|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Has anyone here heard anything about a possible remake of this Russian Sci-Fi classic from the 60s to be helmed by Steven Soderbergh? I'm pretty sure I read about it somewhere but can't remember for sure. Maybe I imagined it.....
Follow Ups:
Don't get out much or read magazines, eh? The teaser trailer for the remake by Soderbergh has been playing on screens in my town for weeks.
Wow - which town is that?I've been in LA and have seen about three movies here in the last week -- at the Chinese. Arclight and The Grove (all top of the line theatres, multiplexes) without any sign of that trailer. I live in Singapore but when I'm here (every 6-8 weeks) I catch at least 3-4 movies a week. Let me know during which movie screening you saw the trailer, might try to see if it's on here in LA.
Spend your money on the Critereon Editon DVD which will be coming out shortly...and then see Soderbergh's take on it. You won't be disappointed.
Thanks. I did actually see the original in a cinema in the UK many many years ago. I was in my teens and found it pretty heavy going. I can't say I remember very much about the film so maybe I'll check out the Criterion.
Courtesy of criterion.com....
Coming Soon!Film Info
1972
169 minutes
Color/Black and white
2.35:1
Dolby Digital Mono 1.0
Anamorphic
RussianRelease Info
Catalog Number:
SOL070
ISBN:
0-78002-607-1
UPC:
0-37429-1721-2-4
SRP: $39.95
Special FeaturesDISC ONE:
New digital transfer, enhanced for widescreen televisions
Audio essay by Tarkovsky scholars Vida Johnson and Graham Petrie, co-authors of The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue
New and improved English subtitle translation
Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition
DISC TWO:
Nine deleted and alternate scenes
Video interviews with lead actress Natalya Bondarchuk, cinematographer Vadim Yusov, art director Mikhail Romadin, and composer Eduard Artemyev
Documentary excerpt with Solaris author Stanislaw Lem
http://criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=164§ion=feature
Where can I get this without paying over the roof.
Probably amazon.comAnd it is a KILLER, along with the 2dvd issue of "Contempt" !!
It seems like I read somewhere that even Stanislaw Lem, author of Solaris, didn't care for the 1st movie; of course, some people love it's slow contemplative style and I'm not knocking anyone's tastes, but I found it to be sort of like trying to watch paint drying (i.e., it's like watching a drawing room comedy without the comedy!).
Forget about the Solaris - you WILL get what you are looking for in the new one, I am sure. We had beaten that horse already long enough, so just enjoy your cup of tea.But how about the remake of one of the most hilarious movies in history - "Swept Away"?
Don't worry about the original, I am sure it too is too slow for you. I am sure the remake, with Madonna and Giannini's son, Adriano, is gonna be more to your taste.
I think we need to dispense with the likes of Lina Wertmuller - who needs all that insight? The original title: "Travolti da un insolito destino nell'azzurro mare d'agosto" also sounds too complicated for an average American.
Too bad there is really no replacement for Mariangela Melato - that Italian super-white-hot bomb shell has no parallels in the world cinema, with Madonna at best being able to replicate her after fix years in a hard labor camp.
Seen it yet?
Mariangela Melato
Unforgettable in "Notte d'estate con profilo greco, occhi a mandorla e odore di basilico", but Swept Away is her pinnacle.
.
Thanks! Last night I poked a bit around the net for good pics and could not find any... I thought I was stuck with Julia Roberts images plus my memories.
I'm sure you will be even more heartened to know that Hollywood is also remaking the Stanley Donen classic Charade with Mark Wahlberg in the Cary Grant role (!!!) and Thadie Newton (correct spelling? She's the black girl from MI2) in the Hepburn part.
Hollywood entropy.
Once a unique or vital creation has been made, there is a loss of creative energy that can never be recaptured--over time this loss adds up--until all that remains is the remnants of something great rehashed into something mediocre. Then the mediocre is rehashed into the substandard, and so on and so forth, until they won't even bother making real movies anymore (only porn--people are willing to dismiss pornographic entropy).mp
You wouldn't want to know what I call it.
Formulaic drivel sells, it's unfortunate, but true. The Moguls know they can secure the rights to some old story for pennies, and it will likely be a winner 2nd or 3rd time around. There's a lot to be said for the attraction of the name; SOLARIS sounds like it will be interesting from the name. Shakespeare pulled off the perfect coup with naming one of his plays "A Midsummer Night's Dream", it SOUNDS like it would be wonderful, whatever it is about, people would be drawn to any production with that as a name. A masterpiece in copywriting.
As it is, it's one of his lesser works; Shakespeare understood the entertainment industry 400 years ago, and nothing has really changed since
Eric
Tokyo
Sometimes I feel I should be desensitized by now, but every news like that still sends me into a short spin.I am sure they will make it more... lively?
(nt)
Couldn't be more different than a Hollywood "Space Western" You have to slow down to a European pace to enjoy this one; this film, and "the Stalker" are Andrej Tarkovsky at his best IMHO
Not for the cinematic faint of heart or those wanting a quick action fix, it's art cinema, it sets it's own pace and there are those that love the original; I'm one of them
Eric
Tokyo
... doesn't make Solaris high art any more than it makes Star Wars low art. They are entirely different types of films although arguably both fall within the genre of science fiction. IMHO, "art cinema" doesn't have to plod along at a snail's pace unless that's your preference. You have equated, mistakingly, my distaste for boredom as a singular preference for "action" films, which is an unfortunate stereotyping of my tastes. While I do like some action-oriented SF, there are many good science fiction films with little or no action (i.e., at least externalized action in the form of wall-to-wall explosions, chases, combat, etc.). I find good character-driven science fiction is often anything but boring.Internalized, thought provoking science fiction films, such as Charley (based on the Daniel Keyes short story "Flowers for Algernon"), Silent Running, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, A Clockwork Orange, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, etc., while definitely the exception, have managed to avoid the Sominex warning label in spite of a non-reliance on FX to carry their message; OTOH, the Russian filmed version of Solaris is a real snoozer, IMO.
But, what the hey, it's just one man's viewpoint, right?
but "AI", and I thoroughly enjoyed them all.
Totally agree, "each to his own", some Japanese films like Mizoguchi's "Ugetsu Monogotari" have such mollasses pace they make Tarkovsky's "Solaris" seem like an afternoon at Indy Raceway by comparison; Bergmanns films ain't exactly high paced action thrillers either, but surely a film can be boring regardless of pace
Thank God we are all different, "Gone with the Wind" has never done anything at all for me, kind of like a joke I just never got, so I know what you mean, no inference of stereotyping was expressed or should be implied!!
Eric
Tokyo
Saw GWTW as a child and really enjoyed it, later as a young adult,
went to see it for a second time with expectations of being
highly entertained once again,but got up and left after about an hour, no emotional
involvement at all, a complete bore for some reason. - AH
.
But quietly... there are many Americans here.Corny and superficial. Is shallow the same as superficial, or stronger?
superficial...on the surface not going deep enough
shallow...not deep
seem to be very similar
But let's ask Audiophilander for sure...he is godd with terms and meanings.I hear it often like this:
People can be superficial
but people are shallow (a personality trait)The movie is shallow because it portrayed a superficial view of the topic. (Sounds forced...I think we need an expert!)
At any rate, it is a good question
hmmm?mp
SUPERFICIAL is to SHALLOW as EGGS are to HAM? IOW, the CHICKEES
are INVOLVED, but the PIGGYS are COMMITTED! - AH
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: