Solaris (1972) Poster

(1972)

User Reviews

Review this title
365 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
had to watch it twice
MrsRainbow19 January 1999
I'm just starting out into the vast world of foreign film and having seen this film on many a video store shelf, and knowing that it was considered a sci-fi classic, I thought it would be a good way to spend an evening. Based on the case I was expecting something along the line of typical American sci-fi. Needless to say I was wrong.

I watched Solyaris twice in two days, because the first time I saw it I knew that I hadn't processed even a quarter of what I knew was there. I was taken completely aback. The second viewing was extremely rewarding.

It was unusual for me, raised as I was on the sledgehammer moralizing and we'll make our point so obvious that there's no way you can miss it because we have no respect for your intelligence way of American film. I'm a huge literature buff, and this was one of the very few films I've confronted that is thoughtful and has so many things to say yet does it in a literary or poetic fashion.

You will get out of this film what you bring to it. I've been to so many movies where the audience is not actually participating, it's being attacked. But true art is not domineering; it woos you.

So to sum up, I greatly appreciated Tarkovsky's unwillingness to manipulate the viewer. It showed that he had respect for me as a thinking soul, and it is this love and respect for humanity which makes this a truly great film.
569 out of 647 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"Nobody loves poetry like a Russian!"
OttoVonB7 October 2005
This line from Dr Zhivago says all you have to know about Tarkovsky. He was a thinker and a poet. An artist who's work was at once smart, engaging and aesthetically beautiful! Solaris is a world that materialized thoughts and absorbs creatures into its own consciousness. "Solaris" is an allegory on man's place in the universe, the twisted concept of reality, the meaning of love, grief and - ultimately - life. Psychiatrist Kris Kelvin goes to the station orbiting the planet-entity to assess whether the madness of it's occupants means all exploration should be discontinued. What he finds there are all the demons he has brought with him. You the viewer shall experience the same thing, for Solaris is an inviting and questioning but never manipulative film. What you'll get out of it depends on what you bring with you.

Solaris is often accused of being slow. This is a common misinterpretation: Solaris makes you anxious, and willingly so. Too many segments are like mirrors that invite your mind to venture off into many uncomfortable a place (the traffic scene comes to mind: an allegory for the space voyage but also for fading life and powerlessness). Solaris also makes you fear, with a sense that something isn't quite right and as with the best horror films, what you dread often isn't even on screen. Solaris makes you heart ache on several occasions as well. It makes you miss loved ones and it makes you feel homesick. every additional minute that separates you from the gorgeous opening shots of nature makes you long for Earth.

Solaris is many things but above all it is simply more than entertainment: it is a voyage for the senses, like a favorite song that binds countless disconnected feelings and thoughts. It is a poem.
213 out of 251 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
If a Soul has been given to us then maybe our existence only make sense in retrieving it.
auberus10 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Some films are intellectually challenging. Some films need to be thought about afterward. Some films deserve to be re-watched. Solyaris might be among those films as it is in the same time challenging, intriguing and scary. Countless reviews have been written on Solyaris; needless to say lots of them present a feasible explanation for the film.

I am proposing my explanation of Solyaris. Not in the details but in the principle. I don't pretend to understand Mr. Tarkovsky better than others I just think this movie deserves to be understood and I hope my view of this film if not exact will help others understand it and why not appreciate it.

Often and wrongly presented as Mr. Tarkovsky answer to 2001 A Space Odyssey, Solyaris was undeniably an answer from at the time the USRR to the western World and his cinema emissary Mr. Stanley Kubrick. Even if Mr. Tarkovsky was in awe at the technical achievement that "2001 A Space Odyssey" represented in 1968 he was nonetheless in disagreement with Mr. Kubrick's view of Mankind quest for Truth integrating too much Technology and not enough Humanity. As a result Solyaris might very well be the most humanist science fiction story ever put on film.

Stanislaw Lem's novel provided Mr. Tarkovsky with an opportunity to propose his view on this universal and infinite quest for Truth. Mr. Tarkovsky's goal was also to transcend the genre of science fiction as per him a director can not limit himself to a genre. This is one of the many reasons why Solyaris is a difficult film as the audience's references to the sci fi genre are drastically shaken.

Right from the beginning we understand that the story is not going to be an easy one to grasp: the cosmonaut Kris Kelvin receives the mission to reach the space station orbiting the intriguing Solyaris, an ocean like planet. His prerogative is to investigate strange events occurring on the orbital station from where the remaining scientists are observing this ocean. One of them Dr. Gibarian has committed suicide and the other two remaining (Dr. Snouth and Sartorius) are haunting by visions coming straight from their respective past. Soon Kelvin understands that the planet is an intelligent being and is materializing these memories. But when he is confronting with the recreation of his deceased wife Hari, his belief and certitude start to be shaken and never will be recovered…the problem is, ours too…

As Professor Messenger said in the first chapter the protagonists of the films "are probing the very frontier of human knowledge" but is it proper to artificially establish a knowledge frontier? "By thinking it we are limiting our concept of infinity of Man's knowledge" and therefore we forbid ourselves to comprehend events beyond that frontier. In that perspective the risk is not technological failure but the failure of our mind. The consequence is a profoundly childish but nonetheless human reaction: an attempt to destroy that which we aren't capable of understanding in short, the planet Solyaris.

The appearance of the guest Hari created by the Solyaris Ocean reflects on the overall dynamic. Since Kris Kelvin does not understand the reason and the possibility of Hari's presence on the station, he wants to get rid of her by sending her away in a rocket. But when a recreated Hari reappears during the following evening provoking Kelvin's introspection, she by her very presence forces Kelvin to face Truth about himself. However in the same time she allows Redemption. Often left aside, the notion of True Love as a medium for Redemption of the Soul is a theme very much anchored in Solyaris. "Guest" Hari is clearly not Kris Kelvin wife rather a subconscious projection of his own needs of her. Dr. Sartorius's experiment has proved that appearing "Guests" on the station are made of neutrinos elements stabilized by Solyaris force field. However as Hary developed memories, she appears as the most human being among the crew. The cybernetic expert, Dr. Snouth is trapped in his incomprehension of Solyaris, the astrobiologist Sartorius is obsessed by his quest for Knowledge not understanding that pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge is indeed vain. The physiologist Gibarian can't reconcile grief and false resurrection. As per Kelvin he seems to be in denial eventually considering Hary as an opportunity to heal his soul.

Stripped of Memories and understanding the impact on the crew and their so called "Human Soul" also because of her genuine Love for Kelvin, Hari chooses to commit suicide as if fatality was inherent to human Destiny. By this very act of sacrifice and ultimate Love, she gives birth to her soul. At the end of the movie and through one of the most enigmatic "zoom in" in history of cinema we understand that an island has formed on the surface of Solyaris. We see Kelvin reconciling with his Past as if the Planet will allow him a second chance, a chance to be Human…

With the film Solyaris Tarkovsky seems to whisper in our ears that Humanity is not bound to a place but to an act. The planet Solyaris creates from dreams and memories and is strangely echoing Men's creations process (eg. Kelvin father's Will of rebuilding his childhood house as per his memory).

The film embarks us in the Search for Ultimate Truth but if this Truth is beyond our comprehension it might be because we are searching in the wrong place. Maybe Truth is hidden inside our very self. If so then finding it is confronting our very Soul. So in essence if a Soul has been given to us then maybe our existence only make sense in retrieving it. In "Voyage in Time" (an autobiographical documentary) Andrei Tarkovsky said he viewed Solyaris as unsuccessful. Allow me to disagree.
70 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A dream-like examination of love and first contact
sowr11 March 2001
Two truths drive this film: the inadequacy of human-kind to understand the Universe, and the inadequacy of human-kind to understand the human heart.

As such, using Lem's original idea, Tarkovsky successfully, explores these themes.

We are drawn in, through hauntingly beautiful imagery, to the internal struggles of Kris Kelvin as he attempts to understand feelings of love for his suicided wife, who has been mysteriously resurrected, presumably as an attempt by Solaris to communicate, or torture.

Of course Solaris is probably the most original alien ever concocted, (no phone-homes here) and as must be, utterly enigmatic and beyond communication.

Be warned, this film is very long, and sometimes slow, but for those who consider themselves science fiction addicts, it is a must view.

One of the top 5 sci-fi films of all time.
218 out of 250 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A unique experience
vbertola7 January 2006
It's now been some years since I last watched it. Still, I can't get rid of the impressions of emptiness, absurdity and impossibility to understand (the world, and the human mind) that this movie left into me. It can be violent to your mind, without showing a single violent image (by the way, I often see this movie as a counterpart to Clockwork Orange, even more than to 2001). It can stun you, with ten or twenty minutes of incomprehensible silence. It can deprive you of any certainty in the laws of nature - such as, people only die once - and thus leave you vulnerable and naked.

I know that many friends to whom I've shown this move did not understand it. So I'm not saying you'll like it. But this is possibly the best (non-action) sci-fi movie ever made.

Watch it at night, alone, when everything out of your home is dark, silent, and cold.
213 out of 250 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The magic of not knowing where we're going....
mu-kau22 March 2006
Like the majority of reviewers here, I rate this film as one of the most profound viewing experiences I can remember. While the IMDb guidelines recommend avoiding reference to specific reviews of Solaris within this section, I strongly believe that there is much to be learnt about this movie by evaluating those reviews as a whole.

This is clearly either a love or a hate movie. Those who love it describe in detail its effect on them, the feelings it evokes, its significance and the depth of its philosophical enquiry. Those who hate it largely describe it as too slow-paced; boring.

What matters to me about this film which I first watched as mesmerised 15 year old is that it is almost entirely the antithesis of Classical Hollywood cinema. It came from behind the Iron Curtain (that dark place whose strange and hidden 'otherness' has, like the plot of any modern movie, now also been laid wide open by capitalist 'democracy'). Its actors were unknown - more like real people than the celebrities the West populates its movies with. Its pace was slow, mesmeric, hypnotic and atmospheric. It was completely free of the kind of 'good triumphs over evil' motif that riddles Hollywood film-making, where 'good' is white-ness, wealth, youth, Westernness and so on.

The pleasure of Solaris was that I didn't know what I was watching. I didn't know who I was watching. I didn't know the culture it reflected and - most importantly - I didn't know what was going to happen.

Perhaps its only in re-watching the 1971 Solaris that it becomes apparent to me that somewhere along the way we have been stripped of the right to not know; robbed of the true narrative thrill of being led into the dark, magical forest of the unknown.
135 out of 172 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
knowledge of the outside vs. knowledge of oneself
lee_eisenberg19 May 2013
Andrei Tarkovsky's adaptation of Stanisław Lem's "Solaris" (called "Solyaris" in Russian) seems to be posing the question of our connection to ourselves and other people. We invest so much in trying to understand the universe that we forget about our relationships with each other. A lot of the movie is sure to remind one of Stanley Kubrick's "2001", but it goes much further in the philosophical respect. It's the sort of movie that should give anyone a lot of admiration for the people involved, especially since the Soviet government probably didn't allow them significant resources. But the truth is that the movie doesn't need special effects. It's all about what the characters come to realize about themselves, and it's a real masterpiece. There was a remake, but I have no aim to watch that.
19 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the greatest
strannik88817 December 2002
If you compare this movie to the Lem's novel there are a lot of differences. But don't compare them. The novel and movie have their own lives. I personally prefer movie. Tarkovsky is going beyond the limits described by Lem. It is not only the problem of Solaris planet and the relationship between main heroes. Tarkovsky reminds everybody that the origin of our problem is us. And all kind of the most important life keys you can find inside yourselves. The great Swedish director Ingemar Bergman said, that Tarkovsky is in the "room" where I just started to knock. You should see this movie if you want to know what is real you and what you really want. The movie is not the answer, but it is the step to your new understanding of your life.
109 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Slow-moving and cryptic, perhaps brilliant but not very entertaining
jamesrupert201423 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
In this adaptation of Russian science fiction author Stanislaw Lem's eponymous novel, psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is sent to a space-station observing the water-covered planet 'Solaris' to investigate strange messages being sent back to Earth by the three-man crew. When he arrives, he finds one crewman dead and the other two convinced that there are other people, "guests" as they call them, aboard the station who are manifestations of their subconscious memories generated by the living planet below. Kelvin is skeptical until his long-dead wife Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk) appears in his quarters. Be prepared: Andrei Tarkovsky's film is polarising, some viewers (and many critics) compare 'Solaris' to '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) as one of the greatest science-fiction movies ever made, others condemn it as an overly-long, boring exercise in non-expository story telling (especially those who view the film after being assured that it is a masterpiece). The scenes on the Solaris station are excellent as is the acting (admittedly reading subtitles, as I did, is a step away from listening to the characters), but the opening scenes are very slow (especially the interminable drive through Tokyo substituting for either a future Moscow or a fictional city). The theme underlying Lem's book is the difficulty (or impossibility) of communication with, or even remotely understanding, a completely alien mind, so viewers expecting an explanation (or even a lucid hint) of what is happening to the crew or of the nature of the ostensibly 'sentient ocean' will be disappointed (as will anyone expecting graceful dockings of spaceships in magnificent spinning space-stations), and (IMO) the final scene is as unsatisfyingly cryptic as the end of Kubrick's opus. 'Solaris' is an interesting film but not an entertaining film and is a 'must-see' (actually or expectedly) for fans of the genre, especially those who think that they'd still like '2001' without HAL or the landmark special effects.
45 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Cerebral Sci-Fi
evanston_dad5 March 2020
It's tough to come into a film like "Solaris" without tremendous expectations after having heard for so long about its greatness. If you don't immediately feel like it's one of the best movies you've ever seen -- after hearing so many say it is -- you're either tempted to overcompensate and exaggerate how overrated it is out of a sense of defensiveness, or think something's wrong with you for being the only one not to "get it."

As with most movies that have been saddled with the word "greatness," I understand why "Solaris" is considered to be such a watershed movie and so revered by so many, but I have to admit that I didn't personally feel myself responding to it all that much. Maybe I would on a second (or third or fourth) viewing, but I can't say I'm very compelled to watch it again. It's cerebral and philosophical, which I expected, and a bit cold and emotionally uninvolving despite the fact that it's about almost nothing but human emotions and how we react to life's biggest mysteries. I didn't warm much to the characters or ever really think of them as individual human beings so much as necessary conduits for communicating the film's philosophical ruminations. Despite being set in the vast reaches of space, it's a claustrophobic movie, which I think is intentional. We never see space, only the cramped interiors of a spaceship, and that feels right, since the movie is more about the vast universe contained within Man's head than it is about the great physical universe beyond our solar system's borders.

What I liked most about "Solaris" is that it suggests that Man isn't really developed enough to handle breakthroughs in our understanding of the larger universe. Given the chance to explore space and engage with elements beyond our comprehension, the characters in the movie instead spend all of their time ruminating over and regretting the people they left behind on Earth and the mistakes they made there. It's almost like Mankind turns to solving giant huge mysteries as a distraction from the fact that we're not capable of cracking the lesser, more mundane mysteries of everyday life, like love, commitment, and dependence on one another.

"Solaris" does have one chilling and memorable ending, I'll give it that. If we go poking around in what we don't understand, it seems to say, we may very well find ourselves unable to return to what we do.

Grade: A-
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Original Approach of First Contact and Alien Lifeform
claudio_carvalho24 September 2008
When the scientist Fechner disappears in the surface of the mysterious Solaris Ocean, the experienced helicopter pilot Henri Berton (Vladislav Dvorzhetsky) crosses a fog seeking out Fechner and has weird visions. His statement is presented to a commission of scientists that believe he had hallucinations. However, the widowed psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is assigned to the space station that orbits Solaris to check the mental health of the three remaining scientists that are still working there. He first meets Dr. Snaut (Jüri Järvet), who tells him that Dr. Gibarian (S. Sarkisyan) committed suicide, and later he meets Dr. Sartorius (Anatoli Solonitsyn) and he realizes that the scientists have strange behaviors. When he encounters his wife Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk), who died ten years ago, in the space station, the scientists explain to Kris that the Solaris Ocean has the ability to materialize the innermost thoughts in neutrons beings. Kris questions whether the appearance of his beloved wife is a curse or a blessing.

"Solyaris" is an original (or maybe the most original) approach to first contact and alien life-form in the cinema history. The story is disclosed in an extremely low-pace through a flawed screenplay (at least for those like me that have not read the novel) that uses many ellipsis and poor art decoration, but beautifully raises philosophical questions about love, death, understanding, communication, fear for the unknown, origin of life, and Solaris Ocean might be the Paradise or even God. The intriguing story is open to interpretations and not recommended for those viewers that expect to see a conventional sci-fi movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Solaris"
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
What a beautiful film
a_gulliver21 December 2009
Shame on me for not realisng the 2002 film with George Clooney was essentially a remake of a Russian film made 30 years previously. I ought to have known, I am that sort of person.

So comes December 2009, and Film 4 show both Solaris films. I sat transfixed by the Russian film. Visually it is a thing of beauty, and it is a rare thing - a film which requires input from the viewer. This movie requires you to think for yourself...and some people find that difficult.

I enjoy a rip-snorting entertaining action movie as much as most people, but rare films like Solaris leave me feeling so much more fulfilled. There are ambiguities, not so much loose ends untied as dots which the viewer is required to connect for himself.

Try Solaris. If you find yourself twiddling your thumbs after 15 minutes then its probably not for you. If you find yourself glued to the screen then you know how I feel about this film.
33 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Interestimg combination of art, philosophy and science fiction
canerbaskurt11 January 2021
A very original story but a bit confusing at times, as an effect of art and philosophy on the film.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Skip this. See KIN-DZA-DZA instead.
rooprect7 January 2007
Admit it. 9 out of 10 of you are here because you heard that this movie is better than 2001: A Space Odyssey. Or perhaps there's some jerk who keeps putting you down every time you talk about scifi because you haven't seen Solyaris. Of all the phony name-dropping that goes on in scifi, this tops the list.

Well, I'm here to tell you that you don't have to sumbit. You want obscure Russian scifi that has a subtle yet poignant political/social commentary? Go see a film called KIN-DZA-DZA (1986). You want artistic science fiction which will confound your senses whilst piquing your consciousness? Go see MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (1976). But for Chrissake, give this overrated flick a rest.

But if you must... well, OK. I'll give you some pointers on how to watch (endure) this picture. Try not to get annoyed by 7 minutes of closeups of pond scum. Resist the temptation to hurl things at the screen after watching 11 minutes of freeway footage. And don't puke when you see a meaningless, 3-minute closeup of a man's ear. Yes, I'm sure these scenes are all wrought with esoteric symbolism. But that doesn't change the fact that they are overindulgent wastes of film.

If, at any time during the picture, you need to get up, use the restroom or fix yourself a peanut butter sandwich, feel free to do so without hitting 'pause'. Chances are the same scene will be on the screen when you return.

The plot itself is interesting but slightly flawed. But perhaps by that point you're too busy pondering the socio-political significance of a man's earlobe to notice the flaws. The ending, yes, is quite memorable. So don't throw this film in the trash without fast forwarding to the ending. But then again, if you're familiar with the old Twilight Zone series, perhaps you'll be able to figure out the ending without wasting your time looking at algae.

The theme--well, here I actually have something positive to say. The theme is quite compelling, thought-provoking and ponderous. I assume that's why this film has warranted such a bloated rating on IMDb. Fair enough. But for all its poetry, this movie still did not give me an enjoyable experience. It was like listening to a very intelligent person speak in monotone, repeating himself ad nauseum. After a while, you just have to say, "Brevity is the soul of wit, my friend. And you? You're just a long-winded bore."
76 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the best
McGonigle16 June 2003
This has to be one of the best science fiction movies ever produced. Not because it's filled with gee-whiz gizmos or creepy aliens (it isn't) but because it actually gives you something to think about besides "I wonder how much they spent on *that* shot". When I was a kid, I used to love reading sci-fi because it stimulated my imagination, but as I grew up (especially once "Star Wars" came out), I found that it was harder and harder to find anything remotely resembling imagination or mystery in the genre.

Well, this movie has restored my faith in what is possible to achieve under the guise of "sci-fi" (obviously, it's older than "Star Wars", but I didn't see it until years later, when I had basically written off the whole idea of science fiction movies). I saw it 10-15 years ago when it was re-released in the USA and liked it then, but seeing it again recently has convinced me that this is an all-time classic. As I said, it actually stimulates thought (rare enough in most sci-fi movies), but on top of that, it has a real and profound emotional impact that's far beyond what you find in most "dramas", let alone "kid stuff" like sci-fi. If this movie is intended to be an "answer" to "2001" (I'm not convinced that it is), the main contrast is that "Solaris" concerns itself with real human emotions, whereas the most interesting character in "2001" is the computer.

For those who complain that it's boring, just go see something else. You'll obviously never get it. If the opening shot of water and plant life didn't tip you off to the fact that this movie is intentionally paced a little bit more deliberately than, say, "Buckaroo Banzai", then you should go out and try to get some sort of clue before watching this movie. It's not boring... it's SLOW. It's *meant* to be slow. Some of the scenes exist solely to set a mood, not to advance the plot. If you can't handle that, then this isn't the movie or you. But if you're able to sit still for 3 hours without squirming, and if you're able to enjoy a movie without having every idea spelled out in giant neon letters, then you just might like "Solaris", and find that it haunts you for years to come.
363 out of 453 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Possibly Tarkovsky at his least accessible but from personal opinion Solaris is a fine film
TheLittleSongbird6 January 2015
Not my favourite of Tarkovsky's work(Andrei Rublev) and like I said with Stalker not his most accessible(Ivan's Childhood). It is very long, quite talky and requires a lot of patience, sure almost all of Tarkovsky's film, apart from Ivan's Childhood, are paced very deliberately but Solaris is the only one with a first twenty minutes that puts you off seeing more.

However, Solaris is a fine film indeed from a remarkably consistent director(one of the few who didn't make a bad film) and is an important one by his standards and for the sci-fi genre. Tarkovsky's direction is typically superb and it's visually striking, not as dream-like as say Mirror but it's beautifully shot and has a hypnotic quality that keeps your eyes glued to the screen, providing that you're in the right mood or if it's your thing. The music score is both menacing and melancholic and compliments the mood incredibly effectively, one of the better scores of Tarkovsky's films. As ever with Tarkovsky, the writing is very thoughtful in a philosophical way(the most philosophical Tarkovsky film) and the story is one where it starts off very slow but once you stick with it it's very rewarding. Didn't have any real trouble with following it, though it is understandable it wouldn't work for people as it didn't quite click with me first time watching it(I still appreciated what the film was trying to do though).

Most effective was how amazingly Solaris worked as a mood-piece. It may not be the most powerful(Andrei Rublev) or personal(Mirror) Tarkovsky film, but it was still powerful stuff, almost as suspenseful as Stalker and had a lot of emotional impact. The ending was spine-chilling, even people I know who dislike it said that they were bowled over by the ending. The acting is fine especially with the heart-wrenching performance of Natalya Bondarchuk. Overall, a fine and influential film but it is one of those films that will captivate viewers and frustrate others. 9/10 Bethany Cox
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"You mean more to me than any scientific truth."
Quinoa19843 September 2006
One line could not sum up a film like Solaris, certainly not even one of the quotes from the characters who sometimes dip into the philosophical. But that line does still speak to me after now having seen the film twice, and still feeling as if I haven't really SEEN it altogether. Or at least maybe felt, or taken in. Andrei Tarkovsky considered this his least favorite film, and perhaps as a filmmaker myself I could understand. With a pace that never once breaks from the consistency of its focus on the differences between Nature and Earth and technology and science, as well as love, loss, memory, etc, it can be tricky for the director not to find something to critique of himself. And as it was, according to an interview on the DVD, Tarkovsky was obsessed with his work to the point of perfectionism. But, as has been put forward more times than need be to count from reading reviews and comments, this is the Russian equivalent of Kubrick's 2001 really only on two fronts, the pushing forward of boundaries in experiencing visions of what can truly never be known, and letting its characters find out what it means to be without Earth so far out in space (and equally what can stick around).

But Tarkovsky is not interested in the same obsessions that had Kubrick and Clarke, and so the comparisons can only go so far before it's really just time to take the film on its own terms, or at least in relation to other science fiction films. It's not about true discovery into the unknown and reaching for mysteries rooted in us as apes. The discoveries of Solaris are known pretty well to anyone who's lived and loved and lost and not been able to connect once lost. The character of Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis, one of the two really stirring performances of the film) starts off on Earth surrounded by natures plenty, and as a mostly stone-faced widower its almost until halfway through the film that we finally see what can be tapped into in his empirically based mind. The exposition- handled through a testimony of a scarred spaceman- tells of an Ocean, being studied by the Solarists, that has started to have a life-force of its own, creating what may or may not be there for those close to it. When Kelvin arrives at the Solaris station, around two weary and worn scientists for the cause, he gets the effect of a resurrected person- his deceased wife Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk, the other one)- who's own ambiguities and connections as real or copy start to bring the real psychological panic to the film.

All of this is done in such a way that is easy to assume as boring. But if you give yourself to the style of the film, stay with the pacing, it is rewarding on its own level, perhaps too in its way comparable to 2001, as it leaves enough to interpret. Tarkovsky is not after anything conventional, which can be seen as a draw back for some. Solaris asks its viewer to take a more emotional journey than one that might find a little creature or lots of real 'action'. Kelvin's time with his new Hari is contrasted against the near empty space station, as he has formed out his wife from somewhere inside of him. In fact it's probably so much connected with philosophical overtones- with at least some time given to talking about the whats and whys of really seeking out something outside of Earth that can only be understood in logic beyond simplicity. At the same time a love story is also worked in, or rather a love constricted within boundaries of perception and the surreal. Why can't Hari be killed or disappear? What happens when Kelvin has his fever late in the film? And can Hari ever really feel at peace with him? What's love when reflected upon? The questions raised, which may or may not be answered by the end of the film (though it had an ending that had me saying out loud "oh wow", in part surprise and in part seeing how the factor of the 'Guests' made perfect sense), are put to a backdrop of something that can really be described as something of great art. It might leave little parts that are imperfect, but overall like some big epic poem Tarkovsky's film sinks deep into its subject matter that for those who can grasp enough of it in one or two viewings can take that in tow with the style.

And, as mentioned before, at almost three hours it carries as much weight on the side of capturing the visuals as it does of expressing the characters. There's a beauty to nature, and it's seen with just as clear and undiscriminating an eye as the long scene on the road driving (my personal favorite), the oceans in space, and the corridors of the ship are seen as enclosing and impersonal. Some of these images on their own had me re-watching them on their own, just to see how he and his crew did it. It's got that desire to raise questions that marks the most interesting science fiction, in this case to terrify us by the nature of the people affected by realized abstractions, and to conjure some thought as to what's in us as much as what might be out there. An extraordinary movie that is, to be expected, going to draw its audience as take it or leave it. If you do take it, it marks as one of those movies that asks for your patience and then delivers as much once its over as it did when it was on.
25 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Science Fiction as Art.
JohnWelles22 December 2009
This is, along with Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", the closest thing the Si-Fi film genre has ever got to high art. Each frame is painted with loving care and generosity, so the whole movie is always consistently beautiful. Cinematographer Vadim Yusov's delicate compositions are among the most beautiful ever created for the silver screen.

The screenplay by Fridrikh Gorenshtein and Andrei Tarkovsky (the director), based on the novel written by Stanisław Lem, probes all the dilemma's that the situation involves and the final, hauntingly ambiguous image of Solaris making an island for Donatas Banionis fantasies(?) is up there with Kubrick's afore mentioned masterpiece as the greatest ending ever.

Of course, Andrei Tarkovsky directed this astounding film, so he should take the credit for letting the actors and all concerned do the best work they ever did. So I must say thank you to Tarkovsky for creating this awe-inspiring film.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A few comments on how to watch it
toshikk23 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
One of the users in his/her comment to the 2002 adaptation of Lem's novel said that this types of movies should be given a new rating, BRBV (or Brain Required Before Viewing).

Unfortunately, I have not seen the Sodebergh's version of "Solaris" (I'm pretty sure it can't beat this one, but, given what other people think about it, I can tell that it's worth seeing), but I can assure you that the same can be applied to this movie too.

Guys, it's not boring; it is SLOW. There's a huge difference between the two. Boring movies (Daredevil and Attack of the Clones, for instance) make you fall asleep, good slow movies make you think. If you are a kind of person that comes to movie theater just to see some blood and guts on the screen while chewing on buttery popcorn (popcorn eaters are, probably, my biggest pet peeve when it comes to going to the movies here, in the US - there's always some guy sitting right next to you, eating it so loud that you can't hear a darn thing...), this is not a movie for you. And as for those of you who don't fall into that category - well, you also have to be in the right mood for it. If you are constantly thinking about something important that you have to do or if there is a lot of people making a lot of noise around you - don't watch it; you're still going to like it, but you'll lose a lot. You have to concentrate on the movie, it should be the only thing on your mind. Just sit back and... no, not enjoy. Think. Then you'll enjoy it.

I am not going to restate the entire plot of the movie, for a lot of people have already done it. Instead, I'm going to try to give you a few clues about some confusing moments in the movie. (Yes, SPOILERS, if that's what you want to call them).

1) Oh, that "boring, boring, boring" car ride scene. Attention, popcorn lovers - this is not 21st century Moscow (in fact, it's never mentioned, where the "Earth" part of the movie takes place - it can be Japan as well...). This is not supposed to give you the insight of what the future is like. It is there for one simple reason - to show you that the astronaut in the car, as well as all other characters in the movie, has got nowhere to go. It's all just an endless road.

2) Seaweed - it just stands for nature, Earth, as the characters know it. It's there for a reason too, not just to bore the hell out of you.

3)The final scene - Kris is not on Earth. He's on Solaris. He himself is a part of the planet's giant "thinking" Ocean now, just like Harey was.

Once again - forget about this movie if you like action the most. Go watch Daredevil or wait till the new Matrix comes out. For all others - watch it, it's a sure 10/10.
90 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
How do I give this movie a score--there just isn't much I can compare it to!
planktonrules5 August 2007
This is one of the stranger films I have ever seen and although I have seen several other Russian films and was not entirely put off by the amazingly slow pacing, I was left wondering whether or not I even liked the film! The film starts on Earth. It's supposed to be in the future, but how far in uncertain. What is certain is that the homes and dress look like the 1970s--not a Hollywood or European film view of the 1970s or the future--just the 1970s. At this point, the audience is confused, because although you don't know the year, the entire context for the film is missing--things just ARE and the film moves as if the audience somehow knows what is occurring and what has occurred.

What slowly becomes apparent is that there is an Earth space station in orbit over some planet. Additionally, some mystery surrounds the base and bizarre reports of things happening on the supposedly barren surface alarm some and don't seem to matter to the protagonist in the film, Kris Kelvin. He then goes to Solyaris to investigate but seems to have little emotion or motivation.

Once there, he soon realizes that the two remaining people on the station and himself are subject to bizarre contacts from the planet below. Instead of contacting them by radio or telepathically, a unique person from one's past appears to each of the three--though the only one you really see in more than glimpses is Kelvin's deceased wife, Hari. Now you know and the rest of the audience knows that this can't be Hari. Even if she were alive, she'd be back on Earth but somehow Kelvin is so captivated by her that he refuses to believe she isn't real. While she MAY be real, it is certain she ain't Hari! Despite Kelvin's desire to just lie around and enjoy reminiscing and sleeping with Hari, the other two scientists somehow think this is a bad plan, so one of them comes up with an incomprehensible plan to use Kelvin's EEG pattern to stop the transmissions from the planet. How, exactly, he came up with this plan is really vague, but at the end of the film, the apparitions on the space station stop and Kelvin decides to go back to Earth. But, in an excellent twist, you are left wondering exactly WHAT happened.

Despite my liking the ending very much, the basic premise and some of the lovely cinematography, the end product was a very mixed bag. The film was meant to be an artsy film and often spent WAAAAYYYY too long on scenes that should have been shortened in order to keep the audience awake. Now I do like longer movies and a 3 or 4 hour film isn't daunting to me, but this film should have had at least 1/2 hour taken out of it. Too many scenes show close-ups of weeds moving in the water, cars driving for 5 minutes along a highway in Japan (pointlessly, I might add) and people staring off into space. Now some of these excesses didn't surprise me (heck, I've see the Russian version of WAR AND PEACE twice--and it runs more than 6 1/2 hours in the American version), but that still didn't excuse the overly long shots. Had this not been an "art" film, critics most likely would have torn apart the film for this reason. I truly think that had it been only a 2 hour movie, it would have been better and I would have scored it at least an 8.

This one is like watching a film marathon. A pretty good film marathon, but a marathon nonetheless.
22 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"When man is happy, the meaning of life and other eternal themes rarely interest him."
Bored_Dragon12 August 2021
The film "Solaris", by Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, is based on the eponymous SF novel by Polish writer Stanislaw Lem. I did not read the novel, but its author criticized this adaptation, and Tarkovski himself considered it his weakest achievement.

Humans have set up a space station in the orbit of a planet with an indication of extraterrestrial intelligence. However, many years of research do not give any concrete results and the mission is on the verge of shutdown. The station was reduced to only three scientists and, when one of them commits suicide, our protagonist is sent to investigate the case and submit a report on which will depend the further fate of the mission Solaris. It turns out that this mysterious intelligence has the ability to read human minds while they sleep and materialize their "dreams".

As with the film "Stalker", the SF premise is here in the service of the basis for the study of character and strong psychological drama, with the SF element being much more prominent. The premise is very interesting, characters are well developed, both through their actions and through excellently written dialogues, the acting is on a level, and the overall atmosphere is mesmerizing, which is greatly contributed by visual and especially sound effects. Although Tarkovsky did not have a high opinion of Kubrick's masterpiece, the atmosphere of "Solaris" reminded me quite a bit of "2001: A Space Odyssey".

As expected from Tarkovsky, the camera, directing, and editing make "Solaris" visually beautiful. But the film contains scenes that last an eternity and, although they look really nice and have a good atmosphere, do not serve any obvious purpose. Neither they contribute to the story, nor to the overall atmosphere or emotion. They are here to be beautiful and to last until exhaustion.

The film opens with the scene of our main character strolling, a beautiful scene in which every frame is an art photograph, and without which the film would lose nothing but four minutes of idling. It is soon followed by a scene of Burton driving in the car. For a full five minutes, we watch him in the car and then road through his eyes and then him again and then road from above... So, in the first half-hour, a third is in the same function as Tolstoy's descriptions on five pages. The film could be easily shortened from almost three to under two hours, without losing a bit of story and atmosphere. We would be deprived only of idling, although very nicely shot, but still only idling, which is only there to be beautiful, and along the way to distract everyone from watching except those most patient artistic souls. I'm not saying that all those scenes should be thrown out, but they could be cut in half and the film should still be beautiful and artistic, without risk of suffocating the audience.

I'm not able to explain what is in question, but I almost unmistakably recognize movies from the seventies. They have that specific taste that I never particularly liked. Also, after the movie "Stalker", I was not optimistic about Tarkovsky's other films. But this one made a really strong impression on me. So much so that, just a few days after watching it in the cinema, I watched it again at home. Except for, in my opinion unnecessary, long idle scenes, "Solaris" is in all other respects a beautiful and enriching film experience.

9/10.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The long, Soviet version of Lem's novel is enigmatic and, well, long.
pontifikator13 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The long, Soviet version of Lem's novel is enigmatic and, well, long. It has long scenes.

Among the movie's enigmas are why the directer bounced back and forth between color and black and white. In "Memento" we can figure it out. Here in Solaris, I have no clue. But that enigma pales in comparison with what the heck is going on. The Soviet version follows the novel more closely than Soderbergh's 2002 version, but the novel itself is a dense, thick book which has as its thesis that we will never be able to understand alien life forms, no matter how hard we try to communicate. I'll suggest that this is a metaphor for alienation in the Soviet Union under communist rule: we can never know what other humans are telling us because we can't tell if they're hiding their true feelings, trying to trap us into making criminal admissions, trying to avoid making criminal statements, or whatever. Further, there's the plain inability to communicate effectively which is shared by all humans, whether under tyrannical rule or not.

We see Kelvin with his father, mother, and aunt at their dacha shortly before Kelvin leaves for Solaris. Kelvin burns most of his papers; apparently his trip will take decades in earth time, and neither Kelvin nor his father expects the father to be alive when Kelvin returns. There is a cloudburst, and Kelvin remains out in it, letting it drench him.

SPOILERS--------------

Kelvin arrives on the space station un-aged, and we see the bewildering circumstances which the shipmates (Snaut and Sartorius) fail or refuse to explain to Kelvin. After Kelvin sleeps, his dead wife is in his room with him. It seems all the other crew members have had what they term "visitors," too. One crewmember, Gibarian, has killed himself. He had a visitor, but no one knows why he committed suicide. Kelvin puts his wife in a rocket and sends her off, but the next time he wakes up, she's with him again - another visitor.

The problem with the movie is that Tarkovsky can't show us the problem effectively. Lem's point of view (as I understand it, and I may be wrong) is that we won't even recognize communication from an alien - it will be totally alien to us, unrecognizable as communications. The issue isn't as simple as translating the languages; it's the problem of determining that what's going on is an attempt to talk.

The alien in this version of Solaris (and in the novel) is the "ocean" on the planet. It can move and change its shape. It appears to be reading people's memories as they sleep, then it sends a visitor to each person based on the memories. The visitors however, are all defective in some way, and Kelvin and his revived wife (Hari in this film) can't figure out whether her defect (she keeps committing suicide but returning to life) is the result of Kelvin's memory (his overriding memory is that she killed herself but he could have prevented it if he'd paid more attention to what was going on) or some defect in how Solaris is creating Hari.

Ultimately for Hari, the cause of her defect is irrelevant, and she is desperately unhappy. Sartorius figures out a way to annihilate her so that she doesn't return to life, and she leaves Kelvin with only her note. Kelvin somehow beams his encephalogram to the ocean, and the visitors stop. Apparently Snaut and Sartorius decide to depart for earth. We get a scene of Kelvin back on earth walking around the pond near his dacha, but the water is solid. He goes to the dacha, and his father is inside, where it is pouring rain, drenching him. Kelvin's father sees Kelvin, comes outside, Kelvin falls to his knees, and embraces his father. The camera pulls back further and further, and we see that the land around the dacha is an island formed by the ocean, so this scene is being played out on the planet. (This is why the water is solid and it rains indoors - the creation is always defective.)

I have no clue from the movie whether Kelvin stayed, going down to the surface and this is him we see; or whether this is a memory created by Solaris from the encephalogram, and this Kelvin is a visitor, as is the father. If this is the real Kelvin, we get a feeling of Kelvin returning home (albeit in his memory) and receiving his father's forgiveness, but for what I do not know. The reconciliation of father and son has some meaning, even if I can't figure out what the separation was; there's a communication between the two by touch and presumably by emotional feelings. This might be seen as a hopeful ending.

If Kelvin went home and this entire scene is a creation by Solaris, then I'm guessing Solaris has intuited that humans communicate by sharing emotions. If Solaris is utterly silent, then this would be a sensible guess on Solaris's part - it has no knowledge of sound and speech, so it would miss that entirely. It may be then, that after everyone left, Solaris has a key to how to begin communication. If this is the case, then the ending is bleak. The experiment in communicating with Solaris was years long and failed.

Perhaps ironically, I'm in the same boat with Kelvin, Snaut, and Sartorius: I have no clue what Tarkovsky is trying to tell me. I have too little information to make a guess I'm comfortable with. I could watch the movie again, but it's two hours and forty minutes, and I'm not willing to invest that much time again - ironically perhaps, like the crew leaving when Solaris finally found a key to communicating. C'est la vie.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
You do not need to understand the reason behind love and death...or do you?
dyutiman_m14 February 2016
The philosophy of Solaris and some counter-arguments:

To be affected by the eternal human values of love and death you do not need to understand the reason behind them...you are only attracted towards love and death because they are a mystery...and once the mystery is lost you will no more be affected by it...this is the philosophy of Stanislaw Lem's Solaris...however, here comes the paradox...the very essence of a 'mystery' is that it demands an answer to solve the mystery...thus this 'mystery' of love and death demands asking questions to find an answer behind their very existence...here comes the role of science...science tries to answer these questions behind their existence...it tries to 'solve' the mystery and thus 'preserves' the essence of the mystery and thus ultimately preserves the essence of love in this paradoxical feedback loop.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Russian
SnoopyStyle15 September 2016
Kris Kelvin is a psychologist ready to launch to Solaris. He's with his family reviewing tapes of the confusing interrogation of pilot Berton about the floundering mission. He arrives at the space station to find it in disrepair. Snaut and Sartorius are in haunted isolation while Gibarian had committed suicide. He is visited by hallucinations of his dead wife Khari.

This is an art-house sci-fi from the Soviet era. The first act goes too slowly. There is a lot of talk. I'm not sure putting it in a Russian dacha is terribly exciting although it's very Russian. Berton's interrogation is strangely disconnected because Kris is not the person doing the interrogation. The actual space station is an odd mix of futurism and a contemporary home office. It's all very art-house. The alien ocean looks beautifully hypnotic. The idea of the story and its treatment is original and intriguing.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Have A Pillow Handy
Lechuguilla9 October 2008
Has there ever been a slower film? Whatever vision or theme director Andrei Tarkovsky was trying to convey, almost certainly more viewers would have been exposed to it and possibly mesmerized, if the film had been imbued with a modicum of entertainment value. "Solyaris" has got to be one of the most boring, and pretentious, movies ever made.

Ostensibly a sci-fi film, the first 43 minutes take place in a most mundane, earth-like setting, with visuals that do not in any way suggest anything cosmic or other-worldly. Later, the plot shifts to a spacecraft. But even here, the sets are mundane and unimaginative. They look like what one would see in an episode of Star Trek.

None of the film's characters are remotely interesting. Dialogue and acting are both melodramatic. At times, I thought I was watching a soap opera. The film has absolutely no humor. The overall tone is serious and dour. Background music is funereal and gloomy. The film's first Act is confusing and muddled.

The cinematography has very, very long camera "takes", and is mostly color, but shifts to B&W at odd times, for no apparent reason. Five consecutive minutes are consumed by a car traversing a freeway in Japan (and this is a Russian film?); there's no dialogue in this sequence, nothing but a car moving along through a city, first in daylight, then at night. Nor does the sequence advance the plot in any discernible way. Throughout the film, sound effects are amplified, apparently to keep viewers awake.

With a ponderous and painfully slow plot that runs nearly three hours, no humor, melodramatic dialogue and acting, and an abstruse theme, "Solyaris" comes across not only as tedious and utterly lacking in entertainment value, but also extremely pretentious. For most viewers, I would recommend a pillow or a deck of cards. One should at least be able to get in a lengthy nap or several games of solitaire for having to endure this dreary cinematic ordeal.
110 out of 187 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed