War of the Worlds

[quote=”cheesetoasty”]I didn’t know Solaris was a remake, what’s the original like?[/quote]

The original is a brilliant book by Stanislaw Lem, and then Tarkovsky adapted it for the screen in the early 70’s. I found both the book and the old movie version wonderful. Tarkovsky’s film is very lyrical, poetic… Some would find it very slow. It’s reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

As for the Cruise War of the Worlds film, I haven’t watched it. Love H.G. Wells stories. I enjoyed the 50’s film, though it didn’t really do justice to the book (many differences).

Did you know that there have been three adaptations of [i]The War of the Worlds[/i] this year? [i]Invasion[/i] (aka [i]H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds[/i] was released on DVD a day before Spielberg’s version opened (a direct to DVD release), and then there was another called [i]H.G. Wells’ [b]The[/b] War of the Worlds[/i] (was to be theatrically released supposedly, but then the DVDs showed up at Wal-Mart).

War of the Worlds, H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds, and H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds — overkill and potentially confusing.

Its not that great, the story is placed around a family. Tom and 2 kids….

If your looking for it to be like the original you will be looking elsewhere….this isnt it. It has some moments but eh…

I was looking for a remake not an interpetation.

[quote=”cheesetoasty”]I didn’t know Solaris was a remake, what’s the original like?[/quote]
Regarding Solaris:

The original to the remake is like a thoroughbred black stallion to a dead rotting donkey.

[quote=”Hollydays”]LOL! Yes – dead rotting donkey for both of them!![/quote]

I found the original to be quite moving and to be dealing with a unique theme.

Is it that this kind of movie is not to your taste?
Or perhaps it is that you read the original book by Stanislav Lem and were disatissfied with the movie adaptations of the book?

The original “Solyaris” directed by Andrei Tarkovsky is a Russian flm. It is slow but to some of us, but not boring at all.

But of course, I might explain that when i watch a screen I don’t require the camera to be moving or the people to be moving or things exploding as per the ADD generation’s needs.

Here is a user review that might explain the attraction of the original:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/#comment

“The thing that generally stands out most about this movie is that it is long. Very long. And Russian. Very Russian.

It raises a lot of interesting questions about the nature of humanity, conscience, love, etc. which, honestly, I’d never thought to ask before, and don’t care enough to answer now that they HAVE been asked. (Will Shame really save humanity? Who knows? Maybe. How will it do that? Haven’t a clue. Now what’s for lunch?) That’s not to say I didn’t like the movie. I did. It’s very beautifully shot, such that I think it would be worth purchasing, even if I never sit through the whole thing again, just so that I can have scenes like “City of the Future” on hand as a reference for my own film-making endeavors.”