Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: November 27, 2002
5.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 194 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
102
Mixed:
23
Negative:
69
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
5
AlB.Aug 2, 2003
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JackS.Dec 30, 2002
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarcO.Aug 29, 2003
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, 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!!! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
5
ErikW.Jun 7, 2006
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 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
2 of 2 users found this helpful
4
JaredC.Apr 1, 2008
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
5
EricS.Dec 20, 2002
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MeatDec 4, 2002
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" 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... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SpikeDaCruzMar 10, 2016
I liked the premise of the movie I really did, however even if I tried to like it, I couldn't pass this type of slow pace with a lot of dull moments, it could be slow, but made differently. There were a lot of questions unanswered. How didI liked the premise of the movie I really did, however even if I tried to like it, I couldn't pass this type of slow pace with a lot of dull moments, it could be slow, but made differently. There were a lot of questions unanswered. How did the replicas appeared? They dream about them, but how do they form exactly? Everything is strange, a team had disappeared but it seemed like they just loose a coin, it didn't look like a problem..."We lost the security patrol team, and now the Dr.Gibarian needs you, Dr.Kelvin." Nice...really nice, a solo man adventurer, with no backup team, cameras to record the events, nothing. People are dying and disappearing and we will send Dr.Kelvin, with nothing to record the events, no one to report to, that's kind out of place.

I don't like ambiguous things, I like movies where all at same level, depending on the universe they are into, are explained.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ZebunkerJul 14, 2015
George Clooney plays an ordinary psychologist who ventures into space to solve the mystery of why the crew of a space station and their rescue party have disappeared. Cause that seems like the logical choice for a space rescue. Why not justGeorge Clooney plays an ordinary psychologist who ventures into space to solve the mystery of why the crew of a space station and their rescue party have disappeared. Cause that seems like the logical choice for a space rescue. Why not just hire an oil rig worker instead? And why not go alone why you are at it there George. That’s smart. Great setup writers.

Enjoy mesmerizing scenes of what could be improv dialog as Clooney slowly discovers what’s been going on. Things start to happen, scenes change locations from darkly lit corridors, to darkly light rooms! It’s epic!

Just when the action picks you might be thinking “Hey, this is like The Abyss and 2001 but only if those movies sucked.” And you’d be correct. While the film does have some nice scenes and tries to create a slower paced movie there is much to be desired. From super close camera angles and a lack of scope or space that’s included in other similar space tales. It makes this sci-fi tale rather void of fun and magic.

Clooney being a psychologist has no meaning in this film. That aspect was not explored, nor was his backstory or his character. Having career training in mastering human dialog and interactions it’s strangely bizarre and out of character the way Clooney’s character behaves to mysterious new people aboard the space station.

Sci-fi fans might want to steer their space ship away from this asteroid of a movie.

Their Tag Line - “There are some places man is not ready to go”
- Ya, Into the theater to see this movie.

Alternate Tag Lines

1. “You don’t need to be a psychologist to figure out this thriller.”
2. “Reasons why people find real space boring. Check.”
3. “Rouge space station, cool effects, missing crew. No way can they mess this movie up. Right? ”

Hits

- Nice concept, if a bit worn out.
- Naked George Clooney.
- The title sounds cool.

Misses

- Character development & plot.
- George Clooney’s butt shown.
- Earth scenes don’t look futuristic enough.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews