Solaris

Technically brilliant and incredibly profound. Sometimes even unattainable. Andrei Tarkovsky is very demanding on the viewer with his abstraction and does not take it easy on them even for a second with his long-winded visions in his realm of philosophy. However, all inaccessibility is beautifully erased by the simple central theme of conflict between the most desperate emotions and the cold, meaningless scientific research. Most importantly, I guarantee that if you let yourself get absorbed, you won't be able to get the majority of the scenes out of your head due to their ambiguity. (10/08/2007)

It’s similarly difficult to grasp as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but equally strong in its interpretative depth, perhaps even stronger. Tarkovsky's film doesn't rely on visual spectacle; instead, the Russian creator opts for philosophical sci-fi where everything unfolds primarily through dialogue and memories rather than necessarily through visuals. There are scenes inside ships, but they are very limited. This is how sci-fi can be filmed, mainly because the narrative is equally strong. (05/09/2014)

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)

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)

I decided to watch this film hoping for an extraordinary experience, which is what I ended up getting. I was so unexpectedly and massively disappointed that it can’t be called anything but an extraordinary experience. The main theme was not bad at all, but the creators unfortunately managed to stretch out the length far beyond what I could possibly bear. At least half of the film is filled with protracted shots of the countryside (or traffic - the taxi ride seemed endless, and it was completely unnecessary, but probably highly artistic), and staying focused felt like a superhuman feat. Good thing it wasn’t me but my replica who had to suffer through it. (04/01/2021)