Not Coming to a Theater Near You

Solaris / USA / 2002

More a tragic (perhaps?) romance than SciFi, Solaris is, either way, a sumptuous evocation of nostalgia. But despite Soderbergh’s competent direction and what is arguably George Clooney’s best screen performance, I much prefer the original.

by Rumsey Taylor | Source: IFC
10 Apr 2006 11:51 AM | Comments (4)

Comments / 4 total / Submit Comment

1. Tom / 11 April 2006 / 2:07 PM / URL

   This is gonna be controversial but… I have to disagree. I’m not a big Soderbergh fan and George Clooney orbits smugland pretty closely nowadays, but I found this film surprisingly beautiful, lacking in the meandering pretension Tarkovsky lent to the subject. Because it’s a great story, and deserves to be told plainly, emotionally, avoiding arty prevarication. I found Tarkovsky’s film cold, insensitive even, and too obviously labouring in the shadow of 2001. Soderbergh made it a story of two real people, even if one of them isn’t.

2. WS / 13 April 2006 / 3:59 AM

   I couldn’t disagree with Tom more. Far from being a story of two “real people”, the Soderbergh re-make simply reduced everything to the spurious romantic stereotypes about character and motivation on which Hollywood trades. And in place of Tarkovsky’s rich visual poetry and use of music, we have an absolutely flat, production-line application of Hollywood conventions. Just consider in rain. In Tarkovsky, it is strangely and movingly evocative. In Soderbergh, it’s something that makes the pavements wet.

3. Robert / 18 April 2006 / 7:29 AM

   I’m pretty neutral concerning both versions. Soderbergh’s is more accessible but less ponderous, whereas Tarkovsky was challenging but felt sterile when it came to the film’s emotional core. I watched the film three times trying to ‘see’ it, but to no avail, and that’s my limit for films I’m not particularly fond of (Crash, The Deer Hunter and Full Metal Jacket fall into this personal category as well). He said it’s his least favorite of his own films – I have to agree with him.

4. strjh02@moravian.edu / 18 April 2006 / 7:34 AM

   On another note, it’s ironic how so many people are baffled even by Soderbergh’s version. I didn’t dislike the film (many of it’s visual compositions were eerily affecting), but my main quarrel with it is that it’s wordy explanations of everything goes against the finer tones the movie managed to acheive. In other words, it was too loud and clear for a movie that should have been silent and wondrous. Tarkovsky’s language had the rhythm of poetry, even if I felt the movie lacked feeling.