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



Comments
Member
Posts: 11
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.
Member
Posts: 39
(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.)
Member/Contributor
Posts: 566
Member
Posts: 44
Contributor
Posts: 299
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.
Member
Posts: 2
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
Member
Posts: 1
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.
Member
Posts: 34
Contributor
Posts: 299
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!
Member
Posts: 58
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
Member
Posts: 10
I think in terms of the last 20 minutes
I do think the Music in the film was utterly fantastic.
Member
Posts: 430
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.
Goddess
Posts: 115
The films good, but the end sucked bad and gutted the film. Nonsense to be honest the whole end.
Geek Trainee
Posts: 176
Portamento
Posts: 9
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...
GoldMember
Posts: 164