Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259 Share this video!
I definitely over thought it, but I enjoyed doing so! I adore this film for all the reasons it alienated a lot of people. I love movies that make you really feel & think without laying the answers at your feet. For me, this is definitely one of those films. I was absolutely enchanted by everything about it the first time I watched it in 2009 & it still hasn't lost it's appeal or it's wonder for me. Thanks for posting this interview!!!
This was a great, slow-revealing, thoughtful, utterly gorgeous film that stacked ideas in ways that makes you see things in a whole different way. I remember sitting in the theatre at the end, and going: "I didn't think Soderbergh had it in him..."
Their film is a cult (one of many) fav of mine. I agree with critics who say we don't really 'learn' what Solaris is but then who could create what it is?
Solaris was one of the best novels of the twentieth century, and Tarkovsky's film was one of the best ever. No one in Hollywood could live up to such standards.
It's not a competition. Soderbergh wanted and (I think) made a completely different film than Trakovsky. For me the Soderbergh interpretation of Lem's book is the more interesting one.
@@vgstb I think Lem and Tarkovsky were pretty much on the same page. To them Solaris questioned whether or not people can ever really understand alien life forms, or even each other. Soderbergh used Solaris to tell a love story with a Hollywood ending in which a suicide is undone and all is forgiven. I would have liked the Soderbergh film more if I hadn't seen Tarkovsky's version first.
Steven said "Tarkovsky couldn't direct anything, some of his movies are interesting but he ruined those ideas, a proof that communism doesn't work, the Russo Brothers should remake his movies so they can make them better like I did"
Always thought Soderbergh was overrated, and his Solaris completely lacks everything that made Tarkovskys original great. He's talking about it being ambitious but doesn't reach the ambition of the original, and talks about 2001 and making a movie with that impact, his movie doesn't even breath the same air as neither movie.
I think they're two different films; both stand out separately from each other. Tarkovsky's original is quite 'raw'. Soderbergh's 'Solaris' is sharp and clean, but beautifully photographed with great looking people. Neither effort is near the book; Lem never watched any of the films lifted from his work and all three are different. All work.
So? He had ambitions that you personally believe he didn't make. Of course many would see Kubrick better then Sodenberg, yet that doesn't discredit Sodenbergs work. It's like comparing Joyce Carol Oats to Jon Steinbeck. Both amazing writers yet completely different writing styles.
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
I definitely over thought it, but I enjoyed doing so!
I adore this film for all the reasons it alienated a lot of people. I love movies that make you really feel & think without laying the answers at your feet. For me, this is definitely one of those films.
I was absolutely enchanted by everything about it the first time I watched it in 2009 & it still hasn't lost it's appeal or it's wonder for me.
Thanks for posting this interview!!!
This was a great, slow-revealing, thoughtful, utterly gorgeous film that stacked ideas in ways that makes you see things in a whole different way. I remember sitting in the theatre at the end, and going: "I didn't think Soderbergh had it in him..."
Their film is a cult (one of many) fav of mine. I agree with critics who say we don't really 'learn' what Solaris is but then who could create what it is?
My favorite movie which still has no complete HD release.
Not in the US, at least. You might know that. And there are HD versions to be found online, which you also might know.
One of my very favorites, too.
Solaris was one of the best novels of the twentieth century, and Tarkovsky's film was one of the best ever. No one in Hollywood could live up to such standards.
Yes, I'm surprised they never mentioned him. Presented like Steven created all by himself: "WRITTEN n Directed".😊
It's not a competition. Soderbergh wanted and (I think) made a completely different film than Trakovsky. For me the Soderbergh interpretation of Lem's book is the more interesting one.
@@vgstb I think Lem and Tarkovsky were pretty much on the same page. To them Solaris questioned whether or not people can ever really understand alien life forms, or even each other. Soderbergh used Solaris to tell a love story with a Hollywood ending in which a suicide is undone and all is forgiven. I would have liked the Soderbergh film more if I hadn't seen Tarkovsky's version first.
One of the few American remakes that is as good or actually better than the original film.
Why are these 2 men dressed EXACTLY alike? Including both t-shirts hanging out. Did they "plan" this? Is this "twin day?"
i don't know
Harvey Winestein, Charlie Rose.....
Wink.
They met in a gay club in West Hollywood
McElhone was obviously only there for her good looks, should have had a real actor...
Did they even fuking mentioned that this is a remake of Tarkofsky and they ruined it?!!!!
Steven said "Tarkovsky couldn't direct anything, some of his movies are interesting but he ruined those ideas, a proof that communism doesn't work, the Russo Brothers should remake his movies so they can make them better like I did"
@@benijager1372 that just sounds like something a dumbass like you would say.
Did you even watch the video? At 32:10 Soderburgh specifically states that he made the film solely to ruin it in comparison to Solyaris.
@@darkpatchesthis video is only 31 min long lol
@@benijager1372😂 communism n Tarkovsky?😂😂 Guy was totally against communism
Last
#2:14 Under 3 Minutes
Always thought Soderbergh was overrated, and his Solaris completely lacks everything that made Tarkovskys original great.
He's talking about it being ambitious but doesn't reach the ambition of the original, and talks about 2001 and making a movie with that impact, his movie doesn't even breath the same air as neither movie.
I think they're two different films; both stand out separately from each other. Tarkovsky's original is quite 'raw'. Soderbergh's 'Solaris' is sharp and clean, but beautifully photographed with great looking people. Neither effort is near the book; Lem never watched any of the films lifted from his work and all three are different. All work.
Facts
So? He had ambitions that you personally believe he didn't make. Of course many would see Kubrick better then Sodenberg, yet that doesn't discredit Sodenbergs work. It's like comparing Joyce Carol Oats to Jon Steinbeck. Both amazing writers yet completely different writing styles.
Why do you call Tarkovsky's movie "original"?! The original is the novel written by Stanislaw Lem.
@@blekfut5763I know. I was using "original" for lack of a better term.
Tarkovskys take and movie was just way better is what I'm trying to say.