Masterpiece

>>84972226
Absolutely not, no. Have you seen the original? This is one of the least worthwhile of Soderbergh's many hack movies.

>>84972226
The original was better

>>84972258
>>84972281
do you guys unironically watch old movies? i thought it was a meme.
>muh shitty black and white
>muh stage actors
>muh proper speak

>>84972307
There are more stage-trained stars now in movies than there were at Hollywood's peak. You need to get an education, son.

>>84972307

don't worry about it they're all posers, unless you're taking a film class no reason to watch a film earlier then 1990.

>>84972258
The original was trash, and I absolutely love Tarkovsky - felt like someone copying his style.
Even he thought it was his weakest film...
Never saw the remake, though.

>>84972362
why?

original was 100000x better
>>84972307
>>84972362
holy fuck i hate this board
>>84972392
fair point

>>84972392
You don't understand Tarkovsky if you thought that. Yes, he thought it was his weakest film, but he's *Tarkovsky*. Soderbergh is human garbage by comparison, his best film is still a looped surveillance video of an anus shitting compared to Tarkovsky's worst moment.

>>84972362
>1990

ok grandpa

watching anything pre-2010 is a meme surely

>>84972435
too far disconnected. Only autists can watch movies that they are several generations removed from. Same reason we don't like to hang around old people.

>>84972362
actually, you don't have a reason to watch a film made before Avatar saved cinema

>>84972501
>Same reason we don't like to hang around old people.
but i love older people
they're fun and insightful
maybe you're just a retard?

>>84972505
i wish more movies had cool effects like avatar
older movies just have too much talking, like come on man wheres the awesome action

>>84972258
OP here, they're both great. Watch it again, don't compare it to the original, and evaluate it on its own merits.

>>84972555
No they're not. It has no merits, it's a George Clooney vehicle by a middlebrow-at-best director who prides himself on being a whore.

>>84972542
there will be
they will come with whatever new gimmick to watch them
they will written with safer plots than ever
and will make billions, yet leaving no impact in culture or your memory whatsoever

>>84972466
Classic "if it's not Tarkovsky, it's shit" fallacy. Both films can be and are great. Whatever else Soderbergh has done, this is his moment of brilliance.

>reminder that the original Solaris has a 20 minute sequence showing people watching a TV show
Tarkovsky was a hack and a redditor.

>>84972466
>You don't understand Tarkovsky if you thought that

I don't understand that he made a disjointed film with stilted dialogue, shitty production design (and overall aesthetic for that matter) and terrible pacing?
Nah brah, I get Tarkovsky. I rewatched Stalker in theaters a few weeks ago and it's still great, but Solaris?
Nope.
Now, in regards to this thread: you might be right; I've never seen the remake and honestly don't really want to, but I do think that whatever misstep Tarkovsky is leagues better than Soderbergh's trash, even without having seen it. Not sure why he thought to remake that, honestly.

soderbergh is literally one of the biggest hacks in hollywood
you can never take the director who's responsible for magic mike seriously

I love it. Scene with the friend's apparition talking in the shadows was really unnerving, it was great.

>>84972226
yes

>>84972599
"Dreamy, poetic version of the story Solaris, which is also a Polish novel from 1961, and a Russian film from 1972 (by the great Tarkovsky). Fans of Tarkovsky might be put off by the fact that someone else remade the film, but if you think of it as a separate interpretation, then you'll enjoy it. There's more "looseness" in this version, and influences seem to range from obvious (Tarkovsky, Kubrick) to less obvious (Godard). This version uses more flashbacks, and has a simple but very effective color palette where flashbacks are all warm colors like orange, and the main story is all cold colors like blue. The very first dream/flashback sequence has nearly flawless editing, and could easily be studied in film schools. This is one of my favorite Soderbergh movies (aside from Schizopolis and Gray's Anatomy), and also boasts one of my favorite modern soundtracks (by Cliff Martinez, who years later went on to score the equally dreamy film Drive). A great example of the rare big budget "art film"."

>>84972695
He seems to have made a rather eclectic bunch of movies. That doesn't mean Solaris is bad though, quite the contrary.

>>84972514
you have autism.

>>84972718
"There are no answers, only choices."

>>84972226
I'm not a fan of the ending. Everything else is good-great.

>>84972226
i loved tarkovsky's but i really did give this a chance. whole movie felt weirdly cold and detached and i hated the wife.

File: film.jpg (607KB, 1952x1744px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1952x1744px

>>84972258
>>84972281
>>84972392
>>84972447
>>84972466
>>84972555
>>84973051
Tarko/v/sky is trash. Grow up and get some taste.

>>84973051
>and i hated the wife.
What was wrong with her?

>>84972226
but he isn't black

>>84972362
>>84972307

my god this is some low quality bait

>>84972740
Why are you quoting someone who's wrong? Why would anyone care?

>>84972281
In a pig's ass was it better. Get bent, fag!

>>84972258
You're a shit.

>>84972466
We don't get shit? I know it smells awful and it looks unsightly, what's not to get? Shit is shit. His version of Solaris is a shit.

>>84972226
indeed.

>>84972447
no, you're wrong.
Just because it's older doesn't mean it's better, you pretentious pleb.

>>84974503
the original being a better film is what makes it better

>>84972624
No, Soderbergh has had no moments of brilliance, what he has is a few aesthetic tics and a self-mythologizing way with his own mediocrity. I like a number of his films very much, but none of them are neccesary.

>>84972680
Why would you write all that to confirm the statement that you were quoting? You didn't understand the film. How many "theaters" did you watch it in, you laughable pleb? More than one at once? You have no mind.

>>84972680
>Now, in regards to this thread: you might be right; I've never seen the remake and honestly don't really want to, but I do think that whatever misstep Tarkovsky is leagues better than Soderbergh's trash, even without having seen it. Not sure why he thought to remake that, honestly.

This is right, but you've already wasted some goodwill with the ignorance of your first statement.

>>84974503
it wasn't good. I didn't like Tarkovsky's version either.

Neither gets even close to the book. both directors go for "muh relationships" angle instead of fleshing out the actual narrative, which would be difficult without fuckloads of exposition.

it became critic bait, which turned it into movie bait, and it really isn't a book that should be made into a movie.

>>84972658
Who are you quoting?

>>84972226
She's better than the other actress tha looks like her who was in the new tron movie.

>>84974838
The book is the book, why do you want the film to be the book? How could it be? No film has ever been "faithful" to a book without travestying it anyway.

>>84974875
>why would people want faithful adaptations of novels they thoroughly enjoyed
really gets my brain working

>>84974875
The book explored pretty fascinating concepts which could have been done effectively in a movie. The movie would have to depart wildly from the book to be effective, but it would have been interesting to see it done.

Instead, both directors just ripped the book for a setting and slapped the name on the cover.

I don't care about faithful adaptations, I care about writers and directors who make an attempt at understanding and communicating the source material in a creative way that's well tailored for film.

Neither Solaris has managed that.