Solaris (1972)

Name: Solaris (1972)
Genre: Adventure, Sci-Fi, Drama, Mystery, Romance
Released: October 6, 1976
Duration: 167 min
Rating: 93
Cast: Anatoli Solonitsyn, Donatas Banionis, Jüri Järvet, Natalya Bondarchuk, Nikolai Grinko

1976

METASCORE

Universal acclaim based on 8 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Universal acclaim based on 119 Ratings

See All

8.1

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.1	Your Score
8.1	User Score Universal acclaim based on 119 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Movie Details & Credits

Magna | Release Date: October 6, 1976 | PG

Starring: Anatoli Solonitsyn, Donatas Banionis, Jüri Järvet, Natalya Bondarchuk, Nikolai Grinko, Olga Barnet, Olga Kizilova, Tatyana Malykh, Vitalik Kerdimun, Vladislav Dvorzhetsky

Summary: Based on Stanislaw Lem's novel, this 1972 allegory takes place on a space station near a mysterious planet.

Director: Andrei Tarkovsky

Genre(s): Adventure, Sci-Fi, Drama, Mystery, Romance

Rating: PG

Runtime: 167 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Michael Wilmington

An amazing celluloid poem by a filmmaker whom Ingmar Bergman called "the greatest." He very nearly was. He was also, perhaps, too pure a creator and reckless a citizen to survive unscathed. Read full review

100

Kevin Thomas

A dazzlingly imaginative work with awesome production values and special effects that bear comparison to those of "2001." Read full review

100

David Sterritt

Stands with the greatest science-fiction movies ever made. Read full review

Jonathan Rosenbaum

Tarkovsky's eerie mystic parable is given substance by the filmmaker's boldly original grasp of film language and the remarkable performances by all the principals. Read full review

Roger Ebert

Routinely called Tarkovsky's reply to Kubrick's "2001" -- But Kubrick's film is outward, charting man's next step in the universe, while Tarkovsky's is inward, asking about the nature and reality of the human personality. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

Slow, but ravishingly beautiful and charged with a real poignancy. Read full review

J. Hoberman

The most pop film the great Russian filmmaker ever made. Read full review

SEE ALL 8 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Angel1711

Oct 26, 2013

why ever would anyone give it a bad rating?
this movie still stands along the "my fair lady", "The umbrellas of Cherbourg", the ideas are grand, Lem is a huge talent, to understand it is not easy, well, how was to write it?
I watched this movie many many times, and yet I find something newwhy ever would anyone give it a bad rating?
this movie still stands along the "my fair lady", "The umbrellas of Cherbourg", the ideas are grand, Lem is a huge talent, to understand it is not easy, well, how was to write it?
I watched this movie many many times, and yet I find something new every single time I watch it.
Reading it is just as pleasurable as watching, we need more talents like Lem… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

davez

Jul 20, 2007

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 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

2 of 2 users found this helpful

mcfry

Oct 18, 2015

There are emotional and philosophical "spoilers" here. If you have not seen the movie and want to experience it yourself, do not read past this sentence.

Recently, I re-watched Solaris, for the 4th time. Originally I was looking forward mainly to wonderful dreamy interludes, childhoodThere are emotional and philosophical "spoilers" here. If you have not seen the movie and want to experience it yourself, do not read past this sentence.

Recently, I re-watched Solaris, for the 4th time. Originally I was looking forward mainly to wonderful dreamy interludes, childhood memories, reminiscent photos, multi-layered video recordings, epic paintings ... accompanied by Bach's powerful organ prelude (639). And I was prepared to be stressed for the rest of the duration. But this time I found a more complete picture. Watching in solitude, with undivided attention, it seems that it took as much and as many times to truly appreciate this film in all of its facets. Even though it disturbed me several times, on a level very hard to locate, I was able to follow with little distraction.

The movie is alienating from beginning to end. Referring to YoonC's fantastic user review: Solaris first recalls the world, and then takes us away from it - we get to see human society and human personality as something fascinating, but often mixed with disgust. We are thrown back to a distant scientific objectivity, perceiving human beings alien-like, while in fact helpless.

This way, Tarkovsky fulfilled a very important theme of Stanislav Lem's, one of the dominant threads throughout the oeuvre of one of the most accomplished writers and critics who ever lived. Both masters should not have been too unhappy about this rendering of the novel: Although it emotionally strays off of the book's course, and even though it is not exactly masterful in creating dialog (too much info-dropping and often mediocre phrasing, *in the translation, that is!*) - its patience and rigidity, when received with care, do create lingering feelings and brooding thoughts that must be very close to Lem's own premises. When we look into the blackness behind the station's windows, we are in space. It is the wrong place to be.

Driven by a desire to understand the living ocean of Solaris, trying to establish some kind of communication, the crew despairs over their failure. But in truth, the ocean shows what human communication, in the broadest possible meaning of the word, truly is: not a means primarily to gain knowledge or to organize society, to understand the universe or to remember the past; but a process that evokes - and fortifies - and varies - images of ourselves and our environments. These images are our self's pulse. To witness them being stripped of any rational meaning is devastating - at least, for compulsively rational minds.

Tarkovsky goes his own way treating Kelvin's development. Upon looking inside him, we feel incredible suffering, self-torturing and self-betrayal, and we acknowledge the joy and pain of memory, but also a certain ... uselessness of those feelings. From this point on, I could proceed in different directions, but I leave you to it.

Despite the horrible dialog, not-so-well handled goofy moments (the dwarf.....), and a slight structural imbalance, this is a life-defining movie for me.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

Spangle

Dec 9, 2016

My first Tarvoksky and well, his works definitely live up to the hype. I was always pushing off his work purely through intimidation. Boy was I wrong. Yes, this is slow, but it is never boring. The themes are effortless woven into the very fabric of the film and Tarkovsky's camera work, useMy first Tarvoksky and well, his works definitely live up to the hype. I was always pushing off his work purely through intimidation. Boy was I wrong. Yes, this is slow, but it is never boring. The themes are effortless woven into the very fabric of the film and Tarkovsky's camera work, use of color, and meditations on human existence are brilliant. In Solaris, Tarkovsky explores various themes, most notably grief. However, ideas regarding the meaning of life, why we want the meaning of life, and why we want to have contact with extraterrestrials, are all considered in this master work. A truly hypnotic experience, the film's long runtime would have flown by if the stream I used actually worked in the beginning. However, even with that inconvenience, it was impossible to look away.

One of the best elements here is grief. As in the remake, which I also loved and still do, the mystery regarding the planet's behavior is tremendous. With the planet creating versions of people from the pasts of those on the Solaris mission, it becomes clear that the planet is forcing these people to confront their pain. In particular, Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is forced to cope with the loss of his wife, Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk). Though he knows she is not real, he cannot accept that she is not real, which clearly causes him to experience the pain of losing her once again. As one of the main thematic endeavors of Solaris, grief gets the most screentime. However, the questions it provokes certainly tie into other elements of the film. In one brief monologue, fellow scientist Snaut (Jüri Järvet) questions why humans are obsessed with finding and establishing contact with other planets, stating: "We don't want to conquer space at all. We want to expand Earth endlessly. We don't want other worlds; we want a mirror. We seek contact and will never achieve it. We are in the foolish position of a man striving for a goal he fears and doesn't want. Man needs man!" In this quote, it really ties in with some of the questions the "guests" cause to arise. For example, why does the planet do this? What is its purpose? To make us overcome our grief? To what end? Is this a defense mechanism to drive us away, due to our inability to cope with grief? Do any of these questions truly matter because we are, in fact, running a fool's errand by trying to find new worlds anyways? I do not have the answers here, but they are interesting questions that are provoked while watching the film.

In terms of its plotting, Solaris is certainly very deliberate. With long takes of various images, Tarvoksky weaves a film that feels more lyrical and poetic than anything else. Utilizing a visual medium, Tarkovsky strives to sew together images that tell the real story of what is going on and, to do this, the camera often lingers in one spot. Spliced together, the end result is a gorgeous film where, at any moment, the film can be paused and the imagery is guaranteed to be gorgeous. One of the best elements here, as well, is that the camera never rushes to catch up with the characters. Often the camera loses the characters and slowly glides its way back to focusing on them.

Interestingly, through this style, Tarkovsky is also able to create a great sense of dread. In particular, the scene when Kris Kelvin first arrives at Solaris and no one is there to greet him. This scene is slowly revealed with Kelvin meandering his way through the space station, allowing the dread to increase considerably the longer scene takes to progress. Next, the ending features a similar sense of dread. However, in addition to visually, this scene unfolds sonically as well. Though initially seeming safe and otherwise unremarkable, the camera slowly rises up into the sky, revealing what the true situation is, Tarkovsky creates an ending with a level helplessness matching a true horror such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers. This helplessness is matched within the film by its theory regarding shame and how it is the true source of helplessness. Given Kelvin's regrets regarding his wife, it is not implausible to suggest that this situation was born out of his shame for his life up to that point. However, the scene does not just unfold visually, but through the score. As the establishing shot is set and the film begins to fade to white, the viewer's ears are assaulted with a discomforting and unpleasing musical score that, personally, left me feeling completely uncomfortable.

My first foray in the work of Tarkovsky, watching this version of Solaris was long overdue after I loved Soderbergh's take on it with George Clooney. Though this film is indisputably superior, the remake is still a brilliant work that is unfortunately plagued with being compared to this one, though I definitely need to rewatch it anyways. As for Tarkovsky's film, it more than lives up to it reputation as one of the, if not the, best science fiction films ever made.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

kellanj

Apr 29, 2011

Extremely slow and contemplative and completely mental. This movie is not for everybody. It definitely tried my patience, Im glad i made it through to the end. Utterly fantastic film.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

Deanomite

Feb 18, 2020

I find Tarkovsky inaccessible most of the time. Stalker is hypnotic, this is absorbing, the other 6 or so movies of his i cannot get into. The imagery and pacing are strong, I like to see Russian romance from a Western perspective, we in USA are programmed to see Russians as nonemotional,I find Tarkovsky inaccessible most of the time. Stalker is hypnotic, this is absorbing, the other 6 or so movies of his i cannot get into. The imagery and pacing are strong, I like to see Russian romance from a Western perspective, we in USA are programmed to see Russians as nonemotional, form this I see the discipline of Communist romance, that feelings are relevant but theat they have a time to be felt, and not that feelings control the interaction. I think there is great wisdom in this. Living in the West, our relationships are a mystery to us, often the passion dies and we wait out the clock.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Broyax

Feb 27, 2020

Je n'ai pas lu le bouquin de Lem mais soit il est difficilement adaptable, soit il s'agit d'un torche-cul épouvantable aussi lénifiant (Lemifiant...) que ses adaptations à dormir debout...

Et c'est vrai qu'avec ses deux heures et trois quarts, il est incroyablement difficile de ne pasJe n'ai pas lu le bouquin de Lem mais soit il est difficilement adaptable, soit il s'agit d'un torche-cul épouvantable aussi lénifiant (Lemifiant...) que ses adaptations à dormir debout...

Et c'est vrai qu'avec ses deux heures et trois quarts, il est incroyablement difficile de ne pas piquer du nez dans ce théâtre filmé avec certes de bien pauvres moyens mais qui ne sont pas responsables de l'abrutissement général et généralisé provoqué ici. Je crois en tout cas que ce fut un film salutaire pour le régime soviétique puisqu'à l'issue de ce Ronflaris dont les ronflements de l'audience couvrait quasiment dans chaque salle les dialogues à teneur hautement soporifique, le bon camarade ouvrier et le fidèle moujik devaient se réveiller péniblement et pour ce faire, retournaient immédiatement à la maison finir la vodka commencée avant la séance.

Alors, quand tout le monde est soit endormi soit bourré, personne ne pense à critiquer qui ou quoi que ce soit. D'ailleurs, je suis dans le même état et ce n'est pas faute d'avoir essayé de "visionner" cette chose en deux fois et à chaque moitié, malgré moult cafés, la somnolence était incroyablement difficile à combattre ! malgré pourtant de fréquents accélérés avec la télécommande, bien entendu !

Aussi ne critiqué-je certainement pas ce chef-d'oeuvre du régime, cette oeuvre magnifique et très contemplative, très profonde et psychologique : je vide ma bouteille et je ferme ma gueule !

PS
La note était soûle et a glissé sur le "0". Et elle y est restée. La pauvre.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 13 REVIEWS