Labeling this as a science fiction movie is a bit of a stretch. It does spend most of the time in a space-station, orbiting a fantasy planet called Solaris, but there is nothing particular about space, that is necessary to tell this particular story. That will put some people off I am sure and I am not completely neutral either. It is rumored to be closer to the original book by Stanislav Lem, than the Russian adaptation from 1971, but I would not know, since I have not read or viewed them, so I am neutral in that sense at least.

http://i.imgur.com/xudkg24l.jpg

The space station' s crew is behaving weird and will not return home. A psychiatrist is offered a solo mission to clear up the situation, since one of his colleges is stationed there. Upon arrival, he encounters a child that is not supposed to be there and frightened behaviors from the crew. At night he dreams about his deceased wife and is frightened to find her, apparently alive, lying in the bed beside him. He slowly realizes that the station is haunted by "ghosts" of the crews personal dreams and that they cannot get rid of the ghosts, because they will reassemble and return, even if they shoot them out in space. From there it becomes a story about the psychiatrist and his wife, and their back story shown in flashbacks. There is a clear reference to a spiritual conflict between them, at a party, when they argue whether or not a "higher" intellect exists. There are also clear references to epistemology and the limits of knowledge in "There are no answers, only choices", which seems to be the theme of the couples history and maybe a conflict about morality. At the end of the movie there is a clear reference to the religious Michelangelo painting, when the Psychiatrist reaches for the child's hand in the same fashion as Adam reaches for God in the Sistine Chapel. I would say that this is a movie about faith vs. philosophical reality but it is fairly open to interpretation.

http://i.imgur.com/9d1N7rFl.jpg

From early on, it seems like the director is dragging down the tempo deliberately and i feel it is because of a pretentious desire to look intellectual and mystical. When the disappointment of realizing that it is a sort of lovestory and not really science fiction, there is not anything left to hold up your sprite. There may be some underlying analysis about whether or not the psychiatrist becomes a ghost also, but i do not find the story interesting in the first place, so analyzing seems a bit futile. Now i am absolutely no fan of George Clooney, and his performance here illustrates perfectly why. He is not able to convey emotions in an involving way and his acting is one-dimensional. You see the same person, every time you see Clooney and that is it. On the other hand, acting the handsome womanizer, is what he is good at and the only reason, in my book, that he gets big roles in big movies. He is a second rate actor. 

http://i.imgur.com/BAQ3q6Ql.jpg

I do not know, maybe it is because i am an atheist and a reality based philosopher , that this movie do nothing for me. Maybe it is just too unbelievable and incoherent to trigger my interest. But i find it generally boring to put it short, the kind of boredom that stems from the notion that you know fairly early on that the story is not going to go in any interesting direction at all. You just wait for it to run its course. It is interesting that James Cameron is the producer, and that he did not press any buttons to take this one to another level.

http://i.imgur.com/mXT3V0zl.jpg

Rating: 4/10