---
title: "Solaris"
year: 2002
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/solaris"
fi1m_id: "solaris"
imdb_id: "tt0307479"
tmdb_id: 2103
wikidata_id: "Q673195"
fi1m_score: 74
critics_score: 56
critics_reviews: 7
published: "2026-09-09"
updated: "2026-09-18T08:37:54.579298+00:00"
region: "RO"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Solaris (2002)

Directed by Steven Soderbergh · 1h 39m · RO 12 · Drama, Science Fiction, Mystery

## Identity

Solaris

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/solaris
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** solaris
- **IMDb ID:** tt0307479
- **TMDB ID:** 2103
- **Wikidata ID:** Q673195
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/2103, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q673195

**Fi1m score: 74** · Critics 56 from 7 reviews

*In a sentence:* George Clooney travels several light years to have the same argument with his wife

> Steven Soderbergh’s version of Stanisław Lem’s novel is a quiet, cold, carefully made film about grief, and it is better than its reputation. Most critics found it chilly; we found it sad, and were still sad the next morning.

## Synopsis

Chris Kelvin (George Clooney), a psychologist living alone in a city where it never stops raining, receives a message from his friend Gibarian (Ulrich Tukur), a scientist aboard a station orbiting the planet Solaris. Something is happening up there that Gibarian will not put into words, and he wants Kelvin, specifically. Kelvin arrives to find Gibarian dead and the two surviving crew, Gordon (Viola Davis) and Snow (Jeremy Davies), frightened, evasive and unwilling to leave. He sleeps. When he wakes, his wife Rheya (Natascha McElhone), who died some years earlier, is lying beside him. Steven Soderbergh directs, writes, shoots and edits, from Stanisław Lem’s novel, in 99 minutes.

## Review

Steven Soderbergh’s *Solaris* takes Stanisław Lem’s novel, which Andrei Tarkovsky filmed in 1972 at close to three hours, and brings it in at 99 minutes. A psychologist called Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) is asked to a space station where the dead have started arriving in the night. Soderbergh wrote it, shot it and cut it himself, and it has the concentration of a film made by one pair of hands. It is a good film, quieter and sadder than most science fiction, and it was met on release with a coolness we do not think it earned.

Philip Messina’s station is a ring of dim corridors lit in blue, with round doorways and surfaces that give back reflections, so that people are often seen twice. Soderbergh shoots Earth in rain and in the amber of kitchens and dinner parties, and the station in steel and shadow; you always know which world you are in by the colour of the light. Cliff Martinez’s score is the film’s best decision. Soft pulses, metallic chimes, a rising tone that never quite settles, played under long scenes where nothing is said, doing the work that dialogue does in most films of this size.

Clooney gives Kelvin almost nothing to do with his face, and that is the performance. He arrives on the station like a man who has already given up and is going through the forms. Natascha McElhone has the harder part. Rheya is a woman who is not sure she is a woman, and McElhone plays her with a frightened hopefulness, watching Kelvin to learn how she is supposed to behave. Viola Davis’s Gordon wants the problem solved by whatever means are to hand and does not soften once. Jeremy Davies’s Snow mumbles, flutters his hands and is either the least or the most frightened person aboard. Ulrich Tukur’s Gibarian has a handful of scenes and a recorded message, and both stay with you.

Here is what got at us. Kelvin remembers meeting Rheya on a train, and Soderbergh hands the whole scene to Martinez and to two faces: she looks, he looks, a door handle, not a word. It is cut into the station scenes so that the memory keeps interrupting the present, which is how memory behaves. We found it moving in a way we had not braced for, and the later memories, the dinner party, the flat, the argument, grew harder to sit through each time they came back, because by then we knew where they led. Grief on film is usually loud. Here it is a man sitting still.

It has faults. The script is the weakest of Soderbergh’s four jobs on it, and there are exchanges about God and consciousness on the station that sound like a seminar and have the effect of one. Snow’s mannerisms are pitched high enough to grate on a second viewing. The film’s Earth is thinly sketched: rain, a train, a kitchen, a hospital corridor, one session with a patient (Kent Faulcon) that tells us Kelvin’s trade and little more. Milena Canonero’s costumes do some of the missing work, dark coats on Earth, soft everyday clothes on the station and no uniforms anywhere, so the crew look like people who happen to be in space.

Most critics did not warm to it, and the reviews divide almost evenly between those who found a tender film about memory and those who found it cold, hollow and short on chemistry between the leads. We think the second group wanted a different film. Kelvin could not love his wife well when she was alive; the story asks whether he can do better with something that looks like her. There is little chemistry between Clooney and McElhone because there was little in the marriage, and the film says so in the memories it keeps returning to.

Tarkovsky’s film spent its length on the planet. Soderbergh spends his on the marriage, and the planet is mostly a light through a window. The last stretch takes a turn we will not describe, which some have called a cheat and we found earned. Watch it at home, late, with the lights off, and do not expect to be told what to think. It carries a 12A and it will not raise your pulse once, which in this case we mean as a recommendation.

*Fi1m score 74, published 9 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

The reviews split down the middle, and the disagreement is about temperature rather than craft. Almost everyone credits Soderbergh’s control, the dislocated editing and photography, and the performances of Clooney and McElhone; several also single out Cliff Martinez’s melancholy score for setting the mood.

The quarrel is over what that mood adds up to. The admirers, led by Time Out and The AV Club, find a tender, philosophically serious film that in their view improves on Tarkovsky’s version, and The Guardian agrees it stands on its own. The doubters find the same picture cold, hermetically sealed and short of emotional heft, with Screen Daily and the Los Angeles Times both saying the central relationship never becomes personally involving. Slant goes further and calls the psychology facile and pretentious, while Eye for Film complains of no chemistry between the leads. The spread is wide, with few sitting in the middle; most critics either warm to its restraint or freeze in it.

## Straight answers

**Is Solaris worth watching?**

*Solaris* is worth watching for anyone who wants a quiet, sad science fiction film about grief rather than spectacle, and we scored it 74. Most critics found it cold; we found it moving, chiefly through Cliff Martinez's score and the memories of a marriage cut into the present. Some station dialogue about God and consciousness sounds like a seminar.

**How long is Solaris, and what is it rated?**

*Solaris* runs 1h 39m and is rated 12 by the RO in Romania. It is a drama and science fiction film.

**Where can I watch Solaris in Romania?**

*Solaris* is not on any streaming or rental service in Romania at the moment. It is available in 24 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.

**How does Solaris compare to Vertigo?**

*Solaris* and [*Vertigo*](https://film.one/film/vertigo) both follow a man rebuilding a dead woman from memory and disliking what he gets, but Soderbergh's film is a quiet study of grief and Hitchcock's is a romance dressed as a detective story. *Vertigo* is the richer and more uncomfortable film, with the stronger performances; *Solaris* is the calmer and shorter, better suited to a late night at home.

**Is Solaris based on a true story or a book?**

*Solaris* is based on Stanisław Lem's novel, not on a true story, and Andrei Tarkovsky filmed the same book in 1972 at close to three hours. Soderbergh's 99-minute version spends its time on the marriage rather than the planet, which is mostly a light through a window. You do not need to know the book or the earlier film to follow it.

**What should I watch after Solaris?**

After *Solaris*, try [*Solaris*](https://film.one/film/solaris-1972) (1972, Fi1m 87): Tarkovsky’s version, three hours of the same planet and a good deal more of it. Then [*Vertigo*](https://film.one/film/vertigo) (1958, Fi1m 92): A man rebuilds a dead woman from memory and does not like what he gets; and [*Don't Look Now*](https://film.one/film/dont-look-now) (1973, Fi1m 90): Grief cut out of order, in Venice, with the same sense that the dead are near.

### Reviews we read (11)

- **The AV Club**, Scott Tobias (A-): Soderbergh directs a large-scale studio project with unusual intimacy and restraint, translating Lem's book into a tender, quietly emotional experience with strong philosophical underpinnings. The film comments brilliantly on the slippery nature of memory. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/solaris-1798198091)
- **Time Out**, GA (90/100, inferred): Soderbergh's remake surpasses Tarkovsky's version with greater philosophical rigor and emotional force. It stands as the most stylish and cerebrally sophisticated sci-fi film in years, thanks to intelligent direction and strong performances from Clooney and McElhone. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/solaris-1)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Kenneth Turan (70/100, inferred): The remake reinforces Soderbergh as a gifted chameleon capable of sophisticated, challenging filmmaking that is elliptical and elusive, with beautifully shot visuals and a haunting mood. It singles out the lack of emotional heft and difficulty in making the core story personally involving as the main shortcoming. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-nov-27-et-turan27-story.html)
- **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (35/100, inferred): Soderbergh takes Full Frontal into the stratosphere with this prolonged grief-counseling session with a minimalist sci-fi backdrop. Solaris is burdened by an overly facile Psych 101 discourse that’s every bit as heavy and pretentious as his purposefully inscrutable Full Frontal. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/solaris-2002/)
- **Screen Daily** (30/100, inferred): The film is curiously lacking in emotion despite its focus on the human heart, remaining cold and intellectually severe. Strong performances from Clooney and McElhone cannot overcome its austere, hermetically sealed tone. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/solaris/4011398.article)
- **Empire**, David Hughes: The film is a measured, meditative psychodrama that examines philosophical questions about life, love and grief through a minimalist sci-fi setting. It offers rich rewards for viewers who appreciate its slow, thoughtful pace and strong performances from Clooney and McElhone. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/solaris-review/)
- **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw: Soderbergh successfully reworks the Tarkovsky classic (and Lem novel) as a shorter, more efficient film that maintains the original's undramatic pace while adding emotional depth through the central relationship. The critic praises the audacious and stylish approach, strong casting of Clooney and McElhone, and overall achievement that stands on its own merits. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/feb/28/artsfeatures8)
- **The Independent**, Nicholas Barber: Soderbergh has made an even more elliptical and immaculate version of the Tarkovsky classic, too cool and understated for populist emotion. Viewers will remember the dislocated, dreamy editing and cinematography rather than the characters. [Read](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/solarisfridajackass-the-movieanalyze-thatlife-and-debt-121178.html)
- **The New York Times**, Stephen Holden (NYT Critic’s Pick): The film attempts to fuse Kubrickian skepticism with romantic elements from Titanic but the balancing act doesn't quite come off, resulting in a chill that dampens emotional heat. It singles out the ethereally melancholy score by Cliff Martinez for accentuating the overall tone. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/movies/film-review-their-love-will-go-on-in-outer-space.html)
- **Digital Spy**, Daniel Saney (40/100, inferred): The film is a ponderous, overly contemplative sci-fi story focused on human emotions and guilt rather than action or spectacle. It remains aloof from the characters, with little chemistry and a hollow feel despite its stylish presentation, making it one for the patient viewer. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a31946/solaris/)
- **Eye for Film**, Tony Sullivan (25/100, inferred): The critic finds the film unlikely to appeal to many viewers, with Clooney fans, sci-fi enthusiasts, and romance fans all likely to be disappointed. They single out the lack of chemistry between the leads and the low-key, irritating variation on the original's twist ending for complaint. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/solaris-film-review-by-tony-sullivan)

## Details

- **Director:** Steven Soderbergh
- **Director:** Steven Soderbergh
- **Screenplay:** Steven Soderbergh
- **Novel:** Stanisław Lem
- **Cinematography:** Steven Soderbergh
- **Editor:** Steven Soderbergh
- **Music:** Cliff Martinez
- **Production design:** Philip Messina
- **Costume design:** Milena Canonero
- **Producer:** Rae Sanchini, James Cameron, Jon Landau
- **Cast:** George Clooney as Chris Kelvin; Natascha McElhone as Rheya; Viola Davis as Gordon; Jeremy Davies as Snow; Ulrich Tukur as Gibarian; Michael Ensign as Friend; John Cho as DBA Emissary; Morgan Rusler as DBA Emissary
- **Runtime:** 1h 39m
- **Certificate (RO):** 12
- **Release (Romania):** 7 March 2003
- **Genres:** Drama, Science Fiction, Mystery
- **Budget:** $47 million
- **Box office:** $30 million

## Where to watch in Romania

Not streaming, renting or buying in Romania at the last check.

Also available in: AT, AU, BE, CA, CH, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GB, HK, IE, IT, JP, KR, NL, NO, NZ, PL, PT, SG, UA, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *Solaris* (1972), Fi1m 87: Tarkovsky’s version, three hours of the same planet and a good deal more of it — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/solaris-1972.md)
- *Vertigo* (1958), Fi1m 92: A man rebuilds a dead woman from memory and does not like what he gets — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/vertigo.md)
- *Don't Look Now* (1973), Fi1m 90: Grief cut out of order, in Venice, with the same sense that the dead are near — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/dont-look-now.md)
- *Arrival* (2016), Fi1m 86: First contact as a quiet film about a mother, with the science kept in its place — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/arrival.md)
- *Moon* (2009), Fi1m 48: One man, one base, one impossible visitor, made for almost nothing and all the better for it — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-twilight-saga-new-moon.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/solaris