teodorodontosaurus
Andrey Tarkovskiy must be using the slowest filming techniques in the history of filmmaking... and that's something good actually; this way there is so much room for emotions that is being left. The movie clearly promotes profound human emotions.
"Solaris" is actually more fast-paced than "Stalker", and both are outside of the boredom spectrum; most of the scenes are overwhelmingly eerie and beautiful, even if there's no dialogue.
The philosophy here is outstanding! It gives a whole new purpose of the human existence on Earth. Everything is based on dialogues and symbolic imagery (typical Tarkovskiy concepts) and everything about this movie is a continuum revelation. Even after the end, the movie continues to echo into your mind.
Artistic and soulful movie.
An interesting observation: someone from the movie says something like this: "Don't transform this marvelous scientific phenomena into a cheap love story." Well, that's exactly what the American version is!
The Movie Diorama
Apparently it's about a cosmonaut visiting the Solaris Space Station where the remaining crew are psychologically disturbed by "visitors". An alien presence that materialise from illusory dreams, the cosmonaut dreams of his late wife. He must then decide to submit to Solaris' hallucinogenic gift or stay in reality. Now, before I anger you film elitists and enthusiasts, I understood the film. I acknowledged what it set out to do. Questioning humanity and its existence, throwing in the concept of clinging onto love. I accept that Solaris paved the way for future science fiction cinematic pieces, much like 2001 did. There's no doubt in my mind that Tarkovsky's artistic sensitivity aids in the haunting visceral tone beneath the narrative. Jarring scene transitions of wild foliage, extensive long takes and the dream inspired visuals of Solaris. Natalia Bondarchuk is a revelation and is easily the best performer against a tediously monotonous cast. Artemiev's score was beautifully resonating and suited the atmosphere (or lack of...). With all that said, I struggled. My mind consistently kept switching off as I tried my absolute hardest to stay focussed. It's just too slow for its own good. Possibly one of the slowest films I've ever seen. I'm all for a slow pace in order to evoke a meditative aura within the narrative. But when the script is far too meticulous and constantly preaches about love, 166 minutes feels like an eternity. Needless to say Part Two was slightly more involving that Part One, but I still felt distant from the story. It's far too cold. Ironic considering Tarkovsky claimed Kubrick's '2001' was too sterile. Perhaps I need to adapt to Tarkovsky's signature storytelling methods, I felt the exact same with 'Stalker' being too slow. Critically this film is near faultless with what it sets out to do, but I have to consider my own personal enjoyment which is why I must substantially mark this down. Perhaps on a future viewing I'll become more invested now that I know what I'm getting myself into.
EnoVarma
It is the view of many, that Solaris needs to be seen at least twice. The same is, by the way, true with every Tarkovski film. I've seen Solaris several times, also on film, and it has always puzzled me to a degree. The first time I hardly understood the story and I didn't get the ending at all, which seems stupid to me, now. And yet, Solaris is very much a straight-forward, chronological film.It just "connects the dots" in a highly evolved way. For example, there is a sequence about 30 minutes in, that has nothing to do with the plot and doesn't really deepen any of the characters. This sequence lasts a full five minutes, has no dialogue whatsoever and is a series of shots from a car driving forward on a highway in urban Tokyo. Couple of times we're shown a secondary character with his son. Audio track is ultra-modern, atonal and expressive. This seemingly inconsequential scene is my favourite in the whole film. Through pure cinema Tarkovski is able to tell the viewer a lot about the nature of the Earth depicted here. We understand better our desire to expand our limits into the spave. Plus, the sequence is utterly hypnotic, enhanced by a sudden cut to an incredibly gorgeous black-and-white shot of a pond with trees hovering over it.And that is the startegy of Tarkovski. He avoids anything familiar and tries to tell and show us something we DON'T know.After repeated viewings, I still feel that with Solaris Tarkovski was only almost completely successful in his pursuits. I have no main criticism to offer, just minor ones.See, there must be a reason why I still feel that the first 45 minutes SPECIFICALLY of Solaris are among the most beautifully realised in Tarkovski's career. This first part largely takes place in a beautiful countryside cottage. Tarkovski is a great depictor of nature (perhaps the greatest), and there is a slight sense of underwhelm during the rest of the film which takes place in a space station, in interiors. In comparison, Stalker, which takes place mostly in exteriors, is also philosophically a richer piece.Interestingly, Solaris, set on a space station, shows practically none of the surrounding space. Again, Tarkovski works against conventions. This and other practices make Solaris an anti-thesis to Kubrick's 2001. Another example: there are few special effects, most of them of the planet Solaris. On the other hand, they are exceptionally beautiful.About the actors: I love them, but this is not a view shared by all. Understandably. Banionis especially is so understated that it's up to you to decide whether he is lacking something. On the other hand, he makes a great pair to Natalya Bondarchuk's more expressive performance.Solaris is a film by a master film maker with only a handful of equals in history. The result is still unique in the realm of science-fiction.
