Sunshine Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 8137.27 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x528 | 4477.41 MiB | 720p | |
|
652x272 | 701.65 MiB | divx | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Dark days are coming.
If the sun dies, so do we.
50 years into the future, the Sun begins to die, and Earth is dying as a result. A team of astronauts are sent to revive the Sun - but the mission fails. Seven years later, a new team are sent to finish the mission as they are Earth's last hope.
| Cliff Curtis | Searle |
| Chipo Chung | Icarus |
| Cillian Murphy | Capa |
| Michelle Yeoh | Corazon |
| Hiroyuki Sanada | Kaneda |
| Rose Byrne | Cassie |
| Benedict Wong | Trey |
| Chris Evans | Mace |
| Troy Garity | Harvey |
| Mark Strong | Pinbacker |
| Paloma Baeza | Capa's Sister |
| Sylvie Macdonald | Child |
| Danny Boyle |
7.00 out of 10 (8227 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Danny Boyle successfully reignites the sci-fi genre!
posted on 31 Aug 2009After reanimating the zombie genre with 28 Days Later, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland now turn their attention towards science fiction - with equally startling results.Sunshine is unequivocally the best sci-fi movie in a very, very long time. I'd echo the other comments on here - it mixes elements of 2001: A Space Oddessy with Event Horizon, then adds the tension of Alien. This is NOT the gung-ho action of Armageddon, The Core et al.The film just throws you straight into the space mission, there's no background to worry about, only these 8 crew members headed towards the sun. The great thing about this cast is that there's no "superstar" billing, so you're never sure who is going to make it alive to the end of the film! The actors are uniformly good, with Chris Evans in particular deserving much praise. Michelle Yeoh delivers a very understated performance, very different from her ass-kicking Asian roles! Danny Boyle has always been good with characters but with Sunshine he really steps up a level. Visually this film is astonishing and literally had me open mouthed at times. The production design, costumes, the sound design, the music from Underworld... they all combine to give the viewer an amazing cinematic experience that you'll want to watch for a second time, just to take it all in.Whilst it's an exciting, tense film to watch there's no denying the serious point of Sunshine's message. It's a film about preserving the future of mankind and the sacrifices that have to be made in order to do that... and it will make you think long after the credits have rolled.A fantastic achievement - one which deserves to be seen on the big screen when it opens worldwide. 9/10
This was one of the worse movies I have seen.
posted on 31 Aug 2009The story line was totally implausible. It just started with a little narration that was hard to hear over the music as if you had already seen the first part of the story. The science or physics were from someone's imagination also. Any basis for actual fact was in the mind of the writer or story teller? The acting was terrible although it may have been the direction. Directors have a lot to do with the acting. As if that were not bad enough the photography was awful. The images were at times so bright as to be meaningless and at time so dark you had to use your imagination. The action scenes if you could call them that were so out of focus as to be total nonsense. Watch this movie if you like being confused as it made no sense to me. A very bad way to waste your time.
Follows same tiring formula as other "Saving the Earth" movies.
posted on 29 Aug 2009If you've seen "Saving the Earth" movies like The Core and Armageddon or even movies about space missions gone wrong like Red Planet or Mission to Mars then there is no need to see this film. It follows the same basic formula these other movies do. That formula is this. A crew goes on a mission in some type of ship, a unforeseen problem arises and the only way to prevent the ship from being destroyed is if a crew member does something that puts his own life at risk. The ship is saved but we lose one of the crew. A new problem arises and we lose yet another member. The ship begins to loose life support. The crew become aware of the fact that they only have enough oxygen, or food, or fuel to complete the mission but not enough to return, but continue on the mission anyway. One by one crew members die, and in the end one person sacrifices himself to save the world. The End.
Just wrong
posted on 27 Aug 2009When I saw the trailer for this movie, I was excited. It appeared to be a "proper" science fiction movie, the kind we haven't had since the seventies - in the style of Silent Running, 2001 or even dear old Alien. The part where the computer tells Capa that there's an unidentified individual on the ship had all the makings of a tense psychological cat-and-mouse game. Instead, we got what seemed to be an inexplicable tacked-on psycho-on-board ending.After 28-Days Later, I was expecting the Boyle/Garland duo to deliver another perfectly constructed genre movie. They did Zombie so well, surely they could do space-drama too. But instead they dropped the ball and delivered something interminably dull, where the tension and drama derived from a series of blunders that seemed to drive the storyline. The characters were merely reactive in all their actions, meaning that none took the role of 'hero' and with it our interest and our sympathy.The movie fails to give any context to the mission, and without believing that earth is dying I found it hard to care that it supposedly was. In fact, when they finally showed us the earth, it looked like a paradise to the snowboarder in me. Not dying, just white.The premise that a few tons of fissile material could re-ignite a dying star is spurious at best. But that wasn't the point, Sunshine is not really a movie about saving the planet - although that motive is woven into the tale, ostensibly to give it some point. It's a study in sanity... which might have been interesting, if it hadn't been so boring.
Some Sunshine In An Otherwise Dreary Summer
posted on 25 Aug 2009Forget about "Transformers" and "Live Free or Die Hard." THIS is the action/adventure movie of the summer. Superficially, the plot resembles "Armageddon": a team of astronauts must deliver a nuclear warhead to the sun, or mankind is doomed. But this is light-years away in tone. Think "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Solaris" (the original, not the superfluous remake), with a little bit of "Silent Running" and "Alien" thrown in. If the boogeyman at the end can't quite live up to all the setup, it's because they're working on a limited budget; "Sunshine" cost a fraction of the typical Hollywood blockbuster, but has much greater impact. Take that, Michael Bay!*** SPOILER ALERT *** I read some of the negative reviews of this film, and was disconcerted by the vehemence of some of the criticism. Most of it seems to come from "hard" science fiction fans who complain that "Sunshine" plays fast and loose with physics. They seem to be particularly incensed by the scene at the end where the physicist communes with the sun for several seconds instead of being immediately consumed. While I agree this is scientific nonsense, there are at least two explanations, one pseudoscientific, the other metaphysical, that fit within the premise of the movie. First, the pseudoscientific one. The physicist explains near the beginning of the movie that due to the intense gravitational field near the sun, the normal rules of space and time don't apply. In the fight scene with the captain of the Icarus I that precedes the disputed scene, time is clearly shown speeding up and slowing down repeatedly. So it is possible that time simply stopped while the physicist communed with the sun, then started up again. Second, the metaphysical one. The physicist may be having an "Occurrence At Owl Creek" moment where his entire life flashes before his eyes before he is obliterated. Given the religious underpinnings of the movie—the sun is God, or at least a divine manifestation thereof; the physicist is looking upon or accepting God; the physicist is, Christ-like, sacrificing himself to redeem humanity—this seems plausible, and I believe is Danny Boyle's intent. Neither of these explanations, of course, will satisfy "hard" science fiction fans. But to put things in historical perspective: there was similar carping about the ending of "2001: A Space Odyssey" when it was first released, and now it's considered a classic.
They Won't Let the Sun Go Down on Us.
posted on 25 Aug 2009Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" has a powerful & compelling plot, breathtakingly stunning visual effects, masterful scenery and a constantly high level of suspense … yet; it nevertheless remains an "ordinary" and "prototypic" Sci-Fi movie. Boyle almost single-handedly recreated the extinct zombie genre with his previous film "28 Days Later", so quite a large number of fans – myself definitely included – expected that he would at least try and provide the dying Sci-Fi/disaster genre with a few new twists and touches but, most unfortunately, Boyle and his regular writer Alex Garland merely restrict themselves here to the recycling of vintage ideas and classic bits that already featured in Sci-Fi landmarks such as "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Alien", "Star Trek" and "Solaris". The whole thing is extremely professionally acted and directed, but the truly ingenious and nifty aspects can be count on the fingers of just one hand. In fact the only really unpredictable surprise-twist, which comes very near to the end and all of a sudden practically turns "Sunshine" in a brainless slasher picture, is a very foolish and inconsiderate one that nearly brings down the credibility of the entire production. In the not-so distant future, barely fifty years from now, the sun is slowly but surely dying and hence the days of our own planet are numbered as well. The Icarus II, with its eight-headed crew of scientists, mathematicians and even psychiatrists, go on a mission to literally reboot the sun with a nuclear bomb, but they quickly face gigantic obstacles like mechanical defects, mutual conflicts and – the utmost absurd obstacle of all – a confrontation with what's left of Icarus I. As the number of astronauts decreases, the more insurmountable their mission becomes.One of the main reasons why classic Sci-Fi milestones such as "Alien" and "2001" were so effective is because of their convincing character drawings. When I first watched "Alien", at too young age I must admit, I was literally convinced these people were real astronauts. It's been far too long since we had a Sci-Fi movie with a truly convincing cast and even "Sunshine" fails to deliver in this department. Actually, the characters in "Sunshine" are oppositely implausible to those in "Armageddon". The earth's saviors there were a bunch of foul and loud-mouthed yokels whereas, here, it's a bunch of silent, introvert and inexperienced geeks and in either of the two cases you wouldn't want your fade to depend on such a motley crew. It goes without saying that the visual effects are stupendous and often even downright breathtaking. The wondrous visual exhibition begins with the opening sequence already and carries forth throughout the whole movie. The effects are so dazzling you sometimes almost literally experiences the sun burning holes through your own skin. My advise would be to enjoy the rudimentary outline of the plot and the brilliant use of special effects as much as possible, especially during the first hour of the film, because afterwards the script takes a couple of unforgivably lame twists and the whole tone becomes indigestible and preposterous.
Incredible Science Fiction
posted on 23 Aug 2009Given a considerable amount of thought, the sun is certainly a beautiful thing. The closest star anyone has ever known, and the only one we will ever be so close to in our own lifetimes. It is known and shown by science to be the giver of all life and as such, appears to be living up to its status within many cultures as God. So what if this star, this bringer of all life, this eerily beautiful clump of gas began to die? What would we do? Within Sunshine, the suggested idea is that an Atom bomb the size of Manhattan Island be fired directly into the sun, so as to recreate the Big Bang and save us all. In theory it's foolproof. But something that really ensures that the audience is enticed is that throughout the film it's made obvious that it is only theoretical. There is no way to know whether or not it'd work than to try and so throughout Sunshine a very big fear stands out. Even if they succeed with their mission, it could make no difference whatsoever. The Sun could still die out, implode and destroy all of the earth and all life on it. And as well as all this, couldn't someone have thought of a more encouraging name than Icarus? Sunshine, frankly boasts what I have no shame in endorsing as the greatest use of computer generated imagery ever. Absolutely every time the sun is shown, it seems apparent that much time has been put into perfecting them. Also, these images are something that I feel has to be seen on the big screen to truly be appreciated. When that great beautiful star appears in front of you, you can't help but feel as if the light is burning away all that you are unsure of. Essentially, the Sun is standing its ground. The Sun is god. On top of everything else, the magnificent music works with the visuals in order to create a mood that cannot fail to inspire emotion. The perfect clash of exquisite images and emotional music within the a scene in which a character called Keneda 'meets the sunshine' and has made its way to the top of my great movie moments list.The cast in Sunshine is absolutely fantastic. Made up of a few general unknowns and a few A-List Hollywood stars (Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans & Michelle Yeoh) but despite the differing fame status none of them let the film down. The cast itself is definitely an ensemble and it is nice to see a film not flaunt the biggest star as much as it can.It would be ridiculous to disregard the blatantly obvious themes bought up in Sunshine. The increasing necessity on machines is one that appears multiple times and given that this is a film about the Sun a more apparent idea, science vs. religion is one that is played upon heavily. Overall, the biggest problem within the film appears to be that it doesn't quite know what its message is. There are clearly quite a few but instead of letting a few stand out, it seems that many are included as fillers instead of giving the same effectiveness as the final overpowering message.Overall, with a film that can cause as much debate as this one, I think it's worth seeing just to see where you stand on the whole issue. On top of that though, it's just a really well made film. It has a great script, terrific direction, some incredible imagery and a stunning cast. The best film of the year so far.
Really, people like this movie?
posted on 23 Aug 2009I saw this movie during my semester in London and it was one of the worst films I have seen. I could live with how far fetched the plot was to begin with, but then the infamous "plot twist" made absolutely no sense. Neither plot was tied together really well to form some sense of cohesion. Let alone some the lunacy and leaps of faith that were taken, like jumping from one spacecraft to another with only lining from the inside of the spacecraft. I may not be able to comprehend the artistic creativity that was suppose to be in this movie, but I know I will not be able to get back the 2 plus hours and the $8 dollars I spent to see it. I would only recommend this movie to someone if they like to waste their money on artistically crappy films which may make you hallucinate if you are paying enough attention.
Sizzling summer blockbuster
posted on 23 Aug 2009Would it be wrong to suggest that Danny Boyle is Britain's only current auteur? His latest film is a sci-fi-horror action/adventure (I'm sure there's a shed-load more sub-genre tie-ins) about a crew of seven sent out to re-invigorate a dying sun with a huge inter-stellar bomb. As is frequently the case, not everything goes according to plan, and it is never made clear whether any of our heroes will actually make it out alive. Combining the creepy paranoia of Alien, the semi-frenetic horror of Event Horizon and a little intelligent artiness of his own doing, Danny Boyle has created an old-fashioned B-movie with an overcoat of intelligence. Sunshine is the thinking man's Sci-Fi horror, an art film trapped in the body of mainstream blockbuster. You will come away equally curious about our own fate as you will royally thrilled by the blistering action.
A factory-line sci-fi/horror movie
posted on 23 Aug 2009Sunshine is a movie without an interesting or original story to tell.It is awash with clichés and unformed characters; a bog-standard sci-fi with nothing to add to the genre, but having taken plenty. The scene in which the crew have to jump through space from one airlock to another is especially derivative.Most of the film tells a fairly straightforward story of the world's most incapable, thoughtless and badly-behaved astronauts setting out to save the world, and failing dismally by making stupid mistakes and detouring (!) to another spaceship. You have already seen this part of the movie several times in different films.Later, the long-dead commander of the other spacecraft magically comes back to life and starts trying to kill the crew. He is some kind of burned-up supervillian monster who often drawls "ashes to ashes", though this makes little sense and has no dramatic effect.The uncomfortable and unsignalled lurch from sci-fi to horror is as badly executed as one of the crew's blundering manoeuvres. Confusing photography, in which parts of planets, the sun and spacecraft are shown in close-up sections, only adds to the confusion. What are we looking at? How is it moving? What significance, if any, does this have? Sunshine has no drama, shows no evidence of thought or skill in its genesis, creates no dramatic tension and presents no ideas. It is gloss, or light without meaning.
Worst movie I've seen recently
posted on 21 Aug 2009*Contains spoilers* The basic idea of the movie, to launch a bigass bomb into the sun is just stupid. It's like old 80s movies, where the solution to everything was to nuke it. There seems to be an attempt in the movie to hit a Stanislav Lem kind of note, where the crew is made up of scientists who are smart and act based on pure reason and logic (eg. "the mission is to deliver the payload to save humanity, our lives are secondary"). This just doesn't work with the young cast and the slang script. Scientists don't say "fuck" every 2 minutes and start beating up each other every 3. Why does the captain go outside to fix the shield? He has to stay alive to complete the mission. This is not logical or reasonable. Also, why is most of the crew mentally unstable? It seems we'd send the best for such an important mission. The low-point of the movie is when the Asian guy changes the course of the ship but *forgets* to adjust the shield and all hell breaks loose. Forgets?! This goes beyond "suspension of disbelief". Then, about 2/3 of the way the movie abruptly stops attempting to be a science fiction and changes into a fiction horror: suddenly a monster comes on board and starts killing people. Unfortunately, nobody cares about the characters at this point, everybody's just waiting for the movie to finish.As science fiction, this is crud compared to 2001 (whose spacesuitless vacuumsuck scene and HAL voice is ripped right off here). For a horror movie, it doesn't have enough horror.As a final note, may I suggest that hitting the sun probably doesn't require an 8-men crew (esp. in a sci-fi future): the sun is massive, everything that comes near is sucked inward due to gravitation. Just aim in the general direction =).
Looking at the sun can be hazardous, looking at Sunshine can be rewarding.
posted on 21 Aug 2009Danny Boyle's Sunshine seems to take on an awful lot of famous baggage when it comes to pieces that helped in inspiring this picture. 2001; Solaris (the original); Alien and Apocalypse Now are all mentioned as sources close to Boyle's heart and mind when executing Sunshine, a big and grandeur science-fiction film that starts as a film about the potential destruction of the human race; develops into the would-be destruction of the crew through the dangers of the mission they're all on; before finishing on a note that sees the film pushed into the realms of the claustrophobic and quite terrifying. You can see where each of these sources of inspiration have done exactly that on screen at various points, but it is much to Boyle's credit that Sunshine doesn't come off as a daft pastiche of visuals and light, sci-fi content that quickly branches off into something far darker and dressed up.Here is a science fiction film about ideas, about the goal to use something more commonly associated with mass destruction for the purpose of saving life or bringing about life. But I don't think it's a mediation on exploring the means as well as purpose of weapons of mass destruction within our world, even if the film's premise revolves around the exploring of an unventured world for means of alternate use of said kind of weaponry. Rather, Boyle's film is about the awe of it all; the spectacle of both a broad 'other' world and the small confines of a human mind. A collection of astronauts are charged with making their way to the sun of our solar system in the year 2057. It's drying up, dying out and needs kick-starting otherwise the Earth will cease to garner light and life. The ominous sign, and something that acts as a threatening off-screen element, is that a prior mission came close but ultimately failed in their attempts to re-invigorate the sun. Boyle presents space as it should be presented; as a large, empty, quiet and quite scary place that few have ever delved into. Of the crew, the film predominantly focuses on Capa (Murphy), but he is refreshingly assisted by numerous others of varying ages and nationalities.Sunshine is a film fascinated with its surroundings; it feels as if it itself feels privileged to even be in space in the first place. The crew are fascinated with the sun, its aura and its power, with Capa in one scene engaging with the sun in a manner I'm not sure has been explored in the past. The scene in question produces a visceral kick for the character, a downing of the blinds and donning of specific eye-ware as you set carefully pre-planned levels in order to allow oneself the sun's full blast of light. It tears through the blinds and offers a rush into the mind, a sort of gloating; a sort of reminding that it's there, and that it's dying out, and that human-kind must make their own way towards it to alter the situation. In this sense; the sun is both their enemy but also remains their source of life but either way, the characters retain a certain perverted fascination with it, best displayed in that scene when Capa risks his well being for a sudden rush from the sun's energy.The film's setting is a spaceship named Icarus II, the sequel ship to the ill-fated Icarus I. Boyle effortlessly captures the space as a very closed in place of working, despite its large size. The film additionally carries a very delicate feel about it, which aids in the early exchanges and the slow-burning sensibility it has about it. This is much down to the setting of the spaceship as this thoroughly advanced and technologically driven locale far off in the future. Everything feels as if it has to be handled very carefully, with buttons and devices and various tasks that need to be completed in a careful manner; the feeling early on is very much in the vein of being relaxed, with no direct antagonism from anywhere, but with a very foreboding sense of uncertainty as we watch and entrust these characters with technology and tasks outside of the ship we have no knowledge of ourselves, and therefore fear the consequences if they go wrong. In a way, it echoes the passages the film will veer down later on, as genre and content become more mixed and therefore blurred.There is a very visceral feel about the film, a distinct emphasis on the visual, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a clear case of style over all substance. While visually exciting and carrying a distinct sense of dread in all the technology on board twinned with the fact the crew are, essentially on a mission in which failure is unthinkable; Sunshine manages to capture fear and panic towards its denouement when the reality of the situation and the overall setting of the film become ingredients of pure fear and paranoia. A certain character has witnessed all this death and disaster around him prior to the finale, and has began a distinct descent into potential madness as reality is distilled through his own sub-conscience, before filtering out into what it is we're watching. Sunshine is a large budgeted science fiction film that comes across as very appealing, both visually and substantially; something that you don't always get these days.
Run of the mill Hollywood Sci-Fi for people who like MTV
posted on 19 Aug 2009Massive Spoiler Alert: But can you really spoil a movie these days? You're gently guided through one stereotype and cliché after another, so as not to wake you from your lifelong delusional daydream.The Logic (or lack thereof): Remember it's science fiction not logic fiction, so I will accept only nonsense like the ships being in the suns orbit with just some shield protecting them. But: 1. Why do so many people have to go there and back? 2. Bombs are "payload"? Why not "cargo" or "bomb"? Makes you wonder which billionaire was kind enough to PAY for saving mankind. 3. The so-called Scientists are a chaotic bunch. 4. The ship's computer is "Ikarus" - oh how "clever", that is for half-schooled dimwits - remember that Ikarus' wings melted in the sun. By that logic you could call the ship "Challenger", "Solar 13", "Hindenburg" etc. 5. Who was the mystery man? Suddenly after 90 minutes it's a mystery tale? That was under-explained and only construed in order to have the plot go on. 6. There is no computing of the course correction - just one hysterical guy with a calculator - well it's just a setup for having to find the 1st mission. 7. The first ships inside is entirely covered in dust. They say "dust is 85% skin". Well, then let's calculate (once again...) that thick layer of dust: 0.5 kg skin per year - that's about 5 kg per year for the entire crew. So either no one was wiping the floors for 10 years or they still shed skin long after they were dead. Was it a crew of 10.000 people? The secret is never revealed. 8. The light takes 8 minutes to the Earth: Our hero's sister watches his message (which he sent long ago) of what's to be seen if the mission was successful. Then she positions herself JUST IN TIME when the sun "lights up". Come on! There is still logic though: in one scene the wrists are slashed the correct way (that is one of the few "Boyle" moments of realism).Political Correctness: 1. A multi-cultural crew and they also save a dying star. How sweet it is. 2. Only Caucasians fight amongst themselves but survive the longest. Is that P.C.? 3. No people of African origin among the crew. Very non-P.C. Sci Fi Clichés galore: 1. There's oxygen for some but not all of them. 2. 3 guys on a forced spacewalk but only one space suit. 3. Going to search the lost Mission is a terrible risk but of course through absolute coincidence they eventually HAVE to do that. 4. The "repair in space" scene with the expected self-sacrifice of one. 5. There is a countdown scene. They are running out of oxygen - yet they move around in cathedral-sized surroundings. If they were so short of oxygen (all of a sudden and conveniently there are no plants) why not use oxygen masks and SAVE some. Remember: It's the ecosphere, stupid! Do I have to spell it for you? Those golden space suits are a sight to behold. A mix of R2D2 and the best/worst 1950s Sci-Fi-Flicks thrown together. No one laughed which I found hard to understand. So at least once I was surprised in this movie.We also have an interesting crew of selected scientists (for a mission so important): There's an aloof, Jesus-type Hippie, who must impress somebody. Otherwise he wouldn't be in movies. There's an American jock who is always in an immature fight usually with the only other Caucasian male aboard. It's like a bad 1980s High School movie. There's a pouting 20-something girl - so she left earth when she was a teenager. A scientist teenager, mind you. There's a Japanese commander (very P.C.) with broken English (fffantastic to have a non native speaker as your leader when you're dealing with the existence of Earth) There's a hysterical Chinese fellow who's calculating skills are flawed but who nevertheless doesn't bother any of the surely impressive COMPUTERS on board to do life-or-death course corrections. All in all they are a great representation of mankind to save itself: Fighting like teenagers but since the audience will be mostly teenage I get the point. Well, like teenagers no one really decides - they rather argue aimlessly and their "decisions" are usually coming from facts outside their own making.I have no idea about the ending & by that time I didn't care. Nothing could save this oeuvre in the last 5 minutes. There is no empathy that you could build during the course of the film. If you take a flawed, naive film like "Silent Running": at least you could feel anything about that guy and his Huey and Dewey computers hobbling around. But if you like "Event Horizon" you will surely like this film. So this is a "solid" Sci-Fi-Film? First of all solid seems to mean clichéd and repetitive. Not so, since real Sci-Fi it offers endless - virtually endless possibilities. If you have the time read Stanislaw Lem, Isaac Asimov, etc. Why writers and directors never use that endless realm of ideas or are prevented from doing so is beyond me.This instead is run of the mill "Science Fiction" (Hollywood's understanding thereof, mind you). If I get the point it is trying to make, then this is inept pretentiousness at its worst. You get what you expect. Your Popcorn is fresher than the ideas in this movie.I've stopped expecting to be impressed or entertained by movies as they were intended. Instead I view them as (involuntary) comedy. Still after a while I just got angry and started counting the inconsistencies and clichés among the obligatory hoopla, explosions and deafening sound. A lot could be said about current cinema playing to the masses of naive, dumbed down movie-goers in the hope of creating a blockbuster. But others have done that before.
Artful film with exquisite soundtrack.
posted on 17 Aug 2009Danny Boyle's latest science fiction foray doesn't disappoint. You will find his films, as a whole, to be artful and insightful, marrying strong imagery and symbols with actors who truly seem "made for the part."Composer John Murphy teams up with electronic act "Underworld" to create an ethereal soundtrack that *breathes* soul into this movie. I would be a fan of this film even without the soundtrack, however this soundtrack creates moments rather than simply scenes. Sadly, due to legal wrangling (as always, somehow, seems to be the case with spectacular soundtracks), it looks as though the soundtrack will never be released. There have been false starts and random snippets of information stating that the soundtrack has (for over a year now) has been "on the verge" of release. I doubt we will actually see it's release as it will, ultimately, be as elusive as the soundtrack to "Rock & Rule," and like the latter, I, for one, would kill for a copy.I recommend seeing this film if nothing else for the seamless marriage of image and music.
Great start -- but the film gets drunk midway, and wakes up forgetting what it was
posted on 17 Aug 2009Great start -- but the film gets drunk midway, and wakes up forgetting what it was. I can't say more without revealing plot information, but basically that's the problem with the film. If only they had stuck to the original formula!Some of the technology and ideas in the movie remind you that it could almost be as innovative as 2001, but the rest of the movie falls flat on its face. Additionally, unlike 2001, there are numerous technology bits that simply make no sense -- or are better left unexplained. Otherwise, the film had a very interesting premise, and was very much a psychological thriller for the majority of the film.
Leaving the lack of scenes with Michelle Yeoh to one side...
posted on 15 Aug 2009If I could give this an eight and a half, i would - its nearly a great film, just with a few flaws.The striking thing about this movie is that although it has a very original premise, so much of it is familiar from so many previous similar sci-fi movies, from 2001 to Dark Star, Free Running to Event Horizon. There is even a pretty good joke in reference to Alien (which is pretty realistic, after all anyone in the future is likely to have seen the Alien movies, which would probably be up to the 20th sequel by then). But while much of it is predictable, its so well made it carried me along, although the director did overstretch himself a few times - especially in those scenes shot on Icarus 1. Also, unusually for a modern movie of this type, if anything its a bit too short, a bit too heavily edited (I get the impression that it was chopped a little in post production) - I would have liked another 10 minutes to give us a feel for the dynamics of the characters. Oh OK, i really just wanted to see more of Michelle Yeoh, the main reason i went to see this movie! But seriously, this is the main flaw of this movie - although the actors do a good job, there just isn't enough attention given to their development, you don't really feel for them (my feelings for Michelle Yeoh don't count, i've had them for years!). I read that the director made the actors live together for a week before shooting - this may have backfired, as there is a lack of humor in their interaction - any bunch of intelligent people who are together in a space ship are bound to develop a graveyard sense of humor about their situation, this lot seemed far too serious too much like... well, too much like a bunch of actors who've spent too long in each others company.But this aside, i found the premise for the movie both intelligent and very well expressed. So many physicists now use God as a metaphor for the deeper areas of science, that it is oddly believable that (spoiler alert), someone would find it impossible to separate what they are doing from the works of God.Just one bit of advice for those thinking of going - don't wait for the DVD, this is definitely a movie for the big screen or not at all.
Hard-to-follow rip-off of classic sf movies
posted on 13 Aug 2009Spoilers spoilers spoilers ahead I went to see this movie because I'd heard it was 'in the tradition of 2001' and that Rose Byrne played the captain of the ship. Wrong on both points.Faults? Where to start! The actors don't look like astronauts, for one thing. As others here have said, they don't talk like astronauts either. I can't imagine Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick hunched over a typewriter writing as dialogue for *either* Frank Poole or Dave Bowman: 'I f***ed up! I f***ed up!!' etc.Also, what are we supposed to think: that the navigation officer got out his slide rule and a seven-figure book of logarithms and calculated the new orbit on a really big piece of butcher paper? When they've got a quasi-sentient computer on board? That does not compute, and as soon as a movie departs from the sort of 'science fiction logic' that tells us the computer would have calculated the entire rendezvous orbit, orbital insertions, burns etc, and, yes, adjusted the necessary filter angles etc, even a mainstream (ie non-sf-hardcore) audience knows it's being sold a pup.My heart sank when I saw the meal-eating scene: ie such a blatant ripoff of ALIEN. When it got to 'we're outside and haven't got enough spacesuits etc, so let's fire the explosive bolts and get in that way' I was tempted to say out loud to the person I was seeing the movie with (a fellow 2001 nut): 'we've seen this before'. (I never talk in the movies, and neither does he; and nor should you.) What else? Oh yeah, they had one spacesuit prior to their 'let's all hold our breaths' scene, so what was to stop one of them from going across, space-suited, and bringing back extra suits? Or did I blink and miss something here?Finally, where was the Icarus One? In space? I'm not 'calling' a fault here, I'd just like to know. Watching the movie I thought it had crash landed on Mercury; in addition to all the other faults I simply found it a hard movie to follow.Rose was pretty, though, I'll give it that.
Just as hokey as "Supernova."
posted on 13 Aug 2009I was very excited about the advent of this film. I finally saw it last night on DVD. As a scientist, I found the film both disappointing and encouraging. *** SPOILERS AHEAD *** The movie is disappointing because the science of the film is flimsy at best. 1)Sometimes when you're in a space suit and solar radiation hits you, you're incinerated but, later in the movie, a character can shoot between two separated spacecraft sections with the sun shining on him and survive. 2) The whole surviving space exposure without a space suit, perhaps best (and most realistically) done in "2001: A Space Odyssey" when Dave Bowman has a suit but no helmet and has to blow himself into the Discovery. Pressure differentials and extreme temperature deltas should be considered. I honestly don't know what would happen in such a case, only that the exploding miner in the leaky suit from "Outland" seems to be a lot more physically accurate of what would occur. 3) The marooned and wacky human astronaut going crazy and turning into a solar demon is a complete farce. No explanation is given (and trust me, one is needed) for how the transformation occurs. 4) Why not just fire a colossal missile through space? The fission reaction could be activated based on temperature or proximity to the sun. 5) No explanation for why the sun has burned out. 6) There's constant discussion in the movie about who's more important to the mission. Frankly, I think most everyone on board would be cross-trained, especially when it came to activating the solar nuke. Besides, at the end of the movie, the guy punches a few buttons and plugs in a connector or two. Gee, that's hard. I'm just a pilot, not a nuclear munitions expert. I can't work that elaborate doohickey you've got back there. . . . The film is encouraging because it gives us all hope as screenwriters, directors, producers, readers and agents. If "Sunshine" can make it to the screen, anything we bang out on a typewriter can make it, too. It pains me to write this, big Danny Boyle and Alex Garland fan that I am. See "Shallow Grave," "Trainspotting," "28 Days Later" or "The Beach" instead.
Mixed bag of Science and pure Existential "Art"
posted on 13 Aug 2009This film has very nice trappings of Science and SciFi. Very business like procedures and analysis of issues (mostly). The set and effects are superb. Rated 7 but it could have been so much more with some improvement in writing. Unfortunately the film is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As Science Fiction the film has several key underlying science fallacies and a psycho existential drama element that just doesn't fit the "Mission parameters". All introduced on purpose I bet. In this case "artistic license" is another way of saying "not a brilliant writer" when weaving the handful of good ideas and a good sense of mission related dialog into a whole tale. But I am betting the writer and director's main intent was a story of existential philosophy turned to horror (or maybe the horror of existence) which just happens to occur in a futuristic crisis scenario. As such Artsy people of the Green Peace "let all creatures and humans live or die together" turn of mind may find the film quite uplifting (no one left out like in elementary school games I guess). You got to "love" (NOT) how the film starts by treating the sun as a gas heater with a pilot light that has gone out. Restarting a star? A silly proposition at best since stars die due to being low on ready fuel (usually when their gravity exceeds their rate of fusion). Maybe if the film had at least proposed a fusion bomb it might not be as revoltingly lame at its foundation. But fission did lend itself to the plot artifice of having only two chances & no more nuclear bomb threat on earth afterward if they work -- rainbows and ponies galore.Why do the two huge awkward "one shot" ships have the ability to dock with each other when launched 7 years apart? A small shuttle would have made a lot more sense and made repairs easier and less hazardous. Oh that's why not -- more opportunity for dramatic problems.Why don't the radio towers have retraction or ejection mechanisms? I gathered that it was reflections from their stubs that set the fire. I figure that the option to rotate would have been examined even if only 1% likely to occur. Plus retraction options make for easier repair and start resolving the question of "oh what happens when you drop the bomb attached heat shield to fly away?" Oh a quick dip in liquid nitrogen? Hee Hee much stupider than the guys freezing in space. You really will freeze in seconds in supercomputer coolant -- even if it isn't liquid nitrogen (it frosted hand in 3 seconds earlier). Plus either the supercomputer sets its circuits to "safe mode" or it burns up in seconds. You don't have minutes to recognize the problem and fix it. If the writer wanted a crisis he should have had a time critical course correction or fuel being jettisoned or similar. Of course that didn't fit with concept of the Sun God High Priest putting the ships in permanent orbit as temples.And the hydroponics garden is much too small for eight people. Plus you'd think there might be some concept of compartmentalization and separation for accidents. Its not like the US and Russia never cooked astronauts. You only have several miles of ship to spread living quarters, life support and other area across. And even brings the issue up of only having 8 crew when so much depends and apparently all competent workers are half-psycho. I figure there would be 5 psychologists and 20 men at arms just to find and eject the crazies as excess cargo, at least based on the film. But lets be real, in a crew of 8 just 1 clever crazy could have his way in a single move (eject or blow up bomb now). All this picking off crew and critical systems one at time is pure unnecessary Hollywood horror claptrap.The underlying philosophical question of the movie sparks the final crisis. The question "shouldn't we just accept death and die together peacefully -- rather than engage in undignified resistance to the obvious will of God and have some live at the expense of the death of others?" This idea is most personified by the Captain of Icarus #1, who sees himself as High Priest in charge of preserving the dignity of the dying Sun God and best able to commune the meaning of mankind by becoming its last representative. You'd think that weeding out people who might succumb to such megalomania under stress would be a #1 imperative for a mission to save mankind -- to the point of sending chimps if necessary.The whole 16 months equals psychotic behavior is overworked Hollywood plot. These people are shown as having a lot more space than submariners. Reference some other reviews: Actually gold "lame" is the preferred solar reflector due to reflectivity rivaling silver, flexibility plus its ability to be worked thin without tiny pinhole imperfections of other metals. Visit NASA pictorials of long life, high dollar satellites. Other materials are used where shorter mission lives make second best acceptable.People in vacuum wouldn't explode into pieces, but they would quickly (<1 minute) spout boiling blood foam from nose, eyes, and ruptured lung sacs -- long before freezing stiff (hours if not in contact with a cold object). You might get a little surface frost depending on evaporation rate of liquids, again a matter of hours to freeze dry.Lesser Evils: The payload is not spinning. So although crew modules are on rotating shaft, scenes near airlocks should be free fall and magnetic boots as should the payload area.Quality of film versus the costs? Well start by having no big name actors and reducing the overpriced Hollywood unions.
Brightens Up Your Day
posted on 31 Aug 2009Danny Boyle is an extremely talented director, he proved this in Trainspotting and then once again for me with the superb zombie movie 28 Days Later. He is also a director who likes to try his hand at completely different things. To date he's done Trainspotting, The Beach, Millions, 28 Days Later and now this, Sunshine. As you can see from the few movies I listed he does do very different movies. Now my excitement levels for Sunshine reached sky high when the trailers arrived, they promised a movie that was something along the lines of Armageddon without the cheesiness and the horrible "God bless America" feel to it. What it failed to mention was how nail bitingly tense the movie would be. My excitement for Sunshine was high, but the movie still surprised me and completely blew me away. Sunshine is a perfect example of a sci-fi thriller. Very few movies manage to pull this off, in fact with the notable exception of Alien I can safely say I haven't seen any others do it all that well. Sunshine works not only for its well staged action sequences and incredible atmosphere (see the ship boarding sequence, won't spoil it), but also its sheer beauty. And there are moments of complete and utter beauty in this movie, the opening shot especially is something to behold. Sunshine easily takes the number 1 spot to date for my favourite movie of 2007, it might not have the most original ideas within it, but it is executed so superbly it not only proves Danny Boyle is a force to be reckoned with, but also that you don't need limitless amounts of money for a movie to look beautiful (Sunshine was made for a low $40 million).The actual premise for Sunshine is an intriguing one, and one that makes the movie so much more interesting. Wha happens when our Sun eventually dies? What will we do to carry on living? Its a scary thought because obviously the sun will not last forever and this does really get you thinking. But after the initial thinking process the movie nose dives into the actual nightmare scenario. As soon as a radio transmission is picked up the movie suddenly goes into supersonic. I won't say anymore as I really don't want to ruin anything, but the tension rises dramatically. And as things go really wrong you will be biting your nails while sitting on the edge of your seat, I know I was for definite.The actual characters in Sunshine can be a bit stereotypical at times, cool American hero, cowardly second in command etc. But the actual actor themselves are more than able to makes these characters work. Cillian Murphy adds another terrific performance to his CV, Chris Evans surprises me yet again as he really has come out as a really talented actor, Michelle Yeoh does another great job in her great, though sadly underused role, and the rest of the little cast each fill their roles perfectly. For the first half hour things start slowly as we begin to get to know the characters. For some people this might be frustrating, I however loved it as the inspiration from Alien was very clear. In that movie as well tension was built up with the slow build up, made me appreciate the movie just that little bit more.So then, the faults of Sunshine? I can't point any out, I enjoyed it that much. Its a movie with a great idea behind it, a great cast and also some great set pieces. People may complain about the ending or beginning, but those two bits are down to personal taste more than anything else. Both worked superbly for me and make this a movie that will undoubtedly be a top ten of 2007 movie for me. Beautiful, tense and action packed all in one movie, another superb addition to Danny Boyle's increasing list of great movies.