Review of Solaris (2002) by Duanej. — 06 Dec 2002

I'm with the twist-off-their-heads respondent -- what in g-d's name is wrong with you people? I pretty much despise clooney, think soderbergh's batting .500 in his career (love _schizopolis_, despise _ocean's 11_ with the passionate commitment the film itself lacks.

..) and was, nonetheless, completely unprepared for the haunting tone poem they wrought. what an achievement! now, compared to tarkovsky's version, this is merely a gloss on the themes implied by stanislaw lem's book.

..but what a gloss! "plodding"? quit quoting owen gleiberman, whose review one can barely be read without being distracted by the ax o.g. is plainly grinding -- never mind about your theories of how soderbergh approaches filmmaking, HOW WAS THE FILM?!? I guess a film that honors silence and a viewer's own capacity for not being led by their nose-rings through a narrative -- for only 96 minutes, you twitchy intellectuals, thank you very much -- could be called "plodding," and those who do so could be called something else.

its accomplishment is all the greater for seeming so effortless -- it has social critique, romance, philosophy, humor (i.e. jeremy davies, who, especially after _secretary_, is going through something of a twitchy period himself), conscience-stricken drama and a lovely, brief homage to tarkovsky is the "kelvin's sick" sequence.

oh, yeah, and GEORGE CLOONEY'S BEST PERFORMANCE EVER!! maybe the best he'll ever do -- such range and engagement in the character's process, who knew? not you who diss this film, surely.

doesn't this little fact count for anything with you numnutzes? I can see a weak box office for such fare, but not $9.5 million weak on a holiday weekend, and definitely not to receive an "f" rating from the similarly disposed nutzes on cinemascore.

Com. it is not flawless, nor wholly free of pretense, but it's as pretty damned close as a soul could hope for in today's hollywood. bravo, soderbergh, clooney, mcelhone, davies, viola davis, even james cameron, for this gorgeous, provocative reflection on desire and karma.

I can't wait for this film to be rehabilitated, as it most certainly shall be, in the years to come. on the subject of nose-rings, i'm convinced half of the dismissive sentiment of "cineastes" is confusion over the unique tone of the film, wedded to witless diatribes that reinforce said lack of understanding.

if you'd been told that this was a good film, I firmly believe you'd be leaping to _solaris_' defense. don't believe the negative hype -- see it for yourself. for IQs only slightly higher than today's temperature, I believe this is, among other things, a great date movie.

..