Studio: 20th Century Fox

Country: USA

Year: 2002

Rating: PG-13

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Producer: John Landau, et al

Writing credits:
Stanislaw Lem (novel)
Steven Soderbergh (screenplay)

Cast:
Chris Kelvin: George Clooney
Rheya: Natascha McElhone
Snow: Jeremy Davies
Dr. Gordon: Viola Davis
Gibarian: Ulrich Tukur

Domestic: $14,973,382

Overseas: $15,029,376

DVD Information

Run time: 99 minutes

Languages: English, Spanish, French

Subtitles: English, Spanish

Special features: Commentary by Steven Soderbergh and James Cameron, Making of Solaris special, HBO making of, Stills

---

Read Eilis Manach\'s Review

Plot: A psychologist, Chris Kelvin, whose wife is deceased, goes to a space station orbiting the planet Solaris after its commander has died. Soon strange events start to occur, and people appear, some from the dead....

Comment: WARNING: Spoilers Included

Review: This is one of those movies that should be shown in an arthouse and not in your local cinema. It\'s not what I would describe as entertainment. You really must be in the mood for this movie...which I was not the first time I saw it. So, when Eilis suggested reviewing it, you can imagine that I was not very excited about the prospect. Still, I dutifully went to my local video store and rented it to refresh my memory. After bracing myself, I watched the movie again...twice. Just to be sure I gave it a fair shake. Now, I\'d have to say, \"not bad, but still not likely to make my top one hundred list.\" I like my movies a bit more on the entertaining side.

Don\'t get me wrong, I have nothing against art films. And I certainly have nothing against films that make you think. But a major criteria for me is how well it keeps my attention. In short, does it keep me awake? To Kill a Mockingbird does. Twelve Angry Men does. 2001: A Space Odyssey does. Solaris doesn\'t.

First of all, it\'s very slow moving. That\'s not a major killer — The Sixth Sense was very slow — but Solaris certainly isn\'t designed to keep you hanging on for the next scene. Well, it is a metaphysical movie and those tend to be slow. The only reason I mention it is because it\'s one item of many that makes this (well, any) film difficult to watch from the outset. As Eilis mentioned, the music fits perfectly with what\'s happening (or not happening) onscreen. It\'s slow and majestic when it needs to be; powerful without intruding when it\'s required. But it\'s also irritatingly monotonous at times. This was probably meant to convey the monotony of space, but I found myself longing for Also sprach Zarathustra to break in, especially during those long shots (and I mean that as a time not a photographic reference) of the planet Solaris. Still, it does do its job and is a hauntingly beautiful soundtrack.

Speaking of slow and majestic...like Eilis says, the cinematography of this film is gorgeous. The cool blues and greens of the color palette used on the ship and planet contrast nicely with warm reds and browns of the flashback sequences. It not only conveys the psychological aspects of the two locales, but helps you keep oriented in time as well. The lingering shots of the ship are wonderfully reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet, here again, we\'re in real danger of monotony taking hold, as the shots are held just a fraction too long for my taste. Do we really need to keep the camera on that woman\'s face, moving ever closer as the planet rises outside the window, for a full two minutes of screen time? Okay, maybe we do. Maybe we need the monotonous moments to give us time to contemplate the meaning of what\'s happening on board the ship. But, personally, I don\'t watch movies to contemplate the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

The actors all do excellent jobs. George Clooney was surprisingly good, taking an unexpected step away from his normally strong, confident leading man roles and into the haunted, guilt-ridden Chris. Natasha McEhlone handled her job as the suicidal deceased wife, Rheya, more than competently. With ninety percent of the movie taking place between Chris and Rheya, the two of them literally carry the film. But it was the cast members with smaller parts that I found the most interesting. Viola Davis as Dr. Gordon and Jeremy Davies as Snow never failed to snag my attention when they were onscreen, which was for a woefully short time. So, I\'ll acknowledge that the technical aspects of the film are very well done.

Well, that being the case, what didn\'t you like about it, Kendal?? Easy enough. The script. I dislike plot holes. I dislike movies that have characters acting without motivation...or at least some flimsy excuse at motivation. I don\'t like it when an actor is given lines that contradict prior behavior and I, the audience, am not given an explanation of why they said that. Maybe it\'s the actor in me. I don\'t mind metaphysical questions that never get answered. They\'re metaphysical, which means subjective. By their very nature they can\'t be answered. But I do mind when I\'m shown a character engaging in behavior that appears to be included soley to add another question to the story.

Why, I ask, did Chris (basically) murder the first Visitor Rheya? He wakes up one morning to find his wife in bed with him, but she\'s supposed to be dead. He knows she\'s dead. She committed suicide years before back on Earth. Yet here she is or seems to be. And he knows this isn\'t an hallucination. The man\'s a psychologist. You\'d think he would be intrigued, at least for a while, and yet in the very next scene without any motivation for it, he sticks her in an escape pod and shoots her out into space, knowing that —no matter who she really is—she\'s going to die out there. Here\'s a man riddled with guilt about his wife\'s suicide and when, miraculously, she reappears to him, all he can think of is to kill her?? Why? When, exactly, did our protagonist become homicidal? We\'re never given any reason for it. We\'re never shown or told anything. He just does it. Was it just so the second Visitor Rheya could react to it later?

Why was Snow\'s first reaction upon seeing his Visitor to attack and attempt to murder him? Who was Gordon\'s Visitor? We\'re never told, so we have no reference for why she reacts to Visitor Rheya as vehemently as she does. And why does she say, \"I knew it!\" when they discover Snow\'s body? There\'s been no indication that she suspects anything has happened to Snow. And now suddenly, she\'s claiming to have suspected all along that he was one of \"them\"? Come on! She\'s ready to go back to Earth with a suspect Snow aboard, but not with Visitor Rheya? Dr. Gordon was scared of the implications of \"them\", but we were never led to believe she was irrational.

There were more, but that\'ll give you the idea. Plot holes like this are more easily hidden in action flicks or sweeping epics, but they sometimes have them, too. I don\'t put a movie on my less than satisfying list strictly because it has one or two. But attention to such things in small, art films is vitally important precisely because they are more noticeable — especially, in a film that attempts to make us think about such human characteristics as guilt, conscience, redemption, man\'s fear of the unknown, and indeed the nature of life. When a film moves at a deliberately slow pace to allow you time to absorb the questions it\'s raising, it also gives you time to ask questions about the story itself. Art movies, while not my favorite form of cinema, can be excellent. But filming art is no excuse, in my book, for ignoring the basics of screenwriting. We don\'t accept it in popular entertainment, we shouldn\'t accept it in artistic works either. Not in the film industry.

See Eilis Manach\'s Review of the same movie here.