criterionforum.org

John Cope wrote:What I can't believe is that Soderbergh still hasn't managed to get his long cut released. I assume that evidences a lack of interest on his part to re-visit it, though I'm sure Fox isn't all that interested either. Nonetheless, it remains one of those elusive Holy Grails for me as I really wonder how a more languorous pace would effect Soderbergh's narrative technique.

I have never heard there is a longer cut. Is this like The Thin Red Line rumor/fantasy that was actually just a workprint or was this shown at a festival?

On the commentary, SS mentioned a shorter cut. A longer cut might be interesting. Kinda felt that the movie (and the music that helped created the mood) was perfect as is, though.

That's right. I'm sorry, my mistake. It was the shorter cut I was thinking of. Soderbergh mentioned that it was much colder and more abstract.

Revisiting this only cements how much I love this retelling of Tarkovsky's film. Soderbergh brings his narrative expertise in succinct and incisive details by way of masterful editing and skills that extract the strongest emotions effortlessly. I love the original but turning that into a brisk 90 minutes is a seemingly impossible feat, especially when this feels just as meditative and never rushed. Clooney's despair and psychological transformations, as well as McElhone's own cascading emotional expressiveness, form a union of isolative ennui and connective empathy even more alive and powerful in a similar sterile philosophical space, that disclose an opening of surging self-reflection and identity development in the viewer. Looking back over this thread I agree with John Cope, zedz, and domino especially in that this and the first film complement one another in a way that I can't imagine at least this film without that one as a foundation, but that amplified this one's effectiveness perhaps even passed that already-perfect film. I love both to death, but Soderbergh's audacity to birth this one into existence tweaking the exact right parts to deafen the same (and some different- that score..) senses in deeper, profound ways, is just extraordinary.

The flashbacks are crucial, fulfilling the nostalgic pain the first film questions, but delving deeper into memory as the most significant schema by which we assess our lives through philosophy. The areas of memory and authenticity are terrific complements for one another, and this film audaciously yet transparently asks whether the significance in memory is objectively authentic while surrendering to subjective authenticity as the overwhelming priority is perhaps all that really matters when the unnecessary fat of reality is stripped away. The present as a representation of that faulty memory though elicits a question of one's own doubt in not just emotional intelligence but philosophical equilibrium, and the surrender here, as opposed to memory, necessitates both parties coexisting in unity, which resurfaces the truths of the relationship we may bury in memory- with some selective memories popping up triggered by what may be artificial but is undoubtedly truth in its emotional power. The further complication that is so well executed in this version is if this connection is possible to sustain, or if impermanence should be accepted with gratitude or rejected with sadness, and the realism of all of these thoughts and feelings coexisting simultaneously in a complex whirlpool of humanity affirmed. The deliverance of that idea from the intellectual to drown in the depths of emotional validation finds euphoria of this blend of pain and serenity that only memory achieves.

All of this is intricately edited with the macro-intellectual conversations on consciousness and authenticity, and critically projects atheism as a form of close-minded egotism rather than submission through humility to find that peripheral and intrinsic truth of sentiment and spirit; eventually reaching a heartening place that finds the balance of humble inquiry into the marrow of cosmic containment. The third act exposition of one’s perceived identity as hinged on their soul mate to be born from artifice to wholeness is rightfully expressed as a crisis rather than muted solemnity in the first film, which of course carries its own unique intensity even if this feels more personally effecting in its allegorical exploration toward acceptance. The spiritual exaltation of perspective by way of individualized perception of meaning through signified memory is all that's left when all is said and done, and there is something incredibly moving about that definition of reality rooted in subjective significance, as well as the submission to the truth that self-consciousness, in all its pain and doubt, is healthy and the secret ingredient to self-forgiveness and finding meaning in life. The very end's position on objectivity as trivial and hollow in relation to the subjective experience is conceived better here by meditating on that personal catharsis, without the pan-out that takes an objective lens thereby somewhat diluting the impact in the original, instead cross-cutting with the planet without that exploitative continuity, driving home the optimistic impact in step with the final thematic plunge. This sentence is said often by myself and others but this is one of Soderbergh's very best films, and there are select moments that are more existentially touching than any film I can think of off hand.

Here it is, seven years later, and still no sign of even a Blu-ray of Solaris, let alone a 4K re-issue.

I was looking to upgrade and retire my DVD of Solaris, and while I was at least able to purchase the film in HD from iTunes, I would lose all the supplemental material from the DVD. Strangely, the film is not available on backchannels, either with or without the extras.

Has anyone heard any updates on Soderbergh’s big upgrade project, or did that fall by the wayside?

I could have sworn that the version streaming on Disney+ was listed as having an Atmos mix, but I’m not seeing a reference to it anywhere now.

DeprongMori wrote:Here it is, seven years later, and still no sign of even a Blu-ray of Solaris, let alone a 4K re-issue.

I was looking to upgrade and retire my DVD of Solaris, and while I was at least able to purchase the film in HD from iTunes, I would lose all the supplemental material from the DVD. Strangely, the film is not available on backchannels, either with or without the extras.

Has anyone heard any updates on Soderbergh’s big upgrade project, or did that fall by the wayside?

There is a Blu-ray available in Germany, though I’m sure it’s using an older master.

I have it, and it's perfectly serviceable

Agreed, plus it has the James Cameron/Soderbergh commentary!
Just noting the master’s age for anyone hoping to find a new scan on physical

Wow, I didn’t know it had a Blu, thanks! I do think we’ll eventually get it in the states because of Cameron, but who knows when

I think Cameron, as producer, is probably the holdout. Look at the way he sat on and then ruined the 4Ks of his own films. But Soderbergh probably wants to do a director's cut, too. I know he thought he cut it too much for its theatrical release.

Matt wrote: Mon Jul 21, 2025 9:59 pmBut Soderbergh probably wants to do a director's cut, too. I know he thought he cut it too much for its theatrical release.

Interesting, I feel like Soderbergh's director's cuts are typically shorter (for his own films and others' he helps out with). He loves to trim fat off films, not usually add things back in

There was originally supposed to be a spaceship docking sequence set to the entire 5+ minutes of The Velvet Underground’s “Venus in Furs,” but I think Cameron thought it too excessive.

Per the commentary, Soderbergh experimented with a few different songs for the docking sequence: Pink Floyd, Velvet Underground, Beck's "Round the Bend". Cameron liked a lot of those but thought their presence would send an early signal about the film's interior nature, whereas the score would help maintain the appearance of a more familiar classical sci-fi, at least at the outset. Soderbergh concurs, and—at least as of the recording—doesn't seem to have regretted opting for the score.

Interestingly enough, Soderbergh does mention an 85-minute cut with some amusement elsewhere in the commentary. As Cameron describes it, Soderbergh's editing process was one of continual refinement and paring down until the 85-minute cut, which prompted Cameron to tell him, "I think you gutted it."

Good call, I think the Cliff Martinez score is the best thing about the film, and it's something I still often listen to. I like the movie, but based on Soderbergh's interviews at the time, I was hoping it would be closer to Lem's novel than the Tarkovsky adaptation, when it was even further removed.

I can count on one hand the movies I can tolerate George Clooney in, and this is not one of them. Apparently Soderbergh wanted Danielle Day Lewis, but Clooney contractually had first dibs. To be fair I don't think this or the Tarkovsky was hugely successful, and I prefer Stalker by a large margin.