If you want your science fiction to spoon feed you thrills and wisecracks, neither Lem nor Tarkovsky are going to be a good fit for you.
Edit: see also -
One can find a particular movie or book boring without being a simpleton who needs "stock superhero/villain Hollywood Explodium", so please drop the snobbery.
Lem is the master of books where nothing happens. It's definitely an acquired taste. His Master's Voice and Fiasco are both books with classical science fiction premises which are then completely undermined when the characters proceed to achieve nothing - except perhaps a recognition of the punyness of human intellect.
I've found that (as also with JG Ballard) you need to be in a very "slow" mindset to enjoy them. But the sense of almost...well...boredom is definitely part of the experience.
>on a warm September evening in San Francisco, where I was relaxing
The dictionary defines "singularity" as...
>...you will find a challenge, if not a beauty; and that you will proceed in your own way after all, since in casting off man, man will save himself.”
In short, the future is a land of contrasts.
"Why, the Trojan Horse marked the birth of cryptoequestrianism!"
I reread this periodically and every time am blown away at the paranoiac weirdness of that one. It's a nice balance of the 'zany' Lem (Futurological Congress) and the 'serious' Lem.