Solaris. (Soderbergh version)

[Stefen]

Has anyone listened to the commentary track for this? It's hilarious. It's with Soderbergh and Jim Cameron and the whole commentary track is basically Cameron telling Soderbergh how great he is and Soderbergh agreeing.

Can someone confirm if it's the most sarcastic commentary track in existence?

[picolas]

i love it when soderbergh explains his font choice and cameron's like "you, uh... choose ...fonts?" and soderbergh's like "yeah. totally." and it's this foreign concept to cameron. explains why avatar uses freakin papyrus.

[Reinhold]

This film was an instant favorite for me when i saw it a few years ago and i watched it again last night, only to love it some more. it's a real shame that the film doesn't get more respect.

[Stefen]

It made my top 10 of the decade.

[Pwaybloe]

I'll admit I love it as well.  This and "Nashville" are my favorites to watch late at night where conscious meets subconscious.  

Even though it's a remake of another movie, it's obviously tighter and more concise than the original.  It's also one of the few masculine romance movies.  

[picolas]

sod stresses it's not a remake. just another adaptation of the book.

(i thought this was magnificent in '02 yet haven't watched it since despite owning..)

[Reinhold]

it's definitely not a remake of the 60's russian solaris. It works completely differently formally, the ending is different, and it's more about love. Tarkovsky's is also great, though, and from what i understand it's more "true" to the book than Soderbegh's.

[Pwaybloe]

Yes, I've heard that claim from Soderbergh that it's not a remake, but it really is.  Even the author agrees.  There's even a scene in the 2002 version that is an exact replica in style when the Rheya/Hari character is resurrected.  No matter who claims what, I still prefer Soderbergh's version. 

[Gold Trumpet]

I prefer Tarkovsky's version. The minimalist story is helped by the original film because it takes the time to make the environment a transcendent place for the astronaut's inner journey in wake of his wife's death. Soderbergh honors all the key points of the story, but he whisks by all the gray matter in the story which makes it vibrate on deeper levels in Tarkovsky's film. Since the story is an enclosed science fiction drama, the tone becomes more important. Neither film is typically entertaining so the new version is easier to watch, but I think the earlier film is better.

[Reinhold]

lem only sees his own story in the films-- if you ask me he's probably the least qualified person on the planet to weigh in on the semantics of remaking the film vs re-adapting the book. look at his criticism of the 2002 handling of Solaris itself as "love in outer space." soderbergh's film is closer to "love in outer space" than tarkovsky's, i guess, but it's really taking aim at a different set of issues. it's about fanastic time and space, simulacra and memory, and postmodern identity. tarkovsky's version of the story is about the limits of knowledge and desire in the face of sentience that is greater than humanity.

[Alexandro]

i love it when soderbergh explains his font choice and cameron's like "you, uh... choose ...fonts?" and soderbergh's like "yeah. totally." and it's this foreign concept to cameron. explains why avatar uses freakin papyrus.

LOL.

[Stefen]

Seriously, it's one of the most hilarious commentaries ever.