--- title: "Solaris: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/solaris/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/solaris" critics_score: 56 critics_reviews: 7 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): what the critics said Critics' score 56 from 7 reviews: 3 positive, 0 mixed, 4 negative. 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. ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias Rating A-. 27 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.avclub.com/solaris-1798198091) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 20 June 2014. 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 the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/solaris-1) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 27 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-nov-27-et-turan27-story.html) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 20 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/solaris-2002/) ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 27 November 2002. 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 the review](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 the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/solaris-review/) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw 28 February 2003. 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 the review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/feb/28/artsfeatures8) ## The Independent — Nicholas Barber 2 March 2003. 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 the review](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/solarisfridajackass-the-movieanalyze-thatlife-and-debt-121178.html) ## The New York Times — Stephen Holden Rating NYT Critic’s Pick. 27 November 2002. 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 the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/movies/film-review-their-love-will-go-on-in-outer-space.html) ## Digital Spy — Daniel Saney Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 22 April 2006. 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 the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a31946/solaris/) ## Eye for Film — Tony Sullivan Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 15 December 2006. 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 the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/solaris-film-review-by-tony-sullivan) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/solaris.md