We're talking about Insomnia, you idiot. That's why it's funny. A guy named "Dormer" in a movie called "Insomnia"? Are any of your remaining withered brain cells able to draw a connection there?Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Ah. French puns. Yeah, that movie sounds like a real winner. Which one was this? Amelie? I'll be sure to queue that one up real quick-like.
Kinda kooky, huh?Solaris (1972) 168 minutes.
Solaris (2002) 99 minutes.
Well, the story of the 2002 version actually more closely resembles the book. What you're losing is:How much did they chop out of the 2002 version?
1. A long sequence set on Earth before Kelvin goes to the space station. (In the book, on page 1, he has just arrived at the station. In the 2002 version, he arrives there within minutes.)
2. Looooong, slooooow sequences of mise-en-scene, beautiful, lingering images intending to inspire an almost trancelike state in the viewer. For me, it works. However, its pacing makes 2001 look like The Fast and the Furious. It is a LONG movie, and feels nearly twice its length. I'm always sorry when it ends, but I know most viewers end up sorry it began.
3. A slightly different ending from both the book and the 2002 version (which, again, more closely matches the book in nature.) What we gain here by diverging from the book is one of the most emotionally striking, haunting images to ever end a movie, ever. If the rest of the movie has "worked" for you, and you are indeed in the "Solaris Trance", the ending will definitely fuck you up.
None of the story is lost, though.
Now, what do we gain, if anything, with the 2002 version?
1. Well, it certainly looks like it was made 30 years later than the original, in terms of technical wizardry. There aren't many special effects, but, you know, everything looks more "futuristic".
2. An ending more in spirit with (though not identical to) the book.
3. Soderbergh is no Tarkovsky, but neither is Tarkovsky Soderbergh, so you get a different "flava".
4. CLOONEY ASS.
5. The superiority in knowing that you're one of only six or seven people who actually SAW the movie.
I wish you wouldn't do that. With this movie specifically, I'm talking about. I wrote when it first came out that it HAD to do good, if we were going to see Hollywood attempt more movies like this. It did horribly, of course, so the last chance is when it comes out on video. I predict it will do much better there, but not if you scumbags just start pirating it.Having made the commitment to pirate it
Read the above descriptions and decide for yourself if there's any way you would enjoy it.Should I go rent the 1972 version first?
Yes, it was recently released as a Criterion Collection disc (the same day the remake came out, non-coincidentally.) It is quite good. Grab it if you can find it.(Is the 1972 version available on DVD?)