Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    15
  • Running Time:
    107 minutes
  • Released:
    2007
  • Country:
    United Kingdom
  • Director:
    Danny Boyle
  • Starring:
    Cillian Murphy
    Rose Byrne
    Chris Evans
    Michelle Yeoh
    Cliff Curtis
  • Genre(s):
    Science Fiction

Sunshine (2007)

05-04-2007 18:30 | 17950 views  |  Kevin O'Reilly  |  Show Backlinks  |  Other "Sunshine (2007)" Content

Warning: This review contains some plot spoilers. I don't think they ruin the film but you may prefer to see it before reading this.

It's rarely a good sign when a movie's trailer doesn't give you any idea what sort of movie it's advertising. You have to wonder if there's a good reason they're not telling you - perhaps because if you knew, you wouldn't want to see it. I know, I know: the other week I was complaining that Premonition's trailer gave the whole plot away. There's just no pleasing me, is there?

The adverts for Danny Boyle's Sunshine look and sound great, courtesy of the film's memorable opening shot (the sun reflected off the solar panels of a vast spaceship) and the use of Clint Mansell's music from Requiem For A Dream. But what does they tell you about the film? You learn the basic premise - that our sun is dying and a mission has been launched to re-ignite it - and you can deduce that something goes wrong on this mission from all the quick cuts of actors screaming. But what goes wrong? What kind of movie is this? Is it a sci-fi disaster movie, like The Core? A more serious science fiction drama like Solaris? Is it a horror film? Are there aliens involved?

The answer is, surprisingly given the people who made it, that this is a sci-fi disaster movie like The Core - very like The Core in fact, at least in its plotting. That 2003 flop is about a group of astronauts and scientists who pilot a sophisticated rocket ship towards the Earth's core to set off some big bombs inside it, thus restarting its rotation and saving the Earth. En route, they encounter a series of disasters, malfunctions and other crises and most of the characters are killed or nobly sacrifice themselves to save the others.

In Sunshine, a group of astronauts and scientists (the stars include Cillian Murphy, Rose Byrne, Chris Evans and Michelle Yeoh) pilot a sophisticated rocket ship towards the sun to set off one gigantic bomb inside it, thus causing a new star to form out of the dying one and saving the earth. En route, they encounter a series of disasters, malfunctions and other crises and most of the characters are killed or nobly sacrifice themselves to save the others.

To be fair, Sunshine's plot doesn't only borrow from The Core. From Event Horizon come the derelict spaceship encountered by the crew and the homicidal religious zealot covered in burns. Also, the spaced-out hero (Cillian Murphy) calls to mind Red Planet, in which Val Kilmer plays a character who acts like he's permanently stoned.

I don't mind silly sci-fi movies. I usually enjoy them. The Core becomes more and more entertaining with every viewing and there's plenty of fun to be had from Red Planet and Event Horizon and even Supernova. The problem with Sunshine is that it isn't fun. Writer Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle, who previously collaborated on The Beach and 28 Days Later... seem completely oblivious to how daft their story is and they treat this Saturday matinee fluff as seriously as if they were making 2001: A Space Odyssey or Solaris.

That anyone could take Sunshine seriously is amazing. This is a film in which a character runs along a rocketship's solar panels in a spacesuit, trying to outrun deadly rays of sunlight; in which the religious zealot covered in burns stalks the crew, slashing and impaling his victims; in which people are "fired" from the airlock of one ship into another, some of them without spacesuits; in which a character stands inches away from what appears to be the surface of the sun and looks only slightly charred. The only way I can imagine this material working is if its makers acknowledged its daftness and played it for fun and cheap thrills, as Jon Amiel did with The Core.

Danny Boyle does exactly the opposite. His highly stylised, arty direction is irritating and bewildering (what's with all those quick, Exorcist-style "subliminal" frames?) and it drains most of the potential entertainment value out of the movie. It's all you can do to follow what's happening in the big action scenes, let alone get excited by them.

A lot of the time, Boyle's direction seems to be overcompensating for the script's lack of substance, amongst other deficiencies. Why is it that every shot of the maniac with the burns is blurred or distorted so you can't see him properly? Is there some artistic point to this, or is Boyle embarassed that the plot of his serious science fiction film boils down to a psycho killer trying to sabotage a space mission? Or is he simply trying to hide some dubious make-up effects, as George P Cosmatos did with his ultra-brief shots of the fish-monster in Leviathan?

Alex Garland contributes to the air of pretentiousness with his script's leaden lack of humour, its minimalist characterisation, its hip fatalism and its bizarre philosophical observations. When Garland does come up with an intriguing concept, like whether it would be justifiable to murder someone to save the ship and the mission, he cops out.

Out of the small cast, only Chris Evans gives an effective, sympathetic performance. That's ironic since he's supposed to be playing the coldest character but he's the only actor who makes you believe he's an astronaut on a vital mission. The others are either so drippy or so poorly developed that you never feel anything for them.

Sunshine has picked up a lot of positive reviews - yes, I know I'm in the minority on this one. Usually I can at least see what people are getting out of a movie but I have to admit to being baffled in this case. Is it down to viewers being impressed by Boyle's direction, which is as technically slick as it is annoying? Is it the script's Matrix-style fatalism and stoner philosophy? You tell me.

My take on Sunshine is that it's a collision of style and content - a loopy outer-space disaster flick treated with the self-conscious gravity of a student art film. If Boyle and Garland wanted to make a sci-fi action movie, they ought to have let their hair down first (their zombie film, 28 Days Later... was great fun); if they wanted to make an art film, didn't it occur to them that an adventure story about solar bombs, maniacs in space and exploding rocket ships seemed like a pretty odd starting point?

DVD Times Ratings

  • Overall: 
    4
    4 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Overall: 
    7.2

Comments

#1 Posted: 05-04-2007 18:45
eye__writ
Member
Posts: 11

Report this post
Good review Kev.

I wouldn't be quite so harsh as you have been, but I agree with most of the flaws you've highlighted.
I think the acting was actually pretty good given what they had to work with, but the euphoric spiritualism that this eventually leans towards does clash horribly with the ridiculous 20 minutes that proceed it. Bizarre.
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 05-04-2007 19:58
SqueakyG
Member
Posts: 39

Report this post
Lets place bets on who will be the first person to correct your description of 28 Days Later as a "zombie film", and use it to suggest you "just don't understand" this one...

(Oh it won't be me. 28 Days Later is a zombie film. "But blah blah they're not undead they just have a virus..." Shut up.)
Quote this post
#3 Posted: 06-04-2007 19:34
natski
Member/Contributor
Posts: 566

Report this post
Kevin, I couldn't agree more. This was irritating beyond belief. It didn't deliver as entertainment, was overlong, underpowered and humourless. Has it picked up mostly positive reviews? I'm stunned. You've outlined some of the film's (many) failing, but one thing that stands out for me is the utter lack of characterisation. There is nothing, literally nothing to distinguish one character in this film from another, other than basic qualities like gender and physical appearance. Seriously. They have as much depth as the lead character in a video game. Less, in fact, as the central protagonists in most high-end games nowadays come equipped with extensive backstory. Didn't any of these people (Boyle, Garland et al) watch a sci-fi movie made in the 70s called A-l-i-e-n, which has really never been bettered? For the purposes of my comparison, it's actually irrelevant that Alien was a variation on the classic haunted house/monster storyline. The fact is Scott created a believable vision of how humans might realistically behave on a spacecraft in the future i.e the kind of bitching, griping, boredom and swearing, the loose cameraderie, resentment, jealousy and downbeat professionalism that you see in any human workplace. They won't go around lecturing each other in the kind of painfully earnest technical jargon (motivated by the need to provide some clunky exposition due to the film's meandering plot derviations) that was evinced in this film. No, no, no, that's entirely due to the imaginative shortcomings of Mr Garland.also...
The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
... how the hell was the captain of Icarus 1 suppposed to have survived lying so close to the sun for 7 years and even, during that time, metamorphosed into some sort of superhuman monster? I mean, that is just beyond the beyond of stupid
The last two movies I've seen at the cinema are this and Minghella's 'Breaking and Entering' and I'm very sorry to say that, having seen them, I'm starting to understand why no-one wants to fund British films. If I hadn't also seen the wonderful 'Hot Fuzz', I may have given up hope altogether...
Quote this post
#4 Posted: 06-04-2007 20:32
jappar2001
Member
Posts: 44

Report this post
As flawed as Danny Boyles films may be i though Sunshine was excellent. It ultimately doesn't work on a conventional level and has american media politics wrtten all over it but the sense of atmosphere this film created was outstanding. I feel this is what Boyle main strength is. Sunshine is completely open to interpretation and as far as i'm concerned that was intendend. However it did lure viewers into a false sense that a conventional narrative was expected similar to from dusk til dawn. The entire film is laced with subtlety as are the characters. Call me pretentious if you will but i came away feeling like i had experience somthing and i had many thoughts and interpreations of the film. I'm still not sure what it is but i do know it's not a dislike towards the film. As far as i'm concerned that is what a good film is. somthing that can alter emotions. I realise this sounds pretentious and no, i've never smoked weed (well once). For me that last 30 mins were 'experimental film' and didn't happen in the reality of the film. However the sense and fear and tension that Boyle created with that character indeed did take place within the world of the film and hopefully with the audience. Perhaps the meshing of the mainstream with art house took place here and i agree that it was jarring. I think you have to be very open minded to enjoy this. America will generally hate it. No wonder it's been put back. I can't see it earning it's budget back. Maybe if they carry on marketing as they are at the moment. I couldn't help but think that guy fromk fantastic four must be think 'what the fuck' whe he saw the film. ha
Quote this post
#5 Posted: 06-04-2007 20:46
Kevin O'Reilly
Contributor
Posts: 299

Report this post

The US release has been put back to autumn but it will be interesting to see how this does at the box office here. It's had so much hype that I think a healthy first weekend is likely but I can foresee an enormous drop-off.

Most of the reviews I've read have been positive, as have many of the comments I've read on forums. I thought watching it, this will pick up a cult following, but I think a great many moviegoers are going to be coming out of it with the same reaction as myself and Natski.

Quote this post
#6 Posted: 06-04-2007 20:58
romelWF
Member
Posts: 2

Report this post
I was totally blown away. The FX and moreover the Sound Effects were worth watching it alone. True its story was not that original, still they had believable situations, decisions (why they flew over to the icarus 1 for example) and good characters. The main theme "sacrifice one for the sake of many" was handled very well and the finale was just mindblowing. The esoteric touch at the end with the sun itself was pretty cool in my opinion... was there are maybe another reason why the character didnt burn when getting so close to the sun?

Not many SF movies in recent years gave you the opportunity to think about it later...

this is one of the best SF movies I have ever seen hands down.

Loved the weird score, too! hope there will be a score release!

btw, there is a new trailer which basically gives the whole story away... so there you have it...:D
Quote this post
#7 Posted: 06-04-2007 21:48
Drooch1
Member
Posts: 1

Report this post
Wow, I'm stunned to see this string of bad reviews. I'm not a fan of Danny Boyle and actually found 28 Days Later irritating but had heard enough good reviews of Sunshine to make the trip. And I was completely blown away - on a basic entertainment level I was chewing my fingers off with tension, the pacing was faultless, and on a more profound level I found the music and imagery exalting. The majesty and terror of the sun was perfectly rendered, partly by the original and beautiful CGI, but mainly through the way it warped the characters physically, mentally and 'spiritually'. I use inverted commas because Garland is a fierce atheist but believes that there are experiences of ecstasy and dread surrounding the source of life that the body cannot contain, often termed as 'spiritual'. I left the theatre quivering and speechless from the unique experience.

I took some issue with the fact that the hero essentially had to 'beat up' the villain in order to succeed - the same guff we saw in Event Horizon, but that's a small gripe. But I liked the choice of villain - the embodiment of religion, someone who had created his own perverse, selfish relationship to the intangible, natural sun... Got me thinking anyways and that's the sign of classic sci-fi.

I have no problem with people for whom the film didn't work. I love claustrophibic stories and I'm interested in theosophy, not everyone is and that's cool, but I can proudly say this film struck me in a rare and special way. This film borrowed heavily from classic sci-fi but had it's own ideas too, and they totally got me. Danny, I'm converted, you can 'Boyle' me in your Sunshine anytime (sorry) because I'm going back for another viewing and getting this on DVD ASAP.
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 07-04-2007 06:09
royster
Member
Posts: 34

Report this post
Kevin, your reviews are so entertaining! PLEASE, Please, please promise me that you would be reviewing Inland Empire! I swear you're the Michael Medved/Rex Reed of Dvdtimes. On the otherhand, Sunshine is in fact a fine film and would stand the test of time, like the Good Shepherd, Miami Vice and The Good German for that matter....let see if Ghostrider or Cinderella Man will...
Quote this post
#9 Posted: 07-04-2007 11:55
Kevin O'Reilly
Contributor
Posts: 299

Report this post

Royster, you're getting boring. I don't know if you're trolling or you really are the sort of person who thinks there's only one valid opinion on films and that the point of criticism is to try and have that correct opinion.

I don't agree. To me, a good critic is someone who will publish his honest opinions, no matter how quirky or unpopular, and explain them in a way that's clear and entertaining to read. There is no "right" or "wrong" opinion. If we all said the same thing, there'd be little point to reading film reviews.

You cite a couple of critics who aren't taken very seriously when you know full well you could play that same game with any reviewer who's ever written.

Pauline Kael - didn't like The Exorcist, Raiders Of The Lost Ark or Blade Runner, liked Raw Deal and Ghostbusters II.

Roger Ebert - didn't like Blue Velvet, Reservoir Dogs or The Usual Suspects, liked Garfield and Speed 2.

I'm sure if we used the thumbscrews on you, we'd discover there are widely acclaimed masterpieces you find boring or annoying and trashy multiplex rubbish you secretly love to watch.

Strange that the movie titles "that will stand the test of time" which you quote to demonstrate my bad taste are all classified "rotten" on RottenTomatoes.com - The Good Shepherd (56% positive reviews), Miami Vice (48%) and The Good German (33%). Incidentally, I didn't review The Good German. That was Gary. I didn't even give the other two bad reviews, I merely said they were okay rather than great. Meanwhile Cinderella Man, which you dismiss alongside Ghost Rider, got 80% positive.

So maybe it's you whose opinions are out of step. Not that there's anything wrong with that but next time why don't you use the comments section to put your own opinions down instead of just sneering at other peoples'. Unless you are just trolling and looking for a reaction, in which case you got one this time, so well done you!

Quote this post
#10 Posted: 07-04-2007 18:03
Shaun666
Member
Posts: 58

Report this post
I find it strange that the reviewer is complaining because the trailer didn't tell him enough about the film. Most trailers these days tell you so much there's often no surprises when you do see the film. For me the basic premise of a dying sun and a crew going on a mission to try and kick start it again was intriguing enough on it's own to make me want to see it.
Less is more is my opinion on trailers.
Having now seen it I'd summarize it by saying: good premise, well executed in parts but annoying in others. I agree completely that the shaky camerawork, fast cutting and heavily distorted imagery in the final section felt like a bit of a cop out and and an attempt to lend the ending more substance than it deserved. (spoiler) We know the "villain" is the captain of Icarus 1 so why not just show him. (/spoiler)
To sum up, a good effort that ultimately left me a bit disappointed. 7 out of 10 from me and that's being a bit generous
Quote this post
#11 Posted: 07-04-2007 20:14
Raiftel
Member
Posts: 10

Report this post
I loved the film despite some grievances with the characterisations (it seemed that the interesting characters were all systematically picked off until we were left with the two most boring people alive). Boyle is a master of atmosphere, tone and mood. He works better on setpieces and when he is ramping up tension than anything else (Trainspotting is essentially a series of setpieces strung together)

I think in terms of the last 20 minutes

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
I didn't take too much umbrage at the Captain purely because my interpretation was that he wasn't a human in the literal sense anymore. His relationship with the sun was like that of a Deity/Avatar and as such he became the personification of the sun's malevolence. Considering the fact he apparently survived for 7 years on a ship next to the sun, could quite happily bask in light which was obviously paining Kapa, had superhuman strength, had that bizarre aura, and didn't seem fazed when he had his Bicep torn in half I'd suggest he wasn't quite human.


I do think the Music in the film was utterly fantastic.
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 08-04-2007 11:18
Maffew
Member
Posts: 430

Report this post

I've only seen the trailer, which got my interest with Requiem For a Tower started blaring out and my friends pretended to not know me as I got excited over a piece of music.

Quote this post
#13 Posted: 08-04-2007 15:50
Romerojpgxxx
Goddess
Posts: 115

Report this post
Well I take it you never saw the later trailer then, as it ruined the entire film for me! all the big plot points were in it. Spoilers dont come bigger than that appauling trailer.

The films good, but the end sucked bad and gutted the film. Nonsense to be honest the whole end.
Quote this post
#14 Posted: 13-04-2007 14:37
Primus
Geek Trainee
Posts: 176

Report this post
Kevin, I'm with you - hugely disappointing film. Given the pedigree, I was hoping for a new variation on what is probably my favourite SF sub-genre: the marooned spacecraft. But in the end this was just a rehash of everything we've seen before, put to some new fangled techno-crap music. The plot was dull, the characters lifeless, the science ridiculous and the action confusing. It started off ok, and there are moments of tension but nowhere was there a sense of horror or wonder. I also agree that Chris Evans was easily the best thing in the film.
Quote this post
#15 Posted: 18-04-2007 14:16
portamento
Portamento
Posts: 9

Report this post
Good Review Kevin - I think you were spot on there.

The film had some impressive visuals, and as previously mentioned, the musical score was excellent. The plot however, left a lot to be desired. All of the posts above regarding the ending are quite right -the film really does go off the rails in the end.

I dont know why, but I was convinced that the ending was going to bring some kind of revelation, but it all just fell a bit flat. Its a shame, as the talent involved here offered a lot of potential. If the ending was going to be so silly, then I think they might as well have just brought that Nuclear Man guy from Superman IV into it!

Definitley going to pick up the soundtrack CD though...
Quote this post
#16 Posted: 23-04-2007 19:16
magnetic
GoldMember
Posts: 164

Report this post
I had high hopes of this but this was so boring, no one seemed bothered..
Quote this post