Customer Reviews

Solaris

5 star:		(101)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.
It also compares it with the version released by the Russian Cinema Council (RUSCICO)

Solaris, released as Solyaris in Russia, is among my favorite Russian films, and my favorite film by Andrei Tarkovsky. It is based on the sci-fi novel by Stanislaw Lem. It is been considered a Russian version of 2001 A Space Odyessy. While some consider it to be the polar opposite.

An interesting note is that the Criterion Collection edition was released exacltly one day before the theactrical release of the 2002 remake directed by Steven Soderbergh and starring George Clooney.

It is about a space station orbiting an apparently sentient planet. The planet has the capability of reading the minds of the scientists aboard the space station and created 'doubles' of people from their past. When a psychologist comes aboard to investigate, he is confounded by the recreation of his dead wife.

It is a great film. Although it is slow paced, it has some excelent and unique cinematography. One example is one scene near the begining of the film where it focuses on raindrops landing in a full teacup. The special effects in this film are quite impressive given the time, place, and budget of filming. To top it off the film's score includes a superb rendition of J.S. Bach's Choral Prelude in F Minor, "Ich ruf zu' dir Herr Jesu Christ" BWV 639.

There are some subltle differences betweent he Criterion DVD and the RUSCICO DVD. The most noticable is a 5 minute POV scene of driving through the streets of a city. The scene is in both color and B&W. In the RUSCICO version part of the scene segues from B&W to color. on the Criterion DVD this part is solely in color.

The DVD has some excellent special features
Disc one contains the film plus an audio commentary by Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie, who are experts on Andrei Tarkovsky and are co-authors of the book, The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue.

Disc two contains 9 deleted and alternate scenes. There are also interviews with composer, Eduard Artimiev, lead actress Natalya Bondarchuk, (daughter War & Peace director, Sergei Bondarchuk) cinematographer Vadim Yusov, and art director Mikhal Romadin. There is also an excerpt from a Stanislaw Lem documentary.

The RUSCICO DVD is also good and has filmographys of cast & crew, a production photo album, an interview with Andrei Tarkovsky's sister, a biography of Andrei Tarkovsky and Stanislaw Lem, and a biographical film on lead actor Donatis Banionis.

Both versions are worth getting but the Criterion Collection version is far better. This one is a Must buy!

This film is long, poignant, interesting, haunting, dazzling to the eye, and actually quite scary. While watching it late one night, I found myself alone on the first floor of my house, and I must admit, I kept searching the room in fright after every little noise I heard. It's not a horror movie, but it rolls along at a slow, atmospheric, creepy-crawly pace.

One bonus of the film being so long with big spaces between dialogue, it gives you the opportunity to switch to the informative commentary track, to hear some interesting insight into the film. While most other movies you MUST watch it with the commentary off to be able to take it all in correctly, you can actually get away with switching back and forth without missing too much of the actual film. One part of the commentary I disagreed with was when the male narrator noted that in the scene where Satorius takes the gauze off Hari's finger and tosses it, that he is doing this because of contamination. One can clearly see by his expression and manner in doing this, that he is being sarcastic as he knows that Hari does not need a bandage, because the wound will simply regenerate and heal in a matter of minutes. There is also a sense of his envy toward her because Kelvin gets to have a doppleganger of his wife to somewhat enjoy, while Satorius only has dwarfs to deal with.

I think the scenes on Earth are gorgeous and completely necessary. Hoever, had they not been there like in the book, the movie would have been 2 hours instead of 2 hours and 40 minutes (a much easier time for mainstream audiences to grasp). I wouldn't trade it for a shorter run time at all. Tarkovsky is not a mainstream movie maker and thus the reason for him having these extra scenes on Earth, and he is still able to make a two hour film version of the book after that.

With the exception of Star Wars, many sci-fi films of the 60's and 70's (including Kubrick's 2001) went all out with Sci-Fi special effects, but then seeing them today, they still seem very outdated. Where this film had no special effects budget and minimal sets, I think it still holds up today without looking dated. The scenes on Earth could have all taken place right now, or 30 years from now without anyone doubting it. And the look of the space station's interior, albeit vague and minimal, still looks fresh and definitely wouldn't appear out of place in any current sci fi setting.

The only annoyance to me in the film was the switching between black and white and color. While a few scenes called for it due to a switch in tonality, or time within the film, there were other places where it made no logical sense to do so. Some say it was the lack of a budget that did not offer Tarkovsky a vast stash of color film, so he tried to artistically spare it. It's a shame if that's the case, because there are a few scenes in black and white, which would have worked much better in color.

Overall, a masterpiece of a film that is certainly not for everyone. The majority of blockbuster oriented moviegoers will hate this film, but true film lovers should treasure it. Stunning visuals, superb acting, and a one of a kind director.

First of all, this 2-disc Criterion "special edition" of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 film _Solaris_ is clearly intended to capitalize on Steven Soderbergh's American remake. I'm not sure whether either will succeed; Soderbergh's version is an art film masquerading as a Christmas movie, and I think it's fair to say that those who can't stand the original won't much like the remake.

Tarkovsky's _Solaris_ has suffered unfairly from facile comparisons with Kubrick's _2001: A Space Odyssey_. The two films are deeply opposed in both tone and content, though on the most superficial level, the pace of both films makes them appear rather similar. That said, Tarkovsky's elliptical, nostalgic work stands very well on its own.

The first forty-five minutes of _Solaris_ are slow going, even by Tarkovsky's glacial standards. (They're also profoundly important to subsequent action, so don't even try to skip them.) Once the action shifts to the mysterious space station, the story quickly sinks its hooks into you and doesn't let go for an instant, up to its mysterious and unsettling conclusion.

Criterion's video and audio transfers are dependably high-quality, though in this case far from flawless. The extras on Disc 2 consist mostly of dull interviews with cast and crew (though, in a notable omission, there is no interview with Tarkovsky himself). But the audio commentary on Disc 1 with film scholars Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie is absolutely indispensible (at least, if you're into this sort of academic analysis). As is usually the case with Criterion, the extras are directed chiefly at hard-core film buffs and scholars.

Some critics have noted that _Solaris_ is Tarkovsky's most commercial film, although in terms of his oeuvre that term is strictly relative. It's still plenty strange, and if you haven't been properly initiated into Tarkovsky's work, this film is as frustrating and impenetrable as anything he directed (except for his last, most accessible film, _The Sacrifice_).

If you're ready for _Solaris_, it's a deeply moving experience. If not, stay away until you know you are.

Solaris, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, is a unusual piece of science fiction that will require multiple viewings and an open mind to understand all that it has to offer. A moody expression of the 1961 work by novelist Stainslaw Lem, a master of the philosophical, moves us carefully in and about the issues of life and death.

Strange happenings have been reported by three scientists onboard a space station orbiting Solaris, a distant planet. Psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis), is sent to investigate. The opening of the nearly 3 hour film is quite slow, setting some groundwork for the rest of the film by establishing its roots on Earth, something not present in the novel. The earth setting is in and about the home of Kelvins father played by Nikolai Grinko. It is here that he learns from his fathers friend Burton (Vladislav Dvorzhetsky) of the mystery surrounding Solaris. Burton, a cosmonaut that orbited the planet years earlier, gives an indication that there is more to the planet than just being covered by water, but the details are left intentionally vague so they can be flush out later in the film.

Kelvin leaves Earth and arrives at the space station to find it in a state of disrepair, a crewman dead that was a personal friend and the remaining two occupants in a state of paranoia. Soon after Kelvin experiences what has been afflicting the crew when a vision of his wife Hari appears. This is quite odd considering she has been dead for over 10 years, but he can talk to her and touch her and she seems real. She knows who she is but does not remember anything about the details of her death. In actuality, Kelvin's wife died by committing suicide and now he is placed in the position of either reliving that horror or being able to do something to prevent it. Is it an illusion or does he really have a chance to change the past?

But as it turns out, Hari is not really Hari, but rather a physical reincarnation of his memory of her. The film is quite deep and moving when she finally realizes what she really is and how she and the crew handle her realization and their own understanding of who they are.

The film was made in the Soviet Union like Tarkovsky's previous two films, but unlike them doesn't deal with the restrictions on the freedoms of his country's people. Instead it deals with the morality of ones feelings and the science that surrounds them. Not tied to any country or culture it explores the nostalgia of earlier times prior to technological achievements expanding our horizons.

P.S. To watch the movie preview video clip you can on russianDVD.com website for free.

Tarkovsky's most popular film was often viewed as the atni-2001 when it was first released. In many ways it was--the story focuses on the personal and how we define our sense of humanity while 2001 focused on the way technology robs us of our humanity. The ironic thing is that Tarkovsky reportedly disliked Kubrick's masterpiece and yet it resembles 2001 more than it is different than it. More than likely, it was epic envy; the broad canvas that Kubrick used to make 2001 was something that would have appealed to the talented Russian director.

Based on Stanislaw Lem's classic science fiction novel, Solaris concerns a crew aboard a space station observing an unusual planet. Solaris is no ordinary planet, however, as it is sentient (much like the Monolith in 2001 which represented the remains of the alien civilization that created it). What's more, the planet has the ability to shape dreams that come to life. Psychologist Kris Kelvin is sent out to find out what's happened to the crew aboard the space station (much like the Monolith recreates its vision of a home--actually in 2001 it's an impersonal, gaudy hotel room or palace). Kelvin quickly finds himself sucked into the dream given flesh that has so distracted and unsettled the crew. He arrives to find the crew haunted by people and things from their dreams. After his first night on the station Kelvin is also effected. He awakens to find his wife with him. This is impossible, however, because she committed suicide years before.

Like all of Tarkovsky's films Solaris is long and short on exposition. It's character driven (much like 2001 was character driven--but by the machines that have supplemented humanity). The basic premise is similar to Lem's novel, but Tarkovksy uses it as a means to question reality and memory. It's a visually striking although spare film as well. Clearly Tarkovsky didn't have the resources of Kubrick but managed to make do with what he had. A warning for those interested in seeing this film. Tarkovsky's films, like many of Kubrick's, move at a glacial pace. They are not for everyone. There are many long, involved takes and there isn't anything approaching action in his films. I'd recommend renting it to see if you like it. For fans of the novel by Lem, you may want to approach the film with an open mind. Lem disliked the film because Tarkovsky's approach was very different to the same themes. There's also quite a bit of religious symbolism embedded in Solaris something Lem might have objected to as well.

Tarkovsky made few movies during his lifetime due to the restrictions of the communist government but this, in some respects, is his most intense and personal. Like Kubrick and Kurosawa, Tarkovsky was a master with his own, unique vision expressed in his films. Again, that's ironic given that his films were made during an era in Russia where the collectivism of Communism overshadowed the individual. Ultimately, what's most rewarding about the film is the questions it raises about what makes us human. Some of the answers are quiet startling.

The transfer is quite good and the soundtrack sounds pretty good as well although there is some distortion. The extras include a running commentary by two Tarkovsky scholars (although I disagree with many of their observations, some of them were on target). Additionally, the second disc has scenes excised from the film. Most of these scenes are repetitive and dilute what they explain so one can see why they were left out.

The loss of individuality and our sense of humanity in the vastness of space (a perfect metaphor for the Communist society--or any society for that matter)is a theme common to Kubrick and Tarkovsky. Their very different views and social values helped shape their differing film vision.

A frequent theme in science fiction is that humans have become so dehumanized in their devotion to technology that they have lost touch of their emotional capacities. In SOLARIS, the 1972 film by the great Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, this theme is given an unusually personal and emotional treatment. It is about an unhappy man who travels to space and finds the emotional closure and the spiritual enlightenment that he lacked on Earth. It has often been compared to Stanley Kubrick's cryptic 1968 film 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. But while 2001 emphasizes the sterility and uncontrollability of science, SOLARIS deals mainly with the fragileness and preciousness of the human spirit. Unlike 2001, which ponders the vastness and infiniteness of space, Tarkovsky's film probes the opposite direction and reveals the inner dimensions of the human mind. The success of Tarkovsky's SOLARIS is that it offers a stark depiction of human emotions via the simplest and most austere means. Tarkovsky rarely uses fancy editing or elaborate camera angles, and prefers long takes and slow camera movements. Dialogs are softly spoken. He always chooses the least assuming way to present a scene. Such a style, of course, does not endear him to those who prefer a more dynamic and vibrant type of cinema. But one should note that perhaps the subtleties of human emotions demand subtler ways of filmmaking, which, in turn, demand our closer observations.

Criterion's all-region, 2-disc DVD version of SOLARIS offers a beautiful video transfer, the original Russian soundtrack in 1.0 mono, re-written optional English subtitles, and rewarding extra material. The anamorphic 2.35:1 video transfer was created from a 35mm positive made from the original negative. This is a newer, different transfer from the ones on previous DVD versions by other companies. Subtitles have also been re-written and, as is usually the case with Criterion DVDs, improved, with less paraphrasing and fewer untranslated dialogs compared to older video releases.

The first disc contains the 169-minute film in its entirety and a full-length audio commentary by two Tarkovsky experts, Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie. The scene-specific commentary provides good coverage of a variety of topics concerning the film, such as Tarkovsky's artistic style and thematic explorations, various contributions from the filmmakers, certain details about the making of the film, how the film deviates from the original novel by Stanislaw Lem, and aspects of Tarkovsky's personal life. But the strength of the commentary is its analyses of the film's characters, themes, and Tarkovsky's direction. And due to the length of the film, the commentators have ample time to allow sufficient elaboration on every thesis, making this audio track one of the more satisfying analytical commentaries I've heard. Major issues such as mortality, faith, and humanity, as well as minor observations regarding gestures, background noises, and other allusions are dealt with in great depth and competence. One fascinating comment regarding Tarkovsky's use of long takes is that it dilutes any sense of suspense that editing usually contributes, the result being a more immersive and meditative atmosphere.

The second disc contains almost half hour of deleted scenes and about 100 minutes of new interviews with the film's principals.

Most of the deleted scenes seem to conform to our expectations as to why scenes were deleted in a movie like this -- they are too explicit about things that are better left unexplained. The deleted opening sequence, for instance, is a didactic text prologue that is so out of character with the subtle approach of the rest of the movie. The deleted dream scene of Kris and his mother depicts their relationship more explicitly, thus lessening the dream-like quality of the scene. The most fascinating deleted scene is an expanded version of the scene of Kris in the "mirror room," in which the various reflections of the mirror reflect Kris' fragmented and fragile mental state.

The interview segments include a half-hour interview with Natalya Bondarchuk, who plays Hari. She recalls how she met Tarkovsky, how she was cast (with a little trickery on her part), her experiences on the set, analyzes the character of Hari, and praises the unique meditative style of Tarkovsky. In another half-hour interview, cinematographer Vadim Yusov talks about the many visual motifs in the film, how the special effect shots of Solaris were created, and even talks about his work on Tarkovsky's previous film ANDREI RUBLEV (a few clips also included). In a 17-minute interview segment, art director Mikhail Romadin discusses his various intentions in designing the sets for SOLARIS. Both Yusov and Romadin also mention Tarkovsky's strongly negative reaction to Kubrick's 2001 and Lem's insistence that the film should adhere to his book. Composer Eduard Artemyev, in his 20-minute interview segment, describes his background on electronic music that first attracted Tarkovsky, and recalls the challenges of translating Tarkovsky's unique demands into music.

Finally, there is disappointingly brief, 5-minute video clip of a Polish documentary about Lem and his struggle with Tarkovsky. The only thing relevant is Lem's only remark in the clip: "Finally I said [to Tarkovsky and his crew], 'You idiots!' I tried to soften him up a little. But he was stubborn, and so was I. So I ended up returning to Warsaw." There must be a lot more to the disagreement between the two men, but we get the picture. (I also posted an expanded version of this review at Epinions.com, under the account kevyip.)

I'm Russian, so I have had a chance to watch this movie in the original Russian version and one with English subtitles. I should admit that perception of the film is somewhat different between these versions.
Humans often try to escape or try to ignore a difficult situation being afraid of possible (sometimes intolerable) consequences, creating a ground for subconscious conflicts. We carry these conflicts somewhere in our minds not realizing that these forgotten events from the past may play an important role in our future life. There is nothing in the human's world that can erase these events from people's mind.
I think that this move is anything else but not a typical scientific fiction film. Yes, it includes all elements of sci-fi (remote planet, space station, extraterrestrial intelligence) but the main focus of the movie is on humans. The planet and the space station created an environment where people (under the influence of the planet) where forced to deal with their the most valuable, important, and controversial events from their past. The station was a trap from which there was no escape. These people had no other choice then to learn how to deal with their subconscious conflicts. Eliminating conflicts the planet gave a second chance, a chance to start a new life. Those who could not resolve the conflicts went crazy or committed a suicide.

Solaris is perhaps one of the most nerving science-fiction films I have ever seen. Beginning strongly with the skepticism of a tired, yet professional psychologist, Solaris follows this man into the outer reaches of our own world and knowledge, and to a place that is, 'simply,' unfathomable. Our lead character, after a strange briefing, arrives on the Solaris space station, orbiting the planet Solaris, to figure out what has gone wrong with the crew, and why they have cut off all communication with Earth. As answers develop, and further questions arrise, one immediately begins to feel the horror of human frailty. Solaris hits hard, develops characters unlike many films do anymore, and ends with closure, questions, and a satisfactory level of goosebumps.

Solaris is artfully filmed, with a lot of time spent on landscapes and close-ups. This is a long film, but is over quickly. The discovery of the 'mysteries' occuring on the Solaris space station are very disturbing, and leave the viewer with plenty to think about (or perhaps dream about), days later. The Criterion Collection was done well with plenty of special features, but really deserves a much better enhanced picture. There are many signs of aging in this film, and a remastering, or even a high definition version, could easily be an achievement for a film well-deserving. Additionally, the audio is Russian-mono with subtitles. I highly recommend this for purchase, however, despite aged film. The story alone is memorable for a lifetime.

This is a high quality DVD. Criterion does justice to Tarkovsky's great Sci-Fi film 'Solaris". This is not your ordinary Science Fiction story. It a kind of film that Tarkovsky is known for. It delves more into the human side of the story, rather than technology and special effects. It is no "2001: A Space Odyssey". And, for those who are not accustomed to Tarkovsky's slow action, they may not care for it, unless they give it a chance. But if you see it through, you may love this film. If your attention span is short, this is NOT the movie for you! But in fairness to those who are waiting for the action, many American Sci-Fi fans will find that any Soviet science fiction film is not their cup of tea. This film is a thought-provoking sci-fi drama that shows the mysteries of inner space are as awesome as those of outer space. Revered Lithuanian stage actor Donatis Banionis, the lead actor in "Solaris" does an excellent portrayal of the inner mind of the astronaut Kris Kelvin, a psychologist sent to the spaceship orbiting the ocean planet Solaris to find out what happened to the crew.
The original story was by Polish writer Stanislaw Lem, who had some qualms about the way Tarkovsky brought the story to film. The book is a great piece of writing. But the film is well worth seeing. I personally think it is Tarkovsky's best film, though some may not share that opinion.
Included on this DVD are excellent interviews with people involved in the film, including the well-known Russian actress Natalya Bondarchuk, and the director of photography Vadim Yusov. It also has nine deleted and alternate scenes and a documentary excerpt with Solaris author Stanislaw Lem
Tarkovsky has been called one of the greatest directors of all time. This film proves it.

This Soviet film was made in 1971, based on the 1961 novel by the great Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem. It is the only one of his books to be made into a movie, and worth seeing for that reason alone. The film is true science fiction, serious and meditative. Investigations have been ongoing for years of a single being on an alien planet, so far evolved that it can communicate with us only indirectly. It concludes that the best way to communicate with our limited intelligence is to grant our own deepest desires, sensed telepathically. The "ocean being" creates out of thin air, a la the Star Trek Holodeck, apparently real objects and sentient beings from our own minds. One scientist creates a fantasy sex object, another recreates his long-dead wife, who committed suicide when he insisted on accepting a long deep space piloting mission.

However, these creations do not conveniently disappear when you say "off", because they represent truths deep within us, and the alien senses that the truth remains. They are also as flawed as are our own memories and desires.

The problems with this film arise when it diverts from the book, which is far more spectacular. In one scene, the protagonists satirize their own rambling on, "a la Dostoevsky", when the scene is not even in the book and they are rambling on.

It would be a great film to remake with today's modern special effects, although so much of its originality has been appropriated by others since.

The film remains haunting and well worth seeing as serious science fiction of a type rarely seen anymore.