Strangely, this sci-fi film works best when it takes place on Earth but then Tarkovsky was always an earthy(and earthbound)director. In the opening scene, Tarkovsky renders our world with its plants and water alien, strange, otherwordly. He gazes upon our 'normal' world with a contemplative mood, as though perceiving sound and scenery with a sixth sense. The effect is both awesome and poetic. Our planet becomes an alien planet. Once in space, the movie slowly bogs down into discourse on Russian mysticism in the sterile and futuristic setting of the spacecraft; the effect is confusing and confused, which may explain why neither Tarkovsky nor Lem was happy with the result. Still, the movie is mesmerizing throughout with many hypnotic trance-like moments as when lovers drift in the air for a brief duration in zero gravity or when the replica of the hero's dead wife stares at a painting and explores its illustrations as dream imagery. The film offers many perspectives, some divergent and some intersecting, suggesting that everything is alien, a mystery, that we are enigmas unto ourselves, and that what we consider truth is at best a mirror reflection of our egos projected onto the infinite plane of the universe both within and without us. … Expand

Tarkovsky's Solaris is a great movie, the only problematic thing is first 3rd of it, that is a bit difficult to get into. That's why DVD is so great, you can scroll through it. And later watch the whole thing, because all of tarkovsky's films should be watched more then once.

Although a low-budget film, it is a great Russian production based on a remarkable novel of the same title.

Stanislaw Lem hated the film version, probably because he was afraid people would see it and think that he wrote a line like "I love you more than any scientific truth".

I was unemployed the 1st winter after graduating college and decided to watch foreign films to see the difference. The standard by which I rate films is strongly influenced by masterpieces such as "Solaris." Do yourself a favor... don't watch the American remake of this film (it does this film no justice at all... would you watch a remake of star wars by any other director than Lucas?). See the original and let yourself open up to a movie that although slow, is paced for you to contemplate rather than merely watch. Would I watch it again? Only if showing it to someone who has been blinded by the myriad amounts of garbage that is mass produced by Hollywood for the insatiable appetite of American dvd junkies. (sorry, the movie is a little long like my explanation of it).… Expand

Slow and ponderous at times, but beautiful to watch. Would be severely edited and shortened today. English titles are sometimes sketchy. Not for the mainstream viewer.

A philosophical sci-film film of the likes of '2001,' but the ideas presented are a little more contained (as in they don't completely question the formation and meaning of life and the universe). There is no doubt that this is a truly gorgeous movie, and anyone who gives a hoot about cinematography will tell you that, but sometimes I feel like Tarkovsky is a little uncompromising in his visual artistry. There's literally a scene that follows a car driving on a stretch of highway for 8 minutes. There's the camera motif of zooming in on random objects for almost every scene in the second half of the movie. I could go on. I guess I just have to say that the only way to enjoy this movie is from a truly philosophical perspective, which is fine because at the end of all things, that's effectively what this movie leaves you thinking about, and as a person heading into a science career, it is especially pertinent to me.… Expand

I wish I could say I liked this film as much as others, but it was simply too slow, too contemplative, and too philosophical for my taste. It was even amateurish in parts. There is a scene towards the beginning of the film where it starts raining on a bright sunny day. You can see shadows behind the obvious bad water effect. There is a camera transfixed on a pond for several minutes, a freeway sequence that goes on for about 10 minutes (a bathroom break I guess), and the camera showing close ups of various parts of a painting. There is even one scene where a rocket ship takes off inside a small room, and he stays in the room when it takes off. In real life he would be fried to bits. Here the back of his uniform catches fire and he gets a few blisters. I do think the film set of the inside of the space station looks pretty good, and overall the acting is good, and there are a few good visuals, but it really needed some editing. I say this as someone who loves slow paced films, like the film this one is always compared to, the great "2001 - A Space Odyssey" by Kubrick.… Expand