<strong>As for Solaris . . I think it helps not to think about how it relates to the book but rather how it relates to the other movie . . . it seemed to me that they were specically working with tha as a point of departure.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's the worst argument you can use. how many americans have seen the other movie? 10? 15? no one gives a shit about the other movie. you shouldn't have to compare a movie made now to one made 30 years ago in order to appreciate it. the fact is, this movie was a failure. it said absolutely nothing. not only did it ruin any attempt at relating to the book, but it also made for a disgusting movie-watching experience.
I loved Vanilla Sky. To me it brought up a lot of the same sort of issues you mention here, but in a way that kept me entertained, and with a satisfying ending that resolved the plot in a clever way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly the problem I had with Vanilla Sky. It tries real hard for 2 hours to make you think about what the hell is going on, which is good, but then it explains carefully every single details. All I could say after it was: "Oh! That's It? It was too simple an explanation, a let down.
I haven't seen Solaris yet, but from what I've heard I can guess what kind of movie it is. Those films work on your emotional side instead of the logical one who likes linear stories. They're not instant entertainment but I find them much more satisfying in the long run. I like to think about movies. Instead of a pleasant 1 and a half hour, I get days of fascinating thoughts and discussions with others. How good a deal is that for 8$?
Those films work on your emotional side instead of the logical one who likes linear stories. </strong><hr></blockquote>
that's just the problem. that's exactly what they want, but it turns out to be a complete failure. it isn't linear, in that it goes absolutely nowhere at all, but yet at the same time it doesnt make you care at all about the characters. clooney and that chick (who i think is actually not pretty at all) are so one-dimensional and fake that they give no credibility at all, and you end up at the end of the movie thinking, "who gives a shit about chris kelvin. i sure as hell don't..."
this movie fails where the book succeeds: keeping you entertained with very interesting ideas and strange and incredible characters, leaving you wanting to experience it again because there's absolutely no way to have gotten it all the first time around.
my advice. this movie isn't worth even a rental and will be out of the theatres within a week. stay home and read the book instead. you'll be much more satisfied, with none of the disappointment.
also, the book inspired me w/ Rheya's character so much that i've long since decided to name my first daughter after her. it's a very beatiful name and her character in the book is wonderful.
even with the terrible portrayal of Rheya in the film, the name is still untouchable, in my mind, in terms of inspiration. i love her, i guess.
that's the worst argument you can use. how many americans have seen the other movie? 10? 15? no one gives a shit about the other movie. you shouldn't have to compare a movie made now to one made 30 years ago in order to appreciate it. the fact is, this movie was a failure. it said absolutely nothing. not only did it ruin any attempt at relating to the book, but it also made for a disgusting movie-watching experience.</strong><hr></blockquote>Ease off buddy . . . were not arguing politics here . . .
and for your information sphere was your basic piece of crap Hollywood film . . . whereas Solaris is at least an attepmt at something with some weight.
I for one am used to watching movies that take time to develope . . . that's because I watch ALOT of serious cinema . . . none of which you would like . . and do you know what . . I KNOW that they are good films!!!!
Whereas, I also KNOW for a fact that Solaris will last in the eyes of critics and film enthusiasts as a decent attempt at mimicry for a potentially serious filmmaker, whereas, Sphere is allready forgotten!!
as for Solaris relating to the Tarkovsky.... it makes sense that a filmmaker with pretentions towards becoming a serious artist would want to pay homage to a precurser who is generally considered one of the GREATS of Cinema Art. Tarkovsky is a historical force and a filmmaker who wants to be taken seriously would not dare remake one of his films without some important precursor/mentor relationship being acknowledged. There are cues throughout the film, as well as references to other percurser films from great artists in the same genre.
Just becuase you don't know about Tarkovsky doesn't change his status among fimmakers, historians, and generally people who are not simple-minded, loud mouths who have to yell about there ungrounded opinions based on an incredible lack of knowledge and experience in anything besides Hollywood . . .
See, I just don't get the "weight" this movie has. It seemed like it wanted to be high art but didn't pull it off.
I sometimes watch a movie that I know is going to be (as I think you nicely put it) "cinematic art."
If there are concepts I don't get and dialouge that sort of goes over my head I chalk it up to the fact I don't have a grasp of filmmaking's more in-depth language.
But with Solaris I felt like the reason I didn't get it was they didn't bother to tell me things I needed to know to understand the basic story.
That distracted me from even paying attention to (or caring about) the films more subtle points.
pfflam-looking over the whole of the thread, I think the question that comes to me is what you would have thought of the movie without the benefit of reading the book and seeing the other movie.
If one had to do one or the other to enjoy this movie, that seems a little unfair.
In your first post you said something about being happy Soderberg was willing to alienate the audience.
I hope for his sake he has more Ocean's 11s up his sleeve if that was his intention with this movie.
Yeah, Solaris does suck. Not to mention UltraSparc, which also sucks. The register window implementation is a waste of silicon. Solaris has a bad gui, too, as unixes go, it's slow, and I just don't like it.
<strong>Yeah, Solaris does suck. Not to mention UltraSparc, which also sucks. The register window implementation is a waste of silicon. Solaris has a bad gui, too, as unixes go, it's slow, and I just don't like it.
Sorry guys, it had to be said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I for one am used to watching movies that take time to develope . . . that's because I watch ALOT of serious cinema . . . none of which you would like . . and do you know what . . I KNOW that they are good films!!!!
Whereas, I also KNOW for a fact that Solaris will last in the eyes of critics and film enthusiasts as a decent attempt at mimicry for a potentially serious filmmaker, whereas, Sphere is allready forgotten!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
well as long as you know so much more than anyone else...
<strong>See, I just don't get the "weight" this movie has. It seemed like it wanted to be high art but didn't pull it off.
I sometimes watch a movie that I know is going to be (as I think you nicely put it) "cinematic art."
If there are concepts I don't get and dialouge that sort of goes over my head I chalk it up to the fact I don't have a grasp of filmmaking's more in-depth language.
But with Solaris I felt like the reason I didn't get it was they didn't bother to tell me things I needed to know to understand the basic story.
That distracted me from even paying attention to (or caring about) the films more subtle points.
that's exactly right. it's just a bunch of people who think they are above everyone else who have no idea what the fu*k's going on but aren't willing to admit it for fear of being thought "low." instead, they have to praise it as "art," when in fact that still makes the film any more credibly as a source of anything other than nonsense.
let me say something to clear up this whole issue: it's alright to admit that a movie is crap!
<strong>pfflam-looking over the whole of the thread, I think the question that comes to me is what you would have thought of the movie without the benefit of reading the book and seeing the other movie.
If one had to do one or the other to enjoy this movie, that seems a little unfair.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
this is my major complaint of this movie. i actually read the book, and yet i still had no idea what the hell they were trying to say in the film...
and don't give me this bullshit that i'm not "deep" enough or haven't "given it enough thought." that's not the point. the point is that this film is understood by no one except those who think they are better than everyone else cause they claim they "get it." it's alright to admit that you don't understand something--sometimes, there is nothing there to actually understand...
Comments
<strong>As for Solaris . . I think it helps not to think about how it relates to the book but rather how it relates to the other movie . . . it seemed to me that they were specically working with tha as a point of departure.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's the worst argument you can use. how many americans have seen the other movie? 10? 15? no one gives a shit about the other movie. you shouldn't have to compare a movie made now to one made 30 years ago in order to appreciate it. the fact is, this movie was a failure. it said absolutely nothing. not only did it ruin any attempt at relating to the book, but it also made for a disgusting movie-watching experience.
<strong>
I loved Vanilla Sky. To me it brought up a lot of the same sort of issues you mention here, but in a way that kept me entertained, and with a satisfying ending that resolved the plot in a clever way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly the problem I had with Vanilla Sky. It tries real hard for 2 hours to make you think about what the hell is going on, which is good, but then it explains carefully every single details. All I could say after it was: "Oh! That's It? It was too simple an explanation, a let down.
I haven't seen Solaris yet, but from what I've heard I can guess what kind of movie it is. Those films work on your emotional side instead of the logical one who likes linear stories. They're not instant entertainment but I find them much more satisfying in the long run. I like to think about movies. Instead of a pleasant 1 and a half hour, I get days of fascinating thoughts and discussions with others. How good a deal is that for 8$?
<strong>
Those films work on your emotional side instead of the logical one who likes linear stories. </strong><hr></blockquote>
that's just the problem. that's exactly what they want, but it turns out to be a complete failure. it isn't linear, in that it goes absolutely nowhere at all, but yet at the same time it doesnt make you care at all about the characters. clooney and that chick (who i think is actually not pretty at all) are so one-dimensional and fake that they give no credibility at all, and you end up at the end of the movie thinking, "who gives a shit about chris kelvin. i sure as hell don't..."
this movie fails where the book succeeds: keeping you entertained with very interesting ideas and strange and incredible characters, leaving you wanting to experience it again because there's absolutely no way to have gotten it all the first time around.
my advice. this movie isn't worth even a rental and will be out of the theatres within a week. stay home and read the book instead. you'll be much more satisfied, with none of the disappointment.
even with the terrible portrayal of Rheya in the film, the name is still untouchable, in my mind, in terms of inspiration. i love her, i guess.
<strong>jeffyboy, check your pms</strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek:
LOL
Jeez, I didn't think my review was THAT pissy and unreasonable!
Just kidding ladies, just kidding!
Jeff
Same misunderstanding here... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
:eek:
LOL</strong><hr></blockquote>
No dude, it's nothing like that... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
that's the worst argument you can use. how many americans have seen the other movie? 10? 15? no one gives a shit about the other movie. you shouldn't have to compare a movie made now to one made 30 years ago in order to appreciate it. the fact is, this movie was a failure. it said absolutely nothing. not only did it ruin any attempt at relating to the book, but it also made for a disgusting movie-watching experience.</strong><hr></blockquote>Ease off buddy . . . were not arguing politics here . . .
and for your information sphere was your basic piece of crap Hollywood film . . . whereas Solaris is at least an attepmt at something with some weight.
I for one am used to watching movies that take time to develope . . . that's because I watch ALOT of serious cinema . . . none of which you would like . . and do you know what . . I KNOW that they are good films!!!!
Whereas, I also KNOW for a fact that Solaris will last in the eyes of critics and film enthusiasts as a decent attempt at mimicry for a potentially serious filmmaker, whereas, Sphere is allready forgotten!!
as for Solaris relating to the Tarkovsky.... it makes sense that a filmmaker with pretentions towards becoming a serious artist would want to pay homage to a precurser who is generally considered one of the GREATS of Cinema Art. Tarkovsky is a historical force and a filmmaker who wants to be taken seriously would not dare remake one of his films without some important precursor/mentor relationship being acknowledged. There are cues throughout the film, as well as references to other percurser films from great artists in the same genre.
Just becuase you don't know about Tarkovsky doesn't change his status among fimmakers, historians, and generally people who are not simple-minded, loud mouths who have to yell about there ungrounded opinions based on an incredible lack of knowledge and experience in anything besides Hollywood . . .
I sometimes watch a movie that I know is going to be (as I think you nicely put it) "cinematic art."
If there are concepts I don't get and dialouge that sort of goes over my head I chalk it up to the fact I don't have a grasp of filmmaking's more in-depth language.
But with Solaris I felt like the reason I didn't get it was they didn't bother to tell me things I needed to know to understand the basic story.
That distracted me from even paying attention to (or caring about) the films more subtle points.
Jeff
[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]</p>
If one had to do one or the other to enjoy this movie, that seems a little unfair.
In your first post you said something about being happy Soderberg was willing to alienate the audience.
I hope for his sake he has more Ocean's 11s up his sleeve if that was his intention with this movie.
Jeff
[quote]I have finals. I shouldn't even be here. I should be studying.<hr></blockquote>
I know what you mean, I should be um, er...
Ah hell, who am I kidding, I've got nothing better to do!
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Jeff
Sorry guys, it had to be said.
<strong>Yeah, Solaris does suck. Not to mention UltraSparc, which also sucks. The register window implementation is a waste of silicon. Solaris has a bad gui, too, as unixes go, it's slow, and I just don't like it.
Sorry guys, it had to be said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Splinemodel I sent you a PM
Fellowship
<strong>
I for one am used to watching movies that take time to develope . . . that's because I watch ALOT of serious cinema . . . none of which you would like . . and do you know what . . I KNOW that they are good films!!!!
Whereas, I also KNOW for a fact that Solaris will last in the eyes of critics and film enthusiasts as a decent attempt at mimicry for a potentially serious filmmaker, whereas, Sphere is allready forgotten!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
well as long as you know so much more than anyone else...
<strong>See, I just don't get the "weight" this movie has. It seemed like it wanted to be high art but didn't pull it off.
I sometimes watch a movie that I know is going to be (as I think you nicely put it) "cinematic art."
If there are concepts I don't get and dialouge that sort of goes over my head I chalk it up to the fact I don't have a grasp of filmmaking's more in-depth language.
But with Solaris I felt like the reason I didn't get it was they didn't bother to tell me things I needed to know to understand the basic story.
That distracted me from even paying attention to (or caring about) the films more subtle points.
Jeff
[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's exactly right. it's just a bunch of people who think they are above everyone else who have no idea what the fu*k's going on but aren't willing to admit it for fear of being thought "low." instead, they have to praise it as "art," when in fact that still makes the film any more credibly as a source of anything other than nonsense.
let me say something to clear up this whole issue: it's alright to admit that a movie is crap!
<strong>pfflam-looking over the whole of the thread, I think the question that comes to me is what you would have thought of the movie without the benefit of reading the book and seeing the other movie.
If one had to do one or the other to enjoy this movie, that seems a little unfair.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
this is my major complaint of this movie. i actually read the book, and yet i still had no idea what the hell they were trying to say in the film...
and don't give me this bullshit that i'm not "deep" enough or haven't "given it enough thought." that's not the point. the point is that this film is understood by no one except those who think they are better than everyone else cause they claim they "get it." it's alright to admit that you don't understand something--sometimes, there is nothing there to actually understand...