list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Solaris on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Solaris/31932/default.aspx Title: Solaris
Year: 1972
Director: Andrei Tarkovsky
Plot: Based on a novel by Stanislaw Lem, Solaris centers on widowed psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donata Banionis), who is sent to a space station orbiting a water-dominated planet called Solaris to investigate the mysterious death of a doctor, as well as the mental problems plaguing the dwindling number of cosmonauts on the station. Finding the remaining crew to be behaving oddly and aloof, Kelvin is more than surprised when he meets his seven-years-dead wife Khari (Natalya Bondarchuk) on the station. It quickly becomes apparent that Solaris possesses something that brings out repressed memories and obsessions within the cosmonauts on the space station, leaving Kelvin to question his perception of reality. Winner of the Grand Jury Prize at the 1972 Cannes Film Festival, Solaris was remade by Steven Soderbergh in 2002. ~ Matthew Tobey, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 15
Number of Lists: 40
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:17:00 GMTSolaris1972Andrei TarkovskyBased on a novel by Stanislaw Lem, Solaris centers on widowed psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donata Banionis), who is sent to a space station orbiting a water-dominated planet called Solaris to investigate the mysterious death of a doctor, as well as the mental problems plaguing the dwindling number of cosmonauts on the station. Finding the remaining crew to be behaving oddly and aloof, Kelvin is more than surprised when he meets his seven-years-dead wife Khari (Natalya Bondarchuk) on the station. It quickly becomes apparent that Solaris possesses something that brings out repressed memories and obsessions within the cosmonauts on the space station, leaving Kelvin to question his perception of reality. Winner of the Grand Jury Prize at the 1972 Cannes Film Festival, Solaris was remade by Steven Soderbergh in 2002. ~ Matthew Tobey, All Movie Guide15Tag Target (>10)40743http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t23714fflsu.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Solaris/31932/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2009/2/27/40740.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:05:17 PM
Body: Make out with Make-out with Violence It’s rare that you Google the title of a film making its SXSW premiere in the Emerging Visions program, and discover a two year-old making of short, complete with impressively-looking underwater photography and 70s style voiceover, but the Deagol Brothers, the young minds behind Make-Out With Violence, seem hellbent on defying expectations. For one thing, unlike the Wilson, Duplass and Zellner Brothers who preceded them at SXSW, the Deagols aren’t real brothers; as their bio puts it, they’re “a collective of multimedia artists that strive for excellence in art and entertainment” who, “attracted by the communal aspect of film production, choose to not be credited as individuals.” We assume, then, that the above short outing the trio’s real names (we think?) will soon either be edited or made to disappear, so watch it while you can. Until then, the Brothers celebrate the communal aspect of film promoting by answering The 5 Questions We Ask Everyone in one voice, below the jump. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. MAKE-OUT with VIOLENCE is a semi-autobiographical magical realist romance made over five years by a team of high school friends. [Like] if John Hughes directed Tarkovsky’s Solaris, meets Weekend at Bernie’s as an atmospheric musical (inspired by Brian Eno’s four pop records), but no one sings. The core group of filmmakers are the Deagol Bros, Eric & Jordan Lehning, Kevin Doyle, Cody De Vos, Leah High, and Shellie Shartzer.  We were all high school friends from Hendersonville, TN and returned home from art school to make our own film.  We were inspired by Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to make a low budget horror picture and felt that a “high school” movie was also something we could wrap our minds around - so we came up with this story of supernatural unrequited love.  The “quick and dirty pitch” leaves out the long and dirty production of the film: the trials we put our friendships through, the personal mistakes along the way and the creative process that ultimately held us together. Do you have a day job/a non-filmmaking occupation that raises money for your filmmaking efforts? Tell us about it. We all work odd jobs to get by, sometimes involving creative things, mostly not.  Grading standardized test papers for the department of education, hocking old comic books and laserdiscs, working part time at the Frist, illustrating children’s books, managing a shoe store, freelance graphic design, painting murals, serving at Sir Pizza and working at Tower Records before the downfall are all ways we’ve spent our 9 to 5.  Eric & Jordan formed the rock band The Non-Commissioned Officers to play the soundtrack around Nashville and raise money/awareness for the picture.  We have put a lot of our own money into the film over the years, but the majority was paid for by friends and family. Have you been to SXSW before? If so, tell us about your funniest story from the experience. If not, what are you looking forward to re: the festival and/or the city of Austin? We have never been to SXSW.  We’ve been fortunate enough to take part in some great festivals recently and SXSW feels like further vindication for the five years that we spent pouring our hearts and lives into the film.  We’re hoping for a good time and a great opportunity to expose our film to a larger audience. Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature? LOTR Trilogy, Lawrence of Arabia, Crank and 2001: A Space Odyssey. In that order.  2001 would be last so that we could go beyond the infinite - go out in a beautiful dream after getting injected with the Chinese shit (”Beijing cocktail”).  We picked six movies because there’s three Deagols. There’s been some criticism that the only way to get into SXSW is by being a part of an “incestuous scene where everybody knows everybody.” So who did *you* have to sleep with to get in? (Metaphorically or literally: are there any SXSW filmmaker(s) past or present that you’re close with personally and/or professionally, and how have those relationships helped or hurt the process of producing your film and getting it seen?) We don’t kiss and tell.  That would be ungallant. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:05:17 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog2/27/2009 6:05:17 PMMake out with Make-out with Violence It’s rare that you Google the title of a film making its SXSW premiere in the Emerging Visions program, and discover a two year-old making of short, complete with impressively-looking underwater photography and 70s style voiceover, but the Deagol Brothers, the young minds behind Make-Out With Violence, seem hellbent on defying expectations. For one thing, unlike the Wilson, Duplass and Zellner Brothers who preceded them at SXSW, the Deagols aren’t real brothers; as their bio puts it, they’re “a collective of multimedia artists that strive for excellence in art and entertainment” who, “attracted by the communal aspect of film production, choose to not be credited as individuals.” We assume, then, that the above short outing the trio’s real names (we think?) will soon either be edited or made to disappear, so watch it while you can. Until then, the Brothers celebrate the communal aspect of film promoting by answering The 5 Questions We Ask Everyone in one voice, below the jump. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. MAKE-OUT with VIOLENCE is a semi-autobiographical magical realist romance made over five years by a team of high school friends. [Like] if John Hughes directed Tarkovsky’s Solaris, meets Weekend at Bernie’s as an atmospheric musical (inspired by Brian Eno’s four pop records), but no one sings. The core group of filmmakers are the Deagol Bros, Eric & Jordan Lehning, Kevin Doyle, Cody De Vos, Leah High, and Shellie Shartzer.  We were all high school friends from Hendersonville, TN and returned home from art school to make our own film.  We were inspired by Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to make a low budget horror picture and felt that a “high school” movie was also something we could wrap our minds around - so we came up with this story of supernatural unrequited love.  The “quick and dirty pitch” leaves out the long and dirty production of the film: the trials we put our friendships through, the personal mistakes along the way and the creative process that ultimately held us together. Do you have a day job/a non-filmmaking occupation that raises money for your filmmaking efforts? Tell us about it. We all work odd jobs to get by, sometimes involving creative things, mostly not.  Grading standardized test papers for the department of education, hocking old comic books and laserdiscs, working part time at the Frist, illustrating children’s books, managing a shoe store, freelance graphic design, painting murals, serving at Sir Pizza and working at Tower Records before the downfall are all ways we’ve spent our 9 to 5.  Eric & Jordan formed the rock band The Non-Commissioned Officers to play the soundtrack around Nashville and raise money/awareness for the picture.  We have put a lot of our own money into the film over the years, but the majority was paid for by friends and family. Have you been to SXSW before? If so, tell us about your funniest story from the experience. If not, what are you looking forward to re: the festival and/or the city of Austin? We have never been to SXSW.  We’ve been fortunate enough to take part in some great festivals recently and SXSW feels like further vindication for the five years that we spent pouring our hearts and lives into the film.  We’re hoping for a good time and a great opportunity to expose our film to a larger audience. Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature? LOTR Trilogy, Lawrence of Arabia, Crank and 2001: A Space Odyssey. In that order.  2001 would be last so that we could go beyond the infinite - go out in a beautiful dream after getting injected with the Chinese shit (”Beijing cocktail”).  We picked six movies because there’s three Deagols. There’s been some criticism that the only way to get into SXSW is by being a part of an “incestuous scene where everybody knows everybody.” So who did *you* have to sleep with to get in? (Metaphorically or literally: are there any SXSW filmmaker(s) past or present that you’re close with personally and/or professionally, and how have those relationships helped or hurt the process of producing your film and getting it seen?) We don’t kiss and tell.  That would be ungallant. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/27/40707.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:01:54 PM
Body: Make out with Make-out with Violence It’s rare that you Google the title of a film making its SXSW premiere in the Emerging Visions program, and discover a two year-old making of short, complete with impressively-looking underwater photography and 70s style voiceover, but the Deagol Brothers, the young minds behind Make-Out With Violence, seem hellbent on defying expectations. For one thing, unlike the Wilson, Duplass and Zellner Brothers who preceded them at SXSW, the Deagols aren’t real brothers; as their bio puts it, they’re “a collective of multimedia artists that strive for excellence in art and entertainment” who, “attracted by the communal aspect of film production, choose to not be credited as individuals.” We assume, then, that the above short outing the trio’s real names (we think?) will soon either be edited or made to disappear, so watch it while you can. Until then, the Brothers celebrate the communal aspect of film promoting by answering The 5 Questions We Ask Everyone in one voice, below the jump. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. MAKE-OUT with VIOLENCE is a semi-autobiographical magical realist romance made over five years by a team of high school friends. [Like] if John Hughes directed Tarkovsky’s Solaris, meets Weekend at Bernie’s as an atmospheric musical (inspired by Brian Eno’s four pop records), but no one sings. The core group of filmmakers are the Deagol Bros, Eric & Jordan Lehning, Kevin Doyle, Cody De Vos, Leah High, and Shellie Shartzer.  We were all high school friends from Hendersonville, TN and returned home from art school to make our own film.  We were inspired by Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to make a low budget horror picture and felt that a “high school” movie was also something we could wrap our minds around - so we came up with this story of supernatural unrequited love.  The “quick and dirty pitch” leaves out the long and dirty production of the film: the trials we put our friendships through, the personal mistakes along the way and the creative process that ultimately held us together. Do you have a day job/a non-filmmaking occupation that raises money for your filmmaking efforts? Tell us about it. We all work odd jobs to get by, sometimes involving creative things, mostly not.  Grading standardized test papers for the department of education, hocking old comic books and laserdiscs, working part time at the Frist, illustrating children’s books, managing a shoe store, freelance graphic design, painting murals, serving at Sir Pizza and working at Tower Records before the downfall are all ways we’ve spent our 9 to 5.  Eric & Jordan formed the rock band The Non-Commissioned Officers to play the soundtrack around Nashville and raise money/awareness for the picture.  We have put a lot of our own money into the film over the years, but the majority was paid for by friends and family. Have you been to SXSW before? If so, tell us about your funniest story from the experience. If not, what are you looking forward to re: the festival and/or the city of Austin? We have never been to SXSW.  We’ve been fortunate enough to take part in some great festivals recently and SXSW feels like further vindication for the five years that we spent pouring our hearts and lives into the film.  We’re hoping for a good time and a great opportunity to expose our film to a larger audience. Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature? LOTR Trilogy, Lawrence of Arabia, Crank and 2001: A Space Odyssey. In that order.  2001 would be last so that we could go beyond the infinite - go out in a beautiful dream after getting injected with the Chinese shit (”Beijing cocktail”).  We picked six movies because there’s three Deagols. There’s been some criticism that the only way to get into SXSW is by being a part of an “incestuous scene where everybody knows everybody.” So who did *you* have to sleep with to get in? (Metaphorically or literally: are there any SXSW filmmaker(s) past or present that you’re close with personally and/or professionally, and how have those relationships helped or hurt the process of producing your film and getting it seen?) We don’t kiss and tell.  That would be ungallant. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:01:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2009 6:01:54 PMMake out with Make-out with Violence It’s rare that you Google the title of a film making its SXSW premiere in the Emerging Visions program, and discover a two year-old making of short, complete with impressively-looking underwater photography and 70s style voiceover, but the Deagol Brothers, the young minds behind Make-Out With Violence, seem hellbent on defying expectations. For one thing, unlike the Wilson, Duplass and Zellner Brothers who preceded them at SXSW, the Deagols aren’t real brothers; as their bio puts it, they’re “a collective of multimedia artists that strive for excellence in art and entertainment” who, “attracted by the communal aspect of film production, choose to not be credited as individuals.” We assume, then, that the above short outing the trio’s real names (we think?) will soon either be edited or made to disappear, so watch it while you can. Until then, the Brothers celebrate the communal aspect of film promoting by answering The 5 Questions We Ask Everyone in one voice, below the jump. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. MAKE-OUT with VIOLENCE is a semi-autobiographical magical realist romance made over five years by a team of high school friends. [Like] if John Hughes directed Tarkovsky’s Solaris, meets Weekend at Bernie’s as an atmospheric musical (inspired by Brian Eno’s four pop records), but no one sings. The core group of filmmakers are the Deagol Bros, Eric & Jordan Lehning, Kevin Doyle, Cody De Vos, Leah High, and Shellie Shartzer.  We were all high school friends from Hendersonville, TN and returned home from art school to make our own film.  We were inspired by Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to make a low budget horror picture and felt that a “high school” movie was also something we could wrap our minds around - so we came up with this story of supernatural unrequited love.  The “quick and dirty pitch” leaves out the long and dirty production of the film: the trials we put our friendships through, the personal mistakes along the way and the creative process that ultimately held us together. Do you have a day job/a non-filmmaking occupation that raises money for your filmmaking efforts? Tell us about it. We all work odd jobs to get by, sometimes involving creative things, mostly not.  Grading standardized test papers for the department of education, hocking old comic books and laserdiscs, working part time at the Frist, illustrating children’s books, managing a shoe store, freelance graphic design, painting murals, serving at Sir Pizza and working at Tower Records before the downfall are all ways we’ve spent our 9 to 5.  Eric & Jordan formed the rock band The Non-Commissioned Officers to play the soundtrack around Nashville and raise money/awareness for the picture.  We have put a lot of our own money into the film over the years, but the majority was paid for by friends and family. Have you been to SXSW before? If so, tell us about your funniest story from the experience. If not, what are you looking forward to re: the festival and/or the city of Austin? We have never been to SXSW.  We’ve been fortunate enough to take part in some great festivals recently and SXSW feels like further vindication for the five years that we spent pouring our hearts and lives into the film.  We’re hoping for a good time and a great opportunity to expose our film to a larger audience. Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature? LOTR Trilogy, Lawrence of Arabia, Crank and 2001: A Space Odyssey. In that order.  2001 would be last so that we could go beyond the infinite - go out in a beautiful dream after getting injected with the Chinese shit (”Beijing cocktail”).  We picked six movies because there’s three Deagols. There’s been some criticism that the only way to get into SXSW is by being a part of an “incestuous scene where everybody knows everybody.” So who did *you* have to sleep with to get in? (Metaphorically or literally: are there any SXSW filmmaker(s) past or present that you’re close with personally and/or professionally, and how have those relationships helped or hurt the process of producing your film and getting it seen?) We don’t kiss and tell.  That would be ungallant. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/7/39219.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/7/2009 5:00:47 PM
Body: It’s only a couple of short weeks before the 2008 Oscar nominees are announced, and the internet is abuzz with prognostications. One hotly debated topic is whether or not Wall-E can pull off a Best Picture nomination, or even a win. It would be the second animated film to be nominated in the category, after Beauty and the Beast, which got the honor before the Animated Feature prize existed. Will the stodgy old Academy seat Wall-E at the kid’s table, giving it an easy win in the animation category, or will it be allowed to play with the big boys? A best pic nomination for Wall-E would be a rare honor for animation in general, but it would also be a long over due rarity for another reason: Wall-E would only be the second best pic nominated film in the history of the Oscars to be set in the future. The only one to date is A Clockwork Orange. When you consider how many nominees are period pieces (I didn’t care to count), this represents a massive bias on the part of the Academy. It’s clear that they love the past, but they hate the future. What would the history of the Academy Awards look like if the Hollywood elite wasn’t terrified of speculative fiction? Below, seven movies about the future that should have been nominated for Best Picture: 1. Metropolis The first Academy Awards, held in 1929, gave honors to films produced in both 1928 and 1927, so this should have at least been nominated. Of course the nomination process was rather primitive back then, and American audiences probably wouldn’t have been familiar with German films such as this, but for the purpose of revisionist history, we’ll say it got snubbed. There’s something very 20th century about Art Deco skyscrapers and class conflict, but Metropolis‘ depiction of 2026 still feels relevant today. The film laid the ground work for countless sci-fi tropes, including sexy female androids (see #5). 2. On The Beach This 1959 post-apocalyptic drama stars Gregory Peck as the captain of a US submarine stationed in Melbourne. Set in the near future of 1964, nuclear war has wiped out the rest of the planet, and it’s only a matter of months before the wind brings the deadly radioactive fallout to Australia. The film is a beautiful meditation on the inevitability of death, featuring a solid performance by Ava Gardner, and the most melancholy work by Fred Astaire I’ve ever seen (he does not sing or dance). On the Beach was nominated for both Best Score and Best Editing Oscars, and director Stanley Kramer won a BAFTA. 3. 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick’s masterpiece wasn’t completely snubbed; it received four Oscar nominations, with a win for Visual Effects. But the fact that it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination is criminal. The film is consistently listed on top 100 movie lists, and breaks the top ten on plenty of them. It’s clear that something went very wrong that year. Perhaps the snub can be blamed on the fact that the film was so far ahead of its time, that many people just didn’t get it. Pauline Kael said it was “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” 4. Solaris This 1972 Russian science fiction film is just as cerebral as 2001, and perhaps an even deeper plumb of the human psyche. The Palme d’Or nominated film, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, follows the story of psychologist Chris Kelvin as he ventures to a distant space station, orbiting the water-covered planet Solaris. The station has fallen into disarray, and Kelvin soon figures out why. An apparition of his dead wife appears, apparently created by Solaris using Kelvin’s brain waves. The film is slow and introspective, and is one of those rare gems of science fiction that transcends the trappings of the genre. It should have at least been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film; instead, it wasn’t nominated for anything. 5. Blade Runner For some, saying that Blade Runner was one of the five best films of 1982 is stating the obvious. Perhaps the blending of sci-fi and noir seemed at the time to be nothing more than a cheap genre gimmick. But the enduring quality of Blade Runner makes it clear that it deserved more than the two nominations in received for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects. The snub of Blade Runner is perhaps the best way to prove the Academy’s bias toward the past, when you consider that Ridley Scott’s 2000 film, Gladiator was not only nominated for Best Picture, but it won! I repeat, Gladiator won Best Picture, while Blade Runner was not even nominated. Which did you think was the better movie? 6. Brazil Terry Gilliam’s dystopian black comedy might have had a shot at few Academy awards if Gilliam hadn’t burned every bridge in Hollywood as he made it. The film operates in the dystopian mold cast by 1984, with a healthy dose of dark humor and fantasy. It’s one of the most egregious examples of a studio re-cutting a film and essentially destroying it in the process. Fortunately, Gilliam’s cut is readily available on DVD now, but the director’s trustworthiness in Hollywood is still highly suspect. Gilliam is one of those filmmakers who, no matter how good a movie he makes, will never be welcomed into the inner sanctum. Still, Brazil deserved a Best Picture nomination. 7. Children of Men When the 2006 Best Picture nominees were announced, you may have heard a faint stream of cursing on the wind. That was me. I know that people tend to win Oscars when they’re “due,” which easily explains why The Departed took home the top prize, but the fact that Children of Men wasn’t even nominated is just silly. It was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, which is the Academy’s way of saying, “Wow, this movie is incredible, but it’s about the future, so let’s only honor that one really long take near the end.” Bullshit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:00:47 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/7/2009 5:00:47 PMIt’s only a couple of short weeks before the 2008 Oscar nominees are announced, and the internet is abuzz with prognostications. One hotly debated topic is whether or not Wall-E can pull off a Best Picture nomination, or even a win. It would be the second animated film to be nominated in the category, after Beauty and the Beast, which got the honor before the Animated Feature prize existed. Will the stodgy old Academy seat Wall-E at the kid’s table, giving it an easy win in the animation category, or will it be allowed to play with the big boys? A best pic nomination for Wall-E would be a rare honor for animation in general, but it would also be a long over due rarity for another reason: Wall-E would only be the second best pic nominated film in the history of the Oscars to be set in the future. The only one to date is A Clockwork Orange. When you consider how many nominees are period pieces (I didn’t care to count), this represents a massive bias on the part of the Academy. It’s clear that they love the past, but they hate the future. What would the history of the Academy Awards look like if the Hollywood elite wasn’t terrified of speculative fiction? Below, seven movies about the future that should have been nominated for Best Picture: 1. Metropolis The first Academy Awards, held in 1929, gave honors to films produced in both 1928 and 1927, so this should have at least been nominated. Of course the nomination process was rather primitive back then, and American audiences probably wouldn’t have been familiar with German films such as this, but for the purpose of revisionist history, we’ll say it got snubbed. There’s something very 20th century about Art Deco skyscrapers and class conflict, but Metropolis‘ depiction of 2026 still feels relevant today. The film laid the ground work for countless sci-fi tropes, including sexy female androids (see #5). 2. On The Beach This 1959 post-apocalyptic drama stars Gregory Peck as the captain of a US submarine stationed in Melbourne. Set in the near future of 1964, nuclear war has wiped out the rest of the planet, and it’s only a matter of months before the wind brings the deadly radioactive fallout to Australia. The film is a beautiful meditation on the inevitability of death, featuring a solid performance by Ava Gardner, and the most melancholy work by Fred Astaire I’ve ever seen (he does not sing or dance). On the Beach was nominated for both Best Score and Best Editing Oscars, and director Stanley Kramer won a BAFTA. 3. 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick’s masterpiece wasn’t completely snubbed; it received four Oscar nominations, with a win for Visual Effects. But the fact that it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination is criminal. The film is consistently listed on top 100 movie lists, and breaks the top ten on plenty of them. It’s clear that something went very wrong that year. Perhaps the snub can be blamed on the fact that the film was so far ahead of its time, that many people just didn’t get it. Pauline Kael said it was “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” 4. Solaris This 1972 Russian science fiction film is just as cerebral as 2001, and perhaps an even deeper plumb of the human psyche. The Palme d’Or nominated film, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, follows the story of psychologist Chris Kelvin as he ventures to a distant space station, orbiting the water-covered planet Solaris. The station has fallen into disarray, and Kelvin soon figures out why. An apparition of his dead wife appears, apparently created by Solaris using Kelvin’s brain waves. The film is slow and introspective, and is one of those rare gems of science fiction that transcends the trappings of the genre. It should have at least been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film; instead, it wasn’t nominated for anything. 5. Blade Runner For some, saying that Blade Runner was one of the five best films of 1982 is stating the obvious. Perhaps the blending of sci-fi and noir seemed at the time to be nothing more than a cheap genre gimmick. But the enduring quality of Blade Runner makes it clear that it deserved more than the two nominations in received for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects. The snub of Blade Runner is perhaps the best way to prove the Academy’s bias toward the past, when you consider that Ridley Scott’s 2000 film, Gladiator was not only nominated for Best Picture, but it won! I repeat, Gladiator won Best Picture, while Blade Runner was not even nominated. Which did you think was the better movie? 6. Brazil Terry Gilliam’s dystopian black comedy might have had a shot at few Academy awards if Gilliam hadn’t burned every bridge in Hollywood as he made it. The film operates in the dystopian mold cast by 1984, with a healthy dose of dark humor and fantasy. It’s one of the most egregious examples of a studio re-cutting a film and essentially destroying it in the process. Fortunately, Gilliam’s cut is readily available on DVD now, but the director’s trustworthiness in Hollywood is still highly suspect. Gilliam is one of those filmmakers who, no matter how good a movie he makes, will never be welcomed into the inner sanctum. Still, Brazil deserved a Best Picture nomination. 7. Children of Men When the 2006 Best Picture nominees were announced, you may have heard a faint stream of cursing on the wind. That was me. I know that people tend to win Oscars when they’re “due,” which easily explains why The Departed took home the top prize, but the fact that Children of Men wasn’t even nominated is just silly. It was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, which is the Academy’s way of saying, “Wow, this movie is incredible, but it’s about the future, so let’s only honor that one really long take near the end.” Bullshit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_coolest_sci_fi_planet_to_visit/4/37649/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 11/25/2008 5:41:09 PM
Body: i'm headed for solaris. farewell, cruel world.
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:41:09 GMTjoem18bsci-fi11/25/2008 5:41:09 PMi'm headed for solaris. farewell, cruel world. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2008/11/25/37620.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 11/25/2008 12:53:43 PM
Body: This blog entry is part of my “movie year countdown round #2”. Read more about that here. Stalker I'm not exactly sure how to begin this review. Stalker is a movie that leaves you contemplating so many different things for so long. Probably even more than Andrei Rublev or Solaris which are the two other movies I've seen by Andrei Tarkovsky and could be described in the same way. I feel like it's a film that in a way is very difficult to discuss with other people, especially to try to describe if you haven't seen it. The discussions this movie will cause you to have is more of a contemplation within yourself. And it's hard to describe because what it evokes doesn't come about because of the simple events that could be given in a synopsis. There are a lot of long takes and the dialogue is often sparse and philosophical. Some of the images are truly captivating and I for one was grateful to be able to have so much time to take them in. I can't remember if it was on the special features for this film or just in reading elsewhere about the film online, but I discovered (as was no surprise from observing how different his films feel from any other you've seen) that he has published some specific theories on how he sees film. I'm very interested in picking up his book Sculpting in Time. Apparently Tarkovsky rejects the theories of earlier seminal Russian film theorists like Kuleshov and Eisenstein who placed so much importance on editing and the relationship of different shots and how they are put together. Tarkovsky uses a term called time-pressure to refer to the rhythm of the film. Seeing as I've been rather unaffected by many older Russian films (maybe just because they are so propagandistic) compared to the wonder I'm filled with watching a Tarkovsky film, I'm very interested in reading more of his theory. Has anyone read his book? Reading discussion boards regarding this movie, there are many people who consider this the height of movie making. While many other are angered by the fact that so many people sing its praises so highly because these people find the film to be slow, boring, and pretentious. They believe that the people who talk about it so highly cannot truly enjoy it and talk so highly of it to make themselves seem smart or cultured. I wonder if these people actually gave the movie the benefit of the doubt and sat down to absorb the whole thing. I know my mood can of course affect whether I can be as absorbed in a movie like this or not, but at the same time the images were so captivating and there honestly was a real feeling of tension that cannot be rivaled by even some fast paced thrillers. But it wasn't until the movie was over and I really let the images play over in my mind that I appreciated it as much as I do. There are many more movies out there that would warrant the tag of being pretentious over this one. Recommended for those people who aren't afraid of referring to movies as spiritual or as art. And I'm not being pretentious by saying that! Rating: 9/10
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:53:43 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog11/25/2008 12:53:43 PMThis blog entry is part of my “movie year countdown round #2”. Read more about that here. Stalker I'm not exactly sure how to begin this review. Stalker is a movie that leaves you contemplating so many different things for so long. Probably even more than Andrei Rublev or Solaris which are the two other movies I've seen by Andrei Tarkovsky and could be described in the same way. I feel like it's a film that in a way is very difficult to discuss with other people, especially to try to describe if you haven't seen it. The discussions this movie will cause you to have is more of a contemplation within yourself. And it's hard to describe because what it evokes doesn't come about because of the simple events that could be given in a synopsis. There are a lot of long takes and the dialogue is often sparse and philosophical. Some of the images are truly captivating and I for one was grateful to be able to have so much time to take them in. I can't remember if it was on the special features for this film or just in reading elsewhere about the film online, but I discovered (as was no surprise from observing how different his films feel from any other you've seen) that he has published some specific theories on how he sees film. I'm very interested in picking up his book Sculpting in Time. Apparently Tarkovsky rejects the theories of earlier seminal Russian film theorists like Kuleshov and Eisenstein who placed so much importance on editing and the relationship of different shots and how they are put together. Tarkovsky uses a term called time-pressure to refer to the rhythm of the film. Seeing as I've been rather unaffected by many older Russian films (maybe just because they are so propagandistic) compared to the wonder I'm filled with watching a Tarkovsky film, I'm very interested in reading more of his theory. Has anyone read his book? Reading discussion boards regarding this movie, there are many people who consider this the height of movie making. While many other are angered by the fact that so many people sing its praises so highly because these people find the film to be slow, boring, and pretentious. They believe that the people who talk about it so highly cannot truly enjoy it and talk so highly of it to make themselves seem smart or cultured. I wonder if these people actually gave the movie the benefit of the doubt and sat down to absorb the whole thing. I know my mood can of course affect whether I can be as absorbed in a movie like this or not, but at the same time the images were so captivating and there honestly was a real feeling of tension that cannot be rivaled by even some fast paced thrillers. But it wasn't until the movie was over and I really let the images play over in my mind that I appreciated it as much as I do. There are many more movies out there that would warrant the tag of being pretentious over this one. Recommended for those people who aren't afraid of referring to movies as spiritual or as art. And I'm not being pretentious by saying that! Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/25/33086.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/25/2008 12:00:50 PM
Body: This week I wanted to make a simple point: Andrew Stanton’s WALL-E is a near-masterpiece of A.I. proportions and socio-political implications, reduced by its cloying musical score to just another ingenious Disney/Pixar heart-tugger. The most effective way to illustrate this would have been to create a video mash-up of the WALL-E score and an immersive philosophical sci-fi like 2001: A Space Odyssey, THX-1138 or Tarkovsky’s Solaris. But my laptop’s down, so I’m stuck here telling you rather than showing. Let’s try another way: This column is written by a single man in his 30’s who spends a lot of time alone. If Disney or Sony or the Weinstein Company made a movie about my life, there would be lots of alienated, bassy sounds over shots of me staring red-eyed at a library computer screen; piano tinkling accompanying my pitiful walk home; despairing choral chants and Middle Eastern wailing as I trudge up to the arthouse ticket booth on a Saturday night (”One for Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, please.”). You all would feel sorry for me and maybe see something of your own sorrows in mine. But you’d walk out of the movie filing me away with other cinematic sad sacks, somewhere between Travis Bickle and the fat guy with the watery eyes in Heavy. Then, on to dinner and your own troubles. But how could you forget me so easily? Don’t my isolation and suffering mean something beyond the screen? What about the scene where they diagnosed me with that rare illness? Or when that stick-up kid shot me in the leg? I was just trying to get home to my noodles. My dog falling down the elevator shaft–only a faint memory now, huh? Well, I blame the music. It never let you really get that close to me, beyond how cute and pathetic I am. There’s a lot more to me than my pratfalls and one-liners and humiliations. Even in my scene of triumph, when I won over the girl from the clutches of that finance asshole, your applause was mere ritual, far from spontaneous, because a 90-piece orchestra and a synth blast told you just when to decide that I was The Man. You clapped for me the way you’d clap for somebody else’s kid at the school play. Okay: WALL-E joins Shadow of a Doubt and On the Waterfront as another brilliant and devastating visual statement on American life dulled and softened by an overbearing orchestral score that says, “It’s only a movie, y’all. Have fun. Shrek it up. More popcorn!” The film’s mostly wordless first act builds a convincing world and lets the trash-compacting robot WALL-E wander yearningly through it (his loneliness in a world he never knew jibing with our wistfulness amid familiar ruins). Other than the old musical number WALL-E watches and imitates, Ben Burtt’s sound design is as much music as this segment requires. Along with the expected Pixar dynamism and grit, Burtt’s work makes WALL-E’s junkyard Earth a very real, menacing, strange and wondrous graveyard for the American empire. This intense WALL-eyed subjectivity and naturalism-plus-reminiscence can hang with the greatest of Studio Ghibli animations (and early Pixar shorts). Ghibli directors Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata can make things like leaves and parasols weep and die real deaths. Burrt and Stanton do the same for our beloved 20th century gadgets. But Thomas Newman’s score emerges like clockwork at plot points to lend the film a more Dreamworks-ish sense of hectic postmodern showmanship. Party time, not story time. The film’s cluttered and increasingly talky midsection set on a space colony/resort/mall throws the party in full swing. Yo Pixar, howbout a WALL-E DVD with the option to mute the musical score? Underneath your reliably sturdy, entertaining 2008-edition Disney product is a film of finer and deeper Pixar shadings that might just rouse the consumer blobs in the audience out of their floating recliners– rather than simply prod, placate and party with them. But that would be truly revolutionary, and I doubt your overlord Disney is having any part of that. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:00:50 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/25/2008 12:00:50 PM This week I wanted to make a simple point: Andrew Stanton’s WALL-E is a near-masterpiece of A.I. proportions and socio-political implications, reduced by its cloying musical score to just another ingenious Disney/Pixar heart-tugger. The most effective way to illustrate this would have been to create a video mash-up of the WALL-E score and an immersive philosophical sci-fi like 2001: A Space Odyssey, THX-1138 or Tarkovsky’s Solaris. But my laptop’s down, so I’m stuck here telling you rather than showing. Let’s try another way: This column is written by a single man in his 30’s who spends a lot of time alone. If Disney or Sony or the Weinstein Company made a movie about my life, there would be lots of alienated, bassy sounds over shots of me staring red-eyed at a library computer screen; piano tinkling accompanying my pitiful walk home; despairing choral chants and Middle Eastern wailing as I trudge up to the arthouse ticket booth on a Saturday night (”One for Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, please.”). You all would feel sorry for me and maybe see something of your own sorrows in mine. But you’d walk out of the movie filing me away with other cinematic sad sacks, somewhere between Travis Bickle and the fat guy with the watery eyes in Heavy. Then, on to dinner and your own troubles. But how could you forget me so easily? Don’t my isolation and suffering mean something beyond the screen? What about the scene where they diagnosed me with that rare illness? Or when that stick-up kid shot me in the leg? I was just trying to get home to my noodles. My dog falling down the elevator shaft–only a faint memory now, huh? Well, I blame the music. It never let you really get that close to me, beyond how cute and pathetic I am. There’s a lot more to me than my pratfalls and one-liners and humiliations. Even in my scene of triumph, when I won over the girl from the clutches of that finance asshole, your applause was mere ritual, far from spontaneous, because a 90-piece orchestra and a synth blast told you just when to decide that I was The Man. You clapped for me the way you’d clap for somebody else’s kid at the school play. Okay: WALL-E joins Shadow of a Doubt and On the Waterfront as another brilliant and devastating visual statement on American life dulled and softened by an overbearing orchestral score that says, “It’s only a movie, y’all. Have fun. Shrek it up. More popcorn!” The film’s mostly wordless first act builds a convincing world and lets the trash-compacting robot WALL-E wander yearningly through it (his loneliness in a world he never knew jibing with our wistfulness amid familiar ruins). Other than the old musical number WALL-E watches and imitates, Ben Burtt’s sound design is as much music as this segment requires. Along with the expected Pixar dynamism and grit, Burtt’s work makes WALL-E’s junkyard Earth a very real, menacing, strange and wondrous graveyard for the American empire. This intense WALL-eyed subjectivity and naturalism-plus-reminiscence can hang with the greatest of Studio Ghibli animations (and early Pixar shorts). Ghibli directors Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata can make things like leaves and parasols weep and die real deaths. Burrt and Stanton do the same for our beloved 20th century gadgets. But Thomas Newman’s score emerges like clockwork at plot points to lend the film a more Dreamworks-ish sense of hectic postmodern showmanship. Party time, not story time. The film’s cluttered and increasingly talky midsection set on a space colony/resort/mall throws the party in full swing. Yo Pixar, howbout a WALL-E DVD with the option to mute the musical score? Underneath your reliably sturdy, entertaining 2008-edition Disney product is a film of finer and deeper Pixar shadings that might just rouse the consumer blobs in the audience out of their floating recliners– rather than simply prod, placate and party with them. But that would be truly revolutionary, and I doubt your overlord Disney is having any part of that. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Science_Fiction/190/23761/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: asnakeofjuly
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 1/11/2008 1:09:09 AM
Body: I love sci fi ("intelligent" sci fi; there's so many definitons but I think there's two distinct types of sci fi), so here's my list (in somewhat of an order): 1. 2001: A Space Odyssey 2. Solaris (1972) 3. The Day the Earth Stood Still 4. Metropolis (1927) 5. Sunshine
]]>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:09:09 GMTasnakeofjulyTop 51/11/2008 1:09:09 AMI love sci fi ("intelligent" sci fi; there's so many definitons but I think there's two distinct types of sci fi), so here's my list (in somewhat of an order): 1. 2001: A Space Odyssey 2. Solaris (1972) 3. The Day the Earth Stood Still 4. Metropolis (1927) 5. Sunshine http://www.spout.com/blogs/tobenson/archive/2007/11/28/22266.aspx Post By: tobenson
Post To: The Obenson Report
Post Date: 11/28/2007 9:15:29 AM
Body: SUNSHINE is one of those films that had me hooked for most of its length, but then during the last act almost completely lost me; although not entirely in this case, thankfully. I was slightly disappointed that Danny Boyle, the director the film (also TRAINSPOTTING and 28 DAYS LATER), went for the conventional mainstream plot devices that he threw into the last act of film. I won’t say what they were… you’ll just have to see the film, and we can talk about it afterwards if anyone wants to… but anyway… I really liked the film overall – it’s one of those apocalyptic, end of the world scenarios that we’re presented with: in a nutshell, the sun is dying, and world governments assemble a team of scientists and astronauts to go on what is essentially on a suicide mission, into space, in a ship armed with a nuclear weapon meant to be launched into the sun’s core, where it will explode and reignite the sun… a scenario which we might actually find ourselves in some time in the our future, whenever that might be. The fact that this film was made on a $30 million budget shocked me… not that $30 million isn’t a lot of money for a feature, but compared to other comparable sci-fi movies that cost 3, 4, 5 times that number, it looks damn good! Danny Boyle spent the $30 million wisely, making it look like it’s a film that cost significantly more than what it actually did cost. It’s a good looking film… there are some scenes in which I remember feeling like I could just mute the audio all together, and put on Beethoven’s moonlight sonata and immerse myself in the moment… reminiscent of films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and SOLARIS. In 2001, there are lots of zero-gravity, ethereal scenes in which the only thing Kubrick wants us to hear is Johann Strauss’s Blue Danube… really sort of eerie, but to wonderful effect. SUNSHINE is more 2001 and SOLARIS than say, ARMAGEDDON (the Bruce Willis/Ben Afleck/Michael Bay flick), or other more action-driven fanfare… essentially all of Michael Bay’s films :o). It’s a character driven sci-fi film, with splashes of both visual and audio blasts every now and then, but more time is spent on the characters, their motivations, and their decisions... sometimes very difficult, life-altering decisions they have to make in other to evolve as the film progresses… often life/death decisions… that sort of Armed Forces nationalistic notion of putting the fate of your country, or in this case, your world, before yours, even if it means giving your life. And throughout the film, I think almost every character is faced with that decision – some answer it willingly, and others have to be forced to answer it, or the decision is made for them. For the first 80 minutes I was mostly riveted with what I saw, heard, thought and felt, but something happens in the last 20 minutes that, as I said earlier, relied on typical Hollywood dramatics – essentially introducing a character, or more like a thing, meant to sort of “spice things up,” which leads to inevitable chases through dark walkways, and subsequent screams that all just sort of annoyed me, because it all seemed so unnecessary. It takes on a different tone altogether. If that character/thing wasn’t introduced, the rest of the film would have been great just as it was, because, again, it added nothing to the film, and instead took me out of it temporarily. But I won’t let that singular misstep take away the fun I had watching the film up until that moment… because the good far outweighed the bad, and when Sunshine is released on DVD in a couple of months, I’ll be shelling out my $20, or whatever it is, to buy it. The performances are strong – Cillian Murphy and Michelle Yeoh especially – I’ve already talked about the visuals, and it moves along quite briskly at 107 minutes. And I would recommend it… again, if you liked Sci-Fi films like 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY, and SOLARIS (both the Tarkovsky and Soderbergh versions). I think you’ll like SUNSHINE as well. Listen to my audio broadcast on cinema at www.obensonreport.com Tambay A Obensonwww.obensonreport.com
]]>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:15:29 GMTtobensonThe Obenson Report11/28/2007 9:15:29 AMSUNSHINE is one of those films that had me hooked for most of its length, but then during the last act almost completely lost me; although not entirely in this case, thankfully. I was slightly disappointed that Danny Boyle, the director the film (also TRAINSPOTTING and 28 DAYS LATER), went for the conventional mainstream plot devices that he threw into the last act of film. I won’t say what they were… you’ll just have to see the film, and we can talk about it afterwards if anyone wants to… but anyway… I really liked the film overall – it’s one of those apocalyptic, end of the world scenarios that we’re presented with: in a nutshell, the sun is dying, and world governments assemble a team of scientists and astronauts to go on what is essentially on a suicide mission, into space, in a ship armed with a nuclear weapon meant to be launched into the sun’s core, where it will explode and reignite the sun… a scenario which we might actually find ourselves in some time in the our future, whenever that might be. The fact that this film was made on a $30 million budget shocked me… not that $30 million isn’t a lot of money for a feature, but compared to other comparable sci-fi movies that cost 3, 4, 5 times that number, it looks damn good! Danny Boyle spent the $30 million wisely, making it look like it’s a film that cost significantly more than what it actually did cost. It’s a good looking film… there are some scenes in which I remember feeling like I could just mute the audio all together, and put on Beethoven’s moonlight sonata and immerse myself in the moment… reminiscent of films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and SOLARIS. In 2001, there are lots of zero-gravity, ethereal scenes in which the only thing Kubrick wants us to hear is Johann Strauss’s Blue Danube… really sort of eerie, but to wonderful effect. SUNSHINE is more 2001 and SOLARIS than say, ARMAGEDDON (the Bruce Willis/Ben Afleck/Michael Bay flick), or other more action-driven fanfare… essentially all of Michael Bay’s films :o). It’s a character driven sci-fi film, with splashes of both visual and audio blasts every now and then, but more time is spent on the characters, their motivations, and their decisions... sometimes very difficult, life-altering decisions they have to make in other to evolve as the film progresses… often life/death decisions… that sort of Armed Forces nationalistic notion of putting the fate of your country, or in this case, your world, before yours, even if it means giving your life. And throughout the film, I think almost every character is faced with that decision – some answer it willingly, and others have to be forced to answer it, or the decision is made for them. For the first 80 minutes I was mostly riveted with what I saw, heard, thought and felt, but something happens in the last 20 minutes that, as I said earlier, relied on typical Hollywood dramatics – essentially introducing a character, or more like a thing, meant to sort of “spice things up,” which leads to inevitable chases through dark walkways, and subsequent screams that all just sort of annoyed me, because it all seemed so unnecessary. It takes on a different tone altogether. If that character/thing wasn’t introduced, the rest of the film would have been great just as it was, because, again, it added nothing to the film, and instead took me out of it temporarily. But I won’t let that singular misstep take away the fun I had watching the film up until that moment… because the good far outweighed the bad, and when Sunshine is released on DVD in a couple of months, I’ll be shelling out my $20, or whatever it is, to buy it. The performances are strong – Cillian Murphy and Michelle Yeoh especially – I’ve already talked about the visuals, and it moves along quite briskly at 107 minutes. And I would recommend it… again, if you liked Sci-Fi films like 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY, and SOLARIS (both the Tarkovsky and Soderbergh versions). I think you’ll like SUNSHINE as well. Listen to my audio broadcast on cinema at www.obensonreport.com Tambay A Obensonwww.obensonreport.com http://www.spout.com/blogs/funkcisco/archive/2007/8/18/18366.aspx Post By: funkcisco
Post To: funkcisco Blog
Post Date: 8/18/2007 10:55:18 PM
Body: Andrei Tarkovsky is one of the world’s most renowned film directors. He also has a reputation of making very slow-paced movies with extremely long takes. Quite a few people told me that his films are “difficult to watch” and boring. I was a little intimidated by those comments. But after reading an article by director Akira Kurosawa on Solaris, I was determined to watch the film.In Solaris, psychologist Kris Kelvin was sent to the space station on an ocean planet Solaris because the scientists there were acting weird. When Kelvin arrived, he is perplexed by the remaining scientist while his deceased ex-wife appears in front of him mysteriously. Solaris is billed as a sci-fi movie. Yet there is nothing much “sci-fi” about it. Solaris has long been hailed as an “intellectual sci-fi” movie along with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Interestingly, Tarkovsky watched 2001 before he made Solaris and dismissed it as cold and sterile. Unlike Kubrick’s technical masterpiece, you won’t see any fancy spaceship flowing harmoniously in space. Well, most of the time in the movie is just drama in the space station (and don’t expect any space age costumes and movie sets). In fact, the Russian film is so poor it has to film the scene of a future city on Japanese highways, as Japan was way more advanced than the good old USSR in the 70s.Despite all the limitations of the production, Solaris is an exquisite piece of filmmaking. Solaris is a darkly beautiful film consisted of Tarkovsky’s long tracking shots alternating between color and B&W. The extensive depiction of nature and his parents’ home at the beginning of the movie set up the alienated atmosphere for Kelvin on Solaris. After Kelvin reached the space station, he found out the ocean of Solaris has this mythical power that can create a pseudo-being from someone’s memories. Kris Kelvin knows that his “reborn” wife Hari is not real, yet he could not stop himself from being in love with her. He knows for a fact that she is only a replica of his memories. His confusion and love is the central theme of the movie. What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to love? Or is Kelvin just in love with his memories of Hari, but not the real person? Solaris challenges us with all these questions on the human condition.While the commentary on the Criterion Collection DVD provides some good information, it is just boring professor talk most of the time (and describing what’s happening in the next 5 seconds).
]]>Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:55:18 GMTfunkciscofunkcisco Blog8/18/2007 10:55:18 PMAndrei Tarkovsky is one of the world’s most renowned film directors. He also has a reputation of making very slow-paced movies with extremely long takes. Quite a few people told me that his films are “difficult to watch” and boring. I was a little intimidated by those comments. But after reading an article by director Akira Kurosawa on Solaris, I was determined to watch the film.In Solaris, psychologist Kris Kelvin was sent to the space station on an ocean planet Solaris because the scientists there were acting weird. When Kelvin arrived, he is perplexed by the remaining scientist while his deceased ex-wife appears in front of him mysteriously. Solaris is billed as a sci-fi movie. Yet there is nothing much “sci-fi” about it. Solaris has long been hailed as an “intellectual sci-fi” movie along with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Interestingly, Tarkovsky watched 2001 before he made Solaris and dismissed it as cold and sterile. Unlike Kubrick’s technical masterpiece, you won’t see any fancy spaceship flowing harmoniously in space. Well, most of the time in the movie is just drama in the space station (and don’t expect any space age costumes and movie sets). In fact, the Russian film is so poor it has to film the scene of a future city on Japanese highways, as Japan was way more advanced than the good old USSR in the 70s.Despite all the limitations of the production, Solaris is an exquisite piece of filmmaking. Solaris is a darkly beautiful film consisted of Tarkovsky’s long tracking shots alternating between color and B&W. The extensive depiction of nature and his parents’ home at the beginning of the movie set up the alienated atmosphere for Kelvin on Solaris. After Kelvin reached the space station, he found out the ocean of Solaris has this mythical power that can create a pseudo-being from someone’s memories. Kris Kelvin knows that his “reborn” wife Hari is not real, yet he could not stop himself from being in love with her. He knows for a fact that she is only a replica of his memories. His confusion and love is the central theme of the movie. What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to love? Or is Kelvin just in love with his memories of Hari, but not the real person? Solaris challenges us with all these questions on the human condition.While the commentary on the Criterion Collection DVD provides some good information, it is just boring professor talk most of the time (and describing what’s happening in the next 5 seconds). http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Science_Fiction/190/11816/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/23/2007 3:09:06 PM
Body: Alright here's my simple list:1. 2001: A Spacy Odyssey2. The original Star Wars Trilogy3. The Fifth Element4. Gattaca5. Spaceballs Yes it's very funny, and if you like Star Trek check out the hilarious British TV series Red Dwarf Does 12 Monkeys count? It's more Gilliam style fantasy than any real science. What about Cube?Some other good ones: the original Solaris, Alien, Akira, Jurassic Park, Contact, The MatrixThe rather funny movie Multiplicity is listed on IMDB as Sci-Fi
]]>Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:09:06 GMTRisseladaTop 56/23/2007 3:09:06 PMAlright here's my simple list:1. 2001: A Spacy Odyssey2. The original Star Wars Trilogy3. The Fifth Element4. Gattaca5. Spaceballs Yes it's very funny, and if you like Star Trek check out the hilarious British TV series Red Dwarf Does 12 Monkeys count? It's more Gilliam style fantasy than any real science. What about Cube?Some other good ones: the original Solaris, Alien, Akira, Jurassic Park, Contact, The MatrixThe rather funny movie Multiplicity is listed on IMDB as Sci-Fi http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/memory/MemberTagFilms.aspxmemory
Number of films tagged: 452

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 69

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:06 GMT4524969Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/loneliness/MemberTagFilms.aspxloneliness
Number of films tagged: 416

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 68

]]>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:01:02 GMT4163368Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ocean/MemberTagFilms.aspxocean
Number of films tagged: 167

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 58

]]>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:07:01 GMT1672858Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/psychology/MemberTagFilms.aspxpsychology
Number of films tagged: 241

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 50

]]>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:03:35 GMT2412250Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/reality/MemberTagFilms.aspxreality
Number of films tagged: 612

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 33

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT6122033Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criterion/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriterion
Number of films tagged: 396

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 407

]]>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:08:23 GMT39617407Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thought-provoking/MemberTagFilms.aspxthought-provoking
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 19

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT151719Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/investigator/MemberTagFilms.aspxinvestigator
Number of films tagged: 1805

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 22

]]>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:02:56 GMT18051122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/spaceexploration/MemberTagFilms.aspxspaceexploration
Number of films tagged: 528

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 12

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:02:46 GMT528812Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/planet/MemberTagFilms.aspxplanet
Number of films tagged: 353

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:02:14 GMT353610Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/confinement/MemberTagFilms.aspxconfinement
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:29:39 GMT3933Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sleepy/MemberTagFilms.aspxsleepy
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 6

]]>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:33:00 GMT636Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/raining-inside/MemberTagFilms.aspxraining-inside
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 7

]]>Tue, 02 May 2006 19:43:43 GMT727Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lem/MemberTagFilms.aspxlem
Number of films tagged: 3

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 3

]]>Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:56:59 GMT313Tag