The new _Solaris_ (trailers included). (1 Viewer)

[ThomasC]

MPAA has assigned the movie an R rating based on Clooney's behind that appears twice.

did u hear that at a movie news site? neither the mpaa or official movie site has posted the rating yet, just "this film has not yet been rated" at the official site.

 

[teapot2001]

It was in yesterday's LA Times. Soderbergh is going to appeal the rating.

~T

 

[teapot2001]

Here's the article: http://www.calendarlive.com/printedi...os5nov05.story
~T

 

[Shawn Shultzaberger]

The trailer sparked my wife's interest, sooo...Yippee I get to go see it!!

 

[David Ely]

Does anyone know why they put a woman on the station? Or why they replaced the young girl with a young boy?

 

[Scott DeToffol]

Don't they show butt on NYPD Blue during prime time TV?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

"We've seen scenes like this on network television," Soderbergh noted by phone from New Orleans, where he is mixing the film's soundtrack. "Believe me, there is nothing here that is worse than what has been on 'NYPD Blue' " on ABC.

 

[ThomasC]

Don't they show butt on NYPD Blue during prime time TV?

they did, but i don't think they still do.

 

[Justin_S]

The TV spots don't at all go into what the film is about.

 

[Bill J]

It looks like the MPAA changed the rating from R to PG-13.
Clooney Scene Gets PG-13 Rating

 

[Rich Malloy]

The TV spots don't at all go into what the film is about.

I had the opposite reaction, Justin. I was impressed in that the ads did seem to focus upon what the story was really all about. Perhaps they could've been punched up a bit, maybe by showing a brief image of something bizarre forming on the surface of SOLARIS just to suggest how truly "alien" is the psychological/emotional journey that Kelvin will take, but this would ultimately only be so much gee-whiz wonderment and not really the true focus of the narrative.

But how do you think it might be better pitched?

 

[derek]

I saw the trailer on TV last night and can't believe this got an R rating. I'm very dissappointed. Soderbergh should have had common sense not to push the line. I'm sure the studio is gonna come down on him with the hit in revenue due to the loss of audience. Is a shame I was looking forward to the remake...

 

[Jason Seaver]

Actually, the rating has been changed to PG-13 on appeal.

I'm a little bit worried; the previews make it look like Soderberg is going the same route Tarkovsky did, and underplaying the grand science-fictional stuff to focus tightly on the characters. I guess it's not necessarily a bad thing, but the story had better be pretty darn well-presented to be worth ignoring spending more time on it than first contact with a truly alien intelligence.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I saw the trailer on TV last night and can't believe this got an R rating. I'm very dissappointed. Soderbergh should have had common sense not to push the line. I'm sure the studio is gonna come down on him with the hit in revenue due to the loss of audience. Is a shame I was looking forward to the remake...

Not only do I disagree with everything in the previous post, I don't even understand it (leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that all of this is now moot and simply the by-product of either (1) the usual cluelessness of the MPAA, or (2) orchestrated by the studio to gin up some press coverage of the "controversy" and to suggest that "SOLARIS" is after all an adult movie...)

Why in the world do you care what rating "SOLARIS" received? If Soderbergh wishes to tell an R-rated story, why shouldn't he? And how in the world could a "loss of revenue" due to a rating possibly effect your enjoyment of the movie?

Why do you even think "SOLARIS" is a story that would be interesting to 13 year olds? They won't like it, and their restlessness will be distracting to we adults who actually hope to see an adult movie... for once. I say, keep 'em out.

And, more generally, why should the movie world revolve around a 13-year-old audience? Isn't "Attack of the Clones" enough? Or "Harry Potter"? Or every other dumbass, production-line, focus-grouped, age-appropriate spool of celluloid crap? To put it simply, why should Soderbergh have to dumb it down and not push the line for the sake of a 13-year-old audience... which is not, I repeat, the audience for this film?

Unless you happen to be 13 years of age, I can't even begin to understand your criticisms. And if you are 13, can't you convince your mom to take you?

 

[derek]

Well Rich I've been around here for almost 5 years...so you know I"m not 13. *lol* Soderbergh has every right to make the movie he wants...and I have every right to be disappointed in his choice if I like. Be sure there are millions of concerned individuals well over 13 that carefully examine the MPAA/reviews of films for appropriate content. And I think most people here would agree you can't 'dumb down' a classic scifi story much more than showing an extended shot of Clooney's rear. *shrugs*

 

[Rich Malloy]

derek, of course, I did know you were over 13!
And I also understand that, as you say, "there are millions of concerned individuals well over 13 that carefully examine the MPAA/reviews of films for appropriate content". But I hope those people are doing that to protect their own sensibilities, and not because they intend to bring children with them. I am sick and tired of going to adult movies where parents drag along kids who either couldn't care less about the film they're [not] watching or for whom the subject matter of the film is completely inappropriate. This is my biggest movie-going peeve.
When I go see a movie like "Harry Potter", I know full-well what to expect in terms of the audience. Many children being loud and hopefully enjoying themselves. So long as they're reasonably well-behaved - basically, so long as they don't spill drinks on me or put their feet on my chair - I'm fine. Their enthusiasm is contagious, even. But if those same children are watching a film that's both (1) derived from one of the most complex sci-fi novels of the century, and (2) is described by its director as being a cross between (something) and "Last Tango In Paris"...
Well, you know. Then, I'd be peeved.

 

[Rob W]

Derek, you seem to be under the impression that there's some sort of gigantic close-up of Clooney's butt in SOLARIS. The scene in question happens to feature Clooney and a women lying on their stomaches on a bed , talking after sex. Clooney's butt just happens to be ( quite logically ) attached to him. It's hardly the focus of the shot and quite natural to anyone who's ever had sex. It's a logical and unexploitive shot of two people in an intimate situation - hardly "dumbing down" anything to an adult viewer.

 

[teapot2001]

Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up. Ebert said it was a thrilling, special effects extravaganza, and Roeper said it was like Titanic in space.

Just kidding. Ebert said it was slow, meditative, and faithful to the spirit of Tarkovsky's movie; while Roeper thought it was slow and frustrating, in a good way, like 2001 (I don't think he's seen the original).

Does anyone know the running time? Ebert said this one is shorter.

~T

 

[David Ely]

I've heard that the movie clocks in around 1h 45min.

 

[teapot2001]

That's pretty short.

~T