Quote:
Originally Posted by keirarts  Imagine the Tarkovsky film with all the pretension removed and reduced to a 90 minute run time while retaining the essential core of the original film. Neither were especially great adaptations of the Lem novel but the Clooney version wastes less time making the same points. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankenhooker I prefer the Tarkovsky film (then again I'm often called pretentious) but I kind of agree with Keirarts, the Soderbergh version is a much more concise and, I suppose, palatable adaption of the novel (Isn't the book only 200 pages roughly ?).
I really like both films, the Soderbergh film is vastly underrated though. |
I don't think I have seen the Soderbergh version since it was first released on DVD or was on Sky Movies, but didn't think the 'stripped down' approach to storytelling worked when compared to the overall 'experience' of Tarkovsky's movie. Perhaps I would feel different if I had read the story and seen the Soderbergh film first, but my point of reference will always be the Tarkovsky adaptation.