Solaris

Two hours spent under the influence of hypnotic substances called "Soderbegh's Camera" and "Martinez's Music". In an attempt to create the most impressive melancholic atmosphere, Soderbergh does not spare glimpses of the magically colourful Solaris, with flashbacks from Earth that take place only in dreary rainy weather, a cinematography bursting with colour, and ambient musical surfaces that impressively illustrate everything. The performances are excellent, Clooney finally doesn't twitch his head like a pigeon and his speech is restrained and convincing, only Davies as Snow overacts a bit at times, I didn't quite get his gesticulation, the impossible hand twisting during speeches. Although Solaris is not original in thought or plot, I was carried along on a wave of feelings and emotions and was rewarded with an evocative experience. (16/03/2004)

It is precisely because Steven Soderbergh took only the basic plotline from Stanislaw Lem's masterfully written book that his film adaptation becomes incredibly drawn-out despite its runtime of less than a hundred minutes. I am certainly not a fan of "copied" book adaptations, but the attempt to engage in futile philosophizing about human life and its value becomes quite a controversial move when it’s directly based on the source material. Soderbergh tried to put most of his energy into the dialogues, but besides their impact, style, and flair, they also lack logical sense. While his directorial work maintains the atmosphere in very dark corners, many scenes are left unfinished, and overall, the film gives the impression of being immensely fragmented. Fortunately, we do get the excellent duo of George Clooney and Natascha McElhone, who do not fit together perfectly, which actually makes their dynamic very enjoyable to watch. But as a single piece of cinema, Solaris is absolutely indigestible, even though it looks so very beautiful. (19/08/2005)

I cannot judge to what extent Soderbergh's film is a dignified adaptation of Lem's book, or to what extent it can compete with the Tarkovsky classic. However, after seeing the modernist version of the canonical sci-fi work, I can say one thing for sure: it's a great film. Visually anesthetized, the direction is mastered, impressive, suggestive and emotional. Unfortunately, it can be felt that it is the unclear contour of the ideological massif from which the creators could barely grasp anything. However, despite this limit, the 2002 Solaris version is a consistent film that presents, in the context of contemporary mainstream sci-fi production, a mature and more intellectual offshoot, which unfortunately at its core resembles superficial intellectualism, demagogy and similar ailments. But you mustn't be discouraged by that. Not even by the fact that Clooney can’t handle the intricate role as the psychologist Kelvin. The peculiar flavor of the futuristic love story, the existentially dark atmosphere and uncertain perspective of Soderbergh's return make the film into pleasant enjoyment for all the senses. The fact that it is dulled by the content limit is strangely a small flaw in its beauty. (09/10/2005)

The new era requires new visions, but despite that, Soderbergh's interpretation seems sadly half-hearted and clumsily determined where it shouldn't be. The most responsible for this is the comparison with Tarkovsky's philosophical universe, which is condensed here into the issue of correctly assessing the situation at hand, or a strong love story with a subtext of understanding and alienation. Considering that the director wants to rely solely on a love story that can get a second chance, it is often too detached and therefore greatly reduces its potential impact. Additionally, with the expected exception of Clooney, the actors also ruin it. Natascha McElhone is unnatural not only on the ship but also in the memories, and Jeremy Davies strangely and incredulously gestures with any line. Nevertheless, despite my slight aversion to Soderbergh's search for social subtexts, I admit that the new Solaris has a certain hypnotic quality. The viewer owes this to the music, surprisingly lively camera work, and above all, the strongly palpable closeness of the planet that each of us has dreamed of at least once. (04/10/2007)

A love story almost without words in the middle of the universe, reminiscent of 2001: Space Odyssey with its ships in the middle of nowhere. It’s watchable, but you have to be in the right mood. (02/11/2003)