Did anybody see both the Tarkovsky version and the Soderbergh/Clooney remake of Solaris? Tho' I very much like Soderbergh's work, I'm kinda reluctant to go and see his remake of Solaris, since for me Tarkovsky's version is such a masterpiece... being a bit of a whimp here :-)
Edwin
Edwin
-
Re: Solaris
Mon, February 23, 2004 - 1:01 AMI haven't seen the new movie...I guess I'd watch it if it was on, but really, what else could be said other than the original film?
There is nothing more to say - it's perfect...
I guess the only difference is the special effects, and "star - power"...
By coincidence I've seen the movie yesterday yet again.....it's beyond good!
Every time I see it - it gives me something... -
-
Re: Solaris
Sat, September 4, 2004 - 10:46 AMI know this reply is for a posting that is nearly eight months old but I have to get this off my chest...
No one who is a fan of the original film need waste the two plus hours with Soderbergh's sacchrine remake, which somehow manages to tack on a happy ending to the piece and sidestep the implications of Kelvin's strained relations with his family.
As for special effects, there is nothing great about that aspect of the film either...
disappointing considering James Cameron produced the flick (if he had directed the film, we may have been dealing with something of some substance... oh well.)
If you haven't already, pick up the Criterion DVD of the orignal. Great transfer and good extras, plus an essay written by Akira Kurasawa on Tarkovsky and 'Solaris' -
-
Re: Solaris
Thu, November 4, 2004 - 6:04 PMUm, and another 2 months later, new to this tribe,...
I've seen them both, also, and found the recent version somewhat... worthwhile in its own right--very much liked the soundtrack more than anything, which was in a few places well woven in.
It paid far more time (of a shorter version) on the relationship between and life in her own right of the deceased wife in flashbacks and come back to life in the Dr.'s life on the space station, and therefore much much less time on the other matters....
Of course, the original is its own genre.... -
-
Re: Solaris
Fri, November 5, 2004 - 4:23 PMUp until this year, I was a film student at Canada's most "elite" film school in Toronto. During my second year theory class, right before Christmas, our professor recommended for us to go see the new Solaris and when we returned from our break, we would see the original. I went. I liked it, having never seen the original BUT, after seeing Tarkovsky...not at all. I watched the new one recently and what it lacks is soul--or poetry. Does that make sense? When I watch Tarkovsky, I lean into the movie with anticipation. It is encapsulating. When I watch George Clooney, I fall asleep and want it to be over.
m -
-
Re: Solaris
Mon, November 8, 2004 - 9:30 AMI dare say that many women I know wouldn't want George Clooney to go to sleep and would like it to go on for awhile.
I have not seen the new Solaris yet but I can assure you that there are very few remakes that match up to classic films. I suspected that new Solaris was not going to be as good as the original. And, Clooney is best when he plays himself...like in "Intolerable Cruelty". He is personable. Not the best personality type for the Dr. in Solaris.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Solaris
Thu, September 14, 2006 - 5:52 AMHi Edwin, this topic is so old by now...anyway. I love Solaris. For me there is no point in watching a Soderbergh-version because I am not looking for comparing different realisations of Lem's book but what makes the Tarkovsky-film great is everything: the atmosphere, the actors, the behaviour - you cannot transfer it.
+ you cannot use a star like George Clooney, because Cooney is a star, and when people watch Clooney acting they see first and foremost George Clooney rather than the person he is actually playing. That is that star-business which doesn't really help good filmmaking.
