Solaris

The more times I see it, the more I love it. Maybe the runtime is excessive, maybe some of the scenes don't make sense (and yet they still feel magical, for example the drive down the highway), but everything else – especially the atmosphere, the visual compositions hand in hand with the haunting music, the interesting philosophical musings, etc. – all make Tarkovsky's film one of my most magical cinematic experiences in years. This is the kind of uncompromising artistic statement you hardly see anymore in modern cinema. (01/21/2009)

8/10/2009: 2 stars /// 7/11/2014: I’m several years older and more experienced as a viewer, so I thought I’d give it another go, and it’s quite good. Science fiction of the more intellectual kind, mainly for people who enjoy being offered something to ponder over. The atmosphere is engaging and unsettling, also quite thought-provoking at times. But only at times, really, because, even though this is philosophic sci-fi, there’s not that much philosophising (they hardly speak). It could also be shorter, a lot. (10/08/2009)

The Tarkovsky scarecrow may not be such a major problem if we view Solaris through the lens of contemporary science fiction. The result will, unfortunately (or thankfully), be just another film that has not withstood the ravages of time. Of course, you can also read Lem's novel, watch the modern remake and, with a slightly ironic smile, look for the old TV version. All science fiction before Star Wars has its limits, including Tarkovsky's opus. I really don't appreciate a spaceship whose integral part is the icons of Andrei Rublev spread out in the cabins. I really, really don’t. (06/15/2017)

Technically brilliant and incredibly profound. Sometimes even unattainable. Andrei Tarkovsky is very demanding on the viewer with his abstraction and does not take it easy on them even for a second with his long-winded visions in his realm of philosophy. However, all inaccessibility is beautifully erased by the simple central theme of conflict between the most desperate emotions and the cold, meaningless scientific research. Most importantly, I guarantee that if you let yourself get absorbed, you won't be able to get the majority of the scenes out of your head due to their ambiguity. (08/10/2007)

It’s similarly difficult to grasp as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but equally strong in its interpretative depth, perhaps even stronger. Tarkovsky's film doesn't rely on visual spectacle; instead, the Russian creator opts for philosophical sci-fi where everything unfolds primarily through dialogue and memories rather than necessarily through visuals. There are scenes inside ships, but they are very limited. This is how sci-fi can be filmed, mainly because the narrative is equally strong. (09/05/2014)