Solaris - Criterion Collection Reviews

• One of the best Russian films ever!

  
  By AI0OAQ6E2O8VF on 2004-10-19
  This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.
  It also compares it with the version released by the Russian Cinema Council (RUSCICO)
  
  Solaris, released as Solyaris in Russia, is among my favorite Russian films, and my favorite film by Andrei Tarkovsky. It is based on the sci-fi novel by Stanislaw Lem. It is been considered a Russian version of 2001 A Space Odyessy. While some consider it to be the polar opposite.
  
  An interesting note is that the Criterion Collection edition was released exacltly one day before the theactrical release of the 2002 remake directed by Steven Soderbergh and starring George Clooney.
  
  It is about a space station orbiting an apparently sentient planet. The planet has the capability of reading the minds of the scientists aboard the space station and created 'doubles' of people from their past. When a psychologist comes aboard to investigate, he is confounded by the recreation of his dead wife.
  
  It is a great film. Although it is slow paced, it has some excelent and unique cinematography. One example is one scene near the begining of the film where it focuses on raindrops landing in a full teacup. The special effects in this film are quite impressive given the time, place, and budget of filming. To top it off the film's score includes a superb rendition of J.S. Bach's Choral Prelude in F Minor, "Ich ruf zu' dir Herr Jesu Christ" BWV 639.
  
  There are some subltle differences betweent he Criterion DVD and the RUSCICO DVD. The most noticable is a 5 minute POV scene of driving through the streets of a city. The scene is in both color and B&W. In the RUSCICO version part of the scene segues from B&W to color. on the Criterion DVD this part is solely in color.
  
  The DVD has some excellent special features
  Disc one contains the film plus an audio commentary by Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie, who are experts on Andrei Tarkovsky and are co-authors of the book, The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue.
  
  Disc two contains 9 deleted and alternate scenes. There are also interviews with composer, Eduard Artimiev, lead actress Natalya Bondarchuk, (daughter War & Peace director, Sergei Bondarchuk) cinematographer Vadim Yusov, and art director Mikhal Romadin. There is also an excerpt from a Stanislaw Lem documentary.
  
  The RUSCICO DVD is also good and has filmographys of cast & crew, a production photo album, an interview with Andrei Tarkovsky's sister, a biography of Andrei Tarkovsky and Stanislaw Lem, and a biographical film on lead actor Donatis Banionis.
  
  Both versions are worth getting but the Criterion Collection version is far better. This one is a Must buy!
  
  

• A Haunting Masterpiece

  
  By A2HBRINA3F9YHV on 2005-03-29
  This film is long, poignant, interesting, haunting, dazzling to the eye, and actually quite scary. While watching it late one night, I found myself alone on the first floor of my house, and I must admit, I kept searching the room in fright after every little noise I heard. It's not a horror movie, but it rolls along at a slow, atmospheric, creepy-crawly pace.
  
  One bonus of the film being so long with big spaces between dialogue, it gives you the opportunity to switch to the informative commentary track, to hear some interesting insight into the film. While most other movies you MUST watch it with the commentary off to be able to take it all in correctly, you can actually get away with switching back and forth without missing too much of the actual film. One part of the commentary I disagreed with was when the male narrator noted that in the scene where Satorius takes the gauze off Hari's finger and tosses it, that he is doing this because of contamination. One can clearly see by his expression and manner in doing this, that he is being sarcastic as he knows that Hari does not need a bandage, because the wound will simply regenerate and heal in a matter of minutes. There is also a sense of his envy toward her because Kelvin gets to have a doppleganger of his wife to somewhat enjoy, while Satorius only has dwarfs to deal with.
  
  I think the scenes on Earth are gorgeous and completely necessary. Hoever, had they not been there like in the book, the movie would have been 2 hours instead of 2 hours and 40 minutes (a much easier time for mainstream audiences to grasp). I wouldn't trade it for a shorter run time at all. Tarkovsky is not a mainstream movie maker and thus the reason for him having these extra scenes on Earth, and he is still able to make a two hour film version of the book after that.
  
  With the exception of Star Wars, many sci-fi films of the 60's and 70's (including Kubrick's 2001) went all out with Sci-Fi special effects, but then seeing them today, they still seem very outdated. Where this film had no special effects budget and minimal sets, I think it still holds up today without looking dated. The scenes on Earth could have all taken place right now, or 30 years from now without anyone doubting it. And the look of the space station's interior, albeit vague and minimal, still looks fresh and definitely wouldn't appear out of place in any current sci fi setting.
  
  The only annoyance to me in the film was the switching between black and white and color. While a few scenes called for it due to a switch in tonality, or time within the film, there were other places where it made no logical sense to do so. Some say it was the lack of a budget that did not offer Tarkovsky a vast stash of color film, so he tried to artistically spare it. It's a shame if that's the case, because there are a few scenes in black and white, which would have worked much better in color.
  
  Overall, a masterpiece of a film that is certainly not for everyone. The majority of blockbuster oriented moviegoers will hate this film, but true film lovers should treasure it. Stunning visuals, superb acting, and a one of a kind director.
  
  

• Rent this unless you know you're ready for it

  
  By A7OBFVHNJGI2A on 2002-11-24
  First of all, this 2-disc Criterion "special edition" of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 film _Solaris_ is clearly intended to capitalize on Steven Soderbergh's American remake. I'm not sure whether either will succeed; Soderbergh's version is an art film masquerading as a Christmas movie, and I think it's fair to say that those who can't stand the original won't much like the remake.

  Tarkovsky's _Solaris_ has suffered unfairly from facile comparisons with Kubrick's _2001: A Space Odyssey_. The two films are deeply opposed in both tone and content, though on the most superficial level, the pace of both films makes them appear rather similar. That said, Tarkovsky's elliptical, nostalgic work stands very well on its own.

  The first forty-five minutes of _Solaris_ are slow going, even by Tarkovsky's glacial standards. (They're also profoundly important to subsequent action, so don't even try to skip them.) Once the action shifts to the mysterious space station, the story quickly sinks its hooks into you and doesn't let go for an instant, up to its mysterious and unsettling conclusion.

  Criterion's video and audio transfers are dependably high-quality, though in this case far from flawless. The extras on Disc 2 consist mostly of dull interviews with cast and crew (though, in a notable omission, there is no interview with Tarkovsky himself). But the audio commentary on Disc 1 with film scholars Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie is absolutely indispensible (at least, if you're into this sort of academic analysis). As is usually the case with Criterion, the extras are directed chiefly at hard-core film buffs and scholars.

  Some critics have noted that _Solaris_ is Tarkovsky's most commercial film, although in terms of his oeuvre that term is strictly relative. It's still plenty strange, and if you haven't been properly initiated into Tarkovsky's work, this film is as frustrating and impenetrable as anything he directed (except for his last, most accessible film, _The Sacrifice_).

  If you're ready for _Solaris_, it's a deeply moving experience. If not, stay away until you know you are.
  
  

• The Anti-2001

  
  By AQP1VPK16SVWM on 2003-02-01
  Tarkovsky's most popular film was often viewed as the atni-2001 when it was first released. In many ways it was--the story focuses on the personal and how we define our sense of humanity while 2001 focused on the way technology robs us of our humanity. The ironic thing is that Tarkovsky reportedly disliked Kubrick's masterpiece and yet it resembles 2001 more than it is different than it. More than likely, it was epic envy; the broad canvas that Kubrick used to make 2001 was something that would have appealed to the talented Russian director.

  Based on Stanislaw Lem's classic science fiction novel, Solaris concerns a crew aboard a space station observing an unusual planet. Solaris is no ordinary planet, however, as it is sentient (much like the Monolith in 2001 which represented the remains of the alien civilization that created it). What's more, the planet has the ability to shape dreams that come to life. Psychologist Kris Kelvin is sent out to find out what's happened to the crew aboard the space station (much like the Monolith recreates its vision of a home--actually in 2001 it's an impersonal, gaudy hotel room or palace). Kelvin quickly finds himself sucked into the dream given flesh that has so distracted and unsettled the crew. He arrives to find the crew haunted by people and things from their dreams. After his first night on the station Kelvin is also effected. He awakens to find his wife with him. This is impossible, however, because she committed suicide years before.

  Like all of Tarkovsky's films Solaris is long and short on exposition. It's character driven (much like 2001 was character driven--but by the machines that have supplemented humanity). The basic premise is similar to Lem's novel, but Tarkovksy uses it as a means to question reality and memory. It's a visually striking although spare film as well. Clearly Tarkovsky didn't have the resources of Kubrick but managed to make do with what he had. A warning for those interested in seeing this film. Tarkovsky's films, like many of Kubrick's, move at a glacial pace. They are not for everyone. There are many long, involved takes and there isn't anything approaching action in his films. I'd recommend renting it to see if you like it. For fans of the novel by Lem, you may want to approach the film with an open mind. Lem disliked the film because Tarkovsky's approach was very different to the same themes. There's also quite a bit of religious symbolism embedded in Solaris something Lem might have objected to as well.

  Tarkovsky made few movies during his lifetime due to the restrictions of the communist government but this, in some respects, is his most intense and personal. Like Kubrick and Kurosawa, Tarkovsky was a master with his own, unique vision expressed in his films. Again, that's ironic given that his films were made during an era in Russia where the collectivism of Communism overshadowed the individual. Ultimately, what's most rewarding about the film is the questions it raises about what makes us human. Some of the answers are quiet startling.

  The transfer is quite good and the soundtrack sounds pretty good as well although there is some distortion. The extras include a running commentary by two Tarkovsky scholars (although I disagree with many of their observations, some of them were on target). Additionally, the second disc has scenes excised from the film. Most of these scenes are repetitive and dilute what they explain so one can see why they were left out.

  The loss of individuality and our sense of humanity in the vastness of space (a perfect metaphor for the Communist society--or any society for that matter)is a theme common to Kubrick and Tarkovsky. Their very different views and social values helped shape their differing film vision.
  
  

• Review of the Criterion 2-disc DVD

  
  By AO461REE0KA4J on 2002-12-27
  A frequent theme in science fiction is that humans have become so dehumanized in their devotion to technology that they have lost touch of their emotional capacities. In SOLARIS, the 1972 film by the great Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, this theme is given an unusually personal and emotional treatment. It is about an unhappy man who travels to space and finds the emotional closure and the spiritual enlightenment that he lacked on Earth. It has often been compared to Stanley Kubrick's cryptic 1968 film 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. But while 2001 emphasizes the sterility and uncontrollability of science, SOLARIS deals mainly with the fragileness and preciousness of the human spirit. Unlike 2001, which ponders the vastness and infiniteness of space, Tarkovsky's film probes the opposite direction and reveals the inner dimensions of the human mind. The success of Tarkovsky's SOLARIS is that it offers a stark depiction of human emotions via the simplest and most austere means. Tarkovsky rarely uses fancy editing or elaborate camera angles, and prefers long takes and slow camera movements. Dialogs are softly spoken. He always chooses the least assuming way to present a scene. Such a style, of course, does not endear him to those who prefer a more dynamic and vibrant type of cinema. But one should note that perhaps the subtleties of human emotions demand subtler ways of filmmaking, which, in turn, demand our closer observations.

  Criterion's all-region, 2-disc DVD version of SOLARIS offers a beautiful video transfer, the original Russian soundtrack in 1.0 mono, re-written optional English subtitles, and rewarding extra material. The anamorphic 2.35:1 video transfer was created from a 35mm positive made from the original negative. This is a newer, different transfer from the ones on previous DVD versions by other companies. Subtitles have also been re-written and, as is usually the case with Criterion DVDs, improved, with less paraphrasing and fewer untranslated dialogs compared to older video releases.

  The first disc contains the 169-minute film in its entirety and a full-length audio commentary by two Tarkovsky experts, Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie. The scene-specific commentary provides good coverage of a variety of topics concerning the film, such as Tarkovsky's artistic style and thematic explorations, various contributions from the filmmakers, certain details about the making of the film, how the film deviates from the original novel by Stanislaw Lem, and aspects of Tarkovsky's personal life. But the strength of the commentary is its analyses of the film's characters, themes, and Tarkovsky's direction. And due to the length of the film, the commentators have ample time to allow sufficient elaboration on every thesis, making this audio track one of the more satisfying analytical commentaries I've heard. Major issues such as mortality, faith, and humanity, as well as minor observations regarding gestures, background noises, and other allusions are dealt with in great depth and competence. One fascinating comment regarding Tarkovsky's use of long takes is that it dilutes any sense of suspense that editing usually contributes, the result being a more immersive and meditative atmosphere.

  The second disc contains almost half hour of deleted scenes and about 100 minutes of new interviews with the film's principals.

  Most of the deleted scenes seem to conform to our expectations as to why scenes were deleted in a movie like this -- they are too explicit about things that are better left unexplained. The deleted opening sequence, for instance, is a didactic text prologue that is so out of character with the subtle approach of the rest of the movie. The deleted dream scene of Kris and his mother depicts their relationship more explicitly, thus lessening the dream-like quality of the scene. The most fascinating deleted scene is an expanded version of the scene of Kris in the "mirror room," in which the various reflections of the mirror reflect Kris' fragmented and fragile mental state.

  The interview segments include a half-hour interview with Natalya Bondarchuk, who plays Hari. She recalls how she met Tarkovsky, how she was cast (with a little trickery on her part), her experiences on the set, analyzes the character of Hari, and praises the unique meditative style of Tarkovsky. In another half-hour interview, cinematographer Vadim Yusov talks about the many visual motifs in the film, how the special effect shots of Solaris were created, and even talks about his work on Tarkovsky's previous film ANDREI RUBLEV (a few clips also included). In a 17-minute interview segment, art director Mikhail Romadin discusses his various intentions in designing the sets for SOLARIS. Both Yusov and Romadin also mention Tarkovsky's strongly negative reaction to Kubrick's 2001 and Lem's insistence that the film should adhere to his book. Composer Eduard Artemyev, in his 20-minute interview segment, describes his background on electronic music that first attracted Tarkovsky, and recalls the challenges of translating Tarkovsky's unique demands into music.

  Finally, there is disappointingly brief, 5-minute video clip of a Polish documentary about Lem and his struggle with Tarkovsky. The only thing relevant is Lem's only remark in the clip: "Finally I said [to Tarkovsky and his crew], 'You idiots!' I tried to soften him up a little. But he was stubborn, and so was I. So I ended up returning to Warsaw." There must be a lot more to the disagreement between the two men, but we get the picture. (I also posted an expanded version of this review at Epinions.com, under the account kevyip.)
  
  

• Serious science fiction of a type no longer seen.
  By A3PR6TTX5B6F72 on 1998-11-20
  This Soviet film was made in 1971, based on the 1961 novel by the great Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem. It is the only one of his books to be made into a movie, and worth seeing for that reason alone. The film is true science fiction, serious and meditative. Investigations have been ongoing for years of a single being on an alien planet, so far evolved that it can communicate with us only indirectly. It concludes that the best way to communicate with our limited intelligence is to grant our own deepest desires, sensed telepathically. The "ocean being" creates out of thin air, a la the Star Trek Holodeck, apparently real objects and sentient beings from our own minds. One scientist creates a fantasy sex object, another recreates his long-dead wife, who committed suicide when he insisted on accepting a long deep space piloting mission.

  However, these creations do not conveniently disappear when you say "off", because they represent truths deep within us, and the alien senses that the truth remains. They are also as flawed as are our own memories and desires.

  The problems with this film arise when it diverts from the book, which is far more spectacular. In one scene, the protagonists satirize their own rambling on, "a la Dostoevsky", when the scene is not even in the book and they are rambling on.

  It would be a great film to remake with today's modern special effects, although so much of its originality has been appropriated by others since.

  The film remains haunting and well worth seeing as serious science fiction of a type rarely seen anymore.
  
  

• solaris
  By AVFDQSW6SA8MY on 2003-03-08
  I'm Russian, so I have had a chance to watch this movie in the original Russian version and one with English subtitles. I should admit that perception of the film is somewhat different between these versions.
  Humans often try to escape or try to ignore a difficult situation being afraid of possible (sometimes intolerable) consequences, creating a ground for subconscious conflicts. We carry these conflicts somewhere in our minds not realizing that these forgotten events from the past may play an important role in our future life. There is nothing in the human's world that can erase these events from people's mind.
  I think that this move is anything else but not a typical scientific fiction film. Yes, it includes all elements of sci-fi (remote planet, space station, extraterrestrial intelligence) but the main focus of the movie is on humans. The planet and the space station created an environment where people (under the influence of the planet) where forced to deal with their the most valuable, important, and controversial events from their past. The station was a trap from which there was no escape. These people had no other choice then to learn how to deal with their subconscious conflicts. Eliminating conflicts the planet gave a second chance, a chance to start a new life. Those who could not resolve the conflicts went crazy or committed a suicide.
  
  
• GREAT DVD of TARKOVSKY 'S MASTERPIECE FILM SOLARIS!
  By AKZJICLINV317 on 2002-12-20
  This is a high quality DVD. Criterion does justice to Tarkovsky's great Sci-Fi film 'Solaris". This is not your ordinary Science Fiction story. It a kind of film that Tarkovsky is known for. It delves more into the human side of the story, rather than technology and special effects. It is no "2001: A Space Odyssey". And, for those who are not accustomed to Tarkovsky's slow action, they may not care for it, unless they give it a chance. But if you see it through, you may love this film. If your attention span is short, this is NOT the movie for you! But in fairness to those who are waiting for the action, many American Sci-Fi fans will find that any Soviet science fiction film is not their cup of tea. This film is a thought-provoking sci-fi drama that shows the mysteries of inner space are as awesome as those of outer space. Revered Lithuanian stage actor Donatis Banionis, the lead actor in "Solaris" does an excellent portrayal of the inner mind of the astronaut Kris Kelvin, a psychologist sent to the spaceship orbiting the ocean planet Solaris to find out what happened to the crew.
  The original story was by Polish writer Stanislaw Lem, who had some qualms about the way Tarkovsky brought the story to film. The book is a great piece of writing. But the film is well worth seeing. I personally think it is Tarkovsky's best film, though some may not share that opinion.
  Included on this DVD are excellent interviews with people involved in the film, including the well-known Russian actress Natalya Bondarchuk, and the director of photography Vadim Yusov. It also has nine deleted and alternate scenes and a documentary excerpt with Solaris author Stanislaw Lem
  Tarkovsky has been called one of the greatest directors of all time. This film proves it.
  
  
• Solaris
  By on 2002-12-12
  Polish writer Stanislaw Lem is one of the most important science fiction writers of all, but is little known to genre readers. It is in fact the Russian film of Solaris (Mosfilm, 1971) by Andrei Tarkovsky that has made Lem as known as he is, despite a large number of his books available in translation. Solaris the book (Faber & Faber Ltd., 1970) is arguably his masterpiece. The bizarre tale of a haunted space station on a distant planet with a possibly sentient Ocean eschews the usual science fiction obsession with technology for a voyage to Inner Space, a muscular wrestling with the nature of exploration and Man's need to know Himself before He can understand the Other.

  Solaris is a distant planet whose sole organic inhabitant is a vast colloidal Ocean, an Apollonian monster who creates gigantic, motivationally obscure artifacts whose functions, though often mechanical, are unknown. These creations are maddeningly suggestive of mentation, or psyche, yet they have no facet that could be construed as communicative or even understandable. As the possibility of some Contact between the planetary Goliath and the Earth explorers recedes, the study of Solaris is in steep decline, and so a troubleshooter is sent from the Home Planet to determine if the station should be shut down. Kelvin finds the crew in crisis, with one dead from suicide and the other two battling demons they refuse to describe. The Ocean has begun sending Visitors.

  As the crew awakens from sleep, they are finding replicas of people from their past who are associated with conscience, painful memory, and repression, and are often long dead. Each crewman's demon is a corporealization of some horrible event in his life that has festered in his Unconscious. The demons are undoubtedly from the Ocean, yet why they are on the station is not known. Are they a test of the Earthers, or a cruel joke, or a gift? What they are to the crew are a painful persistence of memory, shades of past sins or mistakes, which are slowly driving the crew insane. On one level, the Visitors are what Solaris is about, the terrifying power of memories repressed into the Unconscious, the Ocean a potent symbol of the Unconscious, spinning off Jungian mandalas of memory. The Ocean and the crew are in an almost-communication, but the Unconscious is a place we willfully do not understand, so it is not a real Contact. The crew needs answers to save their sanity, but are unsure that answers are even possible.

  What Solaris is also about is the nature of exploration. Lem's view is that the human exploration of the Cosmos is not so much to discover the New as it is a narcissistic desire to expand the boundaries of Earth to fill the Universe. We are not searching for alien worlds, but merely looking for mirrors of our own, idealized Other Planets based in our own ideas of science and civilization. As with the creations of the Unconscious, an understanding of the truly alien is not possible. We are blinded by our own anthropomorphism and conscious belief structures. The essential problem is that Man attempts to explore and understand the Outer while our Inner reality remains an undiscovered country. It is impossible to understand the alien without understanding the self. Because of this disconnect, Lem sees exploration as Faith disguised as Science, a "liturgy using the language of methodology". The Quest for an impossible Contact is a mysticism that seeks to deny Mysteries which simply are, mysteries that mirror the central Mystery of our own Unconscious.

  Kelvin finally comes to see the Ocean as an imperfect God, a blind demiurge who creates without reason. The Ocean is a god of limited powers and omniscience, "a sick god whose ambition has exceeded his power". Mirroring the incompleteness of ourselves, the Ocean of Solaris is an incomplete Deity, a workman who has created clocks but not the Time for them to measure. It is a incapable of forseeing the consequences of its creations, a despairing god alone in the Universe.

  Solaris is heady, intellectual science fiction that raises important issues within a genre framework. It is quite unlike what we Here see in our sci fi, with its obsessions with technology and power. It is gift from the Eastern Bloc writers of the 1960's that is not to be ignored, if the reader is ready to move beyond rockets 'n ray guns. Eastern European writers of the period took their craft very seriously, going places British and American science fiction dared not to tread. Lem, the brothers Strugatsky, Bulychev, Ivan Yefremov and others produced really first-rate stuff, and most of it ended up in English translation. Good news from another shore, indeed.
  
  

• The Science of the Human Emotion
  By A32GLRK2JC5OXY on 2007-07-26
  Solaris is perhaps one of the most nerving science-fiction films I have ever seen. Beginning strongly with the skepticism of a tired, yet professional psychologist, Solaris follows this man into the outer reaches of our own world and knowledge, and to a place that is, 'simply,' unfathomable. Our lead character, after a strange briefing, arrives on the Solaris space station, orbiting the planet Solaris, to figure out what has gone wrong with the crew, and why they have cut off all communication with Earth. As answers develop, and further questions arrise, one immediately begins to feel the horror of human frailty. Solaris hits hard, develops characters unlike many films do anymore, and ends with closure, questions, and a satisfactory level of goosebumps.
  
  Solaris is artfully filmed, with a lot of time spent on landscapes and close-ups. This is a long film, but is over quickly. The discovery of the 'mysteries' occuring on the Solaris space station are very disturbing, and leave the viewer with plenty to think about (or perhaps dream about), days later. The Criterion Collection was done well with plenty of special features, but really deserves a much better enhanced picture. There are many signs of aging in this film, and a remastering, or even a high definition version, could easily be an achievement for a film well-deserving. Additionally, the audio is Russian-mono with subtitles. I highly recommend this for purchase, however, despite aged film. The story alone is memorable for a lifetime.
  
  
• like a diamond
  By A274QHZCDFXV4J on 2002-05-10
  The Solaris movie has become a cult phenomenon, and it is interesting to think why. After all, the movie is long, slow, and difficult. Stanislaw Lem, who wrote the book, detested the movie. Even its director, Andrei Tarkovsky, later said that this was his worse work. It was produced in Stalinist Soviet Union, with committees overlooking the artistic process, so we can only imagine what Tarkovsky had to go through.

  Even so, many people, myself included, consider this to be one of the best movies ever. I think the reason is that Solaris is so spacious and multi-layered that many people can find something very special in it. A key phrase in the movie is that we search the cosmos in order to find mirrors to observe ourselves; maybe Solaris is so successful because it works like a mirror too.

  The movie, like the book, is superficially about the problem of communicating with an alien intelligence. The idea is that when confronted with an alien intelligence we may not be able do connect for lack of a common frame of reference. Contact, the other great book and also great movie, is about the same problem. Lem's ideas seem to go deeper than Sagan's though. Intelligence may not be something present in our brains, but rather it may be present only within our cultural environment, in our way to communicate with each other. People are not born intelligent, they learn intelligence through their interaction with society while growing up. So, in this science fiction story, when confronted by an ocean planet that appears to be sentient and intelligent, humankind finds itself powerless to communicate because of the lack of a common language. In Contact mathematics is posited as the ultimate language of communication between intelligent beings. In Lem's story, I think, feelings and their expression are posited as the ultimate language.

  Lem is a marvelously fecund science fiction writer in the best tradition of exploring philosophical questions through the genre. The movie is simpler but also darker and more emotional in tone than the book. It touches such questions as the limits of knowledge, the paradox of consciousness, what it is to be human, and the meaning of love. It is an unforgettable movie you will enjoy thinking about, and will probably want to watch again several times in your life, even if years apart.

  Technically the movie is OK. It does not succeed, and probably does not even try, to transport you into a technologically more advanced future, as the Odyssey 2001 did (a movie Tarkovsky saw before making Solaris). The visual effects are adequate at best. Photography though is splendid. Acting is good. I really liked the soulful performance of Natalya Bondarchuk as Hari. She brings amazing beauty and poise to her role, and if she appears wooden at first it is important to note that she is supposed to be an artificial construct that only slowly becomes human. Anyway I was blown away by her. Not everybody will like this movie, especially not people accustomed to Hollywood's fast and easy fare. Still I most highly recommend you take the risk and watch it, preferably more than once.

  ...
  
  

• Hard science-fiction doesn't get much better than this
  By ACVNA57PI4DLV on 2003-04-27
  I had all the reasons to dread this movie. After all, *everyone* has already praised it, it is a movie of my favourite sub-genre (not just science-fiction, but "hard" science-fiction, of which 2001:ASO is the acknowledged flagship), it is routinely called "the Russian answer to 2001", it is made by a director who is acknowledged widely as a master (Andrei Tarkovski), and so I was afraid of getting dissapointed. It couldn't be as good as I imagined, right ?

  Wrong. Very wrong. Solyaris *is* a masterpiece, although the resemblance to 2001:ASO fades away after a deeper appraisal. It definitively stands alone. I am not sure which one I like most (Solyaris currently rests third on my top 20 while 2001:ASO is fourth), but this should not influence one's appreciation of Solyaris.

  Solyaris is about many things : the limits of science and unrelentlessness, our tendancy to reduce everything in our own terms and being unable to open ourselves to the different, free will, guilt, and perhaps personal identity, and love, too. With such wonderful setting and material (notably in the form of the book "Solaris", by Stanislaw Lem), we would ask for nothing less. But when Tarkovsky does it, well, it's even better. But it's a movie made in his style : and if you don't have the attention span to watch a movie that lasts three hours, too bad. But you're missing out.

  How, then, to describe the plot ? Because I have to try. The human race is now united and exploring space, but it falls upon an epinous problem : Solaris, a planet whose mysteries remain intact after dozens of years of study. Not only is it composed only of one all-encompassing Ocean, but this Ocean may be sentient. At any rate, the three remaining occupants of the Solaris station are going insane, and cold-hearted psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is dispatched on a mission upon which the fate of the station, the study of Solaris, and perhaps even Solaris itself, depend. But as Kelvin uncovers the true nature of the madness that strikes the stranded scientists, his mission takes second place to his own psychological turmoil.

  I'm afraid that's as far as I will tell you, but that's already a half-hour. Solyaris is a three-hour visual fest. It has minimal special effects (with the notable exception of Solaris itself), and minimal music, in keeping with Tarkosky's style. They are not missed, of course. The acting is competent, when needed (as in 2001:ASO, there isn't a lot of it, but there is a lot more dialogue). The script, direction and visuals are sublime.

  This movie has been praised as Christian, and Tarkovsky himself was a Christian mystic, although he was more of a mystic than a Christian. I have seen it twice already and I can testify there is not one trace of religion in Solyaris (not that his Communist masters would have allowed such anyway). There is a resurrection, however, but to associate it with Jesus would be hackeyned at best.

  There is also not a lot of technology. In fact, we only see the station for a few seconds, and we don't even see Kelvin's capsule (except in the deleted scene). This is on purpose. Tarkovsky is not a science-fiction director, and only liked the story for its psychological aspects, not its technological aspects (indeed, according to biographies, viewing 2001:ASO cemented his idea of going away from a special effects fest and into the kind of movies he liked to make). He was forced by Lem to make a movie that stayed closer to the original story, and thus we got the best of both worlds.

  If you like science-fiction, especially hard science-fiction, you would be the king not to see this movie.
  
  

• Solaris - A timeless masterpiece
  By A3DWCKM2Y7BZ3K on 2006-12-24
  I won't comment on the film itself here. Tarkovski is Tarkovski and Solaris is Solaris, isn't it? If you mouseclicked your way down to this comment, I suppose you're what I'd call a gourmet and you want a little more of cinema than just Hollywood... "Solaris" is a masterpiece, and in my opinion Tarkovski's best film. Comments have been made on the poor special effects, on the use of partial black&white - - so what? Any true artist uses the means available to create a genious piece of art. With modern synthesizers at hand, do you think you could improve J.S.Bach? Maybe, if you're up to his state of art!
  My suggestion: let "Solaris" have it's impact on you and discuss it afterwards with good friends, it won't be a wasted evening.
  But: if you can play region 2 DVD's, don't waste your money at the Criterion Edition, but instead get the "Artificial Eye" edition (available at amazon.co.uk, for example): the film is on 2 DVD's there, picture and sound are significantly better. There's much less "bonus materials", and also the English subtitles seem to be less accurate, but you don't buy a DVD for it's bonusses, do you?
  Again: a masterpiece and a "must-have" for all true film lovers!
  
  
• A haunting and soul-searching cinematic experience
  By on 1999-10-22
  Of the three Tarkovsky films that I have seen (Solaris, Stalker, and Sacrifice) this is the only one that put everything together. Despite its length (~3hours+) I did not feel that it had any dry spells. It is a marvelous cinematic illustration of the adage "All men lead lives of quiet desperation." Natalia Bondarchuk was not only beautiful, but hypnotic. I am disappointed to see so many reviews disparage 2001. The films have little in common. Each is a masterpiece in its own right. The soundtrack is outstanding, while the screenplay maintains continuity and avoids lulls in the suspense.
  
  
• Extraordinary Movie
  By A4UKBG3M5U5TI on 2003-01-01
  I'm so pleased that SOLARIS is finally on DVD (prompted, no doubt, by the recent remake). Ostensibly, it's a sci-fi movie, but it's likely to appeal to non-sci-fi fans. In many ways, it reminds me of 2001. The plot concerns some mysterious events in a Russian space station in the future. The space station is studying the planet Solaris, which has a swirling plasma-like ocean that may or may not be sencient. A psychologist, Dr. Kris Kelvin, is sent to retrieve the remaining crew and determine whether the mission can continue. When he arrives, Dr. Kelvin is shocked to find that the crew has "guests." Whether the "guests" are hallucinations is left somewhat unanswered, and the ending is fairly enigmatic. However, the film is first-rate in every way.

  The visuals are simply stunning; it's one of the best looking films I've ever seen, and this beauty is enhanced by DVD technology. The film is long (2 hours and 45 minutes) and slow-moving; however, I was never bored and actually found myself wishing the movie could go on further. Highly recommended to fans of 70s cinema, intelligent sci-fi, and great movies. I haven't seen the remake, but seeing the original has definitely made me curious.
  
  

• A Movie that Gnaws Away at You (in a *Good* Way)
  By A2WC59JNE5OE52 on 1999-12-09
  When I first saw SOLARIS, I found it at all times intriguing, but often boring, like an Ingmar Bergman movie, and yet, like a Bergman movie, there is stuff going on that won't sink in until well after the film is over and you've tried not to think about it anymore. This is a metaphysical journey in the guise of sci fi allegory, which, much like the director's other sci fi film, STALKER, rewards close attention and surrender to the concepts being presented. Don't expect gee whiz effects, because there aren't any. Instead, think Truffaut's FAHRENHEIT 451 and/or Godard's ALPHAVILLE. The film that perhaps comes closest to SOLARIS, for me, would be Bunuel's LOS OLVIDADOS, an existential meditation on tortured psyches, dreams, desires, and unfulfilled expectations. Like that film, SOLARIS is deeply resonant and stays with you almost as lastingly as a true physical experience.
  
  
• My favorite Tarkovsky film, and one of my top ten films...
  By A2UYAFQ40U2PHS on 2006-04-29
  The first time I saw this film, I remember the text of the program reading "Russia's answer to 2001". I was intrigued by it, so I ventured into the cinema, not knowing what really to expect. The film had a 167 minute running time, which didn't hurt (I love epic cinema). I loved this film from beginning to end. From the opening credits (set to one of the most haunting pieces of music I've ever heard, Bach's F Minor Choral Prelude), to its enigmatic ending, I was completely mesmerized. The film stuck with me for days. It was strange, hallucinatory, mysterious, and moving. I became (and still are) an avid admirer of Tarkovsky, and I always will be. The film has received the tagline "Russia's answer to 2001". That isn't really true. Tarkovsky had started pre-production on this film before he saw 2001, but he did see it shortly before shooting commenced, and he disliked the film intensely, calling it cold and soulless. I would disagree with him on 2001, but I adore this film. The performances are stunning, and Tarkovsky's mise en scene is outstanding. He only shot 2 films (Andrei Rublev and this one) in scope (2.35:1). Reportedly, he didn't really care for the widescreen, and shot his remaining film full frame or 1.66:1. It is a deeply spiritual film, and it's almost a religious experience for me. I finally got around to seeing the remake, and it's an abomination. I found it sacreligious to remake this, as it is one of the greatest films ever. A must see. The deleted scenes on disc two are quite interesting in themselves (especially the extended "mirror room" scene, which I wished Andrei had left in the film). A masterpiece...
  
  
  
  
• A great release for a great film
  By A27HKXSMP4BO2J on 2002-12-09
  This DVD is a suitable and fitting release for what is, for me at least, one of the best films ever made. For over 20 years, ever since I first saw it, Solaris has been my favourite film, and I have steadfastly bought each new video and DVD release, and this is definitely the definitive version.

  Of its many strengths, by far the greatest is that the film is entirely on one disc, unlike the Russian release (that was also released by Artificial Eye in the UK). Another great strength is the inclusion of the 9 deleted and alternate scenes. I was utterly amazed to find that the DVD would contain these, especially as you have this feeling that anything cut on a film of this kind will never be seen or located again. Interestingly, and unlike the typical deleted scenes of Hollywood films, these scenes could easily be reinserted in the film without damaging it or slowing it down at all (my wife would argue that you can't slow this one down!).

  The interviews are superb, and it is interesting to compare the interview with Natalya Bondarchuk on this release with that on the original Russian DVD. This is so much better and more interesting, a real insight into the film. How amazing to hear her say that she didn't recognise a scene she was in because Tarkovsky and Yusov had rendered so much beauty and physical detail in the shot. Wonderful!

  It is timely that as Soderbergh's undoubted cop-out is about to hit the screens that this release reminds the public of what film-making is all about. There is a tendency to think that Tarkovsky's films are very intellectual and 'arty', certainly 'Stalker' could be accused of that, although it is undeniably both moving and beautiful. But the strength and the power of Solaris is that it is not intellectual, but emotional. It is a love story, a moving, haunting tale of lost love and longing. If Lem disliked it it is because it replaced his intellectuality with the human element. I for one believe that Tarkovsky was utterly right.

  This is a beautiful and moving film, and no serious film collection should be without it. Take advantage of Criterion's hard work and buy this DVD. You'll never buy a better one!
  
  

• An exploration of another world and the human mind
  By A2HS1FGEUIF8UH on 2000-11-28
  

  Yes, this film is long and has legthy scenes where there is neither significant action, not substantive dialog. However, the film, I believe, is intended to create an atmosphere and does so with nary a frame of film out of place. You could absorb the entire story, characters and plot in a film half the length, but miss the wonderful flavour of the film. As an example of what I mean, consider some of the scenes in Lawrence Of Arabia, another slightly more well known film of some length. There is a scene that lasts about five minutes and show nothing other than the sun rising in the desert. This, in my opinion, is not editorial laziness, but the establishment of a mood and evocation of an atmosphere, preparing the audience for the forthcoming scenes.

  Solaris is a planet an undetermined distance from Earth. There is a man made satelite exploration station in orbit over the planet and a psychologist is sent to the station to investigate some peculiar events. The scientists have been bombarding the surface of the planet with radiation resulting in some perturbing manifestations, side effects of the blending of human minds and the apparently intelligent (though not in our way of understanding) planet's ocean surface. The film explores the human's different reactions to these manifestions.

  I have also read the book, Solaris, by Stanislaw Lem, and the film is signifcantly different take, although just a legitimate, in my view. One of the driving messages that I took home from the book was just how difficult it was for Man to accept that he can observe something as complex and fascinating as Solaris, but even applying all the science and culmination of man's knowledge, still fail to understand what he is seeing. The film does not stray from the space station as much as the book does, and tends to spend more time portraying the gradual madness that descends on the newcomer, a madness that his colleagues (one already deceased) are already sunk into by the time he arrives.

  However, in the end, both book and film, do not attempt to make any conclusive revelation about the nature of the planet, but rather, make subjective revelations about ourselves.
  
  

• Involving and challenging, gentle but powerful film
  By on 1999-04-16
  I saw this in a small cinema after work when I was tired. As such it seemed extremely dreamlike and and events seemed to happen in ebbs and flows like the sea at the centre of the story. It is a difficult film if you are used to passive entertainment from films, as I and many probably are in the main these days. But it is richly rewarding. The dialog is sparing but extremly affecting. The emotional set of the film sweeps through confusion, desperation, sadness and futility but ending remarkably with a sense of hope. The over riding message to me seemed to be that man, unable to come to grips with his own existance and purpose has turned his mind to exploration of the outside at the neglect of the inside......this films shows how the two are linked and inseperable. Splendid stuff
  
  
• Excellent Psycological/Philosophical Exploration
  By on 1999-06-18
  Stanislaw Lem, the author of Solaris, writes science fiction that explores the limits of the human mind to comprehend new encounters with senient beings and inexplicable events. His protagonists are led from one indecipherable question to the next, but reach no conclusions. I think it is a mistake to attempt to compare Solaris to 2001, apples to oranges. 2001 had a great deal to do with cutting edge special effects; Solaris used minimal special effects. Solaris is more Chekhovian in its character exploration as they attempt to deal with their subconcious interaction with a planet that has evolved as a single intelligent entity. I hope more who enjoy this film will read more of Lem's works.
  
  
• Metaphor is Mightier than Special Effects
  By on 2002-12-04
  I find it fascinating. Tarkovsky makes you see things beyond the actual images on the screen. There's a five-minute scene filmed on the superhighways of Tokyo circa 1971 in which an ex-astronaut sits in his autopilot car that made me think of the loneliness of space travel (think "Ground control to Major Tom"). It's a meditative series of shots that metaphorically conveys so much more than computer generated sequences. The Tarkovsky scholars on the audio commentary completely misunderstood it, saying it was the weakest portion of the film. Even though "Solaris" was billed as the Soviet "2001: A Space Odyssey," it really doesn't compare either in science or special effects. It's more about conscience and how the past haunts you. The premise has been used by Michael Crichton in "Sphere" and in other similar movies that don't go as deep as Tarkovsky. "Solaris" is too long, though. The first hour and the last half hour are the best (total running time 2 hours 45 minutes). Apparently, Lem hated this filmed version of his book, saying it took too many liberties. Basically Tarkovsky took the characters and situation and made up his own story. The interviews with people involved in the film, including the lead actress and the director of photography, are excellent. Now I want to see his other films "Andrei Rublev" and "Stalker."
  
  
• Learning one's place
  By AFLPMS5K3DZL5 on 2004-07-20
  We find a creature who seems far more advanced than we are. Who we might like to destroy but hardly know if we can. Who can seemingly turn our minds against us. For whom we don't seem to be a priority at all. Of whom our best minds manage only feeble speculations.

  I saw this movie first and only recently read Lem's story. Tarkovsky got a great start from Lem. It's difficult to compare text and movie. Tarkovsky seemed to have been reasonably faithful to the contents of the book, but added a long introduction as well as his own ending. Both works are impressive. Tarkovsky seems to linger often so a good deal of patience is a prerequisite for enjoying this film.

  Now that I've read Lem's "Solaris", I'm less satisfied with Tarkovsky's "Solaris". Lem's book moved along well. Tarkovskky's added introduction (including moving up the inquiry of Burton) accomplishes little and the ending may be more explicit than is needed: hasn't Solaris already done enough to impress? On the other hand, Tarkovsky's cast is excellent (I especially enjoyed Hari and Snow) and visually the movie is a treat.
  
  

• A serious diversion for people who like to think
  By on 1999-02-14
  Well if you happen to be reading this do yourself a favor and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how this movie might make you feel. You might think it is boring and trite and wonder when the plot will begin or it might cacth you like it did me and give you answers to questions you never really wanted anyone to answer. It is not science fiction, it is metaphysical fiction about the human mind and of all things, true love. Not a usual combination but it does show no matter how far man travels from the earth he always brings his humanity. A very beutiful original and haunting film that really defies a true description. You really must make yourself sit through it you will not be the same afterwards.
  
  
• Since, I speak Solaris!
  By ANYF5LXULMMBL on 2001-12-29
  I'm Russian. Maybe, that is why I liked that movie. Many critics comlaining that they could not understand the movie. "English subtitles are changing very quick, and all movie based on dialogue", they wrote. Ironically, when I was showing "Solaris" on VHS to my parents, even they understanding Russian dialogue didn't understand the plot of the movie! So, I was explaining to them every scene(actually, I was making up some explonations). I wish this movie could be dubbed in English someday, so more American sci-fi fans whould enjoy this truly classic original from Russian science-fiction movie collection. In Russia we didn't have a lot of sci-fi movies, but if Russian filmakers made one, it always was very deep in meaning. To this day I love this movie, because I still do not understand some of the "mystical" parts. That's the fun of sci-fi flicks. You're wery open minded about it, but still searching for truth! "Solaris" is a good example of it. There is no fancy special effects, because in late 70's Soviet cinema was slow comparing to Hollywood. Also this movie filmed in color & b/w (actially this is one of the movies which is the first one that introduced that wonderful "mood" technique). What made this movie special is creativity of director, Andrei Tarkovsky. The movie was edited very geniously!!! Maybe director didn't have enough budget for sertain scenes, but with his imagination every scene of the movie have a double meaning, or even three meanings. So, the viewer think that every scene meant to be like in the script. Maybe it's just the way movie was filmed to make you think that way. See! You never know! Typing about this movie, give me chills... I still remember that shocking scene close to the end... if you still didn't see that movie, I don't want to ruin it for you. Not the last scene, because the last scene it's just a homework for the viewer to think! The one scene before two last scenes. Where several surving characters have on the clothes "red" stains. Which is a hint for the viewer... The secret to understand the movie, you have to look very close to the details: in the background, the scene was filmed in color or in b/w, what are the characters wearing (in every scene), etc.) You prabably thinking, if you will pay attention to these details, how would you have a chance to read subtitles?! This movie was not meant to be with subtitles, instead it meant to be dubbed! My recommendation for you is to watch "Solaris" two times or three. First one read all the subtitles, second time watch for "all" details even very un-important ones, and three watch it again - only this time think of every scene in the 'different sense' of meaning?! Treaky? If you want to find out more about this movie, or all it "visual answers/hints" from director for the viewer and you have a hard time to find them. ....
  
  
• Art Feeds the Soul
  By AD0J5KK4WQXNS on 2004-01-09
  This magnum opus of metaphysical proportions is only strengthened in appreciation by the catastrophe of Steven Soderbergh's Hollywood puny attempt at a remake. It just goes to show that talent is a gift and not something that can be developed by throwing money at it.

  No one, no director, no production team, could handle the subject of Stanislaw Lem's incredible novel except for Tarkovsky who is a shining example of a director who has enough emotional clout inside of him to bring the unfilmable to the screen. There is very little doubt that the man is a vessel of questions and has spent much solitary time pondering over them. Solaris is the eventual produce of a mind that has interrogated itself right down to the very last atomic particle.

  2001 by Kubrick had an amazing impact on Tarkovsky's vision and gave him the inspiration to put together this sci-fi under Soviet rule with a miniscule production budget to work from. It is like a kid in Africa building a home computer in the recesses of some unknown jungle outpost. The objectives are colossal, almost unobtainable, but the will is there and the payoff is on the screen.

  The premise is not simple. A planet called Solaris is being studied by a tracking space station. On board the orbital there are problems as the crew experience abnormal psychological conditions. Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis), a psychiatrist, is sent to the space station to find out what is going on. There he encounters ghostly phenomena where thoughts and dreams appear to realize themselves into reality as a direct result of Solaris's impact on human beings. He finds himself confronted with his dead wife and many philosophical questions rupture the core of his very existence. The shock twist ending only deepens the metaphysical quarry that Tarkovsky has unearthed here.

  Unmissable.
  
  

• Amazing
  By A3VGFJD2GCL1QB on 2000-06-15
  Andrei Tarkovsky is not only capably of making an excellent thriller, but he very closely examines his characters and the way they react to different things, as well as providing some incredible images. Tarkovsky is known for saying that a good movie should not be entertaining. This may hold true to "The Sacrifice" or "The Mirror," but this is a brilliant science fiction masterpiece that is good AND entertaining. The acting is flawless and the script is very well written, allowing for some close examination of each individual cosmonaut on board Solaris.

  For any who are unfamilair with the plot, it involves a group of cosmonauts who are in orbit above a planet consisting completely of water. The water seems to be alive and is manifesting hallucinations of what the crew is thinking about, or people from their past. The people react with fear and compassion to these different occurences, and try to figure out how to stop this, or if they even want to.

  Fans of "2001: A Space Odyssey" should not miss this, and once viewing this masterpiece you will realize how many films have been influenced by this one ("Event Horizon," for example).
  
  

• 2001 Anti-Matter...A Different Vision
  By ARA48345JZPZR on 2003-06-24
  Made in the Soviet Union a few years after Kubrick's 2001, Solaris is maddening, enigmatic, sometimes illogical and frustrating, but in the end an engrossing, moody, eliptical meditation on science and morality, conscience and guilt, love and indifference.

  The director, Andrei Tarkovsky, had seen 2001 prior to filming Solaris, and was determined to go in a different direction from the meticulous & detailed technologic bent of Kubrick's masterpiece. Special effects here are minimal, but adequate for Tarkovsky to tell his story. His is a messy, humanistic affair, with a trashed and lived-in space station as its setting, quite the oppposite of the coldly logical, icy brilliance of Kubrick's vision. Both films are concerned with the reason and meaning of being and mankind's fate or destiny, but while Kubrick's is related with minimal dialogue, Tarkovsky's people talk and talk.

  I found the Solaris dialogue at times intriguing, often ungraspable and opague, enigmatic in interesting ways, and sometimes unnecessarily enigmatic at other times. The great similarity between the two films is the fantastic visual feast both directors bring to their very different stories. Kubrick's film captures the cold emptiness and vast isolation of space, and the tremendous amount of technology required to put fragile humans in that hostile environment. Tarkovky's space station is messy, used, lived-in and familiar, i.e., a human habitat.

  The two films have a couple of other things in common: in both films the most "human" character in the story is "non-human", HAL in 2001, and Hari in Solaris; and, both the central characters eventually are taken on a mind-bending journey within themselves and without to a somewhere other than the world they know.

  The Tarkovsky film is a 70's film. That means long takes and tracking shots, with a slow narrative that doesn't have jump cuts and the razzle-dazzle of today's editing. It requires patience and probably more than one viewing to absorb. Even at that, it will be open to interpretation, because for all the dialogue, Tarkovsky doesn't explain a lot, and in some instances, refutes the inner logic of this own story. This won't matter to many viewers who will be content with the visual treats and the wonderful evocation of mood and mystery, and a story of the emphemeral nature of love and existence, so easily slipping from one's grasp. Others may find it too confusing and slow and lose patience.

  Considering the conditions and restrictions Andrei Tarkovsky was working under , both financially and politically, his achievement here is as impressive as Kubrick's daring and innovative film. Except for a few scenes that may be oblique comments on the Soviet system, you would not know this film had arisen from under the weight of that regime. Although sometimes a bit heavy-handed, Solaris is a film about the nature and meaning of being human, and how that fits in an increasingly cold and technological world. If you aren't in a hurry, it may be worth your while. 4-1/2 stars.
  
  

• Please, please, forget about 2001
  By A2K3UTNW0783U6 on 2005-10-15
  A spaceship has discovered signs of intelligent life on another planet. Study continues over a period of years from an orbiting space station. Back on earth concern is felt, as the main result has been loss of life - astronauts have gone missing or suicided. The last to die is the friend of an investigating psychologist, who is sent out to determine if the cost of study has not been too high and charged to close down the station if he thinks so, and with it the attempt to contact another intelligent life form in the universe.
  
  This is not the subject, but the background to Tarkovsky's film of Lem's Solaris, alluded to or left to the viewer to infer. The film is mainly concerned with the interaction of memory and love in the psyche, and the thought that contact with intelligence unmodified with love would be meaningless or dangerous; curiosity - callous or cruel - is merely a throwaway observation. On the planet Solaris the ocean stands for the psyche - immense and unknown.
  
  The investigator is a man who puts duty before love. His love is deeply felt but unexpressed. His home, his father and his wife have all felt abandoned, and his wife has suicided at his apparent rejection of her.
  
  On Solaris the ocean, a seeming source of intelligent life on the planet, has made contact with the astronauts, and uncovered memories, some of them hidden, painful ones, in their minds. They have visitors from their pasts, women and children. The investigator discovers his dead wife, and falls in love with her.
  
  She is a memory (or is she a planet?) and has no memory of her own, which frightens her. But the investigator, Chris, falls in love with her, the memory, more securely than with the real wife he abandoned. Memory is seductive. It creates a real world we can live with, more perfect than the real world. Chris can love his wife Hari on Solaris. He can embrace his father, with whom on earth he has been so reserved.
  
  So he makes his judgment and lives surrounded by his memories on Solaris, imperfect as they are - symbolised by a strange shot of his father in the family home, who goes about his daily chores while it begins to rain - inside the house, not outside.
  
  The space team on earth will send another investigator. What will he find, what will he do? The film leaves this to the viewer to conceive.
  
  Space, the journey among the stars, the space station, the ocean of life, all this is passed over by Tarkovsky. His film is like the other half, the interior side, of Kubrick's 2001. One is an odyssey, the other an Ithika (the lost epic, the blind Homer).
  
  The power of the film is in its suggestive capabilities. The scenic beauty, the ruined space station, the ocean, and their contrasts, the conflict-ridden world of the astronauts, and the scientists who send them to their deaths or illusions, the beautiful Bach on the soundtrack: all edited seamlessly to enforce meditation on Tarkovsky's themes.
  
  The film certainly has flaws. Some of the long takes are too long (especially the expressway scene, which lasts a full five minutes). Subtitles are displayed too quickly. On the other hand they are good at expressing subtle and oblique thoughts. At 165 minutes the film is long but rarely felt so.
  
  So back to the film's final shot. Is it better to love an illusion than not to love at all? Which is the illusion, love - or truth? If the ocean is god, what matters more, love or truth? If the ocean is not god, is the illusion of love self-destructive (because self-deluding) or self-enhancing (because it results in survival, and in contact - contact with an unknown part of the psyche, the universe which might enhance or destroy us). Must we be destroyed in order to survive? Is illusion destructive or creative? Is what happens to us within our control?
  
  Solaris is not a film, but a poem. Its power is in what it makes us think. Just like the ocean on the planet Solaris. Some critics think it bad because the special effects are limited. I, on the other hand, think the point is the Bach on the soundtrack.
  
  
• Heartbreaking, Soulful Science Fiction
  By A2NWMKTGGROUM8 on 2003-02-12
  Andrei Tarkovsky's "Solaris," offered in an absolutely stunning digital transfer from the talented folks at Criterion, is an acquired taste. It's long, incredibly slow in its pacing, and oddly moderate in tone despite its subject matter (the main character, Kris, played by Donatas Banionis, seems too restrained at times, given what he experiences). It contains some idiosyncratic, perhaps even questionable, narrative and aesthetic choices. And it balances the intellectual and the emotional very precariously; even though Tarkovsky wanted to make a film that was more humane and emotional than Kubrick's "2001" (which he found to be cold and sterile), "Solaris" is still a film about abstract ideas, making one wonder if Tarkosvky succeeded in his aims. These elements can get in the way of the film's wonder and beauty if viewers aren't deliberately open to its possibilities.

  For all of its techno-scienctific and philosophical approach to its themes of love, life, memory, grief, humanity, reality, and perception, "Solaris" is, at its core, a heartbreaking, soulful mystery that renders its deepest meanings not through space travel or planetary exploration or battles between good and evil, but through a touching, mystical relationship between a grieving widower and the dream-like, tangible apparition of his dead wife. Kris Kelvin, a psychologist, travels to a Russian space station hovering above the planet Solaris to investigate trouble and determine if the station should remain operational. In the process, he gets trapped by Solaris's mystery, the ability of its conscious, sentient life force to probe his memories and consciousness. His late wife Hari (magnificently played by Natalya Bondarchuk) appears and reappears and struggles to understand who (or what) she is, while Kelvin must struggle to understand his grief, his memory, and the proper uses of science and technology.

  The remarkability of "Solaris" as a cinematic experience lies not only in the intrigue of its central event, but also in Tarkosvky's subtle, respectful, and appropriate emotional touch. If it takes a seemingly lengthy amount of time before Kelvin (and we) experience Solaris and its mysteries, the methodical pace makes the emotional impact all the more significant. Hari's and Kelvin's struggles are heartbreaking, and precisely because Tarkovsky needn't spell them out; he gives them the time and space they require. In addition, Tarkovsky's visuals are perfectly attuned to his intelletcual and emotional themes. In that stunningly beautiful, dreamlike, famous brief moment when Hari and Kris experience weightlessness in the space station, the film becomes viscerally alive, and you momentarily wonder if you have ever seen anything more beautiful.

  "Solaris" is demanding, no doubt, and just when it seems that you have come to understand what it means, Tarkovsky makes it more mysterious by offering an ending that will force you to rethink the entire film. It's also a unique cinematic experience, a testament to Tarkovsky's powerful artistry, and proof that the most demanding of works tend to offer the most lasting rewards.
  
  

• Stalker: A Film by Andrei Tarkovsky
• Andrei Rublev (Criterion Collection Spine #34)
• The Mirror
• Solaris
• Ivan's Childhood - Criterion Collection