Head over to Swenny’s comments sectiong. Forget the universe, Johnny is trying to say something.

And yes, I loved the weightless scene…that’s the kind of stuff that makes Tarkovsky’s version a bit more ‘cinematic’ than Soderbergh’s.

You know what…it did remind me of WKW. Remember when I told you some of the scenes felt a tad bit pretentious? Those were the scenes that reminded me of WKW (the flashback sequences in the rain). Not that Mr Wai is pretentious or anything….

Regarding our coincidences…maybe it’s the universe trying to tell us something. (”Universe, you’ve done it again”. -Tobias Funke)

And its quite strange that I too recently went on a Solaris retrospective. (And the coincidences that happen between us cannot be explained by Higgs Bosons or Neutrinos.)

I read somewhere that Soderbergh’s version is closer to Lem’s material. Also, like the numerous discussions we’ve had about cinema, I must state here again, that Solaris by Soderbergh has superior visual storytelling. Tarkovsky depends heavily on lengthy expositions (a la the library scene), while Soderbergh uses none of it. Though both directors use awesome visual styles, Soderbergh’s cuts and cues are more seamless and understandable.

But there are three scenes in Tarkovsky’s original that really raises his Solaris above Soderberghs -
1. In the library, when the camera pans across the painting. And visually, it accents the film where we see Kelvin’s childhood with his cold and distant mother, and his friendly loving father.
2. The sequence when they become weightless in each other’s arms.
3. The resurrection scene after she consumes liquid oxygen. She writhes in ecstasy. Its disturbing and erotic.

p.s. Is it just me or did you feel that in Soderbergh’s version, there were numerous scenes (the one that clearly pops up is Kelvin and his wife meeting for the first time on the train) that reminded you of Wong Kar Wai?