I really can't rank them, they're all so good. I now also really feel the need to read Solaris.

I've not read the book, but Stanislaw Lem was really disappointed with Tarks take on the story. Tarkovsky took the source material and made it his own as opposed to a direct adaptation. Soderberg's version is closer to the book (but obviously greatly inferior to Tarkovsky's version).

Why?

Why what? Why isn't Soderberg's version as good as Tarkovsky's? That's like asking why Rembrant is better than Norman Rockwell.

I'm gonna need a little more clarification on that.

Have you seen Tarkovsky's Solyaris? He was a master of cinematic form. Beautiful long takes, some of the most beautiful imagery ever committed to film. Tarkovsky was an out-and-out genius of the medium, Soderberg is a Hollywood director who forfeits artistic intergrity to appeal to a mass audience. Tarkovsky took the source material and made it something of his own, ruminations on faith and self-discovery, Soderberg did a by-the-numbers book adaptation to film. Tark's version runs nearly three hours because nothing is rushed, he is taking the time to explore Kris' world and the environment of the space station. Soderberg's version runs a short, sweet 99 minutes (so as not to offput anyone). Frankly your question is ridiculous, Tarkovsky is one of the greatest film directors of all time, Soderberg is the guy who gave us Oceans 11.

I don't think my question was ridiculous, I merely asked you to try and elaborate why Tarkovsky's version is "obviously" better, and as I suspected, it appears that it's mostly because Tarkovsky has a better reputation. :|

Tarkovsky has the better reputation because he's the better director. Soderberg's version doesn't even compare. Have you seen both?

I don't doubt that he's a better director, I just don't believe in liking a film just because it's a cult film from a cult director. And yes, I've seen both and I liked Soderberg's better for what it's worth.

Since when is Solyaris a cult film, and Tarkovsky a cult director?