Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Solaris - some spoilers, but don't worry about it

Expand Messages
  • mjbphotos
    What a waste of time (going to this movie) and effort (making this movie)!! Despite a grande-sized Starbucks coffee, I almost fell asleep an hour into it.
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 1, 2002
      What a waste of time (going to this movie) and effort (making this movie)!! Despite a grande-sized Starbucks coffee, I almost fell asleep an hour into it. Clooney really cannot act - he might as well be "old stoneface" in this one. The characterization at the movie's start were weak, not even leaving you guessing about the characters, instead thinking "who cares?"

      The "sci-fi" part of this movie - the 'space station' over the 'planet' Solaris, and the spaceship ride there lacked any real science to them. One shot of Clooney in the 'pod' heading from his ship to the spacestation (with reflected instrument readouts on his helmet's face screen) was a complete ripoff (homage?) of Bowman's ride in his pod in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The CGI of Solaris was pretty, if vague and not particularly real-looking.

      Nothing is explained about the Solaris 'phenomena' to Clooney before he travels there, and nothing gets explained about it by the end of the movie, either.

      Any 'message' in this movie was completely obscured by conflicting scenes, so having never read the book or seen the original movie version, the viewer leaves the theater thinking "what the�?"

      Just my opinion!
      Mike B



      ---------------------------------
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • mjbphotos
      What a waste of time (going to this movie) and effort (making this movie)!! Despite a grande-sized Starbucks coffee, I almost fell asleep an hour into it.
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 1, 2002
        What a waste of time (going to this movie) and effort (making this movie)!! Despite a grande-sized Starbucks coffee, I almost fell asleep an hour into it. Clooney really cannot act - he might as well be "old stoneface" in this one. The characterization at the movie's start were weak, not even leaving you guessing about the characters, instead thinking "who cares?"

        The "sci-fi" part of this movie - the 'space station' over the 'planet' Solaris, and the spaceship ride there lacked any real science to them. One shot of Clooney in the 'pod' heading from his ship to the spacestation (with reflected instrument readouts on his helmet's face screen) was a complete ripoff (homage?) of Bowman's ride in his pod in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The CGI of Solaris was pretty, if vague and not particularly real-looking.

        Nothing is explained about the Solaris 'phenomena' to Clooney before he travels there, and nothing gets explained about it by the end of the movie, either.

        Any 'message' in this movie was completely obscured by conflicting scenes, so having never read the book or seen the original movie version, the viewer leaves the theater thinking "what the�?"

        Just my opinion!
        Mike B



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • buxh42a
        Did you read the book or see the original Tarkovsky film? Judging by your reaction to this film, I cannot fathom you even remotely like Tarkovsky s 3 hour
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 3, 2002
          Did you read the book or see the original Tarkovsky film? Judging by
          your reaction to this film, I cannot fathom you even remotely like
          Tarkovsky's 3 hour movie of a 200 page book. The book is excellent
          and is science fiction at its best, not like those fluff Star Wars
          novels.

          Tarkovsky's film was very faithful to the novel and was well made,
          atmospheric and left you asking questions (which is what a good book
          or movie should do). However, a Starbucks coffee won't help with
          Tarkovsky. He is notoriously a deliberately paced director, which is
          why his version of Solaris is 3 hours long. There are literally many
          long minutes of no action or soundtrack music in the Russian
          Solaris. Tarkovsky also made another film called 'Stalker' based on
          Strugatski's "Roadside Picnic" which is unbearable to sit through,
          but it did leave a lasting impression on me after seeing it. Which
          is the opposite Star Trek 5 did for me. That film made me want to
          vomit afterwards.

          It constantly bugs me that Hollywood, so insecure about not making a
          profit, produces constant crappy shoot-em-up, blow-em-up sci-fi films
          which are really Westerns in space. There are sooo many great
          science fiction novels that will never be made into a film because
          they are deemed not 'commercial' enough. It was surprised that this
          version of Solaris was not a shoot-em-up, bug-eyed-monster type of
          film. Soderbergh and Cameron should be given credit for that,
          despite your misgivings of the film.

          How 'bout naming some novels that will NEVER be made into a movie
          because they aren't commercial enough?

          I'll nominate "More than Human" by Sturgeon or "Dispossessed" by
          LeGuin, two novels where the main themes are not supported by special-
          effects nonsense.

          --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., mjbphotos <mjbphotos@y...> wrote:
          >
          > What a waste of time (going to this movie) and effort (making this
          movie)!! Despite a grande-sized Starbucks coffee, I almost fell
          asleep an hour into it. Clooney really cannot act - he might as well
          be "old stoneface" in this one. The characterization at the movie's
          start were weak, not even leaving you guessing about the characters,
          instead thinking "who cares?"
          >
          > The "sci-fi" part of this movie - the 'space station' over
          the 'planet' Solaris, and the spaceship ride there lacked any real
          science to them. One shot of Clooney in the 'pod' heading from his
          ship to the spacestation (with reflected instrument readouts on his
          helmet's face screen) was a complete ripoff (homage?) of Bowman's
          ride in his pod in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The CGI of Solaris was
          pretty, if vague and not particularly real-looking.
          >
          > Nothing is explained about the Solaris 'phenomena' to Clooney
          before he travels there, and nothing gets explained about it by the
          end of the movie, either.
          >
          > Any 'message' in this movie was completely obscured by conflicting
          scenes, so having never read the book or seen the original movie
          version, the viewer leaves the theater thinking "what the…?"
          >
          > Just my opinion!
          > Mike B
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ignacio Viglizzo
          I ve seen Solaris now, an I must confess that, if not totally bad, it was quite pointless to redo it, after Tarkowsi s movie, which I recall as being better
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 16, 2002
            I've seen Solaris now, an I must confess that, if not totally bad, it was quite
            pointless to redo it, after Tarkowsi's movie, which I recall as being better
            (at least more accomplished in being disturbing).
            Lucius Shepard posted a review:

            http://www.electricstory.com/reviews/solaris.asp

            He's spot on when he says:
            George Clooney (...) When called upon to project fear or existential confusion,
            he merely succeeds in looking as if he has eaten some bad clams

            --- mjbphotos <mjbphotos@...> wrote:
            >
            > What a waste of time (going to this movie) and effort (making this movie)!!
            > Despite a grande-sized Starbucks coffee, I almost fell asleep an hour into
            > it. Clooney really cannot act - he might as well be "old stoneface" in this
            > one. The characterization at the movie's start were weak, not even leaving
            > you guessing about the characters, instead thinking "who cares?"
            >
            > The "sci-fi" part of this movie - the 'space station' over the 'planet'
            > Solaris, and the spaceship ride there lacked any real science to them. One
            > shot of Clooney in the 'pod' heading from his ship to the spacestation (with
            > reflected instrument readouts on his helmet's face screen) was a complete
            > ripoff (homage?) of Bowman's ride in his pod in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The
            > CGI of Solaris was pretty, if vague and not particularly real-looking.
            >
            > Nothing is explained about the Solaris 'phenomena' to Clooney before he
            > travels there, and nothing gets explained about it by the end of the movie,
            > either.
            >
            > Any 'message' in this movie was completely obscured by conflicting scenes, so
            > having never read the book or seen the original movie version, the viewer
            > leaves the theater thinking "what the�?"
            >
            > Just my opinion!
            > Mike B
            >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Do you Yahoo!?
            > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe:
            > sciencefictionclassics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To see the group page:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencefictionclassics/
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >


            =====
            . Ignacio

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
            http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.