Ziglet_mir My first written review of Tarkovsky, and my third film of his I have seen (behind Stalker and Andrei Rublev). So far this is Tarkovsky's most accessible film. Obviously 'more accessible' does not mean worse, because as my movie-watching experience goes it has affected me profoundly--more than Andrei Rublev, and possibly more than Stalker. Solaris is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. Like all of Tarkovsky's visual poems, there are stunning moments of nature; a gurgling stream, rustling leaves upon a branch or marsh weeds falling victim to the eloquent movement of water, and while what we are seeing is simple, Tarkovsky captures it like no other. Solaris' opening shots present these marsh weeds moving; flowing, and I can do nothing but watch. Tarkovsky certainly had a talent, and he may very well be at the top of the list for making film pure poetry.The actual plot of Solaris is intriguing and fresh. We are introduced to the crew of a space mission to the planet Solaris by video--our main character Kris Kelvin, a psychologist, is eventually enlisted to investigate why the crew has gone insane. We learn that the atmosphere of the planet has an ability to reach into our memories and provide us with a manifestation of someone who represents that past the most, and Kelvin is caught up in Solaris' powers when he discovers his dead wife on the space station--alive and well. She is not her real self of course, but the amalgamation of particles the planet's atmosphere can manifest into when it reaches into our memories. Slowly, does Kelvin get dragged into the past as he falls in love again, tragically--knowing very well she is not his real wife. What the film gives us is a masterful introspection of love and life and what it means to be human, at a time when the characters are no where near Earth. Solaris is certainly unique because most sci-fi films give you the feeling you're in space and in ways also feel claustrophobic, but this does the opposite. We know we are in space and near a planet that is incredibly far from Earth, but it doesn't ever feel sterile or cold like space should be (2001: A Space Odyssey). The conversations between Kris and his surrogate-wife are heart-wrenching, and pushes further the question, 'what does it mean to be human?'I may be at loss for some of the thematics in this film, but I took away what made sense to me, and it is beautiful.

EnoVarma It is the view of many, that Solaris needs to be seen at least twice. The same is, by the way, true with every Tarkovski film. I've seen Solaris several times, also on film, and it has always puzzled me to a degree. The first time I hardly understood the story and I didn't get the ending at all, which seems stupid to me, now. And yet, Solaris is very much a straight-forward, chronological film.It just "connects the dots" in a highly evolved way. For example, there is a sequence about 30 minutes in, that has nothing to do with the plot and doesn't really deepen any of the characters. This sequence lasts a full five minutes, has no dialogue whatsoever and is a series of shots from a car driving forward on a highway in urban Tokyo. Couple of times we're shown a secondary character with his son. Audio track is ultra-modern, atonal and expressive. This seemingly inconsequential scene is my favourite in the whole film. Through pure cinema Tarkovski is able to tell the viewer a lot about the nature of the Earth depicted here. We understand better our desire to expand our limits into the spave. Plus, the sequence is utterly hypnotic, enhanced by a sudden cut to an incredibly gorgeous black-and-white shot of a pond with trees hovering over it.And that is the startegy of Tarkovski. He avoids anything familiar and tries to tell and show us something we DON'T know.After repeated viewings, I still feel that with Solaris Tarkovski was only almost completely successful in his pursuits. I have no main criticism to offer, just minor ones.See, there must be a reason why I still feel that the first 45 minutes SPECIFICALLY of Solaris are among the most beautifully realised in Tarkovski's career. This first part largely takes place in a beautiful countryside cottage. Tarkovski is a great depictor of nature (perhaps the greatest), and there is a slight sense of underwhelm during the rest of the film which takes place in a space station, in interiors. In comparison, Stalker, which takes place mostly in exteriors, is also philosophically a richer piece.Interestingly, Solaris, set on a space station, shows practically none of the surrounding space. Again, Tarkovski works against conventions. This and other practices make Solaris an anti-thesis to Kubrick's 2001. Another example: there are few special effects, most of them of the planet Solaris. On the other hand, they are exceptionally beautiful.About the actors: I love them, but this is not a view shared by all. Understandably. Banionis especially is so understated that it's up to you to decide whether he is lacking something. On the other hand, he makes a great pair to Natalya Bondarchuk's more expressive performance.Solaris is a film by a master film maker with only a handful of equals in history. The result is still unique in the realm of science-fiction.

kcanses Adapted from the original work of Stanislaw Lem, the movie "Dostoevsky influence" is clearly seen. Unmanned science, father-son-holy spirit relationship, father- kneeling, etc. connections are the main theme of this film.Initially positivist Kelvin explores the spirit world as the film progresses. The "sense of reality" and "love" make Kelvin more emotional in this discovery.Additional note: the final of film is different from the final in the rum.

johnrgreen you know a film is boring when the best thing about it,indeed the only thing that stands out is a piece of music.So take a bow Bach's Chorale Prelude in F minor,the one thing I'll take away from this.That, and the lead actor's resemblance to Bones McCoy(the actor ,that is)from the 60s Star Trek. Having said that even this music sounds like it's played on the weirdest sounding organ you've ever heard. I think this film strives too hard to portray every nuance of the character's psychology.I wonder how many takes were shot before he achieved the acceptable expression of uncomprehending angst on his lead's face.Then there's the old characters on the station.Had they started as young men?I know how they feel because when i started watching this I,too, was young.