray something truthfully and scientifically "alien" Bondarchuk is astounding as the Hari, and perhaps one of the main reasons to see the film, other than the signature Tarkovsky cinematography.

• Randy T

  
  A good film but the plot never gains momentum, it just creeps along. If you have attention deficit disorder you're going to have a hard time making it through the entire movie.

• Drew S

  
  In order to avoid seeming like a poser, I decided to watch this film simply to justify calling the remake one of my favorite movies. Now when I tell people that I liked the remake more, I can sound like an artless idiot instead of a poser! When dealing with film elitists, no one wins.… More
  In order to avoid seeming like a poser, I decided to watch this film simply to justify calling the remake one of my favorite movies. Now when I tell people that I liked the remake more, I can sound like an artless idiot instead of a poser! When dealing with film elitists, no one wins. The first huge problem with Solaris is that of pacing. Call me impatient all you like, but there is no way to rationally call this a well-edited film. See: car sequence. Not even Tarkovsky could justify treating the audience to a five-minute driving montage, short of production costs. I made several attempts to watch this movie in one sitting, but the task was ultimately divided over the course of three days. I kind of feel like I didn't give it the attention it deserved. Anyway, this film is over an hour longer than Soderbergh's remake, and as much as I'd like to say that the trimming didn't exclude anything important, that is sadly untrue. But more on that later; I want to discuss what sucked about this film right now. The second problem I have with it is a decided lack of subtlety. Not always - just in some areas, most notably the primary romantic plot. Solaris deals with some incredibly interesting questions about humanity and love, but when actually filmically addressing them, it gets really longwinded. I honestly think the remake handled this better in its omissions. And here's something I thought I'd never say: the movie actually made me appreciate 2001 more. As much as I've slagged off on that film, Solaris brought me to realize that it did have hidden meaning to it, albeit nowhere near as much as people claim. These are my two big problems with the movie, and they are certainly prominent and they certainly affect the overall product. But Solaris is also redolent with meaning, atmosphere and power. Tarkovsky's filming is lush and attractive without being too showy, and he has an interesting command of sound. I do have to say that it never really felt like the cast was in space, so much as a well-lit building somewhere on Earth. *shrug* Like I said before, Solaris is a very human piece of science fiction; Tarkovsky created it as a retort to 2001, which he thought was anti-septic and lifeless. It meditates primarily on romantic love, but also has an interesting, quiet subplot about family that doesn't mean much UNTIL you compare it to that romance plot. The ending, in that regard, is absolutely fantastic. It is this film's greatest strength against the remake, which jettisons the family completely and the ending suffers hugely for it. Despite Solaris's strengths, I still think the remake does it one better. Far more atmospheric, far more trusting of the viewer's intelligence, and conscientiously edited. Call me a dumb American all you want - I don't care. Soderbergh is a fantastic director with a mindful grasp on what he is conveying through his film. Tarkovsky reminds me of a mad, frustrated genius, throwing everything that appears in him at the wall and seeing what sticks. Plenty sticks here, but plenty doesn't, and the result is something equal parts brilliant and flawed.

• Aaron N

  
  Dr. Sartorius: Man was created by Nature in order to explore it. As he approaches Truth he is fated to Knowledge. All the rest is bullshit. As good as much of this film is, it is another example of how I was spoiled by the more recent version of this story, which made me not enjoy… More
  Dr. Sartorius: Man was created by Nature in order to explore it. As he approaches Truth he is fated to Knowledge. All the rest is bullshit. As good as much of this film is, it is another example of how I was spoiled by the more recent version of this story, which made me not enjoy the original as much. Based on a novel by Stanislaw Lem, the story involves a psychologist traveling to a space station orbiting a mysterious planet known as Solaris. He has been sent to find out what is going on with the cosmonauts currently there, only to find that the planet itself causes strange hallucinations representing particular figures from those experiencing it's own subconscious. Having seen the 2002 version of this story, directed by Stephen Soderbergh and starring Clooney, the difference is fairly clear. The original is nearly 3 hours, paced very slowly, and contains all of the same story points as the 99 minute remake. I'm all for long or slow paced movies, but when you see a very long movie, all in Russian, which contains no real twist since you've seen it all before, the experience is certainly affected. However, the film is still very well made in terms of getting across its ideas and portraying its characters. The thing that makes the story of Solaris very involving and unique, is the way the science fiction aspect is pushed to the background. While the characters are in space observing a planet, the film remains focused on its characters and the state of mind they are in based on their experiences. This film gets that across very well. Its a very good film, which will certainly benefit from seeing it in a fresh state of mind. Dr. Snaut: We don't want to conquer space at all. We want to expand Earth endlessly. We don't want other worlds; we want a mirror. We seek contact and will never achieve it. We are in the foolish position of a man striving for a goal he fears and doesn't want. Man needs man!

• Cindy I

  
  2001 meets Wuthering Heights. A scientist goes up to a space station to check the progress of the Solaris project. Most of the crew are dead, and the ones left are seeing hallucinations of dead loved ones. When the scientist's wife appears, he starts to unravel. Or does he? A… More
  2001 meets Wuthering Heights. A scientist goes up to a space station to check the progress of the Solaris project. Most of the crew are dead, and the ones left are seeing hallucinations of dead loved ones. When the scientist's wife appears, he starts to unravel. Or does he? A little muddled like I've noticed a lot of Russian films are and tends to drag quite a bit -- lots of contemplative shots out windows and across ponds -- but some good effects hold it up OK.

• Arash X

  
  Raises questions about humanity,conscience,love,... I don't have any problem with long movies which need patience but overusing long & still shots is something I don't like in this and also in Nostalghia or maybe I'm missing something

• Andy S

  
  The most atmospheric film I have ever seen, period. You never know what's going to happen next, the plot is excellent, and the dialogue is very good. Though it will tax your brain the first time you see it, it's far easier to understand during subsequent viewings.

• Walter M

  
  [font=Century Gothic][color=red]Several years ago, I saw the 1972 version of "Solaris" directed by Andrei Tarkovsky at the Anthology Film Archives in New York City. It was a bad print that broke on a few occasions. I liked the movie and had the peculiar sensation of it… More
  [font=Century Gothic][color=red]Several years ago, I saw the 1972 version of "Solaris" directed by Andrei Tarkovsky at the Anthology Film Archives in New York City. It was a bad print that broke on a few occasions. I liked the movie and had the peculiar sensation of it washing over me when I woke up the next morning. When it was released on DVD a little while back, I bought it and had put off on seeing it again until recently when I was close to seeing the 2002 version of the movie directed by Steven Soderbergh. This time around I had a better handle on the movie's theme which was there may be somethings out in the universe too alien for humanity to understand. And I think I also had a better grasp on the ending...[/color][/font] [font=Century Gothic][color=#8b0000]Now as far as the 2002 version goes, it still contains the basic plot of Dr. Kelvin(George Clooney in this version) who goes off to a space station surrounding the planet Solaris to investigate some strange goings-on. While there, he encounters the two surviving crewmembers, one who is very talkative and the other won't leave her quarters. And then Kelvin's late wife shows up...[/color][/font] [font=Century Gothic][color=#8b0000]The problem with this version starts with George Clooney's being cast. He is a man of action and not used to being cast in a role that requires this much introspection and thought. Plus, while the movie gets off to a quick start(always appreciate the thought but here I think it's wasted and I liked Tarkovsky's way of explaining past events), it soon bogs down in flashbacks about Kelvin's relationship with his wife. And it also does tend to be literal in its explanations of what may be going on. A twist towards the end of the movie makes no sense and a radical change to the ending does not help. But on the other hand, Jeremy Davies makes a valid attempt to steal the film.[/color][/font]

• Panta O

  
  I decided to watch again one of my favourite movies of all time because I actually never reviewed it! Originally, as a kid I read the novel Solaris by Stanislaw Lem which was very popular in the old Yugoslavia where I lived at the time and I was so fascinated that had to watch the… More
  I decided to watch again one of my favourite movies of all time because I actually never reviewed it! Originally, as a kid I read the novel Solaris by Stanislaw Lem which was very popular in the old Yugoslavia where I lived at the time and I was so fascinated that had to watch the movie as well. Of course didn't take long to start adoring Andrei Tarkovsky as a director. It was fascinating in the 70's and it is even more now to watch this meditative psychological drama about a stalled out scientific mission on a space station where psychologist Kris Kelvin travels to evaluate the situation. But he is not immune to the strange phenomena happening above the ocean of thought... If you love sci-fi movies, be prepared for something completely different! This is completely opposite to the American science fiction films... there is no fast narrative pacing, special effects, weird gadgets and talk to communicate character psychology and an imagined future... nothing like that. Slow paced, psychologically complex story is taking us on a journey of deep thinking which will be enjoyable the whole 2 h 46 minutes. Unforgettable cast: Natalya Bondarchuk (Hari), Donatas Banionis (Kris Kelvin), Jüri Järvet (Dr Snaut), Vladislav Dvorzhetsky (Henri Berton), Nikolai Grinko (Kris Kelvin's Father), Olga Barnet (Kris Kelvin's Mother), Anatoli Solonitsyn (Dr Sartorius), and Sos Sargsyan (Dr Gibarian), made this experience even better... and there is no question that this was the best movie in 1972... Cannes Film Festival's Grand Prix Spécial du Jury was a proof for that.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings