5 ms·

Solaris is by far his best movie, even better than STALKER (which is itself excellent). It seems many have not seen it. They are missing out.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
(His worst and most overrated) edit re: slowness, it's a lot less slow than his final few works which I also adore. they're all great I just think the rest of his catalog gets less good word simply for drastically less popular exposure.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  It's definitely a lot slower paced than our current ADD society is used to. An esteemed director like Kubrick's movies would seem unbearably slow to many.
  - addled 3y ago
    I think Kubrick's movies are fantastic, deep, atmospheric, thought provoking. True art. I have never made it all the way through one without falling asleep. 2001, Blade Runner, Dr. Strangelove.... Even movies loosely associated with Kubrick like A.I. cause me to nod off. I have to stop when I'm nodding off and come back later fresh in order to finish. Maybe it would be different if I had seen them in theaters.
    - tezka 3y ago
      Blade Runner is not a Kubrick film.
      - addled 3y ago
        You're right. My mistake for lumping that in there.
    - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
      > 2001, Blade Runner, Dr. Strangelove.... Gladiator was also amazing!
      - 4ndrewl 3y ago
        Love that film. "No, I'm Spartacus!" Classic.
        2-718-281-828 3y ago
        spartacus, spartacus the merciful \o/
      - twelve40 3y ago
        Gladiator was shot by Ridley Scott, just like Blade Runner. Kubrick (who i love) is so legendary, he really should just get credit for every great movie in existence ))
    - pmoriarty 3y ago
      I've never fallen asleep while watching 2001. It's definitely slow, but riveting for me, because (like Tarkovsky's film) there's a lot of meaning in the scenes, and they give me a lot to think about.
    - Reason077 3y ago
      > "Maybe it would be different if I had seen them in theaters." There's still chances to see 2001 in cinemas! It gets re-released somewhat regularly for anniversaries and Kubrick retrospectives, etc. I was born long after 2001 came out, but I've seen it on cinema screens many times. It was so far ahead of it's time and looks so incredibly good in 70mm that it's mind boggling to consider that it was actually made in the 1960s!
wheelerof4te 3y ago
STALKER created an entire franshise on it's own. Which to date has a very dedicated community. It is one of the best psy-films of all time.
- neffo 3y ago
  It also inspired a related post-disaster urban-exploration-style culture around the Chernobyl exclusion zone. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/09/the-stalkers-inside-the-youth-subculture-that-explores-chernobyls-dead-zone.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/09/the-stalkers-ins...
jimbob45 3y ago
I really didn't enjoy the ending of Solaris and, for that matter, The Little Prince. You don't need to have a punchy ending for me not to feel like I wasted my time with your movie. It's okay to let the journey stand on its own rather than throwing in a climax that feels haphazard and spontaneous.
- cubefox 3y ago
  The original Solaris novel had a different ending, a disillusioned reflection by Kelvin, which I found much better. It was probably not dramatic enough for a movie, too analytical.
  - Eliah_Lakhin 3y ago
    Aside from this, perhaps another reason why the first part of the movie looks and feels more promising than the second one is more trivial. As far as I know they experienced a budget shortage at some point of production.
  - triska 3y ago
    Personally, I always found that the novel ends on a comparatively hopeful note, especially given the circumstances, the final word being cudów ("of miracles").
tezka 3y ago
It's one of his most accessible movie, and usually resonates with tech people for obvious reasons. His best movies imo are Mirror, Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Stalker and then Solaris, Nostalgia and Sacrifice. Now Solaris book by Lem is far superior to Tarkovsky's rendition.
pmoriarty 3y ago
I love Stalker, and I'm a huge Tarkovsky fan, but hated Solaris. It doesn't hold a candle to Stalker. I also like Tarkovsky's Mirror and The Sacrifice.
- effie 3y ago
  You might like the original book Solaris better. It has a unique atmosphere, isolation and mystery of the alien planet, and explores a different idea of alien life than we usually get in movies. This is hard to communicate in a movie, Tarkovsky did well, but it does not hold up as well as the book.
- tombert 3y ago
  Wait, you hated Solaris? It was the first Tarkovsky movie that I watched and I really connected with its themes of the "real" vs "memories". It's hard for me to imagine anyone hating Solaris... I still have not seen Mirror, though a few of my film friends have told me to check it out for years.
  - mongol 3y ago
    I started watching it tonight, because of this thread. It was my second attempt. I quit about 40 minutes in and started to browse IMDB user reviews in hope to understand it. The 1 star reviews resonated a lot with me. Hate is a strong word but definitely not my cup of tea.
    - tombert 3y ago
      Fair enough! You've definitely given it the college try and I won't criticize that! Out of curiosity, is there anything in particular about it you didn't like or was it a "just not my thing" kind of thing?
      - mongol 3y ago
        I did not feel engaged to the plot. The dialogue felt abstract and kind of went over my head. Someone mentioned that the film is "very Russian" and perhaps that is part of it. I have extremely limited exposure to Russian culture but it feels quite introspective to me. I noticed the dialogue sounding a little like Putin, just sound-wise. Lots of "mmm" sounds which in my language people make when they are considering their next words. Somehow I see a connection there (that probably don't exist, if I am being rational)

wahnfrieden 3y ago

(His worst and most overrated) edit re: slowness, it's a lot less slow than his final few works which I also adore. they're all great I just think the rest of his catalog gets less good word simply for drastically less popular exposure.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
It's definitely a lot slower paced than our current ADD society is used to. An esteemed director like Kubrick's movies would seem unbearably slow to many.
- addled 3y ago
  I think Kubrick's movies are fantastic, deep, atmospheric, thought provoking. True art. I have never made it all the way through one without falling asleep. 2001, Blade Runner, Dr. Strangelove.... Even movies loosely associated with Kubrick like A.I. cause me to nod off. I have to stop when I'm nodding off and come back later fresh in order to finish. Maybe it would be different if I had seen them in theaters.
  - tezka 3y ago
    Blade Runner is not a Kubrick film.
    - addled 3y ago
      You're right. My mistake for lumping that in there.
  - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
    > 2001, Blade Runner, Dr. Strangelove.... Gladiator was also amazing!
    - 4ndrewl 3y ago
      Love that film. "No, I'm Spartacus!" Classic.
      - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
        spartacus, spartacus the merciful \o/
    - twelve40 3y ago
      Gladiator was shot by Ridley Scott, just like Blade Runner. Kubrick (who i love) is so legendary, he really should just get credit for every great movie in existence ))
  - pmoriarty 3y ago
    I've never fallen asleep while watching 2001. It's definitely slow, but riveting for me, because (like Tarkovsky's film) there's a lot of meaning in the scenes, and they give me a lot to think about.
  - Reason077 3y ago
    > "Maybe it would be different if I had seen them in theaters." There's still chances to see 2001 in cinemas! It gets re-released somewhat regularly for anniversaries and Kubrick retrospectives, etc. I was born long after 2001 came out, but I've seen it on cinema screens many times. It was so far ahead of it's time and looks so incredibly good in 70mm that it's mind boggling to consider that it was actually made in the 1960s!

wheelerof4te 3y ago

STALKER created an entire franshise on it's own. Which to date has a very dedicated community. It is one of the best psy-films of all time.

neffo 3y ago
It also inspired a related post-disaster urban-exploration-style culture around the Chernobyl exclusion zone. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/09/the-stalkers-inside-the-youth-subculture-that-explores-chernobyls-dead-zone.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/09/the-stalkers-ins...

jimbob45 3y ago

I really didn't enjoy the ending of Solaris and, for that matter, The Little Prince. You don't need to have a punchy ending for me not to feel like I wasted my time with your movie. It's okay to let the journey stand on its own rather than throwing in a climax that feels haphazard and spontaneous.

cubefox 3y ago
The original Solaris novel had a different ending, a disillusioned reflection by Kelvin, which I found much better. It was probably not dramatic enough for a movie, too analytical.
- Eliah_Lakhin 3y ago
  Aside from this, perhaps another reason why the first part of the movie looks and feels more promising than the second one is more trivial. As far as I know they experienced a budget shortage at some point of production.
- triska 3y ago
  Personally, I always found that the novel ends on a comparatively hopeful note, especially given the circumstances, the final word being cudów ("of miracles").

tezka 3y ago

It's one of his most accessible movie, and usually resonates with tech people for obvious reasons. His best movies imo are Mirror, Ivan's Childhood, Andrei Rublev, Stalker and then Solaris, Nostalgia and Sacrifice. Now Solaris book by Lem is far superior to Tarkovsky's rendition.

pmoriarty 3y ago

I love Stalker, and I'm a huge Tarkovsky fan, but hated Solaris. It doesn't hold a candle to Stalker. I also like Tarkovsky's Mirror and The Sacrifice.

effie 3y ago
You might like the original book Solaris better. It has a unique atmosphere, isolation and mystery of the alien planet, and explores a different idea of alien life than we usually get in movies. This is hard to communicate in a movie, Tarkovsky did well, but it does not hold up as well as the book.
tombert 3y ago
Wait, you hated Solaris? It was the first Tarkovsky movie that I watched and I really connected with its themes of the "real" vs "memories". It's hard for me to imagine anyone hating Solaris... I still have not seen Mirror, though a few of my film friends have told me to check it out for years.
- mongol 3y ago
  I started watching it tonight, because of this thread. It was my second attempt. I quit about 40 minutes in and started to browse IMDB user reviews in hope to understand it. The 1 star reviews resonated a lot with me. Hate is a strong word but definitely not my cup of tea.
  - tombert 3y ago
    Fair enough! You've definitely given it the college try and I won't criticize that! Out of curiosity, is there anything in particular about it you didn't like or was it a "just not my thing" kind of thing?
    - mongol 3y ago
      I did not feel engaged to the plot. The dialogue felt abstract and kind of went over my head. Someone mentioned that the film is "very Russian" and perhaps that is part of it. I have extremely limited exposure to Russian culture but it feels quite introspective to me. I noticed the dialogue sounding a little like Putin, just sound-wise. Lots of "mmm" sounds which in my language people make when they are considering their next words. Somehow I see a connection there (that probably don't exist, if I am being rational)