Solaris

A non-commercial, artistic sci-fi masterpiece that doesn't have that much to say compared to the brilliant Stalker, but it remains more than pleasant to watch after all these years. Unfortunately, I don't like it much when I'm sucked into a whirlpool of dense atmosphere, timeless motifs and tiresome philosophising for three hours, only to not understand the final twist at all and not be able to put all the beautiful pieces of the complex puzzle together into an even more impressive whole. Maybe one day the Holy Spirit will shine on me and I will be able to appreciate this formally perfect film as it surely deserves, but in a normal state of mind, that's not in sight. 70% (08/03/2014)

I decided to watch this film hoping for an extraordinary experience, which is what I ended up getting. I was so unexpectedly and massively disappointed that it can’t be called anything but an extraordinary experience. The main theme was not bad at all, but the creators unfortunately managed to stretch out the length far beyond what I could possibly bear. At least half of the film is filled with protracted shots of the countryside (or traffic - the taxi ride seemed endless, and it was completely unnecessary, but probably highly artistic), and staying focused felt like a superhuman feat. Good thing it wasn’t me but my replica who had to suffer through it. (04/01/2021)

8/10/2009: 2 stars /// 7/11/2014: I’m several years older and more experienced as a viewer, so I thought I’d give it another go, and it’s quite good. Science fiction of the more intellectual kind, mainly for people who enjoy being offered something to ponder over. The atmosphere is engaging and unsettling, also quite thought-provoking at times. But only at times, really, because, even though this is philosophic sci-fi, there’s not that much philosophising (they hardly speak). It could also be shorter, a lot. (08/10/2009)

Equally difficult to grasp as "2001: A Space Odyssey," but equally interpretive, possibly even stronger. Tarkovsky's film does not rely on visual spectacle, but instead the Russian creator opted for philosophical sci-fi, where everything important unfolds through dialogue, memories, not necessarily through images. There are scenes from inside spaceships, but it remains very limited. Even so, this is how sci-fi can be filmed, mainly because the narrative is no less powerful. (05/09/2014)

The Tarkovsky scarecrow may not be such a major problem if we view Solaris through the lens of contemporary science fiction. The result will, unfortunately (or thankfully), be just another film that has not withstood the ravages of time. Of course, you can also read Lem's novel, watch the modern remake and, with a slightly ironic smile, look for the old TV version. All science fiction before Star Wars has its limits, including Tarkovsky's opus. I really don't appreciate a spaceship whose integral part is the icons of Andrei Rublev spread out in the cabins. I really, really don’t. (15/06/2017)