Solaris

The Tarkovsky scarecrow may not be such a major problem if we view Solaris through the lens of contemporary science fiction. The result will, unfortunately (or thankfully), be just another film that has not withstood the ravages of time. Of course, you can also read Lem's novel, watch the modern remake and, with a slightly ironic smile, look for the old TV version. All science fiction before Star Wars has its limits, including Tarkovsky's opus. I really don't appreciate a spaceship whose integral part is the icons of Andrei Rublev spread out in the cabins. I really, really don’t. (15.06.2017)

The more times I see it, the more I love it. Maybe the runtime is excessive, maybe some of the scenes don't make sense (and yet they still feel magical, for example the drive down the highway), but everything else – especially the atmosphere, the visual compositions hand in hand with the haunting music, the interesting philosophical musings, etc. – all make Tarkovsky's film one of my most magical cinematic experiences in years. This is the kind of uncompromising artistic statement you hardly see anymore in modern cinema. (22.01.2009)

I have always had a bit of a problem with Tarkovsky's work, as it is very clear that his artistic expression is everything to him and he is not interested in the viewer in the slightest. He could afford to do so because he was creating in a country where the commercial side of things did not matter. The same can be said about Solaris as about Stalker, with the difference being that Tarkovsky filmed Solaris with the support of Soviet official circles. After the great success of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Soviet leadership wanted to make a similar film that would surpass or at least prove to the Americans that they were capable of it too. The choice fell on Tarkovsky, who had a reputation as an extraordinarily talented creator. He chose the novel of the same name by Stanislaw Lem as the literary source. By the way, Lem was extremely disgusted with Tarkovsky's version and stated that he had a strong desire to go to Moscow and give him a thrashing for ruining his work. Frankly, the problem is not that Tarkovsky made a bad film, but that the intellectual starting points of Lem and Tarkovsky are completely different. It can be said that Tarkovsky's version is the last thing Lem wanted to convey to his readers. Tarkovsky's film showcases his strengths, which means a sense of visual composition and philosophical orientation. Just like with Stalker, it is not a genre film at all, but in this case, that fact is more bothersome. It is a very slow-paced film that is not for everyone. My relatively low rating reflects my knowledge of the book, which I simply like better. Overall impression: 55%. (02.02.2008)

Technically brilliant and incredibly profound. Sometimes even unattainable. Tarkovsky is very demanding on the viewer in his abstraction and does not make it easier for them even for a second with his long-winded visions in his sphere of philosophy. However, all inaccessibility is beautifully erased by the simple central theme of the conflict between the most desperate emotion and the cold, meaningless scientific research. And most importantly, I guarantee that if you let yourself be absorbed, you will not understand most scenes due to their ambiguity off the top of your head. (10.08.2007)

8/10/2009: 2 stars /// 7/11/2014: I’m several years older and more experienced as a viewer, so I thought I’d give it another go, and it’s quite good. Science fiction of the more intellectual kind, mainly for people who enjoy being offered something to ponder over. The atmosphere is engaging and unsettling, also quite thought-provoking at times. But only at times, really, because, even though this is philosophic sci-fi, there’s not that much philosophising (they hardly speak). It could also be shorter, a lot. (08.10.2009)