my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Solaris (2002) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Solaris (2002) Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 11-27-2002 03:05 AM                     I go to very few films where I'm in total awe at the end of the film. Solaris is now one of these. George Clooney delivers a flawless performance in a real rarity of a story... a sci-fi film that doesn't involve horror, gore, or a big explosion at the conclusion. The entire film is a great story investigating how emotional attachment affects our memory and our desires. Throughout much of the film, the only sound (Coming from the screen channels) is the sound of the space station, which gives a great, far-out presence. This is a movie for lovers, sci-fi fans and anybody else who wants to see a movie that will make them think, but not totally confuse them.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-27-2002 07:36 AM                     The actors wonder what's going on, cut to pretty light, the actors wonder what's going on, cut to pretty light, the actors wonder what's going on, cut to pretty light... Jeremy Davies did give an excellent impersonation of Crispin Glover though.  |  IP: Logged Will Morrow Film Handler Posts: 91 From: Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA Registered: Mar 2001 posted 11-28-2002 06:35 PM                        Yes, I agree with Brad on his critique of this film. However, I think it should go like this... Cut to pretty light, actors wonder what's going on; audience wonders what's going on, cut to pretty light. Rinse and repeat. Minus the rinse of course.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-28-2002 09:09 PM                        I think I can catch my zzzzzzz's when I go to bed tonight without having to pay to do it in a movie theatre. I have found that movies that are designed to make you think often does that to me. I think I will watch someting else tonight instead of "SOLARIS". "SOLARIUS should be a very good cheap rental when it is released on DVD in a few months. Thanks Brad for the heads up! -Claude  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-29-2002 10:49 AM                        Has anyone seen this new version and Tarkovsky's original? If so, how do they compare?  |  IP: Logged Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-29-2002 03:13 PM                     I had the (can I call it pleasure) of showing the origional Solaris at the 2001 Telluride Film Festival. I got up at 3 AM in Santa Rosa and took the bus to the San Francisco Airport. I got to change planes in Denver and arrive around 4:00 PM in Telluride. I checked in, found my housing and went to dinner. I then was asked to show Tarkovsky 9-reel opus to the staff at 8:30 PM. Salman Rushdi had suggested the film. Also I met my girlfreind in the booth. All I can tell you is that there is one, twenty minute reel where all that happens is that you sit in the back seat while our "hero" drives an automobile in to a city, without talking. I did three changovers, Payal did three changeovers, Graef did three changeovers. So, no I guess I haven't seen the origional.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-30-2002 04:51 PM                        11/30/2002, 11:20AM, Cinemark 17, Spfld OR, #17, SR•D but with not much LFE. Attendance about 30. Image was tilted, drooped on the right. Soft, diffuse image. I wanted to like this, but it didn't quite get me fully involved. The performances are sometimes deliberately distant and a little surreal. It held my attention enough to get me to stay with it, but that's not saying a whole lot. Wants to be quiet, thoughtful, and "dream-like" (literally) but just plays unnecessarily flat. Presumably Soderberg (sp?) made the film he wanted to make, but the same story could have been told with a little more energy and been more involving for the audience. Nice use of sound and occasional lack of it to help set up the mood they wanted. I didn't hate it, but I wouldn't recommend it either.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-30-2002 11:29 PM                        I have been a long time subscriber to the internet CinemaScore report and have just learned that "SOLARIS" received a big fat "F" from all age group. I have never seen a report like this before because no matter how bad any film is, the lowest grade was a D-. With a report like this, the movie must suck big time. I am glad I did not make an effort to see the movie in a theatre. It is very likely that I will also pass when the movie becomes available for rental on DVD. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Josh Kirkhart Expert Film Handler Posts: 165 From: Austin/Houston, TX, USA Registered: Nov 2001 posted 12-03-2002 03:45 AM                     I liked it, not love but like. This Clooney vehicle is good, but if you edit out an hour of the original, it would kick this ones ass. Soderberg has too large a head to do things like this movie(maybe its the material that attracts these artsy farts), give this to a director like Spielberg who wouldn't let it get out of hand, He knows how to film and pace a love story, although I doubt he knows it. Soderberg is not hungry enough to make a film like this work on most levels, he only captured a few(not that spielbergs hungry, just couldn't think of a fresh director that would have got the point across easily). I liked it.  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-12-2002 08:26 PM                        Attendance: 2002/12/11 19:40, Regal Hollywood 18, Huntsville, AL, Auditorium 15, Scope (shot with anamorphic lens) I didn't really know what to think about this movie. I went into it having only read one positive review, and before reading this thread. Parts of the movie reminded me a lot of scenes from "2001: A Space Odyssey", while at times I feared that the movie was going to become like "Event Horizon". It was definitely a different, bizarre movie, so I must give it points for that. All I know is, one that stuff started happening to the crew, why didn't they just get the hell out of there then? It's like the question Eddie Murphy asks in "Delirious" (1983) about people in haunted houses that I won't repeat here. My review of the movie would probably be more like Brad's on the second viewing, since I had no idea what was going to happen on the first viewing. I don't remember any opening credits for this movie. Were there any or did I blink and miss them? Another note: they pronounce it "SO LAHR ISS" rather than "SO LAIR ISS" like everyone around here calls the Sun UNIX oeprating system. Even though work is currently being done to install adjustable masking in all auditoriums of this theatre, this particular auditorium is still "1.85:1-only", so I saw this movie with the scope image cropped to that ratio. The image went slightly beyond the left fixed masking and onto the left auditorium wall a bit at times. The Regal policy trailer was spliced in one perforation out of frame.  |  IP: Logged Alex Grasic Film Handler Posts: 90 From: Toronto, ON, Canada Registered: Jul 2002 posted 12-13-2002 03:43 AM                     For all of the demands that Steve Soderberg made for the presentation of this movie, you would think it was for a good reason! I mean, we had someone come in from Fox to inspect our setup in the theatre it was being shown. After seeing this done, I figured...must be a kickass movie. Went to see it...woke up just before it ended...nuff said!  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-13-2002 12:46 PM                     This version is much shorter and more entertaining! (rated R - not for kids or easily offended adults) Masterpiece Movies: SOLARIS  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-13-2002 01:06 PM                     quote: I mean, we had someone come in from Fox to inspect our setup in the theatre it was being shown. Not to get off-topic of the reviews here, but Fox would have been delighted to know we showed this in our smallest, mono house from opening day until it left yesterday. The 5-10 people that showed up at each show didn't care. Most of them were sleeping when I came in to check the auditorium. =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Peter Berrett Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 602 From: Victoria, Australia Registered: Nov 2000 posted 03-01-2003 05:19 AM                        Hi all I haven't seen the 2002 remake (yet) but I plan to. I recall when I saw the 1972 original. It was back about 1981 and the Federal Government had just started a new television station called SBS (Special Broadcasting service) which at the time featured a lot of presenters with accents, foreign films, very basic sets, a lot of soccer and a lack of professionalism. Notwithstanding this shaky start the network has gone on to become a very chic, classy, professional operation (with a lot of soccer). Being in my later teenage years I liked alternative things (I still do) and I chanced to catch some interesting films on SBS. One of these was a very long but visually fascinating film called Solaris. It was totally unlike any Hollywood film I had seen. Yes it was long, yes it did get bogged down, but it really made the viewer think and the visual aspects of the film were stupendous. I reckon it must really, really have looked good up on the big screen and would have had a huge impact. 2001, with which it is sometimes compared, doesn't have quite the sense of scale. In the 1972 version, the Planet Solaris is filmed in such a way as to convey a sense of it awesomeness and to leave the audience in awe. The film conveyed a real sense of mystery and although it dragged on and on the mystery aspect compelled the viewer to watch to the end. I have just ordered the original book by Stanilaw Lem and I plan to read this, and then if possible watch the original 1972 film on vhs, dvd or tv, and then finally watch the 2002 version. The reason for this approach is to compare the endings of each. I understand that the director of the 2002 version changed the ending from that used in the 1972 film. From what I have read of people's comments the 2002 ending is just plain confusing whereas I understood the 1972 ending ok. Which film did you prefer - the Russian version (it's amazing to think that this film was made in Communist Russia) or the newer American version? Incidentally from what I have heard about the 2002 film, the Director spends long periods of time focussed on a swirling, mystical orb whose presence throughout the film, and whose relevance to the other elements of the story remains largely a mystery. Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler I understand that in the latter part of the film the camera focusses intently on the orb and then slowly draws back to reveal that the orb is in fact Clooney's tush! cheers Peter  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 05-29-2003 03:32 PM                     I didn't mind this film. But bear in mind that I saw Russian Ark beforehand, so Solaris didn't have much of a role model to live up too. Some nice SDDS-8 music. There is a lot of Clooney's ass. So like: Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Was Clooney dead in the end?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.