Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: November 27, 2002
6.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 111 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
70
Mixed:
18
Negative:
23
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 characters (5000 max)
10
SajuukhaarSep 10, 2016
Mesmerizing, beautiful, intellectual without being pretentious, introspective and immersive...at least for those with patience and intelligence enough to appreciate it. Solaris is film art with a haunting soundtrack, great acting, writing andMesmerizing, beautiful, intellectual without being pretentious, introspective and immersive...at least for those with patience and intelligence enough to appreciate it. Solaris is film art with a haunting soundtrack, great acting, writing and photography and is a decent interpretation of Stanislaw Lem's book. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
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
3
oDjentoJan 2, 2015
This film was very underwhelming. Trying to sell it as being better than the original by having A-listers doesn't make your film better. The acting is fine, but not stand out, and the story plods along exceedingly slow and it's very boring.This film was very underwhelming. Trying to sell it as being better than the original by having A-listers doesn't make your film better. The acting is fine, but not stand out, and the story plods along exceedingly slow and it's very boring. There is a noce atmosphere over the whole film of isolation, loneliness and higher presences being in control, bit it still does not save the film from being over all boring. The ending is nice though as it leaves enough ambiguity to make different conclusion to how YOU want to see it, and saves the film from being a 2 or 3 out of 10. You can give this a miss and watch the original instead. Some people may enjoy it more though because of it's ending though. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
ChickenphNov 3, 2014
One of my favorite movies. It jumps between genres, which I think throws people off. Seems like it's going to be a scary movie, but turns into a thoughtful movie about love and loss.
I really don't know why it reviews so poorly, but you
One of my favorite movies. It jumps between genres, which I think throws people off. Seems like it's going to be a scary movie, but turns into a thoughtful movie about love and loss.
I really don't know why it reviews so poorly, but you should give it a chance.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
9
SpangleAug 20, 2014
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, heJust 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
Compi24Oct 11, 2013
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
aslanmaneSep 22, 2013
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,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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
TokyochuchuOct 24, 2012
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 fromSolaris 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! Collapse
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
JagoffJun 8, 2012
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 IAmazed 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
KakapoApr 6, 2012
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 singleA 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. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
7
FamousdogDec 14, 2011
A film that ultimately rewards patience and attention - abilities often absent in today's audience. Jeremy Davies' quizzical Snow is a superb creation.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
7
LolasaurusOct 13, 2011
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 isNot 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
0
ALFSep 25, 2011
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 RussianThis 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
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
10
dpodFeb 3, 2011
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 newMindblowing 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. Expand
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
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
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
8
DuaneJ.Dec 6, 2002
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 theI'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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AveryO.Dec 4, 2002
Brainless?
0 of 1 users found this helpful