Which one?

Which one?

solaris. 2001 has only like 30 minutes of interesting shit crammed into 3 hours

I like 2001. Is Solaris worth checking out?

2001.
2001 is the 2001 of film.

lol hi reddimdb

Reddit cakes their pants to 2001

2001

Solaris is dire. Tarkovsky's worst film by far.

you'd know, reddit

both but 2001 obviously

yes and no bcos its nothing like 2001 so might be disappoint

But Solaris is the Stalker of kino

2001 without question.

Tarkovsky hated 2001 btw.

He was a faggot tho, so who cares?

Depends on whether you're a glass half empty or glass half full kind of guy.

2001, but Solaris is good too. Definitely need to watch more Tarkofsky, but it's always so daunting.

He didn't hate it, he just felt it was to numb.

Then what does that make Stalker?

at some point in every directors career they try and ''do'' a 2001 of their own
however, nobody is yet to outdo the original

A really good film

Tarkovsky*

Do you mean a space epic, or just a really ambitious film?

The Martian

both for different reasons. 2001 is an outward thinking film. solaris is an inward thinking one. both masterpieces

A pseudo intellectual arthouse film

>pseudo intellectual
legit curious, what would you guys consider to be an actually intelligent film? no bully pls.

2001 but Solaris is still great, though I prefer the book and I think it's Tarkovsky's weakest effort.

Well Tarkovsky made Solaris partly because he though 2001 was too sterile

Why not both?

I love Solaris, but IMO people that says "OMG so fucking better than 2001 kubrik shit lololol" just do that for hipster reasons

that's not the game user

Well, I can't decide, so I think I can't play.

>what would you guys consider to be an actually intelligent film?

As a medium, film is incapable of being truly intelligent. Books are a better medium to capture true genius.

>2001
The apex of kino.

>Solaris
Fucking boring. Nothing happens. Its shot in an awful, lazy manner.

gee i wonder

i mean they want to copy kubricks form/subject matter (but fail miserably)

generally speaking i would agree as novelists/writers are on the most part more talented and more intelligent and the medium insists the very highest levels of authorship and control over the art-at-hand

if though a filmmaker comes along who has those gifts and auteur status its a different matter for eg. kubrick > king which is the only comparative example that can be used.

not the medium but the author/auteur lad

nobody ever says its the solaris of our generation or hes the new tarkovsky.

game, set and match.

this. this right here. tbqh tho solaris is arguably one of tarkovskys worst movies and i think 2001 is a little overrated too, both fall in the 8.5-9 range for me.

comparing them feels like a mistake though because like you said, the focus (and the point) is much different, opposite even in many ways.

Solaris has much better acting, characters, storyline, and ending that makes perfect sense. It's not a pseudo-intellectual masturbatory science fiction film like 2001, but a very spiritual take on the science fiction, space exploration genre. 2001 has this outstandingly silly plot where humans are depicted as some kind of intellectual gods destined to conquer the universe by some ayyylien skydaddy. In Solaris, humans are depicted as psychologically small, frail non robotic creatures who missed the point of their lives.

How is knowledge more important than nostalgia? Can knowledge give us more will to live than our spirit? That is the question that the protagonist tries to answer in Solaris, a very humane question. 2001 might be cinema, but Solaris is kino.

Also, it was actually made before Tarkovsky seen 2001.

Solaris was so fucking boring. I fell asleep both times I tried to watch it.

Film will forever be hobbled by that fact that it appeals to the sight and sound. A film has to be a visual and auditory spectacle in order to be considered 'good'. This is also why films never really are properly able to stretch beyond a certain limit of narrative complexity and intrigue.

Books appeal to the imagination and critical thinking of an individual. That gives them true 'timeless' value. That is why Mein Kampf inspired a nation to War, or the Bible brought about the crusades, Das Capital literal revolutions across the globe, etc. We will never see a Film with that sort of influence or timeless value. Not from King or Kubrick or Jackson, etc. Even if the individuals posses true prodigal gifts in their respective medium.

I tried to watch Solaris on DXM but became confused and passed out, should I rewatch it?

Which part in particular do you find boring?

I actually find 2001 much boring. It's nothing but visual spectacle without any kind of interesting dialogs and weird anomalies Solaris has.

solaris is just an overly sentimental love story set in space albiet with pretty shoddy scenery and sfx.
its not a bad film at all, tho.

2001 is groundbreaking cinema.kubrick is literally god opening up new visions for us.

It's a simple, straightforward film. Kris Kelvin the psychologist goes to the seemingly conscious planet Solaris to find the reason why scientists are going crazy and committing suicide, he found out that it was caused by the "visitors", alien creatures that are formed according to the memories of the humans who stay in Solaris, he met a visitor of his dead wife Hari, and instead of being able to solve the problem he felt the same sickness as the other crews felt. In the ending, Kelvin's memory was formed by Solaris on the planet's surface.

Both are boring, but good. Solaris is even more boring though. Doesn't have Tarkovsky's amazing cinematography, whereas 2001 does have great cinematography. Solaris has a qt ghost girl though.
I fell asleep during 2001, and a had to break Solaris into two seperate viewings due to boredom.

Visual subjectiveness ≠ intellect

>shoddy scenery
What's so shoddy about the scenery? The earth scenes were beautiful. The visual effects look pretty realistic. The Solaris ocean is incredible looking.

>sfx
I think Artemyev's electronic soundtrack and sound effects sound more interesting than Kubrick's generic orchestra score.

Art can't be intellectual, art must be spiritual. Films are a better medium for art than books, therefore it's much more spiritual and less intellectual. Only redditors would say that art can be intellectual.

Explain.

IMO 2001 was sillier than even Star Wars.

your post would have been funny if you switched it around, instead it's just a shitty opinion