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…
“I’m not the person I remember, or at least I’m not sure I am. I do remember things but I don’t remember being there. I don’t remember experiencing those things.”
Firstly let us begin with the obligatory statement of how Soderbergh’s Solaris does not reach the sheer brilliance of the Tarkovsky film of the same name. I've truly never understood the appeal of remaking a ‘classic’. By doing this, Soderbergh has subjected himself to a no-win situation. Unless it was a film with a great concept that was not executed to its full potential, or technological advancements have since been made that could assist in the fundamental telling of the story; such as, Cronenberg’s The Fly, there doesn't seem to…
I really dig the mood of this film mostly due to Cliff Martinez's great score.
The music was too precious, the style too spacious. This story is claustrophobic, vaguely terrifying and manic, and haunting. Entirely missed in this adaptation.
“Everything we've done is forgiven.”
Is there any happier ending than that? And yet, you'll mostly just feel weird and creeped out and supremely bummed. Good stuff.
For a film that focuses more on the emotional core of the story, it sure feels less intimate than Tarkovsky's version. It has no poetry, no flow, no moments of emotional catharsis nor revelation. It's a rather drab affair. Competent...but drab. An hour shorter than Tarkovsky's, and I actually got bored. Additionally, the acting and dialogue are kind of awkward (some of it cringe-worthy) and it seems like things go by and happen really quickly (perhaps why I felt that lack of intimacy).
This version lacks much of the mysticism and the metaphysical as Soderbergh tends to concern himself with the characters more so. In such a case, this makes the 1972 and 2002 films like apples and oranges; yet…
Obwohl sich George Clooney, Natascha McElhone, Viola Davis und Jeremy Davies bemühen, erzählt Soderbergh die Geschichte nach dem Roman von Stanislaw Lem so dröge und langatmig dass man irgendwann vollkommen entnervt aussteigt.
One of a handful of times I can remember from the past several years where I saw a movie in the theater and didn't care for it too much - I thought this was too slow and ponderous and took itself so seriously as to not be interesting (this was before I saw the Tarkovsky one by the way, which I still prefer). But then I saw it on TV some 8 or 9 years later, and... something about it just clicked for me. Maybe it was years of film school and watching other movies and knowing Soderbergh's work better. But I think it's something else - I'd changed as a person, and the movie spoke deeper to me as…
More space! Less emptiness.
To my best knowledge, the book was not dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space...
Having not seen this since its release at the tender of age of 13, I had very little recollection other than a sci-fi romance that was hella-dull. That remains true, but I had a renewed interest because I recently finished reading Stanislaw Lem's novel. Now, every time I read a novel and then watch the adaptation shortly after, I greatly dislike the movie and can really "feel" the cheapness of film trying to grasp at literature. It's frustrating. That certainly happened here, but I wasn't alone. Without even seeing the movie Stanislaw Lem reviewed it better than I ever could so I'll review…
The 2015 edition of the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films list.
Incomplete data forced the…
I'm posting this list earlier than normal as I'm not sure I'll be around much next week.
For the purposes…