A big collection of films that might be considered as strange, mindfucking, surreal and weird. Sorted by year. Suggestions are…
How far will you go for a second chance?
Upon arrival at the space station orbiting an ocean world called Solaris a psychologist discovers that the commander of an expedition to the planet has died mysteriously. Other strange events soon start happening as well, such as the appearance of old acquaintances of the crew, including some who are dead.
An alien of unknowable intention, indefensible power, and indefinable reach. An invasion story without a single Stan Winston creature, annihilated city-center, or large-caliber gun. I'd happily place Lem's tale up there with Odyssey and Alien as top-tier sci-fi stories, without even having read the source material and based only on the adaptations. Solaris is one of the few examples of truly 'alien' aliens I can think of, and as stated previously, any depiction of intelligent life which eschews an anthropic bias is more than OK as a jumping off point in my book.
Tale of the tape, at least for me - Clooney does space madness better than Banionis, Soderbergh's efficiency and visuals make his take more palatable for spur-of-the-moment…
I don't really know if I should call this a remake from Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris (1972), or just another adaptation from Stanislaw Lem's acclaimed novel, so I am just going to call it a remake to simplify my writing. What I am going to do will be more a comparison between the two Solaris (Tarkovky's and Soderbergh's) than a review over the 2002 film. The plot of this movie may already be well known among moviegoers, but I'll still expose it. A psychiatrist is called to a space station orbiting an oceanic world called Solaris, and is surprised by the death of the expedition's commander. As other events begin to occur they start suspecting that the cause of these events…
With a much faster pace, only half the original's runtime, and released 30 years apart, Steven Soderbergh's Solaris is just as excellent as Andrei Tarkovsky's Solyaris. Or dare I say, the remake is actually an improvement.
That's what I think, at least. Just hear me out.
Solyaris is a great, great film, notice I used great twice because that's just how great the film is. But I won't go as far as to say that the film is impossible to be duplicated. There is a flaw, and that would be its unusually slow pace. Now I'm not complaining, I enjoyed every minute of it. (though my mind did wander off a bit during the car scene) It's just that, if…
Clooney looks as gorgeous as ever and the cinematography is beautifully composed. In fact, everything looks immaculate to the point of sterilisation. Which may be a perfect recreation of zero atmosphere in space but in cinematic terms it becomes a draining chore to sit through. The film has too much time on its hands and a painfully slow way of expressing its point.
This second adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's novel is a strange choice for Soderbergh. Praise for Tarkovsky's version typically hails the faithfulness to the source material, the metaphysical and intellectually blurred lines between reality and the subconscious. This version doesn't go all in to explore similar themes so its purpose is something of a mystery, delivering none of…
"There are no answers, only choices." ~ Gibarian
Director Steven Soderbergh would insist that this NOT a remake of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 Russian version of "Solaris." Instead, it is a new adaptation of the original 1961 book by Polish novelist Stanislaw Lem, upon which both films are based. I think I have to agree with that interpretation. Apart from the updating of the language, social norms and special effects, this telling emphasizes some very different themes, but it still misses the point that Lem wanted to drive home in his writing about the moral dilemmas raised by "first contact" with non-Earthly sentience. In fact, I think Tarkovsky did a better job in that regard, even if Lem might not agree.…
Why I watched this one? I had tried a few times to make it through this movie the entire way....but I never finished watching it. Well I was determined to finally watch this movie from beginning to end.
What is this one about? George Clooney plays a troubled psychologist is sent to investigate the crew of an isolated research station orbiting a bizarre planet.
My thoughts on this one? This is one confusing movie. It is based on a book....and is actually the second movie to take on that book. Like Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey this one seems to ask more questions than it answers. The special effects are believable....the actors are fine....but I am sure many will ask…
An amazing and terribly underseen Steven Soderbergh film. George Clooney and Natascha McElhone give great performances.
Side-note: this movie was the first to get an F from Cinemascore. Considering some of the other movies that an F (Wolf Creek, Bug, The Box, and Killing Them Softly) and some of the one that got an A+ (Driving Miss Daisy), I think you can guess how I feel about them.
Steven Soderbergh directs this sci-fi drama about a psychologist who visits a space station orbiting a planet called Solaris in an attempt to rescue the crew. Clooney carries the film well in one of his most challenging roles, and is ably supported by Natascha McElhone, Jeremy Davies and Viola Davis. Soderbergh paints with a sombre palette; there is a lot of grey and rain and sobering camera shots. The relationship between Clooney and his 'dead' wife is the central theme and most interesting aspect of Solaris, flitting between past and present, and dealing with the questions of what it is to be human and what to do with a second chance, even if it has moral grey areas. It's an interesting film and I enjoyed it more than the Russian original.
Still one of the most hauntingly beautiful movies I've ever seen. My wife had never seen this before (which goes for about 97% of the movies I've seen. And while I won't begrudge her for not watching things like Death Row Game Show and C.H.U.D. II: Bud the C.H.U.D., movies like this are something I know she'd at least appreciate), and I've tried to keep a mental list of movies that she needs to see. We can now cross this one off.
If you haven't seen this (and judging by the box office revenue, you haven't), it's about a psychologist who ends up on a space station to try and get to the bottom of some strange occurrences. It has…
Beautiful, subtle science-fiction that I can’t help but compare to Sunshine and Moon. It’s got the mysterious celestial body playing a main character just like Sunshine, but it doesn’t go very deep in that direction. Rather, it focuses on relationships and humanity like Moon. Unlike Moon, however, the focus isn’t as razor sharp. The ambiguity helps create the right mood, but leaves me with less empathy for the character(s) and satisfaction for the journey taken.
Added to Watchlist: 1972 Solaris
I remember liking this more when it came out in 2002. This time, it came off as extremely sterile, which were the main complaints surrounding the film upon release. I really wish I could have keyed in on what I liked about it the first time, other than the spectacular sets and effects (which are still top notch), but I couldn't. I just seem to remember having an emotional connection to the film the first time around, that doesn't seem to have carried over onto this viewing. Frustrating...
I like both this one and the original, but I bet I would LOVE one that is the average of the two running times. I felt like this one didn't spend enough time establishing his character and his relationship with his wife on earth to give proper weight to the events on the ship. But other than that, it's extremely cool that we have a movie this meditative and beautiful that isn't even 100 minutes long.
Definitely my favourite Nespresso advert.
Though it trims over an hour from the original 1972 Solaris, this version, while more concise, is less mystical and less philosophical. Instead, Soderbergh works all on mood and he has that in spades. Visually, it's a stunning movie and the score, by Cliff Martinez, is evocative and brilliantly used. The film, however, presents it's themes in such a heavy handed, obvious manner which brings the film down. There's some heady and far out things this movie attempts to explore and the heavy handedness makes it as if Soderbergh was attempting to spoon feed his audience, even though other parts of the film are left enigmatic and are better for it. Not helping matters at all is Clooney's moot performance…
I'm posting this list earlier than normal as I'm not sure I'll be around much next week.
For the purposes…