First, let me interject a discussion najati and I had after I saw
Solaris this evening.

BenCorvus: Solaris
veggiebuddha: eh?
BenCorvus: saw it this evening
veggiebuddha: yes? where? what hw [hardware]?
BenCorvus: Solaris
BenCorvus: the movie :)
BenCorvus: you
BenCorvus: big
BenCorvus: dork
veggiebuddha: oh
veggiebuddha: lol

Now, most techies would get the joke there — but some of you, those spared from knowing that Solaris is an operating system created by Sun Microsystems, wouldn’t have. But I digress…

Anyway, I had heard that Solaris, the book was written by Stanislaw Lem, a Polish sci-fi writer of whom I had heard of, but heard little. Also, according to a colleague at work, there was also a longer, more detailed version produced in Russian during the early 70s.

What Hunter and I were faced with was a well-shot, well-scored film that wasted few frames and left those who cared to consider the film with much to discuss. Those who screened this film just too see George Clooney’s arse will be disappointed. Without saying much that will give away the film, it incites neither horror nor suspense, but something I think more valuable — thought, at least for those who care to think about what they watch.

(Click more to see the rest of my little capsule)

UPDATE 12.02.2002, 9:19AM EST: Judith Eggerton wrote me back. Read on to see her reply.
{more}
Let me first say that I find it wondefully amazing that this film made it to the screen. It’s not your typical space-drama, as Mrs. Eggerton from the Courier-Journal so wanted it to be. Soderbergh’s incarnation of this text is much more of a question to the viewer. Solaris, space, the timeframe in the future — they are all merely building blocks in a construct of a question, a riddle. The answer to this question lies truly with the viewer. Is Solaris “heaven”? Does “heaven” exist? How could man possibly define existence when all that he knows is his own? Where does Kelvin go at the end of the movie? Is he dead? Is he alive? Was he re-incarnated? All good questions, all easily answerable by any of the faiths, dogma, or mythology any of us have been steeped in.

Let me say that I have not read the book, though I would certainly like to. My thoughts and opinions are based solely on this theatrical release.

Oh, I’ve also written an email to Judith Eggerton at the Courier-Journal in response to her review of Solaris. Here my email is in it’s entirety:

[begin my email]

“Was that George Clooney’s butt or did we see a body double?”
“You expect a riveting and plausible science-fiction story when you consider the Hollywood power squad involved in making this picture.”

Some films do not need to pursue sex or action to entertain — as sometimes film may spark thought (gasp!) in it’s viewers, if they care to pay attention.

I agree in your assessment that to many this film could be considered slow, sluggish, and without the action that normally rides copilot into space. However, after viewing this film, I felt that it was less a plot-line than a construct of the viewer’s own thoughts of the universe. There are many things left unstated throughout the film, and even in the ending –things that are left to the viewing to fill in.

But then again — who goes to movie to “fill in details”, right?

All I may suggest is that sometimes — and this is rare — sometimes, movies are made not to entertain the fancies of the viewer — but to entertain the mind.

[end my email]

[begin Mrs. Eggerton's reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on Solaris.

I wish the movie had entertained my mind but it didn’t. I think it was
pretentious not profound.
Even the director appeared apologetic recently on Charlie Rose. Soderbergh
said he was exhausted from the string of movies that he’s made in the past
two to three years and that Solaris was a difficult movie. It shows.

[end Mrs. Eggerton's reply]