User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 180 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 65 out of 180
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MarcO.
    Aug 29, 2003
    5
    Why do people seem to think that because a movie is slow and ponderous it is a deep character study or an art house film. I admire Clooney for taking on such a role but really he left me cold i did,nt find this film rewarding in any way, great visulas though!!!
  2. ErikW.
    Jun 7, 2006
    5
    This is the kind of movie that people with pretentions but without brains will love. Merely asking deep questions doesn't make a movie smart. For that you need some answers, or at least some thought provoking angle. This movie has neither. The constant flashbacks and "what if" questions are extremely predictable and rarely lead anywhere. That said, it isn't the worst movie ever. This is the kind of movie that people with pretentions but without brains will love. Merely asking deep questions doesn't make a movie smart. For that you need some answers, or at least some thought provoking angle. This movie has neither. The constant flashbacks and "what if" questions are extremely predictable and rarely lead anywhere. That said, it isn't the worst movie ever. The restrained acting is enjoyable and the camerawork and scenery sets a nice mood. In short, this isn't an intellectual masterpiece, but it's no disaster either. If you think everyone who doesn't like it just can't understand it, you're a cunt and pretty daft too. Expand
  3. Feb 3, 2011
    10
    Mindblowing emotionally, and stunningly beautiful. This is a really slow movie but if you can just sit back and let the fantastic soundtrack, spectacular visuals and emotion twisting plot slowly wash over you, then this will become your new favourite movie.
  4. N.Braithwaite
    Nov 30, 2002
    10
    Brilliant movie. More thoughtful and considerate than I expected it to be. Also hauntingly beautiful. Well acted and gives one something to talk about at the coffee shop.
  5. AllanA.
    Jan 6, 2003
    10
    BEAUTIFUL. I saw it twice. The music and colors are amazing! But it's not a typical Hollywood movie.. which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
  6. AaronL.
    Dec 5, 2002
    3
    Umm...well....yeah. Wasn't sure what I expected, but I didn't necessarily want to see a muddled spin-off of Kubrick's "2001." Both the ad campaign and reviews make you think it's a sci-fi love story with a twist. But love has nothing to do with it. The film has more to do with guilt and its aftermath than anything. I'll admit that the initial premise is Umm...well....yeah. Wasn't sure what I expected, but I didn't necessarily want to see a muddled spin-off of Kubrick's "2001." Both the ad campaign and reviews make you think it's a sci-fi love story with a twist. But love has nothing to do with it. The film has more to do with guilt and its aftermath than anything. I'll admit that the initial premise is interesting, but the payoff - or lack there of - is weak and it takes forever to get there. The visuals are great and the acting is quality as well. But the story is just not there. I don't mind slow, thought provoking films at all and I'm a big Kubrick fan. Yet Soderbergh searching for his inner Kubrick is the longest 95 minutes I've ever spent in a theatre. Expand
  7. LarryT.
    Dec 8, 2002
    0
    Dull, drab, lifeless, meaningless. It truly demeans Lem's excellent book.
  8. BobB.
    Sep 10, 2003
    3
    It's a shame that one of the few artistically ambitious films that pop film goers will see should prove to be such a disaster. Poor, confused storytelling does not spell ambiguity and intellectualism. In this version, Solaris has been reduced to a cornball romantic fantasy chopped up in so arbitrarily as to be mostly incomprehensible. It is mindbending to contemplate how a film could It's a shame that one of the few artistically ambitious films that pop film goers will see should prove to be such a disaster. Poor, confused storytelling does not spell ambiguity and intellectualism. In this version, Solaris has been reduced to a cornball romantic fantasy chopped up in so arbitrarily as to be mostly incomprehensible. It is mindbending to contemplate how a film could be so terse in relating its plot, while being so dull and slow. There is some fun in lestening to Soderbergh,s commentary wherein, ifv you listen closely he eliptically indicates that the film was not well liked while pretentiously praising the brilliance of his work. He repeatedly praises the lack of dialogue in boring, confusing sequences as "pure cinema". Producer James Cameron plays the complete sycophant on this track. I would suggest listening to this track to find out so much that Soderburgh had in his mind that he failed to convey in the film. The "three" is for the Sodereburgh's ambition in the fact of the fluff and puerile juvenalia which marks so much of the product being pitched by the Hollywood factories. It is a shame that the result is a pretentious muddle. Expand
  9. JaredC.
    Apr 1, 2008
    4
    Headline: "Solaris" ...a unique sci-fi conception. Virtually fantastic with provocative dialogue. Different from the ordinary. And extraordinary from the ordinary. Clooney shines, but only a dull light. Cool idea. Poor execution. With strong inside-emotions and calm elements, Solaris will keep your angerment to a minimun level. And is a good movie to fall asleep and to calm down in. But Headline: "Solaris" ...a unique sci-fi conception. Virtually fantastic with provocative dialogue. Different from the ordinary. And extraordinary from the ordinary. Clooney shines, but only a dull light. Cool idea. Poor execution. With strong inside-emotions and calm elements, Solaris will keep your angerment to a minimun level. And is a good movie to fall asleep and to calm down in. But really, for full thought sake, this picture's dull and dreary. Not dissapointing, it's just so boring. Expand
  10. NedD.
    Dec 16, 2002
    0
    Best sleep I ever had.
  11. JohnB.
    Nov 30, 2002
    0
    This was abolutely classic Clooney.
  12. BillyB.
    Nov 30, 2002
    0
    You know, this movie might as well be called SolarASS because there wre just these random shots of George Clooney's ASS in hope of perking up your attention. Well it didn't work. Nothing would have worked. This movie was one of the most pretentious peices of garbage I have seen in years.
  13. Dec 14, 2011
    7
    A film that ultimately rewards patience and attention - abilities often absent in today's audience. Jeremy Davies' quizzical Snow is a superb creation.
  14. Oct 24, 2012
    9
    Solaris is one of the most original, unique and intriguing science fiction films ever made. Steven Soderbergh takes cues from 2001: A Space Odyssey and runs with them into the modern age. The film also sees a true powerhouse performance from George Clooney. Solaris has mystery, beauty and emotion sown into every frame. Phenomenal stuff!
  15. Chris
    Mar 23, 2003
    9
    Great movie that is, quite unfortunately, beyond most people - especially the six-pack swilling, Survivor-watching morons who prefer light, effervescent entertainment to serious art.
  16. GregT.
    Aug 4, 2003
    0
    I have no idea what this movie is about because I stopped watching it after a half hour. It is droning, muddled, and a crashing bore.
  17. RichardW.
    Nov 30, 2002
    0
    This movie is the biggest thing of crap. How could people watch this thing and like it. I was so close to leaving the theater. It had the worst and most random plot line the movie should never of been made. George Clooney only say about 40 lines in the movie. Solaris is simply a movie that should not be watched for entainment, drama, action, comedy, suspense or a thriller.
  18. GeorgeW.
    Dec 4, 2002
    0
    Erik M, let's see if I have this right? If we did not like Solaris, we should seek your permission before leaving the house? Erik, if you look at the average Metacritic score of 3.5 you would realize that you are in the minority. 57% of the real people who pay for movies trashed it with mostly 0's. For expressing our opinion you consider us stupid? Erik, perhaps it is you who Erik M, let's see if I have this right? If we did not like Solaris, we should seek your permission before leaving the house? Erik, if you look at the average Metacritic score of 3.5 you would realize that you are in the minority. 57% of the real people who pay for movies trashed it with mostly 0's. For expressing our opinion you consider us stupid? Erik, perhaps it is you who should seek a psychologist to help you with your visions of grandeur. Without a doubt this is one of the slowest moving films without any substantial dialogue or acting worthy of using one's intelligence. It was forgotten the minute I left the theater. By the way, the few moviegoers who attended the wake were walking out in droves. You have no right to eschew anyone for voicing their opinion. Solaris is a dog with fleas. Perhaps you should sit and watch moss grow on a rock and ponder its meaning? Expand
  19. KatieP.
    Aug 1, 2003
    0
    A horrible and dreadful movie.
  20. John
    Nov 30, 2002
    9
    What a sad state the general movie audience is in these days. Many people walked out of "Solaris" when I saw it -- they missed a wonderful, intellectual film that ponders the role of memory in life. Soderbergh was utterly brave with this movie; too bad the average American cannot do the same and try a process called "thinking" for a change.
  21. PierreH.
    May 7, 2003
    9
    It's not often that a movie is at the same time soothing and thrilling, dark and luminous, intellectual and sensorial. It's the ultimate new-age trip, but without any kind of new-age philosophy. In other words, it' great. And the soundtrack is fantastic.
  22. [Anonymous]
    May 26, 2004
    10
    This is the best movie I have ever seen. It is a deep reflection of all of us. Study it well and watch it twice to really get the real feeling of all it has to offer. When someone sees it as boring it is only due to a misunderstanding of the depth of emotions it stirs. This movie is going to be a great scifi classic.
  23. DeveshB.
    May 30, 2005
    9
    Really gud film.. those who don't understand it or finds it boring, well shame on u guys.
  24. AveryO.
    Dec 4, 2002
    0
    Brainless?
  25. RyanM.
    Nov 29, 2002
    10
    It's hard to critique "Solaris" with words, it's easy to critique "Solaris" with feelings. Here's my feeling, it's great.
  26. ALF
    Sep 25, 2011
    0
    This is yet another example of why Americans should not remake foreign films. They messed up the 7 Samurai with "Tthe Magnificent Seven", turned the original Japanese Ring films into a mess losing the plot, then with this classic Russian film, tried condensing it into the usual "slot" on time and cut and paste all the meaning out of it. Please Amerian film makers. Leave foreign films aloneThis is yet another example of why Americans should not remake foreign films. They messed up the 7 Samurai with "Tthe Magnificent Seven", turned the original Japanese Ring films into a mess losing the plot, then with this classic Russian film, tried condensing it into the usual "slot" on time and cut and paste all the meaning out of it. Please Amerian film makers. Leave foreign films alone so that people can see for example, this beautiful haunting Russian arthouse film rather than dross. To anyone who liked this American version, you should see the Russian version and the actress Natalia Bonderchuk is much better and far more convincing than Natasha McElhone. Expand
  27. Oct 13, 2011
    7
    Not nearly as bad as most people make it out to be. I don't see how people would fault this American version for being different from the Russian, since neither captures even half of the thematic focus of the novel, which undoubtably is infinitely better than any other form of the story. The novel manages to study the relationship between parallel topics of an introspective, psychologicalNot nearly as bad as most people make it out to be. I don't see how people would fault this American version for being different from the Russian, since neither captures even half of the thematic focus of the novel, which undoubtably is infinitely better than any other form of the story. The novel manages to study the relationship between parallel topics of an introspective, psychological love story and a philosophical exploration on the limits of scientific understanding, subjectivity, practical implications of religion, etc. (the whole boat-load). The Russian film focused on the latter, while, as might be expected, the American went for the former. So I can't really see how anyone says they appreciate the book in its entirety, praise the 1972 film but dismiss the 2002 one. So all that aside, this film does its niche fairly well. The cinematography, soundtrack, acting, writing are all fairly above par if not spell-binding (the acting is really far more compelling here than in the Russian; those who say otherwise are just being stubborn). The pace is slow which can definitely turn off a lot of people, but it provides a dream-like, Lynchian trance for those who sit the whole thing out. Expand
  28. Apr 6, 2012
    9
    A beautiful, romantic and thought-provoking film. A slow and introspective journey into the nature of lost love. Definitely not for the unwashed masses (it's measured, complex and open ended - nothing gets blown up and there's not a single car race), but worthwhile if you love cinema and appreciate a good story.
  29. DaveC.
    Aug 2, 2003
    7
    Good, but too short. Lacks the style and humanity of the 1972 version by Andrei Tarkovsky. Much more interesting.
  30. AlB.
    Aug 2, 2003
    5
    Hmmm. About a year ago I saw the Tarkovsky version of Solaris, and it was one of those sorts of unforgettable films that I kept throwing around in my mind for weeks, pondering this or that... Subsequently, I found that a Hollywood version was being made. Hmmm. Finally rented it this past weekend, with a sense of dread that it would literally ruin my enjoyment of the story. While it Hmmm. About a year ago I saw the Tarkovsky version of Solaris, and it was one of those sorts of unforgettable films that I kept throwing around in my mind for weeks, pondering this or that... Subsequently, I found that a Hollywood version was being made. Hmmm. Finally rented it this past weekend, with a sense of dread that it would literally ruin my enjoyment of the story. While it wasn't as bad as I feared, it also did not really add anything to the Solaris experience I had gained from Tarkovsky. Geez, I wish someone could merge the two films! The Tarkovsky version was so much deeper and thought-provoking than Soderbergh's, with the only disadvantage being the obvious one - special effects. 30 years ago, Tarkovsky had neither the technology nor the funding to create the sort of visuals seen in this latest version. But while I found myself really drawn into Kelvin's world in the Russian film, Soderbergh presents a Kelvin that I neither really care about nor like, and therein lies the rub. Par for the course for Hollywood. And while I pretty much expected such a result, I am still disappointed by it. At least we still have the Tarkovsky film, dated visuals and all. A much better storytelling, plain and simple... Expand
  31. KeithE.
    Sep 20, 2003
    0
    This now becomes the worst movie I have ever seen since Dude Wheres My Car. It had very little plot, boring characters and a cheesy surprise ending. I was expecting a real twist and all I got was a lemon.
  32. WilliamM.
    Nov 30, 2002
    9
    I really enjoyed this film. I'm a little surprised by some of these user comments.
  33. RobertH.
    Dec 1, 2002
    0
    What the hell was George thinking when he made this trash? I walked out with about 30 other people opening night. It was like watching paint dry it was so boring and slow. Avoid this garbage.
  34. NickW.
    Dec 2, 2002
    8
    It certainly wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it was certainly very good. But, it's only very good if you have the free will to actually THINK and interpret the movie yourself. It gives you no easy answers, and yet asks many questions. Better than 95% of the cinematic trash released this year simply because it makes you think and doesn't insult your It certainly wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it was certainly very good. But, it's only very good if you have the free will to actually THINK and interpret the movie yourself. It gives you no easy answers, and yet asks many questions. Better than 95% of the cinematic trash released this year simply because it makes you think and doesn't insult your intelligence. But, it may be "too boring" for those of us with less patience. Expand
  35. G.Ward
    Dec 2, 2002
    0
    Having read the glowing reviews, I expected a good movie. Not so. This was the dullest, least convincing movie that I have seen in a while. I wish for once a critic would say" I'm not scared of the studios or the big star: stay away from this one".
  36. RobinT.
    Dec 3, 2002
    9
    A brilliant and touching movie. Soderbergh turns our expectations of science fiction against us in this movie. The moments in which George Clooney slowly reaches out to touch his dead wife is very chilling. You can feel his fear and loss of will as he relents and touches her. The film is brave and refreshing. The only bad thing about the movie was the morons I watched it with. They A brilliant and touching movie. Soderbergh turns our expectations of science fiction against us in this movie. The moments in which George Clooney slowly reaches out to touch his dead wife is very chilling. You can feel his fear and loss of will as he relents and touches her. The film is brave and refreshing. The only bad thing about the movie was the morons I watched it with. They probably were upset that a creature didn't burst from her chest and attach to George Clooney's face. The only thing slow about this movie is the people who hate it. Expand
  37. JackS.
    Dec 30, 2002
    6
    A few comments: 1. Tarkovsky's 1972 version was much better. 2. Despite being about an hour and a half, it felt very long. 3. the cinematography for most of the interior scenes was utilitarian, basic. 4. The initial space station docking sequence (especially the internal shot from the shuttle showing the control panels as it closed in) seems to either be copying the style of 2001 a A few comments: 1. Tarkovsky's 1972 version was much better. 2. Despite being about an hour and a half, it felt very long. 3. the cinematography for most of the interior scenes was utilitarian, basic. 4. The initial space station docking sequence (especially the internal shot from the shuttle showing the control panels as it closed in) seems to either be copying the style of 2001 a space odyssey, or paying homage to it. 5. Much of the film consists of flashbacks. These are VERY redundant, and it appears as if they were added simply to extend the length of the film (to justify it being shown in theaters). Overall it was about what I expected. Frankly, I'm sorry to see so many reviewers whose opinions I respect lavishing praise on this failed attempt at a movie. While I applaud all those involved for taking on such a unusual and risky film, the movie just does not come together. The sum is, ultimately, less than it's parts. Expand
  38. IggyZ.
    Dec 6, 2002
    0
    A discombobulated mess from the start to the sorry conclusion. I lacked the insight and intelligence to join the mass exodus out of the theater.
  39. DuaneJ.
    Dec 6, 2002
    8
    I'm with the twist-off-their-heads respondent -- what in g-d's name is wrong with you people? i pretty much despise clooney, think soderbergh's batting .500 in his career (love _schizopolis_, despise _ocean's 11_ with the passionate commitment the film itself lacks...) and was, nonetheless, completely unprepared for the haunting tone poem they wrought. what anI'm with the twist-off-their-heads respondent -- what in g-d's name is wrong with you people? i pretty much despise clooney, think soderbergh's batting .500 in his career (love _schizopolis_, despise _ocean's 11_ with the passionate commitment the film itself lacks...) and was, nonetheless, completely unprepared for the haunting tone poem they wrought. what an achievement! now, compared to tarkovsky's version, this is merely a gloss on the themes implied by stanislaw lem's book...but what a gloss! "plodding"? quit quoting owen gleiberman, whose review one can barely be read without being distracted by the ax o.g. is plainly grinding -- never mind about your theories of how soderbergh approaches filmmaking, HOW WAS THE FILM?!? i guess a film that honors silence and a viewer's own capacity for not being led by their nose-rings through a narrative -- for only 96 minutes, you twitchy intellectuals, thank you very much -- could be called "plodding," and those who do so could be called something else. its accomplishment is all the greater for seeming so effortless -- it has social critique, romance, philosophy, humor (i.e. jeremy davies, who, especially after _secretary_, is going through something of a twitchy period himself), conscience-stricken drama and a lovely, brief homage to tarkovsky is the "kelvin's sick" sequence. oh, yeah, and GEORGE CLOONEY'S BEST PERFORMANCE EVER!! maybe the best he'll ever do -- such range and engagement in the character's process, who knew? not you who diss this film, surely. doesn't this little fact count for anything with you numnutzes? i can see a weak box office for such fare, but not $9.5 million weak on a holiday weekend, and definitely not to receive an "f" rating from the similarly disposed nutzes on cinemascore.com. it is not flawless, nor wholly free of pretense, but it's as pretty damned close as a soul could hope for in today's hollywood. bravo, soderbergh, clooney, mcelhone, davies, viola davis, even james cameron, for this gorgeous, provocative reflection on desire and karma. i can't wait for this film to be rehabilitated, as it most certainly shall be, in the years to come. on the subject of nose-rings, i'm convinced half of the dismissive sentiment of "cineastes" is confusion over the unique tone of the film, wedded to witless diatribes that reinforce said lack of understanding. if you'd been told that this was a good film, i firmly believe you'd be leaping to _solaris_' defense. don't believe the negative hype -- see it for yourself. for IQs only slightly higher than today's temperature, i believe this is, among other things, a great date movie... Expand
  40. DuaneJ.
    Dec 6, 2002
    8
    I'm with the twist-off-their-heads respondent -- what in g-d's name is wrong with you people? i pretty much despise clooney, think soderbergh's batting .500 in his career (love _schizopolis_, despise _ocean's 11_ with the passionate commitment the film itself lacks...) and was, nonetheless, completely unprepared for the haunting tone poem they wrought. what anI'm with the twist-off-their-heads respondent -- what in g-d's name is wrong with you people? i pretty much despise clooney, think soderbergh's batting .500 in his career (love _schizopolis_, despise _ocean's 11_ with the passionate commitment the film itself lacks...) and was, nonetheless, completely unprepared for the haunting tone poem they wrought. what an achievement! now, compared to tarkovsky's version, this is merely a gloss on the themes implied by stanislaw lem's book...but what a gloss! "plodding"? quit quoting owen gleiberman, whose review one can barely be read without being distracted by the ax o.g. is plainly grinding -- never mind about your theories of how soderbergh approaches filmmaking, HOW WAS THE FILM?!? i guess a film that honors silence and a viewer's own capacity for not being led by their nose-rings through a narrative -- for only 96 minutes, you twitchy intellectuals, thank you very much -- could be called "plodding," and those who do so could be called something else. its accomplishment is all the greater for seeming so effortless -- it has social critique, romance, philosophy, humor (i.e. jeremy davies, who, especially after _secretary_, is going through something of a twitchy period himself), conscience-stricken drama and a lovely, brief homage to tarkovsky is the "kelvin's sick" sequence. oh, yeah, and GEORGE CLOONEY'S BEST PERFORMANCE EVER!! maybe the best he'll ever do -- such range and engagement in the character's process, who knew? not you who diss this film, surely. doesn't this little fact count for anything with you numnutzes? i can see a weak box office for such fare, but not $9.5 million weak on a holiday weekend, and definitely not to receive an "f" rating from the similarly disposed nutzes on cinemascore.com. it is not flawless, nor wholly free of pretense, but it's as pretty damned close as a soul could hope for in today's hollywood. bravo, soderbergh, clooney, mcelhone, davies, viola davis, even james cameron, for this gorgeous, provocative reflection on desire and karma. i can't wait for this film to be rehabilitated, as it most certainly shall be, in the years to come. on the subject of nose-rings, i'm convinced half of the dismissive sentiment of "cineastes" is confusion over the unique tone of the film, wedded to witless diatribes that reinforce said lack of understanding. if you'd been told that this was a good film, i firmly believe you'd be leaping to _solaris_' defense. don't believe the negative hype -- see it for yourself. for IQs only slightly higher than today's temperature, i believe this is, among other things, a great date movie... Expand
  41. KristiB.
    Dec 8, 2002
    10
    Brilliant! It is definitely a movie that is worth seeing for those viewers that are patient and like movies that are unusual. It is so clever and some of the shots are so amazing! You must have an imagination to like this one!
  42. DonA.
    Feb 19, 2003
    10
    It is as beautiful, poetic and metaphysic as too few films can be. Certainly not for those who can only follow a plot without angularities. It is brilliant, thought provoking and stylish as one can expect of a good film.
  43. TheElusivePossom
    Aug 2, 2003
    1
    On hiring this monstrosity, I expected a thriller sci-fi flick that involved a sentient evil paranormal entity taking the guise of George Clooney's wife in a climactic story... in short, a good film. However, what I got was 30 minutes of walking around a spaceship interior that had been smeared with what looked like shit, and regular flashes of Clooney's naked buttocks. I On hiring this monstrosity, I expected a thriller sci-fi flick that involved a sentient evil paranormal entity taking the guise of George Clooney's wife in a climactic story... in short, a good film. However, what I got was 30 minutes of walking around a spaceship interior that had been smeared with what looked like shit, and regular flashes of Clooney's naked buttocks. I switched off after the opening half-hour for good reason, as the buttocks were collectively more interesting than the ambiguous, overly-drawn out and frankly non-existent storyline. In the words of A.A Milne, writer of the Winnie-the-Pooh stories, "what the f*** was this about?" Expand
  44. FreddW.
    Aug 6, 2003
    0
    Just further proof that "critics" don't know their ear from a hole in the ground. Like Mulholand Drive, they believe any move that makes no or stupid sense, must be good. I understand the shallow message of this movie, and still hate it. Cloony needs to visit a gym.
  45. WayneY.
    Sep 15, 2003
    8
    I have watched with interest, but dislike, most of Soderbergh's films. So it was to this version of a classic, but difficult to grip remake of the Russion original, that I nervously embarked. To my surprise, the comments of boring and lifeless seemed to me incongruous to the film I saw. The space ship was almost a blank canvass on which the issues of guilt, memory, and perception are I have watched with interest, but dislike, most of Soderbergh's films. So it was to this version of a classic, but difficult to grip remake of the Russion original, that I nervously embarked. To my surprise, the comments of boring and lifeless seemed to me incongruous to the film I saw. The space ship was almost a blank canvass on which the issues of guilt, memory, and perception are played out, not in a cluttered world that distracts your view, but illuminating our very human existence. "2001" needed to be "felt" not necessarilly understood, and I would argue, so should "Solaris". It is dssappointing that a film that can be critisized for taking you on a journey, being called boring, because the viewer has to feel not think (or be led in a series of special effects or big names stars) to the meaning of the film. I thought Soderbergh was too smart- arse (sorry Australian slang for show off!) trying to show us all how clever he was, yet in this "Solaris" he was restrained, focused and engaging. See it and feel the ride. Expand
  46. AnthonyB.
    Nov 27, 2002
    8
    Was worried about whether or not this would be a good film, though I had high hopes. Thankfully, it panned out. I loved the cinematography, the slow and deliberate pacing, the musical score. Definitely reminded me of Blade Runner in ways, as well as 2001. It's Steven Soderbergh's Kubrick film (all the great directors have one now, don't they?). Definitely something to talk Was worried about whether or not this would be a good film, though I had high hopes. Thankfully, it panned out. I loved the cinematography, the slow and deliberate pacing, the musical score. Definitely reminded me of Blade Runner in ways, as well as 2001. It's Steven Soderbergh's Kubrick film (all the great directors have one now, don't they?). Definitely something to talk about with the girlfriend/wife/friend afterwards. Expand
  47. NathanE.
    Nov 29, 2002
    0
    This movie was very weird, boring, awful and had a laughable plot. It was so bad that I saw about 8 peaple walk walk out of the theater. Though Clooney give an ok pefermance. All and all I wasted my money.
  48. AndyP.
    Nov 29, 2002
    0
    It doesn't get any worse than this one.
  49. WaverlyM.
    Nov 30, 2002
    1
    Anyone giving this movie a higher rating should be drug tested. I want my money back!
  50. RashadV.
    Nov 30, 2002
    10
    I would like to say that this particular movie has to one of the more moving pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Most people who do not like it or get the film, such as my mother for instance, want everything on their platter, they want all the answers, they want to watch it just as if it were a story they were read by their parents. This movie, gave me the pleasure of singing such I would like to say that this particular movie has to one of the more moving pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Most people who do not like it or get the film, such as my mother for instance, want everything on their platter, they want all the answers, they want to watch it just as if it were a story they were read by their parents. This movie, gave me the pleasure of singing such beautiful quoets and resonating such beautiful visuals into my own face. I loved it dearly. It has some glitches, but those are quite overlooked by the questions it asks, and the harder you think about, the more you realize that there isn't an answer. I dearly loved this movie, Clooney was fantastic, he showed true emotions and captivated the role with emmense presence. Expand
  51. Erik
    Nov 30, 2002
    8
    I agree with the smart people here. I saw Solaris this evening and thought it was stunning. Complex, moody, gorgeously shot, meditative, contemplative and very interesting. As I left the theater, I heard nothing but "that sucked" and "it was boring." It made me want to twist people's heads off. People get uncomfortable when they have to make up their own minds and just can't I agree with the smart people here. I saw Solaris this evening and thought it was stunning. Complex, moody, gorgeously shot, meditative, contemplative and very interesting. As I left the theater, I heard nothing but "that sucked" and "it was boring." It made me want to twist people's heads off. People get uncomfortable when they have to make up their own minds and just can't handle ambiguity in film (or likely anything in their life) and something that makes them think, makes them realize they have nothing important to say and therefore feel stupid. And, if that's the case, they are stupid and then get mad for being made to feel stupid. Then HULK smash things! Fire bad! Expand
  52. DonaldW.
    Nov 30, 2002
    7
    The ending of this remake has less power than the Tarkovsky original. But the romantic melancholic atmosphere evoked by Soderbergh is intoxicating.
  53. FantasyL
    Nov 30, 2002
    0
    The only thing worse then watching Solaris meander along would be if one was forced to sit through a triple feature of Solaris, Adam Sandler's Punch Drunk Love and Madonna's Swept Away? What a trifecta that is? I think I will shoot myself in the groin. Avoid like the plague!
  54. Michelb.
    Nov 30, 2002
    0
    This is the worst movie. Why did it get good reviews I was disgusted by it. This movie should never of been made.
  55. QuentinO.
    Nov 30, 2002
    0
    I only have one thing to say about this movie "Worst movie ever made".
  56. ZachH.
    Nov 30, 2002
    1
    Solaris was such a bad movie that I saw about 7 peaple walk out of the theater. It ruined my day. The plot line of the movie was poor. The movie made no sense and there were so few lines said in the movie. This movie did not make me laugh, cry, scared or anything like that. Don't waste your money seing this movie.
  57. JohnnyY.
    Dec 14, 2002
    0
    Solaris is tremendous if you are looking for a cure for insomnia? Perhaps they should package it and compete with NO-DOSE? Half of the audience was either snoring or walking out. Don't waste your time.
  58. LassiterP.
    Dec 1, 2002
    0
    Was this movie really made? I left with about a dozen other moviegoers 30 minutes into this garbage. It was even worse than Punch Drunk Love.
  59. AmberP.
    Dec 1, 2002
    0
    This garbage should be recycled and "Lost in Space". It is dreadful and moves at a very SLOW snails pace so to make certain that it irritates. Everyone was walking out. Avoid at all costs.
  60. Lucas
    Dec 2, 2002
    8
    Better than the idiots give it credit for. See it if you have a brain.
  61. CarlG.
    Dec 4, 2002
    8
    Those expecting to see another "Aliens" will be dreadfully disappointed, as is clear from the tenor of many viewers' comments. However, as an honest and forthright attempt to explore some of the more vexing philosophical questions of man's existence, the movie has to rate an "A" for effort. Soderberg has attempted an impossible task but, to his credit, he remains undaunted to Those expecting to see another "Aliens" will be dreadfully disappointed, as is clear from the tenor of many viewers' comments. However, as an honest and forthright attempt to explore some of the more vexing philosophical questions of man's existence, the movie has to rate an "A" for effort. Soderberg has attempted an impossible task but, to his credit, he remains undaunted to the end. It is a noble attempt which, taken on its own terms, is a refreshing alternative to most of the lame-brained trash clogging up movie screens these days. I applaud the courage shown here, but I'm afraid it's likely to result in a quick box-office death--which is a sad commentary on the taste of the movie-going American public. Expand
  62. Tom
    Dec 5, 2002
    10
    Film of the year.
  63. HoldenC.
    Dec 5, 2002
    8
    If you're a dimwit, go see "Die Another Die" and get out of your wasted life for a couple of hours. On the other hand, if you like movies that challenge you, require you to bring imagination and thoughtfulness to the experience, you'll enjoy this.
  64. JoeB.
    Oct 11, 2003
    0
    The characters don't just talk in hushed voices - they whisper. Slllooooww and boooooooooorrrrrrrrrringgg. I love sci-fi movies but do yourself a favor, save your money and your upbeat attitude - this movie will suck both of them right out of you.
  65. PaulM.
    Jan 3, 2003
    0
    This Movie was sooooo slooooow!! What a sleeper! I got the heebie jeebies from just sitting 1/2 way through it. Very disappointing!
  66. AggelosG.
    Aug 1, 2003
    7
    A cold beauty.
  67. YoonC.
    Sep 21, 2003
    3
    Neither a faithful adaptation of Lem's novel nor a remake of Tarkovsky's classic, this is at best a toker's idea of staring at a wax lamp over a long weekend night. The planet Solaris is simply a pink globe, the casting panders to gen-x and minority sensibilities, Clooney plays against his natural forte as actor, and the woman, though striking beautiful, is soulless as a Neither a faithful adaptation of Lem's novel nor a remake of Tarkovsky's classic, this is at best a toker's idea of staring at a wax lamp over a long weekend night. The planet Solaris is simply a pink globe, the casting panders to gen-x and minority sensibilities, Clooney plays against his natural forte as actor, and the woman, though striking beautiful, is soulless as a real person or as replica. Miscalculation by a director best suited for empty genre movies(Oceans 11, Erin Brokovich, Out of Sight), it's hollow thru and thru. Sci-fi as New Age flakery. Expand
  68. DevA.
    Jan 2, 2004
    1
    This movie was one of the worst films I have ever seen, which is so disappointing because I very much wanted to like it. The writing made me think of a grade 10 student's lazy attempt to pass a 'writing screenplays' course. Absolutely dreadful. It's a grain of sand that calls itself Earth.
  69. NateW.
    Mar 31, 2004
    9
    I believe Solaris to be the most misunderstood movie of the past 10-15 years. Solaris pulls of what many films have recently tried (21 Grams, Eternal Sunshine): it shows us the process of memory in purely cinematic forms. And while Tarchovsky's version is maybe better, Soderberg's is more concise; concerned more with poetry than philosophy. With an aesthetic that samples I believe Solaris to be the most misunderstood movie of the past 10-15 years. Solaris pulls of what many films have recently tried (21 Grams, Eternal Sunshine): it shows us the process of memory in purely cinematic forms. And while Tarchovsky's version is maybe better, Soderberg's is more concise; concerned more with poetry than philosophy. With an aesthetic that samples Kubrick, Antonioni, and Godard without seeming too contrived, Solaris is in my opinion the most daring Hollywood film since Fight Club. But where Fight Club is meta and postmodern, Solaris stays sincere, a meditation instead of an argument, a poem instead of a novel. This movie does to me what an amazing song does: it slowly seeps under the skin, takes you on a journey, and if you give up to it, moves your soul. Expand
  70. BillS.
    May 25, 2004
    8
    It is a movie full of questions - "choices, not answers" as stated by the incorporeal Gibarian. You know about how haunting deep unresolved love can be; the desire to play back life memories with a different ending; wondering if a place exists where mistakes don't matter; and if such place is here or somewhere else other than Earth. It is a movie that has to be taken in with soul - It is a movie full of questions - "choices, not answers" as stated by the incorporeal Gibarian. You know about how haunting deep unresolved love can be; the desire to play back life memories with a different ending; wondering if a place exists where mistakes don't matter; and if such place is here or somewhere else other than Earth. It is a movie that has to be taken in with soul - there is no adrenaline here folks. Not to be understood but rather experienced. If you want accuracy, faithfulness to the original version, or fast action films, you will be disappointed. Yet if you slow down to pay attention, it stands on its own. Expand
  71. AldenW.
    Feb 11, 2005
    0
    My standards are usually fairly low when it comes to movies and It's rare for me to turn a movie off once I've committed myself. That being said, I couldn't get past the first half hour of Solaris. It was so incredibly slow and never grabbed me. I think it tried to be Kubrickesque but failed. But hey, that's just my opinion.
  72. ScottM.
    Nov 29, 2002
    0
    Worst movie I've seen in years. People were leaving before it was half over. Sure wish I'd joined them.
  73. ChalieM.
    Nov 29, 2002
    0
    This movie was so bad that i saw 18 peaple walk out of the theater. The movie tried to be very emotional. But it didnt work. I want my money back.
  74. AveryO.
    Nov 29, 2002
    0
    Brainless?
  75. ThomasB.
    Nov 29, 2002
    1
    I do give this movie credit for the acting in it but everything else in the movie was awful.
  76. Elliott
    Nov 30, 2002
    3
    One of those films that you build up expectations for, and then, the films disappoints in nearly every way possible. Solaris was subtly bizarre, yet totally uninteresting. Soderbergh also has developed a fetish for these tortoise-pace panning shots, which really just made me feel exhausted rather than captivate me with imagery. I don't think I've ever left the theater more tired.
  77. BobM.
    Nov 30, 2002
    10
    A beautiful, thoughtful,thought provoking piece of film making.
  78. MattM.
    Nov 30, 2002
    0
    Someone explain to me what I am missing. If there is some kind of insightful message to be found within the depths of the failure that is "Solaris," please let me know. The film is a debacle of epic proportions - simply dreadful. Avoid it like the plague.
  79. JonnyG.
    Dec 11, 2002
    0
    I have a great imagination and a lot of patience. Sci-Fi movies are my favorite so I was anxious to see Solaris. After about 30 min I was still able to watch it through my 3 other friends snoring and shuffling noise of the hoards of people that left before us, 15 min later we all walked out. This movie was absolutey horrible. I'm lucky I didn't get beaten by my friends for I have a great imagination and a lot of patience. Sci-Fi movies are my favorite so I was anxious to see Solaris. After about 30 min I was still able to watch it through my 3 other friends snoring and shuffling noise of the hoards of people that left before us, 15 min later we all walked out. This movie was absolutey horrible. I'm lucky I didn't get beaten by my friends for talking them into seeing this movie. I wasn't expecting anything great just a good story. It didn't even have that. Oh yeah, one more thing, this is only the second movie I walked out on in my 30 year movie going career and this is the first time I've written my opinion on a movie, BAD or GOOD. Save your money people and wait for the video. It's cheaper than buying sleeping pills. Expand
  80. RonG.
    Dec 12, 2002
    8
    I loved its colors, rhythms, emotion, atmosphere. I am surprised at the preponderance of negative ratings from so many viewers who have commented here. All those Zeroes do bring down the average. Maybe it's just not finding its right audience, as science-fiction movie fans have come to expect slam-bang shoot-em-up thrill rides, and this movie does something else entirely.
  81. RickG.
    Dec 12, 2002
    8
    This is definitely not your average Hollywood crap, and it's certainly not for anyone expecting action or superficial emotions. What it is is a psychological and surreal emotionally charged journey about love, death, resurrection and loss. It's a deep movie that will keep bouncing around the back of your head and pop out in odd reflections days/weeks later. I'm surprised This is definitely not your average Hollywood crap, and it's certainly not for anyone expecting action or superficial emotions. What it is is a psychological and surreal emotionally charged journey about love, death, resurrection and loss. It's a deep movie that will keep bouncing around the back of your head and pop out in odd reflections days/weeks later. I'm surprised this actually got released it's so anti-Hollywood in every possible way, and yes that is a good thing. For those who don't 'get it' and gave this movie a low rating, just go rent Star Wars: Episode 1 or 2 (again) and lose yourself in the pointless, soulless Hollywood machine. Expand
  82. EricS.
    Dec 20, 2002
    5
    Geez, the movie looks fantastic, and I was looking forward to what wonders lay therein for months. Too bad it left me feeling like I got hit in the head with a sledgehammer. I attended this one alone--all alone, and I was one of the only people in the theatre. Frankly, I felt disturbed. Now, this is all fine and dandy--perhaps it was Mr. Soderbergh's intention to have millions of Geez, the movie looks fantastic, and I was looking forward to what wonders lay therein for months. Too bad it left me feeling like I got hit in the head with a sledgehammer. I attended this one alone--all alone, and I was one of the only people in the theatre. Frankly, I felt disturbed. Now, this is all fine and dandy--perhaps it was Mr. Soderbergh's intention to have millions of unsuspecting moviegoers attend this one alone and leave the theater agog at what they'd just seen. But most of me says no. Unlike any of his earlier efforts, this was a film Soderbergh made for himself. The acting is flawless and the script is subtle and intelligent, but it does NOTHING for the viewer. Not a thing. So, Mr. Soderbergh, I hope you enjoy your little birthday present to yourself more than we all did. Expand
  83. IGGYz
    Dec 24, 2002
    0
    I went to see this despite the bad reviews from Metacritic reviewers. There were about ten other adventrous soles who were in theater for the screening. When the house lights finally came on I could not believe that I had fallen asleep and everyone else had walked out. Solaris will not last another week in the theater.
  84. Meat
    Dec 4, 2002
    6
    I'm torn by this movie. It was pretty and good-looking and I thought Clooney was mostly good. However, the Ending was a complete cop-out. Also, I appreciate thought provoking films, but I was left mostly with "what the Hell" thoughts" throughout...
  85. LucyL.
    Dec 5, 2002
    0
    I think I want to puke. Solaris should have bypassed the theaters and gone straight to video. Pluto Nash was more entertaining than this. Brainless is the right word to describe this crap.
  86. LangdonA.
    Dec 6, 2002
    8
    In Tarkovsky's version, Rheya just starts appearing without any flashback or indication of who she is. And in the Tarkovsky, the ending is unambiguous and a classic film shot. That Soderbergh chooses to tweak these two endpoints means he isn't doing a slavish copy. He makes his own film, and it is as fine and tempered as any American film you'll see this or any year.
  87. AnneU.
    Dec 7, 2002
    7
    The pace is slow-- but it invites introspection-- and it is beautiful, so just settle in. As far as the themes-- I think they range greatly and include memory, love, what it is to be human, what it is to "know" another person and to love another-- I think there is also a potential analogy to madness and that Clooney's character chose to be mad in the end--that is where he could meet The pace is slow-- but it invites introspection-- and it is beautiful, so just settle in. As far as the themes-- I think they range greatly and include memory, love, what it is to be human, what it is to "know" another person and to love another-- I think there is also a potential analogy to madness and that Clooney's character chose to be mad in the end--that is where he could meet his wife.... Worth seeing. Expand
  88. JonA.
    Dec 8, 2002
    3
    This is a yawner, make no mistake about it. Despite all-arounde decent performances and an intriguing premise, the ponderous pace requires the patience of a comatose octogenarian. Don't waste your money on this presumptuous crap unless you are suffering from a bad case of imsomnia. PS: Clooney, PLEASE, keep your flabby ass covered next time. That was a little more of you than I This is a yawner, make no mistake about it. Despite all-arounde decent performances and an intriguing premise, the ponderous pace requires the patience of a comatose octogenarian. Don't waste your money on this presumptuous crap unless you are suffering from a bad case of imsomnia. PS: Clooney, PLEASE, keep your flabby ass covered next time. That was a little more of you than I really ever wanted to see. Expand
  89. JacekD.
    Aug 16, 2003
    8
    A moody visual trip with a great soundtrack. Something was a bit off about the dialog scenes, I can't make up my mind. This film will stir you, but only if its subject matter already does in and of itself. It tugs on your thoughts/feelings, but only if you have them.
  90. JeannieE.
    Sep 22, 2003
    10
    My favorite movie genre is Sci-Fi. I was hooked on Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 many years ago and have seen countless sci-fi films. Solaris is a not a movie about machines or alien warfare which are most of the latest releases. Solaris is an intellectual psychological thriller with a haunting love story set in space. I especilly enjoyed the slow pace with each scene significant to My favorite movie genre is Sci-Fi. I was hooked on Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 many years ago and have seen countless sci-fi films. Solaris is a not a movie about machines or alien warfare which are most of the latest releases. Solaris is an intellectual psychological thriller with a haunting love story set in space. I especilly enjoyed the slow pace with each scene significant to the movie. I recently purchased this movie on DVD and would urge anyone who has not seen this film or did not like it initally to rent this movie I feel will soon become a classic masterpiece. Expand
  91. JustinW.
    Apr 17, 2004
    0
    This has to be the most boring movie I have seen in my life. When I started this movie up it began halfway through and I can see why. The person who rented this movie last must not have been able to finish it. It's a good thing I drank soda with caffeine before watching this movie because I would have fallen asleep otherwise.
  92. mike
    Feb 14, 2005
    7
    Didnt meet my expectations at all. I didnt find it boring like most people. Overall a slow paced movie with alot of dialog with a really bad ending.
  93. JohnK.
    Nov 29, 2002
    1
    This movie was so bad that I walked out of theater. I would have given it a 0 if it had bad acting.
  94. JoshQ.
    Nov 29, 2002
    2
    George Clooney just about ruined his career in this movie. The movie had no punch line and poor plot line.
  95. [Anonymous]
    Nov 29, 2002
    0
    This movie lagged on for so long and it was so not good. I wasted my money on this movie. It was awful, just plain awful.
  96. AlexP.
    Nov 29, 2002
    0
    This is absolutely the most dreadful piece of work I have ever had to experience in my life. I cannot believe soderbergh had anything to do with this film. I have not been as angry with a film since Clooney's last classic (Batman). The relationship which was the focal point of the movie was not developed in a way which anyone could possibly care for it. So in essence, the movie was This is absolutely the most dreadful piece of work I have ever had to experience in my life. I cannot believe soderbergh had anything to do with this film. I have not been as angry with a film since Clooney's last classic (Batman). The relationship which was the focal point of the movie was not developed in a way which anyone could possibly care for it. So in essence, the movie was not only slow, but pointless. Please, do not waste your money. More importantly, do not waste your time. Expand
  97. Jun 8, 2012
    8
    Amazed at the passion the negative reviewers display with their hatred of this movie, and the anger they feel at folks like me who genuinely enjoyed it. When you say they just don't get it, it only makes them angrier and more defensive, so I will instead say this; if you didn't like the movie, say just that. Don't say it was crap, or stupid or whatever, because there are many people, farAmazed at the passion the negative reviewers display with their hatred of this movie, and the anger they feel at folks like me who genuinely enjoyed it. When you say they just don't get it, it only makes them angrier and more defensive, so I will instead say this; if you didn't like the movie, say just that. Don't say it was crap, or stupid or whatever, because there are many people, far more accomplished and thoughtful (not to mention well-spoken) than many of you negative nancies, who put their heart and soul into this movie. Are you saying they are all stupid? Would you say that to their face? Why else do think think people tell you that you just don't get it? Stop being dick-holes and simply acknowledge that it's not your kind of movie. I found it to be intriguingly tense and thought provoking. Does that mean I think you are retarded for not agreeing with me? Well, ...yes, yes it does. Expand
  98. Aug 20, 2014
    9
    Just wow. On pretty much every front, Solaris is an exceptional film. George Clooney is marvelous here. My main criticism with him, as much as I do like him, is that he frequently seems to just play himself in many films. Here, however, he does anything but. Steven Soderbergh's direction is great and the visual effects here of space and of the planet Solaris are breathtakingly gorgeous andJust wow. On pretty much every front, Solaris is an exceptional film. George Clooney is marvelous here. My main criticism with him, as much as I do like him, is that he frequently seems to just play himself in many films. Here, however, he does anything but. Steven Soderbergh's direction is great and the visual effects here of space and of the planet Solaris are breathtakingly gorgeous and really something to marvel at. In that way and in terms of what it all means, reminds me a lot of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Very ambigious, confusing, slow, and beautiful, Solaris is really quite brilliant, though a tough nut to crack. Personally, I am still racking my brain over what everything in this one meant and trying to figure out what I am supposed to take away. Ultimately, however, I think this is an orange you can peel in many different ways, which makes it all the more intriguing. Personally, I think there are many plausible explanations, whether they be on reality (what is truly real?), love (and its everlasting nature), and death (where will we reunite, if we ever do? letting go or can you truly ever let go?). It raises many interesting questions and it may not have all the answers and is most certainly very flawed at times and leaves many unanswerable questions (unless "I don't know" is an answer). However, in spite of that, I adored this one. I love films with ambiguity and ones that raise many questions that make it fun to discuss and this is a classic example of that. Now, I would never recommend it to anyone, because if I did, odds are they would come back and call me an idiot since this one is an acquired taste, but I loved it all the same. Expand
  99. Oct 11, 2013
    7
    It might not exactly be George Clooney's most riveting outer space adventure, with a whole lot of moral intrigue and a bevy of beautiful images from one of Hollywood's most aesthetic directors, "Solaris" is definitely worth the watch.
  100. Sep 22, 2013
    2
    This is a disappointing movie. It has a rendering of a beautiful planet but forgot that it was supposed to be mostly ocean and not mostly plasma like the consistency of a star. Most of the movie was spent lingering on Clooney and McElhone, neither one seeming to have any need to blink (which I found really disturbing). I didn't really feel any more empathetic towards them with all ofThis is a disappointing movie. It has a rendering of a beautiful planet but forgot that it was supposed to be mostly ocean and not mostly plasma like the consistency of a star. Most of the movie was spent lingering on Clooney and McElhone, neither one seeming to have any need to blink (which I found really disturbing). I didn't really feel any more empathetic towards them with all of those close ups, really. It could have saved at least 10 minutes of pointless slow panning and closeups. Also, please put a shirt on Clooney and wipe his sweat. Another sore point I have was the kid: he has the ability to corporealize on will depending on the plot, the other creatures didn't have this ability. I gave it one point because I believed Viola Davis' character really went through something difficult and was the only one who I felt was a real human being. I gave it another point because aside from the time wasted on Clooney and McElhone, the movie didn't feel like it was too slow. Expand
Metascore
65

Generally favorable reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 38
  2. Negative: 2 out of 38
  1. 100
    Solaris achieves an almost perfect balance of poetry and pulp. This is as elegant, moody, intelligent, sensuous, and sustained a studio movie as we are likely to see this season -- and in its intrinsic nuttiness, perhaps the least compromised.
  2. 88
    The Soderbergh version is like the same story freed from the weight of Tarkovsky's solemnity. And it evokes one of the rarest of movie emotions, ironic regret.
  3. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    75
    Soderbergh does a fine job creating a moody atmosphere of pervasive anxiety. The ending can be interpreted a few different ways and should ignite debate about its meaning.