This, in my opinion, is the worst (yes, worse even than Lynch's Dune from 84) adaptation of a Sci-Fi novel ever. They original story was about the fear of unknown, the inability to comprehend certain things by a fragile, human mind and it's encounter with something that cannot be understood. Instead, we got a stupid, fricking moronic ''Clooney in space'' soap opera. Fricking disgusting.
The Tarkovsky adaptation is boring and unfaithful but at least it has depth.
Well, it's much better than this one for sure.
Nah, the megastar closes the distance for the viewer. Different experience, sure, but I'm glad they made it.
Reducing one of the few examples of cosmic horror to 'I'm sad about my dead wife' is a crime.
>cosmic horror
the planet / star was a concept of our wishes and the afterlife
found the companion redditor to op
>worse even than Lynch's Dune
LYNCH'D
Y
N
C
H
'
D
what a pedestrian takes
kinoisseurs such as myself know that the Soderberg adaptation is better than the Tarkovshit one
>know that the Soderberg adaptation is better than the Tarkovshit one
It. Is. Not.
it's kino
>Lynch's Dune
it's kino
>Lynch's Dune
>it's kino
>I want to spit once on your head... just some spittle on your face....what a luxury.
No.
YES. your kinodetector is probably as broken as your gaydar because you seem to be unable to recognize you're a HUGE FRICKING homosexual
No, it was fricking stupid. The worm ridding scene was just laughable.
yea you sound like you know a thing or two about riding worms, you fricking homosexual b***h
Seethe homosexuals
horrible take
It's an okay movie. I don't rate Steven Soderberg very highly. His movies have this slow dreamy quality to them but it's superficial. There's nothing actually thought provoking or introspective about them, they're just slow.
In addition to this general dislike of Soderberg, this film annoys me specifically because it's a successful white male power fantasy. George Clooney's character has it all, he's talented, successful, has an elite tier beautiful wife, etc. the only thing that he cannot beat is DEATH... but wait....... He beats death and gets to go to space heaven with his wife for eternity. Great. What a c**t.
>has an elite tier beautiful wife
But that's the thing. He does not have her. In the original story he literally drives her to suicide.
>in the original story
we are talking about the movie. She dies but Clooney beats DEATH and gets her back (for eternity)
Better than that russian amateurish "movie" of the same name that's for sure
US of A win again, commies! Sorry not sorry
>white male power fantasy
It shit, yes, but Tarkovsky's version is almost just as bad. Both are sentimental to the point of being maudlin while ignoring everything else.
It wasn't an adaptation of the novel, it was an adaptation of the previous movie.
No.
It merely filtered you all.
How so?
because you didn't get it
The differences between the 2 directors is that Soderbergh doesn't really believe in the same stuff as Tarkvosky in the sense that Soderbergh's films are humanist/nihilist and Tarkovsky is significantly more spiritual. Soderbergh's best films (IMO The Limey is the best but I know that's not widely held) tend to display his nihilistic humanist streak that you'd never find in the work of Tarkovsky.
reminds me of picrel movie which filtered a lot
Soderbergh's version is a favourite movie of mine. The set design (particularly in respect of colour), costumes, cinematography, pacing and music all conspire to set an eerie tone that fits the story remarkably. I don't love Davis or Davies performances, but Clooney's at his understated best and McElhone is wonderfully subtle in a demanding, multifaceted role.
The best thing about the movie is Cliff Martinez's soundtrack. Its very ethereal and I listen to it once a year.
I agree.
Very true
I haven't seen this movie in over a decade, but I vaguely remember the unknowable nature of the alien/space being compared to the inherent unknowable nature of other people, even those we love. Is this true or did I just make this shit up in my head?
It might be just nostalgia, but I remember really liking it. I can't speak as to the content, but it had a very tight atmosphere that stuck with me, and I consider that a success as far as art goes. Honestly, I miss that Y2K aesthetic of the future. It was clean and proper, but also with colour, just more deliberate. It was both warm and clinical, a sort of waking dream. I really do miss it...
OP made me want to watch it again, downloading it right now
Unironically, the only good adaptation of a Stanislaw Lem novel is a video game.
Definitely on my 'worst I've ever watched' list.
The Lem’s Solaris is a tale about the failure of science and man’s reach exceeding his grasp. (Genius)
Tarkovsky’s Solaris is crime and Punishment in Space. (P. Good)
Soderbergh’s Solaris is relationships in space. (Mid)
>T. Solaris nerd
I find it amusing people see it like you. Luckily I watched the new version before the old version. If you think about Soderbergh's Solaris you can actually come to conclusions yourself. The old movie nearly spells it out for you.
People just assume "old == better" for some reason. View order is highly important, if you can fill in the blanks yourself.
>Soderbergh’s Solaris is relationships in space. (Mid)
It probably flew over your head the original was as well. But people are easily fooled by Soviet era aesthetics to believe the original movie was better. It was not. It was just foreign, that is why people interpret it as special. If you lived in Soviet Union, to them probably Soderbergh is impressive. Unless they must hate Amerikanski imperialisti verzion.
>yes, worse even than Lynch's Dune from 84)
That was a fun enjoyable movie OP.