X
Summary Based on Stanislaw Lem's novel, this 1972 allegory takes place on a space station near a mysterious planet.
Directed By: Andrei Tarkovsky
Written By: Stanislaw Lem, Fridrikh Gorenshteyn, Andrei Tarkovsky
Solaris (1972)
93
7.9
Where to Watch
Coming Soon
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Summary Based on Stanislaw Lem's novel, this 1972 allegory takes place on a space station near a mysterious planet.
Directed By: Andrei Tarkovsky
Written By: Stanislaw Lem, Fridrikh Gorenshteyn, Andrei Tarkovsky
Where to Watch
Coming Soon
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Top Cast
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 8 Critic Reviews
93
100% Positive
8 Reviews
8 Reviews
0% Mixed
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 8 Critic Reviews
93
100% Positive
8 Reviews
8 Reviews
0% Mixed
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
His (Tarkovsky's) pictures, and his sounds -- such as the symphonic drip of raindrops in a wooded pond -- tell more than just the immediate story; they rejuvenate the mind.
An amazing celluloid poem by a filmmaker whom Ingmar Bergman called "the greatest." He very nearly was. He was also, perhaps, too pure a creator and reckless a citizen to survive unscathed.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 138 User Ratings
7.9
81% Positive
112 Ratings
112 Ratings
10% Mixed
14 Ratings
14 Ratings
9% Negative
12 Ratings
12 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 138 User Ratings
7.9
81% Positive
112 Ratings
112 Ratings
10% Mixed
14 Ratings
14 Ratings
9% Negative
12 Ratings
12 Ratings
Basada en la novela de ficción homónima, la experiencia de verla es lo más cercana, como punto intermedio, entre el cine de Bergman y 2001 Odisea del Espacio. La experiencia de verla es compleja de asimilar y, al mismo tiempo, difícil de olvidar.
Report
There are emotional and philosophical "spoilers" here. If you have not seen the movie and want to experience it yourself, do not read past this sentence.
Recently, I re-watched Solaris, for the 4th time. Originally I was looking forward mainly to wonderful dreamy interludes, childhood memories, reminiscent photos, multi-layered video recordings, epic paintings ... accompanied by Bach's powerful organ prelude (639). And I was prepared to be stressed for the rest of the duration. But this time I found a more complete picture. Watching in solitude, with undivided attention, it seems that it took as much and as many times to truly appreciate this film in all of its facets. Even though it disturbed me several times, on a level very hard to locate, I was able to follow with little distraction.
The movie is alienating from beginning to end. Referring to YoonC's fantastic user review: Solaris first recalls the world, and then takes us away from it - we get to see human society and human personality as something fascinating, but often mixed with disgust. We are thrown back to a distant scientific objectivity, perceiving human beings alien-like, while in fact helpless.
This way, Tarkovsky fulfilled a very important theme of Stanislav Lem's, one of the dominant threads throughout the oeuvre of one of the most accomplished writers and critics who ever lived. Both masters should not have been too unhappy about this rendering of the novel: Although it emotionally strays off of the book's course, and even though it is not exactly masterful in creating dialog (too much info-dropping and often mediocre phrasing, *in the translation, that is!*) - its patience and rigidity, when received with care, do create lingering feelings and brooding thoughts that must be very close to Lem's own premises. When we look into the blackness behind the station's windows, we are in space. It is the wrong place to be.
Driven by a desire to understand the living ocean of Solaris, trying to establish some kind of communication, the crew despairs over their failure. But in truth, the ocean shows what human communication, in the broadest possible meaning of the word, truly is: not a means primarily to gain knowledge or to organize society, to understand the universe or to remember the past; but a process that evokes - and fortifies - and varies - images of ourselves and our environments. These images are our self's pulse. To witness them being stripped of any rational meaning is devastating - at least, for compulsively rational minds.
Tarkovsky goes his own way treating Kelvin's development. Upon looking inside him, we feel incredible suffering, self-torturing and self-betrayal, and we acknowledge the joy and pain of memory, but also a certain ... uselessness of those feelings. From this point on, I could proceed in different directions, but I leave you to it.
Despite the horrible dialog, not-so-well handled goofy moments (the dwarf.....), and a slight structural imbalance, this is a life-defining movie for me.
Report
A dazzlingly imaginative work with awesome production values and special effects that bear comparison to those of "2001."
Tarkovsky's eerie mystic parable is given substance by the filmmaker's boldly original grasp of film language and the remarkable performances by all the principals.
Routinely called Tarkovsky's reply to Kubrick's "2001" -- But Kubrick's film is outward, charting man's next step in the universe, while Tarkovsky's is inward, asking about the nature and reality of the human personality.
Slow, but ravishingly beautiful and charged with a real poignancy.
By Staff (Not Credited)
FULL REVIEW
The most pop film the great Russian filmmaker ever made.
why ever would anyone give it a bad rating?
this movie still stands along the "my fair lady", "The umbrellas of Cherbourg", the ideas are grand, Lem is a huge talent, to understand it is not easy, well, how was to write it?
I watched this movie many many times, and yet I find something new every single time I watch it.
Reading it is just as pleasurable as watching, we need more talents like Lem
Report
I wish I could say I liked this film as much as others, but it was simply too slow, too contemplative, and too philosophical for my taste. It was even amateurish in parts. There is a scene towards the beginning of the film where it starts raining on a bright sunny day. You can see shadows behind the obvious bad water effect. There is a camera transfixed on a pond for several minutes, a freeway sequence that goes on for about 10 minutes (a bathroom break I guess), and the camera showing close ups of various parts of a painting. There is even one scene where a rocket ship takes off inside a small room, and he stays in the room when it takes off. In real life he would be fried to bits. Here the back of his uniform catches fire and he gets a few blisters. I do think the film set of the inside of the space station looks pretty good, and overall the acting is good, and there are a few good visuals, but it really needed some editing. I say this as someone who loves slow paced films, like the film this one is always compared to, the great "2001 - A Space Odyssey" by Kubrick.
Report
When scientists aboard an orbiting research station begin to lose their wits and drop off the grid, a psychologist is sent hurtling through the cosmos to seek answers. He discovers the vessel almost completely abandoned and manages only fleeting contact with the high-strung survivors, then sees and interacts with a vision of his long-dead wife. Convincing hallucinations seem to be a common trend here, believed to be an unorthodox method of communication for the sentient ocean on the planet far below, but the depths of its knowledge and the purpose behind its entreaties remain shroud in mystery.
I’ll normally go in for cerebral sci-fi, particularly films that deal with the unstable nature of human perception. Ghost in the Shell considers similar themes in a different context, and that’s one of my all-time favorites. It doesn’t move fast, but I’m never left wanting. Solaris, by contrast, bored me to sleep on three separate occasions. I think my biggest objection, besides the lethargic pace, is how much metaphorical air is left in the room. There’s just one central question, left to linger throughout, and then a mild conceptual tickle at the very end. It offers a near-total lack of variety or plot progression. What atmosphere exists is left oppressively bare, bleak and sterile. God, it’s dull. Hopelessly, smotheringly dull.
Sometimes long, well-crafted films can feel much shorter than their run time. Alternately, a densely-packed short film will sometimes feel much bigger than its duration. Both circumstances can be attractive, if properly managed. This is a long film that feels like it runs for a century. It dwells, stares and deliberates for nearly three hours, poring over the same single, open question without interruption, then offers next to no resolution. Not my idea **** time. Not at all.
Report
The pace unbelievable slow, so I almost fell asleep. The atmosphere and the dialogues are serious, and sometimes very boring. You can see the low budget and the cheap pictures. So after 40 minutes I ve had enough.
Report
Je n'ai pas lu le bouquin de Lem mais soit il est difficilement adaptable, soit il s'agit d'un torche-cul épouvantable aussi lénifiant (Lemifiant...) que ses adaptations à dormir debout...
Et c'est vrai qu'avec ses deux heures et trois quarts, il est incroyablement difficile de ne pas piquer du nez dans ce théâtre filmé avec certes de bien pauvres moyens mais qui ne sont pas responsables de l'abrutissement général et généralisé provoqué ici. Je crois en tout cas que ce fut un film salutaire pour le régime soviétique puisqu'à l'issue de ce Ronflaris dont les ronflements de l'audience couvrait quasiment dans chaque salle les dialogues à teneur hautement soporifique, le bon camarade ouvrier et le fidèle moujik devaient se réveiller péniblement et pour ce faire, retournaient immédiatement à la maison finir la vodka commencée avant la séance.
Alors, quand tout le monde est soit endormi soit bourré, personne ne pense à critiquer qui ou quoi que ce soit. D'ailleurs, je suis dans le même état et ce n'est pas faute d'avoir essayé de "visionner" cette chose en deux fois et à chaque moitié, malgré moult cafés, la somnolence était incroyablement difficile à combattre ! malgré pourtant de fréquents accélérés avec la télécommande, bien entendu !
Aussi ne critiqué-je certainement pas ce chef-d'oeuvre du régime, cette oeuvre magnifique et très contemplative, très profonde et psychologique : je vide ma bouteille et je ferme ma gueule !
PS
La note était soûle et a glissé sur le "0". Et elle y est restée. La pauvre.
Report
Production Company
- Mosfilm
- Chetvyortoe Tvorcheskoe Obedinenie
Release Date Oct 6, 1976
Duration 2 h 47 m
Rating PG
Tagline Let us take you with us to Solaris, planet of mystery, embodiment of man's latent conflict with the unknown. Man, face to face with his conscience, and with his past.
Awards
Cannes Film Festival
• 2 Wins & 3 Nominations
Chicago International Film Festival
• 2 Nominations
Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA
• 1 Nomination