Solyaris (Solaris) Reviews and Ratings



  • November 7, 2009
    A wonderful meditative film that raises many philosophical and metaphysical questions about human existence, loss and happiness.
  • October 24, 2009
    And the Oscar for the most boring film ever goes to.....
  • October 18, 2009
    "You mean more to me than any scientific truth."

    SOLYARIS (1972)


    Director: Andrei Tarkovsky
    Country: Soviet Union
    Genre: Drama / Mystery / Romance / Sci-Fi
    Length: 165 minutes

    ...( read more)obucket.com/albums/ww125/ElCochran90/?action=view¤t=Solyaris.jpg" target="_blank">Solaris,Andrei Tarkovsky,Soviet Union

    Cinema giant Andrei Tarkovsky always had a very characteristic ability to explore the vastness of the human mind, moving from religious agnosticism to philosophical existentialism. Applying a massive modification in his filmmaking style since his previous film Andrey Rublyov (1966), Solyaris is often considered as the Russian response to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), an immediately superior film. Despite the fact that Tarkovsky himself was not particularly fond of Kubrick's science-fiction magnum opus, specifically considering it slow and dull, Solyaris does not deviate from the spellbinding technical perfection and cinematic beauty the sole premise of the film originally required. Being slightly better and more solid than his upcoming utopian cyberpunk precursor Stalker (1979), Solyaris is one of the most complex and thought-provoking sci-fi dramas ever filmed by mankind, a film that welcomes the human mind to personally interpret endless symbols, to comprehend surrealistic elements and sequences, and to slowly digest, through its visual style and its as-delicate-as-a-flower direction, a shocking perspective of the utterly meaningless influence we, as human beings and breathing entities originated from stardust, can have on the undetermined size of the Universe.

    Bases on a science-fiction novel by Polish writer Stanislaw Lem, the film focuses on a scientist who is called by the Solaris mission, which has established a base on a planet surrounded by a vast and mysterious Ocean that seemingly holds a bizarre kind of intelligence. When he arrives, he does not only witness the strange behaviors of some scientists and the suicide attempts of others, but he encounters his wife that had been dead for several years. The scientist will soon be facing a downward spiral of insanity, hallucinations and predominating disillusions inserted into the subconscious of his mind mixed with those of other human beings. The film won both the FIPRESCI Prize and the Grand Prize of the Jury at the Cannes Film Festival. It was also nominated for a Golden Palm, losing it against Francesco Rosi's Il Caso Mattei (1972) and Elio Petri's La Classe Operaia Va in Paradiso (1972).

    Andrei Tarkovsky is, undoubtedly, one of the few directors that completely understood the meaning of cinema filmmaking. It is an art that, either explicitly or implicitly, must congregate the talents of several technical departments and a solid, argumentative powerful substance behind it. Fully applying an existentialist and catastrophic vision to the improving science fiction genre, Solyaris is a cinematographic manifesto of those mental characteristics that make us undeniably human disguised as a captivating masterpiece that deals with complicated subject matter, ranging from life and death to curiosity and ambition, elements that would also be present in Stalker. The effectiveness of the motion picture is completely strengthened with a slow, poetic pace that does not transform it into pretentiousness or dullness, but has the harmonic ability to become like life itself. Evidently, the film by itself had to lead its audience to a spectacular show of subjectivity and, consequently, a dead romance, one small factor that illustrates how man can have a strongly emotional connection to any material belonging and human relationship, our definitive Achilles' heel.

    Vadim Yusov applies a cinematography that is so perfect, so ambitious and so hypnotizing that it allowed Tarkovsky to take the spectator into an unforgettable journey, perhaps even spiritual. When being on the surface of the beautiful Solaris Ocean, every mathematical and scientific law and logic sense are lost into oblivion. It is not an entity that assassinates; it ultimately awakens the deepest fears and desires of the soul and the unfulfilled longings of the heart and transforms them into impossible illusions. What is the location of the planet? What are the main components of the Solaris Ocean? Tarkovsky feels free enough to leave several events and sequences unexplained. Why should he offer an explanation? Magic is irradiated from both relativity and the exceptionally edited musical score. The opening sequence portrays an earthly perspective of nature and contrasts it with outer space; scientist Kris Kelvin and his acquaintances are similarly contrasted with the possibly non-physical beings that he finds in the space station. Attractively, another unavoidable questioning is born: Is our mind even more complex than our own consciousness?

    We are merely instruments of God fulfilling his will... or trying to step away from it. Thus, the Solaris Ocean uses people as puppets to play with no apparent purpose, although nothing is clear when being "up there". There is a fact that states that our subconscious mind perceives and translates several sounds, images and words to a subliminal extent, causing their effect in our brains. The Solaris space station could be easily explained as a symbol of the brain with the Ocean as every single unperceived and unexplained aspect surrounding it. It functions as a machine, yet nothing is predetermined. It is a chain reaction that unleashes psychologically unprecedented reactions that not even we may be able to comprehend at their fullest. We cannot refuse such authoritative power, so it makes us surrender to hallucinatory submission. The realm of dreams and reality collide, but we are not capable of stopping neither the reactions nor the consequences of what our consciousness can construct; we cannot choose our dreams... not always. No matter how many times the main character, perhaps knowingly, tried to get rid of his wife despite that he knew, deep down, that she could not be real. Why does he keep trying? Why does he want to get rid of her? A deep fear of returning to Earth is the most humanly possible answer. It is a nightmare.

    Solyaris has as one of its main final intentions to generate several questions. The only question that a film fan has before seeing the film is: "What could the film be about?" The questions that a film fan has after finishing the film cannot be listed here, but they may be endless. The characters suffer exactly the same cathartic process, from asking themselves "what possible explanation could be given to the strange events reported in the Solaris base"? to actually making an investigation in the aforementioned place and unleashing a living nightmare. However, science, a human discipline characterized by its agnosticism and ego, has not the answers to every single aspect of the existence and its space. Therefore, the film could be also subject to a religious perspective, interpreting God as an implicit character. Why not? Andrey Rublyov (1966) and Stalker (1979) did.

    Solyaris is one of the most perfect and ambitious films ever committed to celluloid. It is an empathetic masterwork that makes an invitation to deep thinking and analysis, with a possible cathartic risk. The human condition is emphasized throughout, contrasted with the pride of man thanks to its technological inventions. A film open to any explanations, it is a journey that has something special prepared for every pair of human eyes.

    100/100
  • October 15, 2009
    pretentious. Solyaris,for me, is an ultimate endurance test. with a running time of almost 3 hours and a pace slower than an injured snail.It took me 5 days to finish this movie,wherein the rate is i overslept every 20 minutes of the film. Tarkovsky seems wants to make this his o...( read more)wn 2001, but the result is,nowhere near that Kubrick classic.
  • September 13, 2009
    Inaccessible bollocks. Much preferred Soderbergh's version. Suffers from The Deer Hunter syndrome and then when it gets on the space station it's just as boring. Somewhere in the 2nd hour I stopped reading the subtitles because they weren't helping. In face, the dense philoso...( read more)phical crap coming up on the screen actually made things worse.
  • September 3, 2009
    Ravishingly beautiful and charged with a real poignancy.
  • August 22, 2009
    Andrei Tarkovsky's "Solaris" is one of the great science fiction films in history. The film is essentially a meditation on memory, a sort of hypnotic psychodrama that, as easy as it is to describe, is next to impossible to explain. Comparisons to "2001: A Space Odyssey" are obvio...( read more)us but unnecessary - each film is it's own, and each is an absolute masterpiece.

    "Solaris" begins with Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) visiting his father's home. The next day, Kelvin will be leaving for a remote liquid planet called Solaris. After years of exploration and little to no progress, Kelvin is meant to evaluate the future of the Solaris missions. Also visiting his father's home is Burton (Vladislav Dvorzhetsky), who had previously visited the planet. He shows Kelvin footage of the hearing after his first expedition - he claimed to have seen a gigantic child emerge from the yellow liquid of Solaris' surface, but such improbable claims are dismissed as hallucinations.

    When Kelvin arrives, he finds the men in the space station to be beyond repair. One of the men, Gibaryan (Sas Sarkisyan), has killed himself, but not before making a videotape for Kelvin - in it, he warns that the planet has something to do with conscience, and that it'll bring memories to life. The two other inhabits, Sartorius (Anatoli Solonitsyn) and Snauth (Juri Jarvet), are not quick to let Kelvin in on Solaris' wonders. For example, who is this phantom young girl wondering around the ship?

    Soon, Kelvin comes to the understanding that Solaris creates physical manifestations of memory. Therefore, Kelvin is confronted by his dead wife, Khari (Natalya Bondarchuk), who had committed suicide years prior. After trying to kill her, he learns that his struggles are useless - she will always regenerate. Kelvin begins to love this doppleganger of Khari, and interestingly enough, she's self-aware, intelligent, and increasingly independent.

    The biggest complaint about the film is what some may call a glacial pace. "Solaris" certainly is slow and methodical - but it's the sort of film that allows you to digest each frame. This is a challenging piece, and the time for reflection is an absolute necessity. By giving us such ample breathing room, Tarkovsky allows us to delve even further into the mysteries of "Solaris", as well as hypnotizing us fully into his vision.

    This review was useless. All that needs to be said is this: few films have lingered with me as "Solaris" has. The way it creates suspense, the baffling ending, the mesmerizing set design. To me, movies simply don't get much better.
  • August 22, 2009
    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...( read more) has more in common with something like Vertigo. If you have 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.
  • August 2, 2009
    Add a review (optional)...
  • July 30, 2009
    The dreamlike journey of a man who travels to a space station where he confronts his past - and his future. The opening 20-30 minutes are rather lugubrious, but picks up once he reaches the space station, as strange events occur almost immediately. Much insightful and thought-p...( read more)rovoking dialogue exchanged between the inhabitants, covering the nature of memory and reality. And philosophy. "What is the meaning of life? The happy do not trouble themselves with such questions, they are too busy being happy. Those questions are left for the miserable to ponder." The pace remains at a constant rate, slow but steady. Much like the filmmaker's obvious inspiration, '2001: A Space Odyssey,' and to Tarkovsky's great credit, 'Solaris' fades out with an original yet similarly grandiose, enigmatic ending.
  • July 4, 2009
    tarkovsky is my love
  • June 29, 2009
    This is the original...to that farce that Clooney did. I'm sure it has to be way better.
  • June 29, 2009
    Old-fashioned entertainment a la Space Odyssey. Very slow-paced, strange and exciting.
  • May 13, 2009
    Excellent film qui offre une perspective intéressante sur le genre de la science-fiction. En fait ce n'est pas tant un film sur les avancées technologiques et scientifiques qu'une étude à proprement parler du rapport émotif entre l'homme et son inconscient. J'ai beaucoup aimé l'a...( read more)ngle par lequel Tarkovsky aborde son sujet en tous cas.

    Cinématographiquement parlant, c'est quand même toute une bombe également. Ça reste du Tarkovsky, avec ce que ça implique de longues séquences contemplatives, mais c'est aussi un très beau film, extrêmement poétique dans son ambiance et son visuel, en particulier les premières scènes sur Terre qui sont de toute beauté.

    Disons que c'est un film intrinsèquement "humain". L'histoire entre Kelvin et sa visiteuse suicidée est, à mon humble avis, l'une des plus belles et authentiques histoires d'amour jamais racontées. Tarkovsky capture bien la névrose des sentiments dormants auxquels on ne demande qu'à succomber. Et au final, c'est aussi un film profondément terrifiant.
  • April 19, 2009
    allmost as boring as the cloony remake.
  • April 9, 2009
    Considering when this was made, it has held up pretty well. The atmosphere that is created is pretty effective and the sets and limited effects work are solid.

    There are pacing problems and the fact that it takes an hour to get into space was a little odd, but it could be arg...( read more)ued that the time it takes allows the events to sink in.

    Ultimately, I loved the ideas and the concepts presented. Did I understand everything? Probably not. A lot is left to the viewer to draw their own conclusions and as frustrating as that can be at times, I kinda liked it that way all the same.
  • April 3, 2009
    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 th...( read more)e main reasons to see the film, other than the signature Tarkovsky cinematography.
  • March 22, 2009
    Beautiful and deeply chilling.
  • February 15, 2009
    Interesting to see a consummate master fail so spectacularly. There is some gorgeous imagery here, and some striking moments, but as a cohesive whole, it's just not there. Stalker worked as a sci-fi because it didn't have to be. This has to be sci-fi, and Tarkovsky tries to abstr...( read more)act it unsuccessfully. To think this is put up there with 2001. No way.
  • February 13, 2009
    The Abyss of desire.
  • January 29, 2009
    My second Tarkovsky film. Whilst I didn't find it as poetic or moving as Mirror it's still damn great! Now, I don't have anything against long shots or slow paced films but Solaris really is very slow, and at times it does seem to drag on a bit. Still, as it's Tarkovsky, however ...( read more)slow it is your still fixed by the beautiful images he creates. Overall, may not be Tarkovsky's best, but it's still beautiful and thought provoking.
  • January 24, 2009
    I enjoyed this film. It is very slow, but something is always happening in the film (unlike 2001 a Space Odyssey). The film raises a lot of questions, but it mainly cnetres around the human emotions of love and death.
  • January 17, 2009
    one of the most critically acclaimed movies that ever bored me a bit. really heavily into the psychology b8t little sci fi to speak of, bit ropey too but that added an arty Russian feel in its way. I skimmed through the 1st half and through 9 hours of the second half then realise...( read more)d I had started on Disc 2 halfway through the film, Flying to mars would be quicker. Sorry classically acclaimed movie, life is too short. Russian Kubrick?
  • January 10, 2009
    A mind-bending, metaphysical film about an investigation into why astronauts on a space station situated above the planet Solaris have suffered mental breakdowns. The hypnotic power and the many startling visuals are like nothing generally seen in Sci-fi films. From the novel by ...( read more)Stanislaw Lem. Remade in 2002
  • January 5, 2009
    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.
  • December 14, 2008
    well umn just seen this movie 4 the 1st time n think that this is a good movie 2 watch..its a good movie 2 watch its got a good cast of actors/actressess throguhout this movie...i think that the director of this Art House & International, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Drama movie ha...( read more)d done a good job of directing this movie because you never know what 2 expect throughout this movie its a really good Art House & International, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Drama movie 2 watch...the special effects throughout this movie are awesome throughout this movie as well n its a good Art House & International, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Drama movie 2 watch
  • December 14, 2008
    Really good but also very trippy. Not for everyone but I digged it.
  • November 25, 2008
    Andrei Tarkovsky's deliberately challenging sci-fi mystery film has a reputation as a polarizing experience, and for good reason... not many other films have ever been so accurately pegged by the old 'you'll love it or hate it' descriptor. Many viewers find Tarkovsky's glacial pa...( read more)cing and slow, sloooow reveals to be insufferable, and in all honesty I don't blame them... 'Solaris' features many sequences (particularly the single-take freeway footage) that seem specifically there just to infuriate casual viewers. That said, there's plenty of rewarding stuff to be had in this cerebral, cold and psychologically provokative spectacle, provided you're willing to meet Tarkovsky halfway. If you've got the patience for it, 'Solaris' ultimately yields some truly remarkable stuff, rife as it is with complex philosophical musings (and also some lovely visuals and effects). It also has some of the creepiest sci-fi atmosphere you're ever likely to come across. 'Solaris' might not be for everyone, but it does often approach greatness for those willing to take its troubling journey with an open mind.
  • November 19, 2008
    More Science Fiction should be like this
  • September 30, 2008
    I fell asleep a couple of times.

    A very good story but......God Damn, it was boring at times.

    I think this film would have been better if it was cut down by about 45 min and probably would have gained a couple more stars IMO.

    Not as bad as Stalker but if you eat three tabs o...( read more)f acid and watch that film, you will not be disappointed and you might just get it.

    I don't think I will ever watch another movie from Andrei Tarkovsky.

    Like some people have said; Andrei Tarkovsky is somewhat like Stanley Kubrick and I can somewhat agree with that statement but for some reason I'm not bored by Kubrick's work.

    I guess you have to be a fan.
  • September 8, 2008
    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 ...( read more)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.
  • August 27, 2008
    MST3K where are you?
  • August 24, 2008
    Sure, it's long and boring, but it's also very rewarding.
  • August 19, 2008
    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 en...( read more)joy 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!
  • August 9, 2008
    Uma resposta a altura a 2001 ...
  • August 4, 2008
    This is a movie I?ve had a whole lot of trouble with in the past, I?ve probably watched the first half hour of it four times in the past, but had never finished it or even gotten very deep into its long running time. Oddly, I?ve had just as much bad luck getting into the Soderber...( read more)g remake the when I tried to watch it twice and didn?t finish it either. What?s more odd is that I didn?t turn either off for lack of respect, there?s just something about this story that has failed miserably at grabbing my attention.

    This is often thought of as the Soviet answer to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and was directed by Andrei Tarcovsky, who could easily be thought of as the Soviet counterpart to Stanley Kubrick. Like Kubrick?s heavier work, it isn?t very easy to watch these movies lightly, you really have to be in the right state of mind to get into them and that?s probably a big part of why I?ve had such bad luck getting into this. I finally decided that I needed to see this once and for all, and when I saw it coming on IFC I leaped at the opportunity, tivoed it and vowed to watch it in the next week. Six months later I finally got around to seeing it as part of the personal Tarcovsky marathon I?m putting myself through. This time I firmly decided I was going to finish this no matter how much it fails to grab me. I metaphorically tied myself to a chair with Clockwork Orange style eye opening gizmos on, and hit play.

    Tarcovsky famously stated that he didn?t much care for 2001, saying it ?focused on the wrong areas.? Watching Solaris it?s quickly becomes clear what he meant by that, as unlike 2001, this is a movie with absolutely no interest in technology or special effects, there isn?t even an exterior shot of the space ship in it. It instead focuses almost entirely on its central character, and his grief over the loss of his wife, particularly how this plays out when the planet he?s orbiting sends up a clone of her. My problem with Tarcovsky?s sentiment is that he assumes a movie can only be about character development or have good special effects and not both, I disagree. Tarcovsky very clearly looks down on the Science fiction genre he?s working in and he?s said as much in interviews. I wouldn?t necessarily hold this sentiment against him if the central character story here was more compelling, but I?m not sure it is. The protagonist at the center of the film, Kris Kelvin, is so introverted and morose that it?s very hard to relate to him and harder to like him.

    I wouldn?t call the movie boring, but it is extremely slow. This is of course by design, but three hours of a grief stricken Donatas Banionis is not easy to sit through. To the movies credit it picks up the pace slightly in the last hour, when Kelvin finally starts to open up, but it still isn?t exactly a fun loving romp. Don?t get me wrong, the movie really does have its moments, I loved the last scene and a few other scenes during that last hour.

    Tarcovsky is a filmmaker I have a great respect for, his film Anrei Rublev is an absolute favorite of mine, so it?s odd that I?ve had such a bad reaction to his most famous movie.
  • July 16, 2008
    As expected from director Andrei Tarkovsky, this is another 'not-quite-sure-what-to-make-of-it' film. A surrealist sci-fi which successfully captures some philosophical/psychological concepts that are overshadowed with special effects and graphics these days.
  • July 13, 2008
    A slow paced movie that is definitely worth seeing. I loved it!
  • July 9, 2008
    just because it looks so terrible.
  • July 7, 2008
    I like the way that the story has little drama but makes you feel uneasy watching it, where the idea of having your past, your stilted thoughts return fascinating. Yet, this was one of the most hardest films for me to watch and my least favourite by Tarkovsky.
  • July 7, 2008
    Clooney made a remake of this and it sucked balls.
  • June 5, 2008
    the remake is so boring
  • March 24, 2008
    not any better than the george clooney version.

Summary


Solyaris (Solaris) Summary