| UK | Germany |
| Home - DVD - Directors - ( S ) - Soderbergh, Steven | Help | |
| 1-20 of 30 1 2 Next 20 |
click price to see details click image to enlarge click link to go to the store
| 1. Ocean's Twelve (Widescreen Edition) Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $27.95
our price: $18.17 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B0007P0XBO Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 46 Average Customer Review: 
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com Reviews (197)
| |
| 2. Ocean's Eleven (Widescreen Edition) Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $14.96
our price: $9.99 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B000062XHI Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 100 Average Customer Review: 
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com essential video Reviews (510)
The mystique of Vegas, the lure of cash and the romance of life make this a film for everyone. Great dialogue, excellent dramatic shots from Soderbergh and incredible acting by the entire cast put most other crime based movies to shame. Andy Garcia makes you hate him, you feel for George Clooney, but you also see the reasoning in Pitt's character and Reiner's performace is great too. Anyway, if you enjoy the James Bond movies, the Mission Impossible movies, or any other fun action films, you should give Oceans 11 a chance. DO NOT base your viewing of this on the original Sinatra and the Rat Pack film. The only similarities are the ensemble cast, Vegas Casinos, money and the title of the movie. This is not a remake, it is a reinterpretation based loosely on the original script. At least give it one viewing, you may fall in love.
2. Most of the characters remained obscure and flat. I had to watch it 2 times in a raw to just figure out their faces, but I still have no clue what was their crucial point in the action. Compare to "Sneakers" for example, where all characters were vivid and exactly on their places. 3. Il-logical sequence. Why not use larger O2 cylinder for the chinese guy (what was his name?) and have more time for surprises? Why did they need to introduce the explosives with a trunk and bother with "dying" of the Soul Blum/Zorga, why not simply put them in the container with the chinese fellow? When climbing down the elevator well, where was the elevator cell??? 4. How easy was to steel the "pinch"!!! Just went there and got it! I want a pinch also. But, even if the pinch did black-out the whole city, how come the electricity came back so soon??? The EM pulse destroys fuses and inegrated circuits. The whole casion going completely black? Highly improbable: This is 21 century, USA guys. Safety comes first: Every public and comercial building has a few light bulbs that never go out. Just for cases like this. Same for the motion detectors in the elevator well: they should be UPS-ed. Unlike the batteries in the remote control triger of Brad Pitt. 5. Illogical: How did they get the porno-adds INSIDE the vault? There were 6 big bags of them, the ones that got blown-up at the end? 6. Who needed to show that a whole minivan can be driven from a distance by a remote control? Why give the terorists (and bank robbers wannabe) ideas they can use literally tomorrow??? All made-up from bits and pieces, turned out into a poorly connected patched movie. Boring and un-impressing.
| |
| 3. Erin Brockovich Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $14.98
our price: $11.24 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B00003CXFV Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 2407 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Description Reviews (271)
Anyway, on to "Erin Brockovich". This is without question the best performance I've ever seen from Julia Roberts, but I'm grading on the curve. Her portrayal of Erin Brockovich includes constant potty mouth and an overload of sassy attitude, combined with an extensive wardrobe of slutty attire. Unfortunately, the movie allows for this character to triumph even though she insists on behaving like an uncouth, hypocritical, self-absorbed bigmouth who can't finish a sentence without cursing. The basic story involves a small rural town in California in which a large number of citizens have contracted life-threatening illnesses from contaminated water, and the class action suit they file against the evil Pacific Gas and Electric. Erin comes across questionable documents in a file she is processing for a law firm (she is not a lawyer, just an office worker), and decides to get to the bottom of it. The story snowballs from there, however the more interesting relationships between Erin and her family, employer, and her boyfriend Harley (oops, I mean George) make up the more watchable parts of the movie. There was another reviewer here who mentioned that this story has more in common with you average "movie of the week" than anything else, and I agree. Many times the plot is telegraphed to the viewer in that formulaic Hollywood way, in fact I never doubted for a second how this story would turn out. Albert Finney's character was well done, and to be honest Julia Robert's character was believable as well; I simply did not LIKE Erin BUT I had no problem with her believability as a character. The biker boyfriend... the less said the better. I didn't find him convincing. The relationship between Erin and George WAS believable, however I have a feeling that the "recap" scenes (where the two of them visit one of the plaintiffs following the lawsuit) featuring Erin and George were tacked on in the pursuit of the "feel good" ending. Hey, Marg Helgenberger makes an appearance as one of the townsfolk, and her character is VERY different from the one she plays in CSI. She does a great job; check it out. The story unravels in a typical manner, and of course every single person involved with PG&E is depicted as arrogant, uncaring, and just plain bad. Big Business = BAD = standard Hollywood scriptwriting. True, a business (or an individual) who contributes to contaminated groundwater is to be held responsible for their actions, and I can make no excuses for the company as they are portrayed here. I always find it difficult to believe that every businessman / corporation in the movies is Evil Incarnate. What the film glosses over is the fact that while PG&E was cited by the California Water Board multiple times to clean up their facilities, it was the GOVERNMENT who did not enforce existing laws properly, allowing PG&E to continue their hazardous practices. The real problem lies in the fact that most utility companies are government-sponsored monopolies, and are essentially exempt from free market factors which would drive your average irresponsible company out of business anyway. I didn't find this movie very funny as some reviewers have, mostly because the humor was based upon the "shock" value of having Erin rip someone's head off with creative profanity. I'd recommend the first hour of "Full Metal Jacket" for those who think Erin's outbursts are high comedy. "Erin Brockovich" is watchable, but certainly not award winning material. Julia Roberts makes a fine attempt at a serious dramatic role, yet I suspect that the powers-that-be had more than a hand in weakening a film that had a lot of potential. Julia is made to look just as pretty as she ever does, which detracts from the idea that she wanted to step outside her more typecast roles; "dolling her up" was not a good idea for those wishing to sell Roberts in a serious role.
As the story begins, Erin is down on her luck, trying to find a well-paying job to support her three kids. After an auto collision leaves her broke with lawyer's fees, she demands that her lawyer, Ed Masry, give her a job in return for losing her case. As she begins working, she discovers some files that seem out of place, and upon further investigation and interviews with several residents of the small town of Hinkley, she uncovers a major coverup involving a major corporation that could mean a major lawsuit that will bring the small firm down or earn it enough money to make a name for itself. The first thing that must be discussed is the incredible performance from actress Julia Roberts, who brings Erin's character to life in such a way that we find ourselves so moved by her performance as the final credits roll. She brings with her all her old tricks, that sweet charm that makes her one of Hollywood's most valuable stars to date. She is vivacious and and brutal in this role, establishing the fact that Erin is a force to be reckoned with. The movie establishes the many traits of Erin right from the beginning of the film, introducing us to her as someone who is hard-working and willing to earn her keep. Her willingness to work is also a testament to her strong devotion to her children, whom she must support on her own. She is also fiesty and outspoken, as shown during her court debate when she comes under cross-examination: "That a**hole smashed in my f***ing neck!" Erin is strong-willed and a leader in this film, which is a brilliant testament to the real life figure. Erin is also smart and intelligent when it comes to deciphering the many nuances of the case that falls into her lap. From the beginning, when she first senses something is not right, she knows enough to question certain residents of Hinkley about their involvement with Pacific Gas and Electric, and the reasons for their illnesses and diseases. Not taking anything for an answer other than "yes," she pushes her way through all the barriers to come out on top, all the while surviving the troubles of her own personal life and coming out on top as a real person we can all look up to and admire for their strength and courage. There is a nice bond that develops between Erin and her boss, Ed Masry, who is hesitant to hire her from the beginning. His pity for her, though, clouds his judgement, and he takes her on, soon realizing that he is in over his head with a lawsuit that could mean the end of his career and his financial security. Their many arguments over this and other things concerning the case are intriguing to watch, some adding light moments of comical humor, others advancing the plot to the next level. The human emotion and drama of this story and brought to full view in this film, always keeping with the fact that these are real people who experienced these events. Erin's interaction with these characters, and her devotion to their cause as well as her own is inspiring and ambitious. Soon, her cause becomes nothing but concern for their victory, and Roberts brings this change of events to life. Her reactions to changes in the case, things going wrong, and the way in which her character handles them, are all convincing and authentic, and this keeps us involved with the moving story and the developments at hand. Steven Soderbergh's treatment of this material is brilliant, setting his work high above the mark of good and making this movie one of the best movies of 2000. The way in which he handles Erin's story is one of fluidity and constant plot development, whether it have to do with the lawsuit or with Erin's personal life and her involvement with Ed, who takes care of her children. He is able to combine all of Erin's emotions and balance them against the true story of the people she defends in her pursuit of the truth, which makes us feel for them as well as for the losses she suffers because of her efforts. There are a good deal of shots in the film that give it the look and feel of a typical Soderbergh film, showcasing his use of Steadycam, giving the film a true-to-life perspective which keeps it more involving without putting off the audience. Alongside the star power of Julia Roberts is a brilliant supporting cast that have their own roles and key parts in the film. Albert Finney plays Ed Masry, Erin's boss and friend, who comes to learn the true value of her work as the movie progresses. He and Roberts have a nice workplace chemistry that gives life to the movie's lawsuit plotline, while also keeping it more touching and emotional. Aaron Eckhart plays George, Erin's next door neighbor and boyfriend, who is given a lot of time onscreen to develop into a terrific supporting character. His moments with the children are moving, establishing him as a father figure, while his relationship with Erin is complicated because of her work, bringing them to a crossroads. Their chemistry is convincing and believable, and provides some nice bits of romance for the movie without taking it under. In "Erin Brockovich," all the stops are pulled out, and history is given a quite refreshing treatment that is humorous, emotionally moving, and involving all in one package of short skirts and high heels. In reality, Julia Roberts is what makes this movie work, bringing her charisma and charm to the movie with the same intensity and credibility she carries in her previous roles. Stand back, because the Pretty Woman has grown up, and she's back with an attitude and a brain to match it.
Part of what was humorous about this film was Erin herself. She dresses very provocatively and thinks nothing of using foul language in the office. Most people would be fired in a minute if they acted this way, but somehow, Erin gets away with it. Her boss and co-workers often don't know what to make of her. On top of that, the audience loves her. You can see that underneath the tough exterior is a good, kind person who truly cares about the people she's trying to help. She starts doing some research on her own in the town of Hinkley, California when she sees health problems in some files at the office. She interviewed so many different families with everything from cancer to severe nose bleeds. It turned out that Pacific Gas & Electric had poisoned the town's water supply by not taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening. Erin has tremendous warmth and the people of Hinkley come to love and trust her. The movie also shows the major sacrifices she made by having to work such long hours on this case. Her relationship with her children suffered a lot at that time, but in the end, it was all worth it.
Brockovich (Julia Roberts, Oscar-winner for this role) has three kids, two ex-es, and a realy foul mouth. When she lands a job at the law office of Ed Masry (Albert Finney, Oscar-nominee for this role), she finds herself initiating the investigaiton of a local power plant, which has apparently contaminated the water of a small town nearby and caused numerous illness and deaths. Erin keeps pushing Ed and the townspeople, and ends up being a participant in a 333 million-dollar lawsuit, one of the biggest in American history. Besides a heartwarming David-and-Golliath story, this is essentially a star vehicle for the winning Julia Roberts, as well as an ego trip for the real-life Erin Brockovich (who gained MUCH publicity... after the release of the film). The film is not perfect: it sometimes lacks a sense of coherence (one scene ends and the next begins without flow), and some performances are mediocre. However, Roberts finally frees herself from her previous stereotype of the candy-colored heroine and Finney is wonderful as usual, and also noted is a quite moving supporting performance by TV-veteran Marg Helgenberger, who plays Donna Jensen, a victim of the contaminated water due to the power plant's carelessness. Her performance, above all, makes you glad that the good guys win.
| |
| 4. Ocean's Eleven (Full Screen Edition) Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $14.96
our price: $9.99 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B000062XH9 Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 231 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
Reviews (510)
The mystique of Vegas, the lure of cash and the romance of life make this a film for everyone. Great dialogue, excellent dramatic shots from Soderbergh and incredible acting by the entire cast put most other crime based movies to shame. Andy Garcia makes you hate him, you feel for George Clooney, but you also see the reasoning in Pitt's character and Reiner's performace is great too. Anyway, if you enjoy the James Bond movies, the Mission Impossible movies, or any other fun action films, you should give Oceans 11 a chance. DO NOT base your viewing of this on the original Sinatra and the Rat Pack film. The only similarities are the ensemble cast, Vegas Casinos, money and the title of the movie. This is not a remake, it is a reinterpretation based loosely on the original script. At least give it one viewing, you may fall in love.
2. Most of the characters remained obscure and flat. I had to watch it 2 times in a raw to just figure out their faces, but I still have no clue what was their crucial point in the action. Compare to "Sneakers" for example, where all characters were vivid and exactly on their places. 3. Il-logical sequence. Why not use larger O2 cylinder for the chinese guy (what was his name?) and have more time for surprises? Why did they need to introduce the explosives with a trunk and bother with "dying" of the Soul Blum/Zorga, why not simply put them in the container with the chinese fellow? When climbing down the elevator well, where was the elevator cell??? 4. How easy was to steel the "pinch"!!! Just went there and got it! I want a pinch also. But, even if the pinch did black-out the whole city, how come the electricity came back so soon??? The EM pulse destroys fuses and inegrated circuits. The whole casion going completely black? Highly improbable: This is 21 century, USA guys. Safety comes first: Every public and comercial building has a few light bulbs that never go out. Just for cases like this. Same for the motion detectors in the elevator well: they should be UPS-ed. Unlike the batteries in the remote control triger of Brad Pitt. 5. Illogical: How did they get the porno-adds INSIDE the vault? There were 6 big bags of them, the ones that got blown-up at the end? 6. Who needed to show that a whole minivan can be driven from a distance by a remote control? Why give the terorists (and bank robbers wannabe) ideas they can use literally tomorrow??? All made-up from bits and pieces, turned out into a poorly connected patched movie. Boring and un-impressing.
| |
| 5. Traffic Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $14.98
our price: $11.98 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B000067IZ3 Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 4208 Average Customer Review: 
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
Reviews (505)
Soderbergh's direction is excellent. The scenes in Mexico just LOOK hot because of that grainy yellow tinting. And living in San Antonio, near the border, I can certify that yes, that's genuinely how it feels down here. Often. The lack of steadycam shots gives it a "newsreel" feel to it. It will draw you in if you let it. Now onto the characters. My favorite was Del Toro's. I just think the guy can act and he shows it to you here. His character faces the trials of loyalty, friendship and ultimately the choices between doing good and doing for yourself. Catherine Zeta Jones character was also captivating in her descent into the drug game. The characters I least liked involved the Michael Douglas storyline. While they were genuine and somewhat interesting, I found myself waiting for their scenes to end so that I could get back to the more intriguing developments. Also, I'm not quite ready to buy how easily it wrapped up near the end. A hint of optimism is good, but that was a little too much sunshine after a mostly cloudy set up. Overall, it's a good film, and Soderbergh's Oscar for direction isn't a bad choice (though I still think it probably took more skill for Ang Lee to make people FLY). Watch it for the characters and the perspective on the drug "war."
TRAFFIC bases around the installation of a new drug czar, superbly played by Michael Douglas. How can he fight a war on drugs when his daughter is a user? This is the question the character seems plagued by throughout the film. This makes for interesting discussion. Meanwhile, two Mexican police officers are swept into helping ward off cartels in Tijuana. Benecio Del Toro is excellent in the role. There are other plots which call for wonderful performances from the likes of Don Cheadle, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Albert Finney. All in all, this film is well scripted and acted. TRAFFIC, like any film, has flaws. It is tedious at certain points, sometimes the language is too excessive, and it seems to offer a negative message to youth. However, for its few flaws, it is still a wonderfully crafted and shot film. It was lauded because of that fact. If you need a great film to watch, I urge you to buy TRAFFIC today!
The themes of the movie are so apparent that they become oppressive. A previous reviewer encapsulated the film with the phrase: Drugs R bad, and while I can appreciate a noble premise like this, the way Soderbergh badgers the audience with the futility of the "war on drugs" and the affect that drugs have on addicts is devoid of tact and feels contrived to the point of nausea. The characters are not well-developed either. Their actions are completely obvious. While this is not usually a just complaint about a movie, the lack of intrigue in the plot, the often cheesy dialogue, and the general lack of subtlety makes for an obnoxiously assuming film. It comes across not only snobbish to the layperson, but boring to the average movie-goer. This movie really drags. This is an in-escapable fact. There were too many trifling scenes in this movie. But that's just how it rubbed me. Although, I can see how many a pseudo-intellectual film buff could trick himself into gushing about how thought-provoking and "original" this film was, I can also see how many critics and sincere film-goers would like it as well. The message is certainly an important point of discussion regardless of how you feel on the issue, and the conclusions leave much to be debated (although, not about the film) My main point is this: Unless you're interested in grinding your way through a movie with a plot that can be summarized in the political/humanitarian issue of the film, it's not worth seeing. If you're interested in drug-related issues, do yourself a favor and simply walk, don't run to your nearest bookstore and sift through the myriad of books on the matter. Heck, why not (since you're online anyway) look through one of the lists here at Amazon.com?!
It's fast moving and engaging, but something is missing from this film. Big names like Zeta Jones and Douglas aren't enough to make the film great. If you really want to see a film that tackles the subject really well but in a different light, may I suggest "Requiem for a Dream". The devastation of drugs is well told in this film. ... Read more | |
| 6. Full Frontal Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $29.99
our price: $26.99 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B00007K02C Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 22721 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
Reviews (35)
Boy do we get it. "Full Frontal" begins with an introduction of the characters through series of random, purposeless monologues drawn from different points in the film, then the opening scene of what looks like a big budget romance movie between an actor (Blair Underwood) and a journalist (Julia Roberts), just staged and false enough to let you know it's winking, before commencing with seemingly unrelated subplots that wink like an old creep with a pocket of butterscotch candies. Another journalist (David Hyde Pierce) is clinging to his magazine job and his marriage to a human relations executive of some kind (Catherine Keener) who is quite clearly deranged or a descendant of the inquisition: She conducts interviews, all day it seems, by throwing a plastic blowup globe at her applicants and demanding the names of all the countries in Africa. This story is intercut with the opening of a second-rate stage comedy about Hitler, with a lead actor (Nicky Katt) channeling Cary Grant and quoting Peter Ustinov; and a massage therapist (Mary McCormack) who eventually crosses the paths of all the characters. David Duchovny appears in a cameo as a kinky movie producer that proves he's pretty hard up in life after "The X-Files." Soderbergh is usually pretty savvy with a variety of film styles and camera lenses, but using cheap digital cameras mutes the small victories of comedy Hough's script does deliver. The hand-held jitter is agonizing as well. There's only so much of the follow-the-globe cam we can take. Mostly, though, "Full Frontal" is a painful (and refreshing) reminder that not every chic, self-absorbed New Yorker like Hough can waltz into LA and force audiences to acknowledge her obvious highbrow wit and trendy verbal gymnastics by inserting bizarre non-sequitors like vampires, marijuana brownies and guys crawling along hotel floors. Keener especially rants and moans her way into the pantheon of grating personas. It could be said that Roberts acquits herself in a small role - Roberts seems to be doing a lot of that lately - while Pierce most closely approaches a performance of resonance. Based on its less-is-nothing marketing campaign, Soderbergh and others basically knew "Full Frontal" was inside baseball, pertinent to the few, aimless for the rest. That knowledge doesn't excuse the film, particularly the ridiculous final scene that pulls back and back and back to reveal a couple of artists an hour past being "on it" and hip.
The film follows the events that happen to the characters (whose profiles are revealed in the introductory part). Journalist Julia Roberts is interviewing TV star Blair Underwood; Cathrine Keener is doing the most uncomfortable job of the human resorce office (that is, firing the employees); her sister Mary McCormack is talking about the guy she met on the net; David Hyde Pierce (who shows uncanny resemblance with director Soderbergh himself) is rehearsing the stage drama for the always quizzical Nikky Katt. When the day comes close to the end, these assorted people find themselves strangely entangled in the web of human relations, which is represented by the dinner party for "Gus," powerful Hollywood producer played by one star from "X-Files." The film also includes 'film within film" device (and even "film within film within film" devide, too), which might confuse some of the viewers. Fortunately, the device is not overused, and soon you will understand what is doing on. The trouble is, except for some moments including talented Keener, none of the characters can really grab your attention. They are facing the critical moments of life, the film implies, but strangely we do not care. And as the experimental film, "Full Frontal" is not as innovative as "Schizopolis" (in which Soderbergh himself starred). Possibly, here is the reason for its half-baked result: first, incredible you might say, but Soderbergh's use of digital camera is so poor like someone's home movies. At one scene, you see Sandra Oh very briefly. Well, but I couldn't see whether it was her or not because of a blurred image (I knew her voice, and saw her name in the credits), and I was thinking -- what is the point of doing that? The poorly shot images just detract our attention to the characters which should not be sacrificed for the dirctor's unnecessary "experiments." Some parts of the film might interest you (if you're a film buff). You see many cameos -- Brad Pitt, Terence Stamp, and David Fincher (as the perfectionist director who needs 49 takes for one breif shot). But they are not enough for us to keep being interesting in the story which should really count. The conculsion is this; you just cannot use this great cast just because you want to be experimantal. Life is too short to do that, especially with this cast.
If you come to the story without knowing it's supposed to be imbued with skewering cleverness and satire, it's confusing, unengaging and boring, and, come to think of it, now that I know it's supposed to have those elements, it's STILL confusing, boring and unengaging. The character development is so poor that you don't care about anybody nor understand what's motivating them. David Hyde Pierce is a horrible choice for the main character--he has no depth or emotional range which, unfortunately, keeps us half wondering if Kelsey Grammer's going to come through the door at any minute. Catherine Keener has the kind of charisma that transcends shoddy screenwriting, but how her character behaves makes the least sense of all. I think the only reason to rent this movie would be if you want to get a few second "full frontal" view of David Duchovny, albeit a grainy one shot from a distance so you really can't see anything, or if you're the VP of HR and you need to show your managers how NOT to conduct an HR interview.
| |
| 7. sex, lies, and videotape Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $9.95
our price: $9.95 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: 0767812158 Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 5525 US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
| 8. Solaris Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $14.98
our price: $13.48 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B00009ATIX Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 5972 Average Customer Review: 
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
Reviews (257)
George Clooney does an admirable job in this film, which I saw when it was first released in theaters, and Natasha McElhone and he do a wonderful job developing into a believable, flawed set of lovers onscreen. Though "science fiction" in its essence, Steven Soderbergh's SOLARIS is mostly unconcerned by the fact that it takes place in space. The planet Solaris is a plot device, not a menacing thing, that allows the human drama involving Clooney and his resurrected wife to unfold. I've not seen the original, and I'm aware that the film is exactly supposed to not completely tie all of its plot elements together. That said, I don't know why they would introduce characters only to abandon them, plot points only to not fully explain them. The ending, though apt and eventually undersandable, seems disturbingly abrupt. This movie doesn't have the staying power you'd hope it would when you leave the theater. You get the feeling that, instead of answers being there for you to find, there's nothing to figure out, nothing to add. And I found that really disappointing.
Much like 2001, but with some romantic overtones, Steven Soderbergh's Solaris is an interesting mix of metaphysical and cerebral science fiction, with a love story thrown in. Not only was the storyline very solid and multi-dimensional, the sets, the costumes, the special visual effects, and soundtrack were all beautiful. The actors and actresses did a remarkable job in the roles, along with the material they were given. Based on Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem's novel, Solaris tells the story of a 21st Century psychologist who receives a message from a scientist friend of his on a space station orbiting a mysterious planet named Solaris. Chris Kelvin, the psychologist is asked by his friend if he could come to the space station named Prometheus and find out what is going on. Apparently, some strange and unusual incidents have been occuring. Still recovering from the tragic death of his wife, Kelvin journeys to the space station and discovers the fact that his friend has mysteriously died, one of the scientists is acting irrationally, and the other is frightened. While determining the cause of all of the events, Chris is suddenly visited by an image of his deceased wife. From there, Chris and the two surviving scientists determine that the ocean planet they are orbiting his a sentient form of life that is recreating the images of those from a tragic moment in their past. As to why this alien intelligence is committing these acts, remains an unknown factor. I haven't seen Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 version of the film, so I really can't compare this film with the older version. I can say this, it helps to read the book first before viewing the film. I can honestly say that I enjoyed Soderbergh's version of Solaris. Not only does the film stay true to Lem's book in some levels, it also paints an interesting picture in Freudian terms. It states an interesting fact about how well do we know other people and at the same time how well we know ourselves. In all honesty, this was probably the best film out of 2002! It may have the qualities of a science fiction art house film, but it is still entertaining. One that I look forward to purchasing on DVD this summer. If you enjoy science fiction that makes you think, instead of the ususal shoot them and blow them up types, then you will be pleased with Solaris. It will make you think and it will astound your mind.
I looked forward to this version. The web site was well-done: I wonder if the budget for the web site exceeded Tarkovsky's budget for his entire movie (in the same currency and adjusted to today). I had seen Tarkovksy's version about 5 times. I had not read Lem's novel. I didn't mind Tarkovsky''s pace but I was intrigued to see what I had heard would be a more stream-lined movie. I was surprised to find that Soderbergh's version, although an hour shorter, was painful to sit thru. The final half hour I found excruciating. Oddly, despite all the modern special effects, Tarkovsky's version towers over this one in the imaginativeness of the space station and the ocean. Soderbergh's Solaris is one of the worst movies I've seen. Bad casting, poor acting, awful flow, mangled vision: it's the kind of film that makes one appreciate how good a job most filmmakers do. Most films may not interest me, they may not be well-acted, but most seem to have some flow and basic sense. I don't think this one did. I paid $1 to see this film: it had made its way quickly to a more than half-empty discount theater. Much more than a usual number of viewers walked out early. If you do want to see this film, first read Lem's novel "Solaris". I did recently and loved it. It makes sense so it may help make up for this lack of sense in Soiderbergh's movie. After reading the book, if you don't like it, I'd still recommend seeing Tartovsky's movie. You may not like it but its visually so compelling that it may realize Lem's vision (and Tarktovsky's) for you. If after experiencing Lem's Solaris and Tarkoveky's Solaris, you're still curious, by all means see Soderbergh's take if it still intigues you. But if you see Soderbergh's Solaris first, you may decide that any Solaris is rubbish and fail to experience what Lem and/or Tarkovsky have in store for you. Risks are welcome. But having made an awful movie, it would have been better, if not short-term financially then certainly for artistic integrity and even future commerical respect, to have never released this movie. Or at least to have reworked it heavily before releasing it. Not because of how good Lem's work is, not because of how good Tarkovsky's work is, but because if failures, espeically big failures like this one, are not acknowledged and learned from, one is apt to repeat them. What do I know? Just how much I enjoyed and will continue to enjoy Lem's Solaris and Tarkovsky's Solaris. And what a waste Soderbergh's film was. An insult. Not to have made but to have released. I remained silent about this film, even in spite of how weak it is next to Tarkovsky. But when I read Lem, it's too much. If you want to understand Solaris, go read the reviews for Lem's book, go read the reviews for Tarkovsky's movie. Don't lose time here. This is a story about the most extraordinary intelligence, but this film seems devoid of intelligence.
| |
| 9. The Limey Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $14.98
our price: $13.48 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B00003CWSX Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 10164 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com Reviews (120)
Normally, I don't like gimmickry and devices in movies and books, but it was not for naught in the Limey. The entire cast delivers an excellent performance. Stamp is magnetic in his combination of Britishness and brutishness. The minor hoods are amusing. The climax is exciting, too. Soderberg and cinematography were well deployed to create excitement and tension.
| |
| 10. Gray's Anatomy Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $14.98
our price: $13.48 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B00000IREC Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 12267 US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
| 11. Ocean's Eleven (Limited Edition Collector's Set) Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $59.98
our price: $53.98 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B000087F5Y Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 20570 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
Reviews (510)
The mystique of Vegas, the lure of cash and the romance of life make this a film for everyone. Great dialogue, excellent dramatic shots from Soderbergh and incredible acting by the entire cast put most other crime based movies to shame. Andy Garcia makes you hate him, you feel for George Clooney, but you also see the reasoning in Pitt's character and Reiner's performace is great too. Anyway, if you enjoy the James Bond movies, the Mission Impossible movies, or any other fun action films, you should give Oceans 11 a chance. DO NOT base your viewing of this on the original Sinatra and the Rat Pack film. The only similarities are the ensemble cast, Vegas Casinos, money and the title of the movie. This is not a remake, it is a reinterpretation based loosely on the original script. At least give it one viewing, you may fall in love.
2. Most of the characters remained obscure and flat. I had to watch it 2 times in a raw to just figure out their faces, but I still have no clue what was their crucial point in the action. Compare to "Sneakers" for example, where all characters were vivid and exactly on their places. 3. Il-logical sequence. Why not use larger O2 cylinder for the chinese guy (what was his name?) and have more time for surprises? Why did they need to introduce the explosives with a trunk and bother with "dying" of the Soul Blum/Zorga, why not simply put them in the container with the chinese fellow? When climbing down the elevator well, where was the elevator cell??? 4. How easy was to steel the "pinch"!!! Just went there and got it! I want a pinch also. But, even if the pinch did black-out the whole city, how come the electricity came back so soon??? The EM pulse destroys fuses and inegrated circuits. The whole casion going completely black? Highly improbable: This is 21 century, USA guys. Safety comes first: Every public and comercial building has a few light bulbs that never go out. Just for cases like this. Same for the motion detectors in the elevator well: they should be UPS-ed. Unlike the batteries in the remote control triger of Brad Pitt. 5. Illogical: How did they get the porno-adds INSIDE the vault? There were 6 big bags of them, the ones that got blown-up at the end? 6. Who needed to show that a whole minivan can be driven from a distance by a remote control? Why give the terorists (and bank robbers wannabe) ideas they can use literally tomorrow??? All made-up from bits and pieces, turned out into a poorly connected patched movie. Boring and un-impressing.
| |
| 12. Traffic - Criterion Collection Director: Steven Soderbergh | |
 | list price: $39.98
our price: $35.98 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B00007ELF2 Catlog: DVD Sales Rank: 6899 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Description Reviews (505)
Soderbergh's direction is excellent. The scenes in Mexico just LOOK hot because of that grainy yellow tinting. And living in San Antonio, near the border, I can certify that yes, that's genuinely how it feels down here. Often. The lack of steadycam shots gives it a "newsreel" feel to it. It will draw you in if you let it. Now onto the characters. My favorite was Del Toro's. I just think the guy can act and he shows it to you here. His character faces the trials of loyalty, friendship and ultimately the choices between doing good and doing for yourself. Catherine Zeta Jones character was also captivating in her descent into the drug game. The characters I least liked involved the Michael Douglas storyline. While they were genuine and somewhat interesting, I found myself waiting for their scenes to end so that I could get back to the more intriguing developments. Also, I'm not quite ready to buy how easily it wrapped up near the end. A hint of optimism is good, but that was a little too much sunshine after a mostly cloudy set up. Overall, it's a good film, and Soderbergh's Oscar for direction isn't a bad choice (though I still think it probably took more skill for Ang Lee to make people FLY). Watch it for the characters and the perspective on the drug "war."
TRAFFIC bases around the installation of a new drug czar, superbly played by Michael Douglas. How can he fight a war on drugs when his daughter is a user? This is the question the character seems plagued by throughout the film. This makes for interesting discussion. Meanwhile, two Mexican police officers are swept into helping ward off cartels in Tijuana. Benecio Del Toro is excellent in the role. There are other plots which call for wonderful performances from the likes of Don Cheadle, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Albert Finney. All in all, this film is well scripted and acted. TRAFFIC, like any film, has flaws. It is tedious at certain points, sometimes the language is too excessive, and it seems to offer a negative message to youth. However, for its few flaws, it is still a wonderfully crafted and shot film. It was lauded because of that fact. If you need a great film to watch, I urge you to buy TRAFFIC today!
The themes of the movie are so apparent that they become oppressive. A previous reviewer encapsulated the film with the phrase: Drugs R bad, and while I can appreciate a noble premise like this, the way Soderbergh badgers the audience with the futility of the "war on drugs" and the affect that drugs have on addicts is devoid of tact and feels contrived to the point of nausea. The characters are not well-developed either. Their actions are completely obvious. While this is not usually a just complaint about a movie, the lack of intrigue in the plot, the often cheesy dialogue, and the general lack of subtlety makes for an obnoxiously assuming film. It comes across not only snobbish to the layperson, but boring to the average movie-goer. This movie really drags. This is an in-escapable fact. There were too many trifling scenes in this movie. But that's just how it rubbed me. Although, I can see how many a pseudo-intellectual film buff could trick himself into gushing about how thought-provoking and "original" this film was, I can also see how many critics and sincere film-goers would like it as well. The message is certainly an important point of discussion regardless of how you feel on the issue, and the conclusions leave much to be debated (although, not about the film) My main point is this: Unless you're interested in grinding your way through a movie with a plot that can be summarized in the political/humanitarian issue of the film, it's not worth seeing. If you're interested in drug-related issues, do yourself a favor and simply walk, don't run to your nearest bookstore and sift through the myriad of books on the matter. Heck, why not (since you're online anyway) look through one of the lists here at Amazon.com?!
| |
The real theft;steal your money with a bad sequel!
Take it on its own, it's a very good film.
yet another example............