posted
Just wondering, did anyone see this film? Judging by the box office results I imagine it would be a resounding no.
However, I'm interested in hearing what those of you who saw it, thought of it. I actually enjoyed it a lot, maybe because I came in expecting that I'd like it a lot, never the less I did like it. I'd been looking at the Tarkovsky version's cover repeatedly over the years but I never rented it because I felt I'd have to be in just the right mood to enjoy it.
Anyway I came away from this quite pleased and intrigued though a bit bummed that they didn't flesh out the characters more (besides Clooney) and didn't actually the develop the idea of the film more. That being said, it was a thought provoking, deeply fascinating movie for me, certainly not for everyone, I can imagine many of my fringes cringing, and twitching, waiting form something exceedingly dramatic and explosive to happen, but for me, somehow it worked rather well.
Now I just need to track down Lem's original version.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just picked it up yesterday, but wound up watching the Children of Dune DVD instead last night. No one else here wants to watch Solaris , so I need to find some time to do so alone.
Thanks, it sounds like what I expected.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it yesterday on video. All in all, I thought it was a good movie, but not a great movie. I think what I most liked about the movie was that it wasn't covering familiar filmic ground, which counts for a lot with me. The acting was good.
*spoilers*
I agree with you that the film didn't really flesh out the crew on the space station. What were they there for? I think they could have been removed, while still giving Clooney's character some way to destroy his wife. This would have allowed the film to devote a little more time to Clooney's wife. I just didn't feel anything when she killed herself. I didn't really embrace the idea that she 'just wasn't herself' and because of this felt like she needed to die.
I wouldn't buy the film, though I think it is one of the better sf films to come out in a while. Certainly better than Gattaca, I think, it is not something that would have a lot of replay value for me.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OH man, you hated Gattaca??? I absolutely love that movie. I can see where people might have thought it was sterile, but I absolutely adored it. Thought it was fantastic. Then again I'm not always on the same page as general audiences, one of my all time favorite films is "The Thin Red Line," so I suppose I'm quite often in opposition to the consensus.
My view on Solaris is very similar to my view on Cube, great idea, that wasn't handled as well as it could have been and 99 minutes is comedy length, not drama length, how can you hope to flesh out something so unusual and dynamic in such little time, only the truly great could accomplish that and Soderburgh isn't there yet.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't hate Gattaca, I just didn't think it was all that. Been a while since I saw it, so I can't really comment articulately about it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw both versions and I read Lem's book, and I must say, out of the three I liked he newest movie the least. I did like it, but I don't think it was a great movie. Tarkovsky's version was much better. It was much more faithful to the book, and it concentrated on the entire crew, and on why they actually were there. It was a bit longish, and had sequences I would just cut out, but I liked it much better. I've also noticed that the actuall look of the station in the new film was pretty much based on Trakovsky's version.
Funny thing is, in both films the ending is quite different than in the book (which I liked most of the three, btw.)
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problems with Cube had nothing to do with financing, or the look of the film. I thought the production designers, the general look of the film and the idea were brilliant. I just think that in the hands of a better director, and/or a better writer, it could have become an all time classic. Just imagine Hitchcock, or Clouzot at the helm, they would have made that a masterpiece.
As it was, it was very enjoyable, and a deeply fascinating premise, but for me, the character development, the acting, and the direction simply didn't come through as well as it could have.
Can't wait to read Lem's original Solaris, i just need to track it down.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just watched this movie (bought it for $5.99 on DVD).
It was actually quite good. Here's what I liked:
1) The writing. There wasn't anything truly cringe-worthy, and there were some flashes of true brilliance.
2) The planet Solaris is beautiful. It's like watching a campfire.
3) I really liked the ending. Sure, it's sort of expected and pat, but that's okay by me. I was touched by the romance of it.
What I didn't like:
a) I wish I'd read the book first. I have no way to judge how good an adaptation this was, but I suspect that the book appears more fresh than the movie. We've sort of seen this story borrowed from for plot twists in a lot of Sci-Fi over the years, no? So here it's sort of anticlimatic.
b) The angry black woman's role was lame and under-developed. That portrait could've been anyone.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think, sort of like graywolfe, that Cube was a cool/smart movie that just wasn't as good as it could have been for such an interesting premise.
I had problems with the ending too. a few plot points. but for the most part it was very cool.
i've been meaning to check it out again to remind myself of what happens, and then rent Cube 2. whether it's good or not, i'm curious as to what they do with it.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
If you didn't hate Cube, see Cube 2. I have very little knowledge of mathematical concepts and all the other stuff the movies deal with, so in generic terms...whereas Cube was sort of mechanical and logical, Cube 2 is more conceptual. I suppose there is logic involved with 2, but it's not so cut and dried. Sorry I can't be more specific, but while I can grasp mathmatical, physical and theoretical concepts, I don't know enough to explain them.
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i thought cube 2 was horrible. i really liked the first one, though i agree that it had a sort of made-for-tv feel to it, but i was completely dissapointed with the second one. it was like they took the idea and tried to make it cool without really developing the ideas at all. it was more like a poor re-make with a bigger special effects budget.
i really liked solaris, probably because i rented it expecting a cheezy sci-fi no-brainer to pass a boring evening. yeah, the ending was sort of lame, but the movie as a whole was beautiful, and the acting was so wonderfully understated. i'm just a chump for that sort of eye wide shut type slow dialog which has been really well written and allows the actors to really revel in the scripts undercurrents.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Solaris had some really powerful moments, like when his wife first appears, and when he sends her out the airlock. Overall, I enjoyed it much more than I do the typical sci-fi flick. The ending was kind of a cop-out, I thought, but more along the lines of 2001: A Space Oddysey's ending--too far out there to really have much impact or to really be born from a brilliant idea.
I saw the original Solaris years ago at BYU's international film theater, and I must say it squicked me out, as have all Russian movies I've seen.
Has anyone ever seen The Zone? It's another Russian sci-fi film. It started out OK, but then it got into a bunch of strung-out symbolism and kind of ended in a cloud.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dug the heck out of Gattaca. I think it was probably as much the score as the script or the directing. Great mood piece, which is an element that sci-fi should have anyway. Also, I'm generally partial to anything with Alan Arkin in it.
As for The Cube, it's a movie I'm glad I saw. An interesting idea that was played out very well, even if it was by movie-of-the-week type actors. But I remember having a couple problems with it. It's been quite a while since I saw it, so I could be getting some details wrong, but here's a couple nit-picky points that took me out of the movie:
****SPOILERS****
First, one of the plot points had to do with the idea that the small cubes inside the big cube were always re-arranging themselves. I remember that the first time I heard the mechanical noise that no one could figure out, that's what I thought it was, but I thought "well, obviously it's not that, because if the cube they're in were moving, everyone would be thrown around with inertia. And if the cube they're in never happens to move, it would have the same effect on their journey to the edge of the cube as if none of them moved." But at the end, it turned out that I was wrong. I can't remember if they came up with some unsatisfying explaination for that, or if they just didn't mention it, but I wasn't impressed with the resolution in any case.
Second, I initially liked the idea of everyone being regular people caught in a bad situation. Turning one of the characters into some Freddy Kreuger-esque unstoppable killing machine seemed a little cheesy, and when he came back at the end, I think my eyes were rolling so spastically that I missed the entire denouement.
Other than that, though, I thought it was pretty good.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |