Clooney & Soderbergh's Solaris- art or pretention?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 19:28
VIEWED: 2564
PAGE 1 of 2
I fall on the art side- not since 2001 have I taken such a fascination to that which I cannot fully explain.
Opinions?
The nebulous Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How about rip-off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(1972_film) I hate Clooney
I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, I suppose you actually saw the 1972 version of the movie BASED ON THE BOOK
Originally posted by whozit:
How about rip-off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(1972_film) I hate Clooney
And The Zit is just a ripoff of The Tick, BTW.
The buggy Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No I have not seen it, I went to WIKIPEDIA and found that, and I'm much cuter then "THE TICK"
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Oh, I suppose you actually saw the 1972 version of the movie BASED ON THE BOOK
Originally posted by whozit:
How about rip-off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(1972_film) I hate Clooney
And The Zit is just a ripoff of The Tick, BTW.
The buggy Chrisisall
I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Cominf from a ZIT, that means almost nothing.
Originally posted by whozit:
I'm much cuter then "THE TICK"
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:......and cuter then Clooney!
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Cominf from a ZIT, that means almost nothing.
Originally posted by whozit:
I'm much cuter then "THE TICK"
The laughing Chrisisall
I'm going to micowave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I saw this when it came out. I liked it.
Sometimes it's quite satisfying to sit down to watch a sci-fi that decides to take it's subject seriously. This is one such film. Unfortunately that can make it seem a little pretencious, and perhaps there is something to that, but still I thought the overall atmosphere of the piece was really solid and fitted perfectly with the subject matter. (as much as I recall of it anyway - It's been some years.)
Not sure I was surprised by the 'reveal' when I saw it, but nonetheless it wrapped up well.
I remember being interested in the shots. Weren't they mostly from ground point of view looking up? Or am I remembering that incorrectly... Anyway if you like cerebral sci-fi this one is OK. Not as good as The Andromeda Strain or Supernova but on a similar level with Sunshine and THX1138.
Have you seen the Tarkovski from 1972...?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Personally, I'd put it right up with the first two...and...funny you mention Supernova, it wasn't a widely well-received flick, but I think it's great, the unused extended end in deleted scenes I find to be exceptionally excellent- I wish they'd used it in the film proper.
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Anyway if you like cerebral sci-fi this one is OK. Not as good as The Andromeda Strain or Supernova but on a similar level with Sunshine and THX1138.
Quote:No, I've read about it's pace being excruciatingly slow- slower than 2001, and I have this fear of slow...did you see it, Som?
Have you seen the Tarkovski from 1972...?
The slo-mo Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chrisisall wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I'd put it right up with the first two...and...funny you mention Supernova, it wasn't a widely well-received flick, but I think it's great, the unused extended end in deleted scenes I find to be exceptionally excellent- I wish they'd used it in the film proper.
I love supernova. One of those unseen gems that I just happened upon. I loved the vistas of space. The finest astronomical art I've ever seen, ever! I wish I had seen it in the cinema. I didn't realise there was a deleted finalé. I guess I should hunt a copy down.
Quote:
No, I've read about it's pace being excruciatingly slow- slower than 2001, and I have this fear of slow...did you see it, Som?
Yes I saw it. (My best friend is a Tarkovski nut. Tarkovski is his favourite director no less.) It is slow, very slow, but it really isn't even trying to be a film. It's a very hard sell. There's no convention to it at all.. It unfolds like a series of theoretical visuals that rely heavily on an audience member understanding the relationship between seemingly disperate imagery, cut together to form a chronology of an event... Only the chronology itself is theoretical... Sort of.
So many images flow past you with seemingly no meaning that you begin to question what it is you see - which is sort of what happens to the main character I suppose so there is a point, but it's very challenging.
One to watch for when you're in a more reflective mood.... Shall we say when things appear that bit more random that you'd like.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I love supernova. One of those unseen gems that I just happened upon. I loved the vistas of space. The finest astronomical art I've ever seen, ever! I wish I had seen it in the cinema. I didn't realise there was a deleted finalé. I guess I should hunt a copy down.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Supernova-James-Spader/dp/B000050GQP
The finale isn't the only deleted scene- there are piles of 'em. And all interesting. And the price is SO right!!!
The spaced Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME