Review of SOLARIS

Yeah, I'm on top of things.

"Steven Soderbergh’s remake of Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1972 film Solaris plays like a condensed version of something highly complex. Even people who haven’t seen the original (like myself, although that will change very soon) should be able to tell that Soderbergh has polished the story down to its bare essentials. Some may see that as a virtue in terms of storytelling, however in its handling of such weighty thematic material as death, grieving, love, and even the afterlife, the movie falls significantly short of offering any kind of ambiguity or emotional resonance. There are ideas here, and that is a rarity for Hollywood films nowadays. Buy everything is spelt out for the audience, except for some basic metaphysical and science-fiction questions which ultimately have no bearing on one’s ability to understand what’s happened by the finale. At a brief length of just over an hour and a half, the movie flies by, and despite its heavy motifs, Solaris stays in your head only for the duration of its running time."

Mark's Full Review

While I understand and agree with most of what you are writing, a vast majority of the Yahoo Movie commenters have complained that the movie was terribly confusing, without explanation, and nobody had idea of what was going on. Of course, I didn't have that problem and I didn't like how transparent the explanations really were for those who knew what to look for. But I did enjoy this new version for its relational scenes and the characters as they unfolded. The emotions washed over me with an intensity that I could focus more instead of that confusion that the Russian version elicited. It ok for me to experience this type of drama romance sci fi movie and have it laid out so I can follow along with the acting and the sensations instead of the puzzle and the alien angle. You are on the opposite pole of the majority of popular audience writers which is to be expected because this forum seems to be composed of those who can appreciate the finer nuances of film making.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
While I understand and agree with most of what you are writing, a vast majority of the Yahoo Movie commenters have complained that the movie was terribly confusing, without explanation, and nobody had idea of what was going on.

---

Hearing this kind of thing leaves me baffled. Perhaps if people went into the film expecting a thriller or a simple romance, they wouldn't assume they'd have to think. But even going in expecting a simple romance, some should have gotten it.

Anyway, the biggest part missing for me was an emotional attachment to the characters. I could have forgiven the straightforward and condensed narrative if I cared for these people. I didn't, but that's just me.

George Clooney gave a great performance, out of character, out of control, in a rage, a spectrum of emotional shading that attracted me to his on screen presence. Because of this different performance, I was able to identify with the turmoil and emotional dilemma Kelvin faced. I was attracted to Natascha McElhone having to confront an apparently out of body experience, helpless, awkward with what was going on, living two different lives. The connection and repulsion between Clooney and McElhone, their intimate informal talks, the spontaneous conversations along with their heated, wild flaying gave rise to a natural and realistic interweaving between two beings. I especially liked Jeremy Davies as Snow who gave a compelling, unique characterization of an unusual person. He portrayed a out-of-kilter individual, who could think deeply but obtusely, whimsical and mysterious. He was the one character who was the alien glue that seemed to keep a center on the space station. The only character who really came across two dimensional without much depth or compelling background that screamed for more was the character played by Jeremy Davies. Her motivation remained unexplored and somehow one-sided, mercilessly prompted by some important but shrouded secret.

As indicated by the IMDb survey, females gave this movie a slightly higher rating as did younger audience members, leaving the impression that the movie most touched those who had a penchant for emotional sensitivity and a flexible, youthful outlook on the unusual.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
George Clooney gave a great performance, out of character, out of control, in a rage, a spectrum of emotional shading that attracted me to his on screen presence. Because of this different performance, I was able to identify with the turmoil and emotional dilemma Kelvin faced. I was attracted to Natascha McElhone having to confront an apparently out of body experience, helpless, awkward with what was going on, living two different lives. The connection and repulsion between Clooney and McElhone, their intimate informal talks, the spontaneous conversations along with their heated, wild flaying gave rise to a natural and realistic interweaving between two beings.

---

I'm not saying neither of them gave bad performances--quite the contrary. I think this is Clooney's best work, and McElhone definitely has an extremely difficult task with this role, which I think she handled incredibly well and you explain quite well. However, it's the relationship that's the key to the emotional center of the film, and that's what I think is missing. The flashbacks don't give enough room for them to grow as a couple. Yes, I understand that Kelvin didn't really know his wife and in reality none of us really understand the people we meet in this world, but the fact of the matter is, I didn't get any kind of bond between them outside of their encounter as visitor and visited.

You did, I assume. Very cool.

Mark Dujsik - There have been very few comments in response to my observations that have substantive, real meaning for me. But you seem to know how to express yourself and to give good weight and credibility to your writing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
Mark Dujsik - There have been very few comments in response to my observations that have substantive, real meaning for me. But you seem to know how to express yourself and to give good weight and credibility to your writing.

---

Thanks.

A good discussion is always fun.