The Criterion Collection

[SlickDamian]

Originally Posted by iScottie

It's one of the greatest movies of all time, in my opinion. I can't decide which film I enjoy more - 2001 or Solaris.

I prefer Solaris. I enjoy the remake as well, and would like to see Criterion release it.
But yeah, Solaris is a masterpiece of the enigmatic film style, and one of my favourite Criterion Blu-ray discs.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by SlickDamian

I prefer Solaris. I enjoy the remake as well, and would like to see Criterion release it.
But yeah, Solaris is a masterpiece of the enigmatic film style, and one of my favourite Criterion Blu-ray discs.

I find it hard to choose, off the top of my head I would say 2001, but when I think in depth and re examine both films, I am really stuck.

I would say, personally, I find them equal . But they are completely different films, except for the sci fi genre.

[deepbreathsanddeath]

I think Solaris is great. Once Kris is on the space station.

Aside from some lovely imagery, prior to that I find the movie really unenjoyable.
That long ass car shot was a bad decision and even though much of the beginning is important, it's boring. Once he gets on the space station I LOVE the movie.

I read that someone mentioned he did it to test the audiences patience? Perhaps that was part of the reason but I heard in the audio commentary that he filmed that sequence in Japan and did so because compared to Russia it looked positively futuristic by comparison and was supposed to help create a somewhat futuristic look.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by deepbreathsanddeath

I think Solaris is great. Once Kris is on the space station.

Aside from some lovely imagery, prior to that I find the movie really unenjoyable.
That long ass car shot was a bad decision and even though much of the beginning is important, it's boring. Once he gets on the space station I LOVE the movie.

I read that someone mentioned he did it to test the audiences patience? Perhaps that was part of the reason but I heard in the audio commentary that he filmed that sequence in Japan and did so because compared to Russia it looked positively futuristic by comparison and was supposed to help create a somewhat futuristic look.

I actually loved the car sequence >.<

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by CHEЯNOБLY!

Hmmm, looks like it still hasn't been released. The film is still on their website though...I'm assuming they still have the rights.

I'm reposting my post from CF:

I sent an inquiry to them on Nov. 29 (2013):

Greetings,

I see your Web site has an October release date listed for this film. Do you happen to have an updated release date? Very much looking forward to this release.

All the best,
Patrick

They replied today (Dec 23):

All I am told is that it will be later in 2014. Sorry we can't provide
more info at the moment, but thanks for your interest.

The rumor is New Yorker is barely hanging on.

[Page14]

Originally Posted by deepbreathsanddeath

I think Solaris is great. Once Kris is on the space station.

Aside from some lovely imagery, prior to that I find the movie really unenjoyable.
That long ass car shot was a bad decision and even though much of the beginning is important, it's boring. Once he gets on the space station I LOVE the movie.

I read that someone mentioned he did it to test the audiences patience? Perhaps that was part of the reason but I heard in the audio commentary that he filmed that sequence in Japan and did so because compared to Russia it looked positively futuristic by comparison and was supposed to help create a somewhat futuristic look.

I hesitate to comment too much about this film as I'm still trying to wrap my head around what I so recently saw for the first time (and I'm still making my way through the supplements ... and I haven't read the book). But I thought the audio commentary says that either all or most of the first part of the film

[Show spoiler](the part that takes place on earth)

was not in the book at all ... or at the very least greatly differs from the book. The author of the book, Stanislaw Lem, was not happy with it either.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by Page14

I hesitate to comment too much about this film as I'm still trying to wrap my head around what I so recently saw for the first time (and I'm still making my way through the supplements ... and I haven't read the book). But I thought the audio commentary says that either all or most of the first part of the film

[Show spoiler](the part that takes place on earth)

was not in the book at all ... or at the very least greatly differs from the book. The author of the book, Stanislaw Lem, was not happy with it either.

The author hated both versions - I have no idea how much involvement he had on set but if he wasn't happy with Tarkovsky's why didn't he make sure The newer version was closer, but he ended up hating that one too.

I don't think he would be happy with any version tbh lol

[Old Geezer]

HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR (Alain Resnais / 1959) - It's recently undergone a 4K restoration so I would not be surprised if it was released soon.

For me this is great news! Hiroshima Mon Amour and Pandora's Box are my two most wanted Criterion upgrades from DVD.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I actually loved the car sequence >.<

I don't know that I "love it," but I like it and don't see it as out of place at all. It is meant to help establish the pace and tone of the film. In the CC and in MANY other art films, there are plenty of other lengthy shots of people doing nothing, still life nature shots, whatever it might be. I feel like I won't find the right words to express what I am trying to say here, but these are artists... the world's greatest ones, at that. Unless I don't trust a filmmaker or consider his/her body of work to be trash, I am confident that there is a strong case to be made for the inclusion of such a shot. It is a time for thought - not exactly a period of time to try to make sense of a plot, but to put yourself in a character's mind set or mental state. These shots can be highly effective, IMO.

As far as the attention span point that was brought up... Andrey Zvyagintsev is making films just as languorously paced as did Tarkovsky and the newer Solaris, as another member just stated, is not an "updated for mainstream audiences" type of remake/update (whatever you want to call it.) So, I don't think that there's anything to that theory.

[GenPion]

I will say this about the car sequence: I found it devoid of interesting creativity. It was just flat out uninteresting. If it had been done with a more interesting artistic style it is something that might not have annoyed so much.

I think some filmmakers seem to think they can do long and drawn out sequences and they are automatically going to have some artistic merit, but the framing, composition, and flow of that scene wasn't good. There was nothing interesting happening with the cinematography. This is of course just my opinion, I know many of you highly regard it... but it just doesn't work for me.

On the subject of Soderbergh's Solaris somehow being a film for an ADD generation, I don't agree with that. It's a more modern adaptation, to be sure, but it's a film with somewhat slower pacing itself and certainly not something made for those with low attention spans (which is probably part of the reason the film didn't do all that well commercially).

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by GenPion

I will say this about the car sequence: I found it devoid of interesting creativity. It was just flat out uninteresting. If it had been done with a more interesting artistic style it is something that might not have annoyed so much.

like how? most of it is shot in b&w and some of it in color. there is ambient music, a man deep in thought (and it isn't like we have no idea what he is thinking about,) and some quick editing at the end of the sequence that show a more crowded, more lit up, more lively city. there is a lot going on in that sequence, IMO.

[pedromvu]

After having watched both Solaris films and read the book, my favorite is still Tarkovsky version, which in my opinion is even better than 2001.

And while i agree that the newer Solaris is not made to please younger audiences on the whole i found it a bit more straightforward, i think Tarkovsky one is much more philosophical and the love story resonated more for me on that one, while George Clooney is a very good actor, i just didn't find it very believable in that part after having seen the original.

I would say the book is #2, while it is very similar to the first film, it explores a lot more the themes of the humanly incomprehensible alien being.

[joie]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Thanks for the response. I have only seen:

Band of Outsiders (loved)
Breathless (really liked)
Pierrot le Fou (really liked, but it lost something on a repeat viewing for me)
Week End (eh)
Vivre sa Vie (loved)

Try "Contempt."

[Show spoiler]It may be about several things, but there is an interesting discussion about the sanctity of Homer's book. The last scene is interesting in that regard: Do you see Ithaca?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

With all this love for Soderbergh's Solaris, it makes me wonder if possibly today's movie audiences have more attention deficit disorders than those people back in the 1970s? I think so. It's a chore to watch those older films for young kids these days, and I think people today just don't have the patience, so we naturally understand and adapt to more modern films (especially remakes).

My preference for Soderbergh's version of Solaris has nothing to do with attention deficit, I'm definitely not a "young kid", and I saw Tarkovsky's version back in the 70s.

I generally like deliberately-paced movies. I loved 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968 when I was 15. I like all of Tarkovsky's films (even Solaris -- it's just one of my least favorites of his). Hell, I loved The Turin Horse!

[The Great Owl]

I just finished watching the Criterion Blu-ray of The Man Who Fell to Earth.

Several years have passed by since I last saw The Man Who Fell to Earth, and my appreciation grows with each subsequent viewing. I love how the film can be interpreted in multiple ways. It works as a tragic love story, as a satire of American culture, as a criticism of political and commercial corruption, as a science fiction "Christ figure" tale, or simply as a good old sci-fi alien movie. Nicholas Roeg's otherworldly visions, which benefit from minimal effects, allow viewers to infer the details of the story without a detailed narrative.

I have been rediscovering my David Bowie CD collection, as I tend to do every few years, and a knowledge of what was going on in the artist's career during the filming of The Man Who Fell to Earth adds to my enjoyment. The movie was filmed just before Bowie recorded his 1976 album, Station to Station, which explored his crippling addiction to cocaine. The notion that The Man Who Fell to Earth was filmed when Bowie was at his worst in terms of drug dependence and the trappings of fame makes me wonder how much his songwriting influenced the vibe of his character or vice versa. When Bowie's character, Thomas Jerome Newton, escapes from a hotel facility where medical tests are being done on him, I immediately think of a song from Station to Station, "Golden Years", where Bowie expressed a desire to "run for the shadows" even when he was riding a wave of popularity. A still from the shooting of The Man Who Fell to Earth was used as the album cover for Station to Station, and a still was also used for the cover of Bowie's next album, Low, which was recorded during the turbulent time when he was kicking his cocaine habit.

The Man Who Fell to Earth is a bleak film, just as Bowie's songwriting during that era is bleak, but, like the music, the film is just as ahead of its time now as it was upon its release, and there's an offbeat optimism inherent in its hints of what possible futures might have to offer.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

like how? most of it is shot in b&w and some of it in color. there is ambient music, a man deep in thought (and it isn't like we have no idea what he is thinking about,) and some quick editing at the end of the sequence that show a more crowded, more lit up, more lively city. there is a lot going on in that sequence, IMO.

For one, the camera movement was dull and uninteresting for me. However, it's just a matter of my opinion. You can enjoy the sequence if you like it. I myself don't think having a scene partially in black and white and some color makes something automatically interesting, nor do I think following glacial pacing directly with fast-cut editing necessarily works every time.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

My preference for Soderbergh's version of Solaris has nothing to do with attention deficit, I'm definitely not a "young kid", and I saw Tarkovsky's version back in the 70s.

I generally like deliberately-paced movies. I loved 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968 when I was 15. I like all of Tarkovsky's films (even Solaris -- it's just one of my least favorites of his). Hell, I loved The Turin Horse!

The Turin Horse was quite a difficult film experience for me, I admit. It's definitely a film that a student can be shown in a long 4 hour film class and I could imagine what the students would write about after watching this. I still wasn't sure whether I loved or hated that film but it did touch my inner core of darkness and depression as a film that could be the most nihilistic ever made.

2001: A Space Odyssey is probably my all time-favorite movie so I cannot choose Solaris over that. There's a bravado that is missing in Solaris that is present in 2001, and that is the combination of the powerful music of Richard Strauss with the cutting edge special effects from Douglas Trumbull to the genius direction of Stanley Kubrick. This trifecta of emotion and visuals is just the beginning, because the true genius lies in the whole interpretation of the Arthur C. Clarke novel which Kubrick brought to the screen. Even to this day, there are mysteries in that film I still have yet to figure out.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I just finished watching the Criterion Blu-ray of The Man Who Fell to Earth.

Several years have passed by since I last saw The Man Who Fell to Earth, and my appreciation grows with each subsequent viewing. I love how the film can be interpreted in multiple ways. It works as a tragic love story, as a satire of American culture, as a criticism of political and commercial corruption, as a science fiction "Christ figure" tale, or simply as a good old sci-fi alien movie. Nicholas Roeg's otherworldly visions, which benefit from minimal effects, allow viewers to infer the details of the story without a detailed narrative.

I have been rediscovering my David Bowie CD collection, as I tend to do every few years, and a knowledge of what was going on in the artist's career during the filming of The Man Who Fell to Earth adds to my enjoyment. The movie was filmed just before Bowie recorded his 1976 album, Station to Station, which explored his crippling addiction to cocaine. The notion that The Man Who Fell to Earth was filmed when Bowie was at his worst in terms of drug dependence and the trappings of fame makes me wonder how much his songwriting influenced the vibe of his character or vice versa. When Bowie's character, Thomas Jerome Newton, escapes from a hotel facility where medical tests are being done on him, I immediately think of a song from Station to Station, "Golden Years", where Bowie expressed a desire to "run for the shadows" even when he was riding a wave of popularity. A still from the shooting of The Man Who Fell to Earth was used as the album cover for Station to Station, and a still was also used for the cover of Bowie's next album, Low, which was recorded during the turbulent time when he was kicking his cocaine habit.

The Man Who Fell to Earth is a bleak film, just as Bowie's songwriting during that era is bleak, but, like the music, the film is just as ahead of its time now as it was upon its release, and there's an offbeat optimism inherent in its hints of what possible futures might have to offer.

I find TMWFTE one of the saddest movies ever, up there with Make Way for Tomorrow. Both movies deal with the disintegration of home and family. I thought Bowie gave a brilliant performance, and without giving away spoilers, I can only say that I ached for his character. You can see this film as an allegory, or you can view it on just an emotional level -- either way it's a very powerful film. You can also see parallels with Bowie's character in the movie and his Major Tom persona in Space Oddity and other songs. It works on many levels, but for me it hit home hardest on the emotional level.

Finally, years later I saw a similar theme, of sorts, in The English Patient, but that's all I'll say on that.

I really wish Criterion would re-release this one.

[ArnoldLayne56]

Originally Posted by jw007

The Turin Horse was quite a difficult film experience for me, I admit. It's definitely a film that a student can be shown in a long 4 hour film class and I could imagine what the students would write about after watching this. I still wasn't sure whether I loved or hated that film but it did touch my inner core of darkness and depression as a film that could be the most nihilistic ever made.

2001: A Space Odyssey is probably my all time-favorite movie so I cannot choose Solaris over that. There's a bravado that is missing in Solaris that is present in 2001, and that is the combination of the powerful music of Richard Strauss with the cutting edge special effects from Douglas Trumbull to the genius direction of Stanley Kubrick. This trifecta of emotion and visuals is just the beginning, because the true genius lies in the whole interpretation of the Arthur C. Clarke novel which Kubrick brought to the screen. Even to this day, there are mysteries in that film I still have yet to figure out.

Amen. I enjoyed Solaris more than most sci-fi. But nothing can exceed 2001:ASO. Just as no album can exceed Dark Side of the Moon ;-)

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

Amen. I enjoyed Solaris more than most sci-fi. But nothing can exceed 2001:ASO. Just as no album can exceed Dark Side of the Moon ;-)

Not even Wish You Were Here? I agree about 2001.

I have really went out of my way to ignore the remake of Solaris, and reading this thread is making me wonder why. I think it's spite or something because I keep ending up asking why did they remake Solaris? There is no reason I should find myself watching a remake of that film. I would rather just watch that film, or rather a shot-by-shot Gus Van Sant Solaris than a "different take" on it with the same nods to atmosphere and the like. I am guilty of not having read the novel though, which is why I feel like it's just spite I haven't watched that damned thing. Perhaps I should give it a shot