Clooney & Soderbergh's Solaris- art or pretention? by chrisisall

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Clooney & Soderbergh's Solaris- art or pretention?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 09:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1717
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:34 AM

CHRISISALL

I fall on the art side- not since 2001 have I taken such a fascination to that which I cannot fully explain.

Opinions?

The nebulous Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:53 PM

WHOZIT

How about rip-off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(1972_film) I hate Clooney

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:58 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
How about rip-off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(1972_film) I hate Clooney

Oh, I suppose you actually saw the 1972 version of the movie BASED ON THE BOOK

And The Zit is just a ripoff of The Tick, BTW.

The buggy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 1:01 PM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
How about rip-off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(1972_film) I hate Clooney

Oh, I suppose you actually saw the 1972 version of the movie BASED ON THE BOOK

And The Zit is just a ripoff of The Tick, BTW.

The buggy Chrisisall

No I have not seen it, I went to WIKIPEDIA and found that, and I'm much cuter then "THE TICK"

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 1:13 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
I'm much cuter then "THE TICK"

Cominf from a ZIT, that means almost nothing.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 1:19 PM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
I'm much cuter then "THE TICK"

Cominf from a ZIT, that means almost nothing.

The laughing Chrisisall

......and cuter then Clooney!

I'm going to micowave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 1:27 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

I saw this when it came out. I liked it.

Sometimes it's quite satisfying to sit down to watch a sci-fi that decides to take it's subject seriously. This is one such film. Unfortunately that can make it seem a little pretencious, and perhaps there is something to that, but still I thought the overall atmosphere of the piece was really solid and fitted perfectly with the subject matter. (as much as I recall of it anyway - It's been some years.)

Not sure I was surprised by the 'reveal' when I saw it, but nonetheless it wrapped up well.

I remember being interested in the shots. Weren't they mostly from ground point of view looking up? Or am I remembering that incorrectly... Anyway if you like cerebral sci-fi this one is OK. Not as good as The Andromeda Strain or Supernova but on a similar level with Sunshine and THX1138.

Have you seen the Tarkovski from 1972...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 1:42 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Anyway if you like cerebral sci-fi this one is OK. Not as good as The Andromeda Strain or Supernova but on a similar level with Sunshine and THX1138.

Personally, I'd put it right up with the first two...and...funny you mention Supernova, it wasn't a widely well-received flick, but I think it's great, the unused extended end in deleted scenes I find to be exceptionally excellent- I wish they'd used it in the film proper.

Quote:

Have you seen the Tarkovski from 1972...?

No, I've read about it's pace being excruciatingly slow- slower than 2001, and I have this fear of slow...did you see it, Som?

The slo-mo Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:18 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Chrisisall wrote:

Quote:
Personally, I'd put it right up with the first two...and...funny you mention Supernova, it wasn't a widely well-received flick, but I think it's great, the unused extended end in deleted scenes I find to be exceptionally excellent- I wish they'd used it in the film proper.

I love supernova. One of those unseen gems that I just happened upon. I loved the vistas of space. The finest astronomical art I've ever seen, ever! I wish I had seen it in the cinema. I didn't realise there was a deleted finalé. I guess I should hunt a copy down.

Quote:
No, I've read about it's pace being excruciatingly slow- slower than 2001, and I have this fear of slow...did you see it, Som?

Yes I saw it. (My best friend is a Tarkovski nut. Tarkovski is his favourite director no less.) It is slow, very slow, but it really isn't even trying to be a film. It's a very hard sell. There's no convention to it at all.. It unfolds like a series of theoretical visuals that rely heavily on an audience member understanding the relationship between seemingly disperate imagery, cut together to form a chronology of an event... Only the chronology itself is theoretical... Sort of.

So many images flow past you with seemingly no meaning that you begin to question what it is you see - which is sort of what happens to the main character I suppose so there is a point, but it's very challenging.

One to watch for when you're in a more reflective mood.... Shall we say when things appear that bit more random that you'd like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:25 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

I love supernova. One of those unseen gems that I just happened upon. I loved the vistas of space. The finest astronomical art I've ever seen, ever! I wish I had seen it in the cinema. I didn't realise there was a deleted finalé. I guess I should hunt a copy down.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Supernova-James-Spader/dp/B000050GQP

The finale isn't the only deleted scene- there are piles of 'em. And all interesting. And the price is SO right!!!

The spaced Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:37 PM

CHRISISALL

Wow. Critics hated Supernova more than I thought- this is the best review I could find:
http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/Supernova-92.html
But no matter- we know what's good, eh?

The Spader-like Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:44 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Critics shmitics! They know nothing!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 3:14 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

I read the book by Stanislaw Lem first.

I've seen Tarkovsky's film twice, completely, and both times it was a monumental chore getting through it. There are only a couple of scenes worth remembering, and unfortunately the best of them is the final shot in the movie. I have never understood why it is rated so highly by critics and movie-goers, and the only reason I watched it a second time was to see if it might have been my mood the first time that was the problem. It wasn't.

I liked Sodergergh's version a lot more, bought it on dvd, and wish it had been longer (although not as long as the original - 99min. vs 165).

I do like thoughtful, contemplative SF, in both books and films. 2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite SF film of all time, and #3 on my overall list.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 3:23 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:

I liked Sodergergh's version a lot more, bought it on dvd, and wish it had been longer (although not as long as the original - 99min. vs 165).

The original cut of Soderbergh's Solaris was reportedly 30 min. longer- I hold out hope for an extended edition some day.

2001 was a film I didn't like much when I first saw it (at 17), but now in my forties, I find it to be one of the best SF movies ever (though Serenity, Blade Runner, Planet Of The Apes & Star Trek TMP still rate higher on my subjective favourites list, sorry Stanley).

The Vulcan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 9:08 AM

SICKDUDE

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I read the book by Stanislaw Lem first.

I've seen Tarkovsky's film twice, completely, and both times it was a monumental chore getting through it.

Me, too!

I read the book first, and really enjoyed it. To this day, it's one of my favorite scifi books. (Although I prefer the out of print "The Invincible" of all of his works!)

The 1972 movie was horrible. I cannot even watch it all of the way through.

When the Clooney movie was announced, I was pretty excited. And I enjoyed it. But personally, I feel they changed the focus of the story. The movie featured the tagline "What if you could live that day all over?" or something like that. They made it about the relationship.

I personally feel that this misses the point of the original book altogether. To me, it has very little to do with the events on the station or the characters themselves; I feel the book was a no-holds-barred look at what might happen when we met something truly alien. That is to say, we would have no idea what the heck we were even seeing. The protagonist never does find out why the dopplegangers were sent. Were they gifts, attacks, just mimicries, attempts at communication, what?! And after 100 years of exploration, the scientists really have no clue about the nature of the planet. Ultimately, the book is criticizing standard scifi that features aliens and predicamnets similar to aspects of ourselves and our own past. Aren't Klingons basically just angry, war-like humans? Lem takes the point of view that space exploration would be really boring punctuated by boughts of trying to talk to whales.

And all of that is lost in the movie, at least the theatrical cut.

"Your gratuitous jello awaits." - Dr. Helen Magnus, Sanctuary

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 9:17 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Sickdude:

I read the book first, and really enjoyed it. To this day, it's one of my favorite scifi books. (Although I prefer the out of print "The Invincible" of all of his works!)

I may have to track that one down now.

Quote:

When the Clooney movie was announced, I was pretty excited. And I enjoyed it.

I enjoyed it IMMENSELY, but I did feel like something was cut out or missing- I JUST found out about the 30 min. of deleted scenes...

Quote:
Aren't Klingons basically just angry, war-like humans?

I liked V'Ger better, it was a less conventional Trek alien.

The Kohlinear-attaining Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 9:23 AM

SICKDUDE

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I may have to track that one down now.

Used book stores with a good scifi selection should have the late-70s paperback. And I think you'll like it. It's cerebral like most of his works, but it has a vaguely "Aliens" like feel.

"Your gratuitous jello awaits." - Dr. Helen Magnus, Sanctuary

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 9:28 AM

CHRISISALL

Thanks dude.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE