Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

linconjames Stanislaw Lem's Solaris is a highly regarded book and Andrei Tarkovsky's film adaption is pretty much spot on, though Tarkovsky being an auteur brings his own touch to the proceedings. The story is about a cosmonaut who is sent to a space station revolving around a mysterious planet in the future. The cinematography and production design are haunting- the spaceship is so different than what we usually see in Hollywood. The acting is restraint and works here. Some people have said there is a sense of pretentiousness and rightfully so as some scenes go on way too long. But hey, this is Tarkovsky we speak of. This is one of the finest hard science fiction films and you should see it at any cost.

judithturner-50577 Stanislaw Lem's Solaris is a highly regarded book and Andrei Tarkovsky's film adaption is pretty much spot on, though Tarkovsky being an auteur brings his own touch to the proceedings. The story is about a cosmonaut who is sent to a space station revolving around a mysterious planet in the future. The cinematography and production design are haunting- the spaceship is so different than what we usually see in Hollywood. The acting is restraint and works here. Some people have said there is a sense of pretentiousness and rightfully so as some scenes go on way too long. But hey, this is Tarkovsky we speak of. This is one of the finest hard science fiction films and you should see it at any cost.

thedarkknight-99999 I can see why many people compare between Tarkovsky's Solaris and Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Despite both films have completely different themes, It's so clear that Tarkovsky was inspired by 2001 while making Solaris. But the influences have nothing with neither the themes nor the messages and the philosophy of the movie. Tarkovsky influenced by the style and the technical aspect of 2001: A Space Odyssey; the tone. some of the camera shots, the way of using the imagery (in some cases), and even the production design. With that said, I don't think there should be any comparison between the two films.To be honest, I hate 2001, because I think it tells its relies so heavily on its message that there's almost no story to tell. It keeps repeating its messages, that we have already recognized from the get-go, throughout its running time. Adding insult to injury, it tries to be riveting by showing how wonderful the camera work is,how mesmerizing the cinematography is, how fascinating the production design is, how masterful the editing is, etc. While all these technical points made this movie the most beautiful movie I've ever seen, instead of relying on the technical aspect, I think it should have engaged us with the use of narrative elements, such as a dramatic plot, well-wrought and fleshed-out characters, or in a worst-case scenario, a mysterious event or even character. Fortunately, I think Solaris is way better than 2001. It has a fair share of metaphors, and also has fully-developed characters, a coherent plot, and powerful messages. The result is a movie that has a very comprehensive and engaging story that tugs at your heartstrings. Needless to say, the acting is great, the direction is masterful, and the cinematography and the production design are nothing but art! It's just the slow-pacing that sometimes I felt it wasn't necessary. Specially, before the climax as this should exactly be the time when I should be entirely focused, but I found that I get a little bored.Some may find the messages are presented in a direct way and somehow in your face, but that was completely intended. It's the first Tarkovsky film I watch, but it's obvious that presenting the message in the dialogue is kinda his trademark. The characters don't reveal the message to put an end to the story. instead, they keep involving the viewers with the messages they discover along the movie. Can't wait to watch The Mirror and Stalker!(9/10)

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.