Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

A pair of reviews come in for Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE!!!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. I really, really really really really really want to see this movie. A lot. The flick screened with Boyle and Cillian Murphy in the house. We got two reactions, both different. The positive and less-spoiler-filled is up first and the mixed-negative spoiler-heavy review follows it up. Enjoy!

Having had the pleasure to catch a screening of Danny Boyle’s new film Sunshine, followed by a Q&A with the man himself and star of the film Cillian Murphy, I thought I’d share my 2 cents worth with you. Essentially the plot is that the sun is slowly dying and a group of scientists are on a mission to reverse this by ‘kick starting’ the sun. The film knowingly references many sci-fi films from the serious and reflective, 2001 and Aliens, to the more popcorn, Event Horizon. To give you an early idea of how much I enjoyed it I’d place it much closer to the first two films mentioned than the latter. In fact some of the scenes almost feel like updated versions of Kubrick’s film (watch out for the monoliths at the end!) As their ship (the Icarus II) gets closer to the sun they encounter Icarus I, from an earlier, failed attempt. As soon as they decide to change course and investigate things start to go wrong. Some of the most wonderful thing about the film are the visuals and sound design, this film is a treat for the senses. The CGI work is exemplary and goes a long way to establishing the sun as a character in its own right. The sound design suits the grand scale of the picture perfectly, we’re talking Oscar quality here, and Danny Boyle’s directing is at times mesmerising. The choices he makes behind the camera are inspired. He manages to infuse the screen with beauty, from the serene depictions of the ship at the beginning of the film to the extreme, jumpy, staccato, blurry and physically jarring work that comes later. It is all note perfect. The acting unfortunately is not quite so stellar. It’s not to say that there are not some fine performances but they are all overshadowed by the truly excellent visuals. Whilst Boyle does his best to balance everything out there is no denying that the visuals, don’t necessarily overpower, but are of a much higher standard that some of the acting on display. Cillian Murphy puts in a strong performance and is able to convey the internal struggle of the character very well. Both Michelle Yeoh and Hiroyuki Sanda are very good and Rose Byrne equips herself well in a part that is far too small. The other performances range from average to poor, the main problem being that the supporting actors are unable to fully portray the intellectual gravitas that such people in their position and their characters would inevitably have and that ultimately weakens the impact of the film. That’s not to say its all their own fault as the characters on the periphery are very one sided and stereotypical not leaving the cast a great deal to work with. Though it is not long before in true sci-fi style they meet untimely demises. The closer the crew travel to the sun the more their obsession with its power takes control to the point where it takes on almost mythical proportions and the film poses some metaphysical questions. A hugely enjoyable if not totally original film Sunshine would not exist if it were not for those that have gone before it. Boyle has borrowed from the best sci-fi of the last 40 years and brought it bang up to date. I personally can’t wait to watch it again! If you use this then call me Rustmonster.

Beware of spoilers! Here's review #2!!!

I really wanted to like this film but the film was never good enough to let me do that. The film was screened at the National Film Theatre and was sponsored by Fox Searchlight and The Guardian Newspaper. Watch out for spoilers in this review… The Film 50 years from now the sun is dying. The world gets together and financed the worlds top minds to fly off to the sun with “a bomb the size of Manhattan” (no pun to Fatman and Littleboy intended) and restart the sun. And this isn’t the first attempt. 7 years earlier another ship was sent on the same mission and failed. Not that we see any of this. The film opens with our hero’s in space on route to the sun. There is no real sense of time in the film. Aside from the last 30 minutes where there is race against time, I was never sure how far away we were from the sun or where in the journey they were. As they pass the planet Mercury they see the first spaceship. Despite the only character on the film that I liked played by Chris Evans saying they have to focus on the mission at hand, the crew decide to abandon all logic and common sense and risk the future of our planet and everything else we know so to “have a look” and thereby kickstart the now generic plot… after that of course, things go wrong… I take Sci Fi very seriously. I love the genre and opportunity it presents to show new worlds and tell stories. I was so hoping for an intelligent and adult sci fi film and I didn’t get it, even though then filmmakers wanted to give me that. As soon as they go to investigate the other ship I felt they had thrown away the intelligence I was hoping the film would carry. THE SCRIPT Who the fuck will call a spaceship charged with saving humanity “Icarus.” And as the first Icarus vanishes and the mission a failure – who would call the new ship “Icarus 2.” Don’t they know what happens if you fly to close to the sun? After the Icarus 2 finds the Icarus 1 it all turns very silly. Despite some serious posturing from the characters and some serious pseudo science the whole thing ends up being as formulaic as an episode of Murder She Wrote. There is fascinating subplot about being closer to the Sun and seeing God. However none of this develops beyond the ranting’s of the “bad guy” in the final 10 minutes. And that’s the problem. With the pedigree of talent involved in the film and the legacy of Trainspotting and 28 Days Later, the film ends up taking predictable story choices and ends up being a generic Mad Man on a spaceship. Kinda like Event Horizon without the Event. MASSIVE SPOLIER Sunshine repeats the end of 28 Days Later with Cillians Murphy’s character single handily saving the day and fending off mad men all while cut to music. In fact the music cue is almost identical. END OF SPOILER WHAT I LIKED I loved the design. I visited the set at Three Mills several times during filming and fell in love with the sets. Years ago I visited the set of Event Horizon and fell in love with the design. I felt the same way about this. (wait until you see the big Fred Claus set) The spaceship was very logical. Very real science and every button “did something.” I liked Chris Evans character. If this was a focus group I would say this was the only character I identified with. I liked the photography, especially the excellent miniature work and pyro scenes. I’ve never seen work this slick from Danny Boyle and Alwin Kuchler. I LOVED the VFX. With the exception of a few dodgy spacewalking shots, the effects were excellent. Way beyond a low budget and had a clarity I was not expecting. Standout shots include the final shots of Cillian Murphy “touching” the sun and the destruction of the greenhouse. In fact the final “touching the sun” shots are quite simply jaw dropping. MPC should be proud to have them on their reel. The Music was good and typical of Danny Boyle. However several times it was used to obviously to jar the audience from one emotion to another via different music cue’s. The Sound Design was great. I loved the sound of the spaceship and the sounds of airlocks and doors etc. I am real sucker for this kind of stuff. I guess with the protracted post schedule they had this allowed for a really good sound edit and the mix itself was excellent. It all seemed very “big budget” and very unlike a British film where we tend to underbudget and under resource the sound post process. THE Q+A The Q+A began with a clip of the opening titles from Trainspotting. In those 90 seconds I saw more passion, energy and talent than I did in Sunshine. It kinda galvanised my opinion of Sunshine as the missed opportunity it was. Danny Boyle talked eloquently about working at the biggest budget he could and still retain his own casting choices and script. He mentioned the writing process of the script over a year where they completed 35 drafts. After seeing the film, 35 drafts were not enough. I wanted to ask a question at the Q+A but didn’t feel that compelled. Andrew Macdonald was seated about 4 meters from me and none of my questions I had in mind were that positive. Danny Boyle directed some second unit shots “of zombies running around” for 28 Weeks Later which is coming out in May. He also said the film is really, really violent. Personally, I loved Intacto and I love the desperation and simple beauty of the shot in the trailer of Robert Carlisle being chased by zombies in a field. If the script is good then we may be for a real treat. Danny talked about the complexity of the VFX process and how he “overcut” the film to compensate for lack of shots during the editing stage. Perhaps a better producer and better editor would have guided him through this process. However I also believe that the real battle in post production was with the script and the corners it left the filmmakers in. What else… Cillian Murphy is short. Really short. he also doesn't say much and didn't look too comfortable with the process. Sadly, I think it will struggle to find an audience. It’s a tough one to market and I don’t know how much awareness there is or will be of the film outside of filmgeek circles. If it is marketed as an action sci fi film it will alienate the multiplex crowd who wont be familiar with the films agenda. I wish I had better things to say, but I don’t. It’s not a terrible film, its just I wanted it to be so much better. After seeing the sets during production and hearing so much about it I just had higher hopes. I would love to have seen Michael Winterbottom direct this film. Probably not the best way to end this review, but it confirms my opinion that Winterbottom is the best British director we have at the moment. If you use this review, please call me Tracy Emins Left Tit.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 20, 2007, 2:07 a.m. CST

    We should all support this.

    by Playkins

    Tghere has been a profound lack of intelligent sci-fi in recent years. The last one, Solaris (yeah, remake, so what?) TANKED at the box office. If we want any more movies like this we need to be in the audience opening weekend. That is all.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:08 a.m. CST

    Still want to see it

    by Aloy

    Sounds dicey but great CGI is worth a look.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:14 a.m. CST

    well, I'll see it I guess...

    by fractureJonze

    Looks good.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:45 a.m. CST

    playkins: but we DON'T want movies like this!

    by prbt

    I want intelligent sci-fi, I don't want this, I couldn't be less interested. Film-makers who spend money on visuals over plot deserve everything they get.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:51 a.m. CST

    i wana see this

    by council estate scumbag

    loved trainspotting and i liked the first three quarters of that thing 28 days laters. this looks alright. hope he aint losing it though. you know what i mean? cant believe this geeza made that shitfest cameron diaz fim with ewan mcgregor- cant fucking remember what the fuck it was called. it was more like a bird's fim though.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:51 a.m. CST

    oh yeah. 6th, bitches!

    by council estate scumbag

    That's my word from the council estates

  • March 20, 2007, 3:36 a.m. CST

    Come on boys..

    by Wired Earp

    Its a scifi flick totally without the interference of that there Michael Bay. gotta see this one.

  • March 20, 2007, 3:51 a.m. CST

    Sans Bay

    by Rustmonster

    Boyle said in the Q&A that he used his cache from 28 Days Later to enable him to get the maximum amount of money he could get and still make the film he wanted without the interference of the studio. If he'd ended up being bankrolled by the studio there would have been much more pressure to cast big names and to bow to some of the studio's demands, such as frequently cutting back to earth to "raise the stakes" and so forth.

  • March 20, 2007, 3:52 a.m. CST

    Ship should have been named Prometheus

    by Det. John Kimble

    But then I guess these guys never read "The Golden Apples of The Sun"

  • March 20, 2007, 4:06 a.m. CST


    by Playkins

    Ok, then. Give an example of something you DO like, then. I want you to tell me ONE hard sci-fi flick within the last couple years that emphasized plot over visuals. Sunshine was compared to 2001 and Aliens in the review. Both smart Sci-fi. Even event horizon, while it fell apart in the end started with a smart concept. I said "IF" we want. You said "we don't want". Don't speak for everyone else.

  • March 20, 2007, 4:08 a.m. CST

    I saw this last night too.

    by jenkis

    I enjoyed it; the idea isn't original, but the film is beautifully shot and the sound/score are both great. Better than Event Horizon, not as good as 2001. Although that's a pretty wide margin.

  • March 20, 2007, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Boyle's best film is still...

    by workshed

    'Shallow Grave' - he's always been a trendsetter so let's hope we get a run of intelligent sci-fi like we did the glut of zombie movies after 28dl.

  • March 20, 2007, 4:40 a.m. CST

    Danny Boyle and Alex Garland repeat the tired schtick:

    by newc0253

    they've made three films together (the beach, 28 days later, and now sunshine) and the third act is always the fucking same: the protagonist has to defend himself from a world gone insane. whether its the beach community, the squaddies in 28 days later, or the crew in sunshine. it worked well enough in the beach (although the book version was superior to the films), but it was already tired by the time they used it for 28 days. for all that the cast and the special effects seem interesting, there's no way i'm gonna bother to see this in cinemas. Boyle has directed some good films but he's beginning to hit the level of straight-to-DVD as far as i'm concerned.

  • March 20, 2007, 4:53 a.m. CST

    I don't trust negative reviews of Boyle's work

    by smackfu

    Loved Shallow Grave, loved Trainspotting. When the Beach came out everyone shat on it, and despite the DiCaprio factor, I liked it. When 28 Days Later came out, again, everyone shat on it, made it sound like it was horrible, and I absolutely loved it.

  • March 20, 2007, 5:07 a.m. CST

    "a profound lack of intelligent sci-fi in recent years"

    by newc0253

    really? the fountain? children of men? serenity? then again, if your idea of 'intelligent sci-fi' is a shitty danny boyle movie, then i guess it's a relief that there's not more of it.

  • March 20, 2007, 5:23 a.m. CST


    by Playkins

    Is that all you can come up with? The Fountain: Barely sci-fi. The only reason anyone thinks so is the Hugh Jackman's fantasy resolution to his wife's death. Serenity? You've got to be kidding, right? A popcorn flick (albeit well done). Children of Men: Very good, but little more than a chase film when you break it down. And I wouldn't call it "hard science fiction". It's dystopian sci-fi at it's core. The only one of those films that approaches cerebral is The Fountain.

  • March 20, 2007, 5:25 a.m. CST

    oh, and...

    by Playkins

    Three film in the last, what, FIVE years is nothing to shout about, especially when we're continually subjected to drivel like "Are We Done Yet?". No, people are mre content to bitch about genre film they supposedly enjoy.

  • March 20, 2007, 5:28 a.m. CST


    by Playkins

    Dissect my original post and you might realize all I mean is that we need to support a genre of films that historically don't tend to do well.

  • March 20, 2007, 7:01 a.m. CST

    yeah, way to walk it back, playkins:

    by newc0253

    for a start, you seem to confuse sci-fi with 'cerebral'. then, you claim that the fountain is only sci-fi in the future segment. then you dismiss the sci-fi of serenity as 'popcorn' and the sci-fi of 'children of men' as 'a chase film' (i guess 'scanner darkly', another good film from last year, is just 'a drugs films', right?). but then, what makes 'sunshine' sci-fi? the fact that it involves spaceships?or because it tries to be a little metaphysical? from everything i've seen and read, the premise of 'sunshine' seems like an overwrought version of 'the core' or 'event horizon', i.e. standard hollywood shittyness. and if i'm gonna watch action, i'd rather watch the characters in 'serenity' fight or the characters in 'children of men' get chased than sit through another fucking danny boyle film in which the crew turns on one another. yes, we should support good scifi movies. but not tedious, uninspired ones like 'sunshine' seems to be.

  • March 20, 2007, 7:06 a.m. CST

    Cillian Murphy is short...

    by Karl Childers

    His cock's not too big either. He got a double-whammy in the genes game of life.

  • March 20, 2007, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Best TB name ever

    by Lost Prophet

    Tracey Emin's left tit- brilliant! Wish I'd thought of that.

  • March 20, 2007, 7:56 a.m. CST

    imdb has cillian at 5'9"

    by BadMrWonka

    that's considered "really short"? did Yao Ming write this review?<p>maybe he was talking about his pecker. the reviewer really did seem to like Chris Evans a little too much...

  • March 20, 2007, 7:57 a.m. CST

    There is a lack of intelligent Sci-Fi

    by Lost Prophet

    and an awful lot of dreck. <p> Children of Men is an intelligent Sci-Fi book, that is a slightly less intelligent but still awesome film. <p>I think you are wrong about people not wanting intelligent films. The reason people didn't like Solaris is that it was dull, pretentious, overwrought shit. I hated it so much that it actually soiled the original idea (if that makes sense). As well as these problems it also was marketed incredibly badly- I seem to remember it being sold in the UK as some sort of pseudo chick-flick on the basis that George Clooney got his arse out. A complete mis-representation of the film and therefore proved massively disappointing for those women that did go.

  • March 20, 2007, 8:09 a.m. CST

    newc0253 on a roll....

    by Playkins

    How am I confusing sci-fi with 'cerebral'? I'm talking about science fiction that transcends stuff like "I Robot" or "Star Wars". I'll give you "Scanner Darkly". A great sci-fi flick that went almost completely under the radar except for genre fans. I saw it in a theater, but returns pretty much confirmed not many others did. Which is PRECISELY my reason for saying we should support any half-decent sci-fi flick. Serenity bombed too, which was totally undeserved. Of course, both "Serenity" AND "Children of Men" tread entirely new ground in films, right? Nope, never seen movies like those before. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why you're passing judgement on a film you have yourself stated that you haven't seen yet. Sounds like you just want Danny Boyle to fail.

  • March 20, 2007, 8:30 a.m. CST


    by ltgalloway

    I'd like to know if they address the practical questions of what they are attempting. How much research is evident in the script? It sounds like they may have stopped at, "Hey, lets through a nuclear bomb at the sun to get it going again". I don't pretend to know much about astrophysics but won't the sun expand and incinerate earth before it eventually gets snuffed out? What stage of decay is the sun in? Is it our sun or have they colonized other solar systems? Of course, this could all be explained away as their living in the future and having a deeper understanding of the universe. I can also understand the perspective of not wanting to answer too many specific questions because of the can of science worms it is, but at least throw us something. I think I'll be disappointed if nothing is said about how they're going to to do what they plan to do. Maybe the Discovery channel will do a show about how much BS is in this movie.

  • March 20, 2007, 8:41 a.m. CST

    suspension of disbelief

    by Lost Prophet

    old chap. <p>otherwise your brain will bleed.

  • March 20, 2007, 9:24 a.m. CST

    Empire Mag says they hired an astro phsysist

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter

    To try and get the science right. However, the Dr did say that they had to abandon it when they wanted to fire the nuke at the Sun, as the Sun would fry it before it got anywhere close. Plus as the Sun burns the equivalent of a million nukes a second (or whatever it does), how could a missile we could build kick start anything in the Sun. <i> Come to think of it, why did they bother to hire him anyway, lol.

  • March 20, 2007, 9:33 a.m. CST

    I'm sick of fucking Empire

    by Lost Prophet

    they are the epitomy of bad, inept, incopetent journalism and have an alleged reviewing staff with the critical faculties of dog shit. <p>I actually stopped reading it (and a hell of a lot of people I know also did) when they gave AOTC 5* because they gave TPM 4. Sole reason- I shit you not. Then, they tried to justify this when they got smashed by a barrelload of complaints by writing some weak shit along the lines of "If TPM was the opening 20 mins of AOTC wouldn't it be great". <p> Basically- for Empire: Blockbuster= lots of stars, regardless of how shit it is. Look at what they gave SR if you don't believe me.

  • March 20, 2007, 9:40 a.m. CST

    "intellectual gravitas"

    by Bill Brasky

    Democrat talking points - September, 2000...

  • March 20, 2007, 9:52 a.m. CST

    "science fiction that transcends stuff like "I Robot""

    by newc0253

    and yet you'd settle for something that sounds like a shitty rehash of 'event horizon'? no, i haven't seen 'sunshine', but thanks to AICN i've now read 2 negative reviews of it. i think boyle is a good director but, by all accounts, this is now the third film that he's made with exactly the same third act: the crew going crazy. does that sound like groundbreaking sci-fi to you? maybe it does, but don't expect the rest of us to support you.

  • March 20, 2007, 10:14 a.m. CST

    The book The Beach is brilliant

    by Lovecraftfan

    For those blaming the movie on Alex Garland which was terrible you've clearly never read his brilliant and far better book.

  • March 20, 2007, 10:21 a.m. CST

    I guessed it would be like this

    by Ray Gamma

    The second review doesn't surprise me one bit. From the moment I saw the first trailer with that too-young-and-good-looking crew, I knew it wasn't going to have the same realism of a classic like "Alien". Ah well, here goes another five years til the next time somebody attempts something in this tough genre.

  • March 20, 2007, 10:23 a.m. CST


    by Ray Gamma

    "Serenity" was shit. Just like "buffy" in space. Total shit.

  • March 20, 2007, 10:34 a.m. CST

    a profound lack of intelligent scifi

    by Atomic.Lobster

    Serenity and The Fountain are *not* intelligent scifi. Primer is intelligent scifi. Serenity is Cowbooooooys innnnnnn spaaaaaace. Sunshine sounds like The Core, which was also incredibly dumb but strangely watchable.

  • March 20, 2007, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Alex Garland has run out of ideas:

    by newc0253

    the Beach was a good book and (despite the changes) an underrated film. but Garland also wrote '28 days later' which, i'm sorry to say, was as overrated as the Beach was underrated. Garland seems like a smart writer but his stories always end the same way: he's a one-trick pony, and the trick is getting tired.

  • March 20, 2007, 10:54 a.m. CST

    still wanna see it

    by council estate scumbag

    despite second review. too fucking negative and wierd. were they smoking crack or were they sucking their mum's heroine filled titties? i agree with Lost Prophet. empire has lost its way. i stopped buying that shit. actually i never bought it. i just nicked it from da newsagents. he was too stoopid. you snooze, you lose, my fwiend.

  • March 20, 2007, 12:05 p.m. CST

    The Beach was never underrated

    by Lost Prophet

    The book I mean. The film was, in fact, crap. I remember seeing hundreds of buggers wandering around with a copy of it.<p>Scumbag is the funniest poster on here- Have you got a dog called ASBO, please say it's so?

  • March 20, 2007, 12:13 p.m. CST


    by Playkins

    You're putting words in my mouth. Again. Nowhere did I say it was "groundbreaking scifi". Not only that, but the plot is nowhere close to Event Horizon. I believe Event Horizon was mentioned as a comparison in style and tone. As Atomic.Lobster pointed out, you're losing credibility if you think "Serenity" is smart sci-fi.

  • March 20, 2007, 1:01 p.m. CST

    "You're putting words in my mouth"

    by newc0253

    dude, your first post on this talkback was an injunction to everyone to be in the audience for 'sunshine' on its opening weekend. why else would you claim we should be there? for the popcorn?? as whether i have credibility with someone called atomic.lobster because i like 'serenity', i really couldn't give a rat's ass. sure, 'serenity' isn't hard scifi but it's certainly as much SF as 'aliens' was, a movie which you yourself describe as 'smart scifi'. at the end of the day, though, you can define 'scifi' however you want: last time i checked, there's no OED definition. if i were you, i'd worry less aboutwhether 'sunshine' is gonna be a good scifi film, and worry more about whether it's gonna be a good film period.

  • March 20, 2007, 1:10 p.m. CST

    I don't rust the negative reviewer

    by Triplesic

    just on the notion that they took effort to mention that Chris Evans was really good in it on two occasions. Now I have no problem with him but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he's probably not the best actor in the movie.

  • March 20, 2007, 1:13 p.m. CST

    How does that first review come off as "positive?"

    by Childe Roland

    It harps on lackluster acting and poor/unoriginal writing. Prettymuch just like the second review. And both seem to think the one thing the picture really has going for it is/are the visual effects. The first reviewer wrote a bit more eloquently and came away feeling, apparently, a little better about the film but at best described the experience as a mixed bag.

  • March 20, 2007, 1:18 p.m. CST

    INTACTO sucked.

    by -guyinthebackrow

    Boring. Rudderless. Mess.

  • March 20, 2007, 1:25 p.m. CST

    a dog called ASBO

    by council estate scumbag

    i was tempted long ago when dat geeza off of eastenders had a dog called well ard. that was class. still might. it'd have to be a bandog tho. playkins and newc0253. behave yerselves, fellas. your acting like a couple of bitches! recognize!

  • March 20, 2007, 1:37 p.m. CST

    talkbackers who write in character...

    by newc0253

    are hilarious.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Sci Fi won an oscar this year!

    by The Skeptical

    So let's all thank Al Gore for keeping the genre alive. I'll see this, just because the effects sound fun and Boyle's record is pretty good.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:19 p.m. CST

    "Event Horizon without the Event."

    by CreasyBear

    Ouch! Even moreso than most movies, I feel like I've already seen Sunshine, forgotten it, then watched a few minutes of it on TNT while flipping channels.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:25 p.m. CST

    oi newc0253! who u callin a character?

    by council estate scumbag

    u being from the states wouldn't realise dat this is how we talk on the estates in london. we aint all got lush green rolling fields with buffaloes and cattle like in the big old yoo, ess, and aye! i live in a council flat, fella. we aint all got cadilacs and cowboy hats. all i got is my ipod (well my next door neighbours who i nicked it off of) and my hoody (nicked too) and my oyster card (you guessed it) i'm off down the pub. good evening, geezas. i'm off to get hammered.

  • March 20, 2007, 2:47 p.m. CST

    newc0253 (from one bitch to another)

    by Playkins

    So answer me this- Why is it so wrong to try to encourage people to support a GENRE of films? All debate aside about the content or seriousness of the genre in oquestion. If someone is passionate about a genre (as I am), why are you going out of your way to invalidate my opinion? Seems I agreed with you about some of the films you brought up. Seems to me that not supporting a particular genre of films will result in....:::gasp::: a lack of more films of the like (of ANY quality).

  • March 20, 2007, 3:02 p.m. CST


    by Sir Loin


  • March 20, 2007, 3:34 p.m. CST

    have you seen this movie, Plantkins?

    by captainCAPSLOCK

    i'm assuming yes, since you already know it's so 'intelligent'...i mean you'd have to see it to know right? i would add my opinions to this little sci-fi debate, but i don't feel like getting involved for a movie i'm not seeing.

  • March 20, 2007, 5:25 p.m. CST

    "Event Horizon"

    by number5withabullet

    Any time someone compares a movie to "Event Horizon" I run for the hills. I am still going to brave it , though. What the fuck is wrong with "Serenity" by the way?! Does scifi lose all artistic credit once it becomes entertaining? Serenity was an exceptionally well written, shot, and edited film. I wouldn't nominate it for best picture, but it sure beats most science fiction today.

  • March 20, 2007, 5:34 p.m. CST


    by -guyinthebackrow

    SERENITY was 'well shot and edited' you say. Hmmm. I suppose if you believe TV movies are the highest form of motion picture art then, yes, SERENITY was 'well shot and edited'.

  • March 20, 2007, 5:56 p.m. CST

    the sci fi genre really doesn't need support:

    by newc0253

    hollywood makes lots of films that can be broadly termed sci fi. many of those films are shite but so what? i'd like to see more good sci fi movies being made, but i fail to see the logic of supporting the making of good sci fi films by going to see more bad ones. i'd also like to see more good fantasy movies, but that doesn't mean i'm gonna watch 'eragon' either. ultimately, going to see a shitty movie on opening day only encourages the studios to make more shitty movies, regardless of the genre.

  • March 20, 2007, 6:13 p.m. CST

    council estate scumbag...

    by pdennett316

    Hull yoo, yoo ur a charakter. A'm skottish, but I dont type with a fucking accent like I just did for 8 words. Who in the fuck types like he speaks? No-one, thats who! Oh, and London council estates are filled with pathetic cockney chavs, only hard when they've got fifty equally retarded mates to back them up. Yeh mate, I'll bang ya mate...I'll bash ya!!!! Fucking chav loser Southern softie twat!!!

  • March 20, 2007, 6:51 p.m. CST


    by Triplesic

    That is a very good point!!!!

  • March 20, 2007, 7 p.m. CST

    I think this movie will be good

    by Triplesic

    hey at least it's not a Michael Bay movie. There isn't anything that I've seen or read that makes me think this is going to suck. If you're on a mission to the sun I can't think of any other name you would call your ship but Icarus. and then name the second ship Icarus 2 in honor of the first crew. there's nothing illogical about that. Now, straying from your mission to check out the first ship might be a stretch but I can see that happening. Some of us here like to pretend that we're smarter then we really are, so we pick apart other people work as if we could do any better. And if your reading this and saying you could do better, well then, why are you reading this?

  • March 20, 2007, 9:28 p.m. CST

    newc0253 (again)

    by Playkins

    Your list of exempliary scifi included "Children of Men", "Serenity", and "The Fountain". Sorry if I don't take your appraisals of exemplary and noteworthy movies seriously.

  • March 20, 2007, 9:34 p.m. CST

    one last thing...

    by Playkins

    None of this changes the fact that you HAVEN'T SEEN THE FUCKING MOVIE YET! Who gives a shit what two reviews from god knows who say? You always decide what you enjoy based on the opinion of others? I'm done with you. Goodbye.

  • March 20, 2007, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Atomic.Lobster is correct

    by ewokstew

    Primer is smart sci-fi. I think Children of Men is an awesome film and a step in the right direction to lifting the stigma that many people place on the genre, but honestly, when you break it down, the film is more social fiction than science fiction.

  • March 20, 2007, 11:07 p.m. CST

    Wow wheres all the hate for The Fountian coming from

    by Lovecraftfan

    Not that it wasn't even science fiction tecnichally but that was a great movie. Children Of Men is brilliant.

  • March 20, 2007, 11:08 p.m. CST

    Oh and Primer is massively overrated

    by Lovecraftfan

    What a dull dull film

  • March 20, 2007, 11:23 p.m. CST

    Playkins, stop being a whiny baby.

    by Bronx Cheer

    You bark at someone to not speak for everyone, yet in your first post, you speak for everyone, and then tell us what to do! ("If we want any more movies like this we need to be in the audience opening weekend. That is all.") If you go back and look at your little tirades, you might step back and realize that you are taking this stuff far too seriously for your own good. I'd worry less about whether movies adhere to strict genre guidelines and care more that there are just good films. The blending of genres is where it's at anyway. What to you is real science fiction? To me, it's literary. It's not movies, so as soon as you try to transfer what makes straight ahead SF work on the page to the screen, sorry, you're going to have a lot of people falling asleep in the theater. Cerebral just doesn't work in the movies. The closest you'll get to cerebral is something like "My Dinner with Andre" or "Vanya on 42nd Street." Hell, "Children of Men" was damned cerebral, and you knock it because it was dystopian. Sorry, but so is a hell of a lot of science fiction. (Ok, you can throw a fit now.)

  • March 20, 2007, 11:34 p.m. CST

    ewokstew, science vs social fiction? WTF

    by Bronx Cheer

    You say about "Children of Men" that "the film is more social fiction than science fiction." What precisely is social fiction? Stuff you read at parties? If you mean social commentary, what the heck do you think SF tries to do? The whole thing about speculative fiction (which is a better term for sci-fi anyway) is to speculate or extrapolate and in doing so examine us in the here and now. A HUGE component of SF is social commentary. How does "Children" fail that test? I think people are getting far too hung up on labels to actually enjoy anything anymore. This reminds me of the raging debate when "Star Wars" came out. All the hard-core sci-fi fans were bitching that it was fantasy, not SF. Or the annoying Star Trek fans who went to war against Space:1999 because 1999 said something to the effect that "this is going to be real sci-fi, not with crazy stuff like 'transporters' or warp speed." And what do they end up doing within a year? All sorts of crazy-ass Irwin Allen Lost in Space type nonsense. Who gives a shit! Watch the damned movie and then have a reaction. And quit jerking off to screen caps of Sulu all sweaty and shirtless running around the Enterprise with a sword.

  • March 20, 2007, 11:38 p.m. CST


    by Bronx Cheer


  • March 20, 2007, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Bronx Cheer: (thanks, I will)

    by Playkins

    Say what you want about me, but I don't go around bitching about movies I've never seen.

  • March 21, 2007, 2:31 a.m. CST


    by sunshinedna

    There's a lot of dumb people here. Playkins, why do you hang out with them? For everyone who says 'Sunshine' isn't believable, then goes on to site '2001' as a realistic sci-fi film, I'd like them to explain the science of the whole stargate/watching himself age/orbiting the Earth as a fetus thing. Thanks.... Also, for anyone who claims that in 'Sunshine' they divert the mission for illogical reasons, then goes on to site 'Alien' as realistic, then I'd appreciate why going to a planet they've never visited before after hearing a signal from it was the obvious choice for that crew. Thanks again...

  • March 21, 2007, 5:07 a.m. CST

    "exemplary and noteworthy movies"

    by newc0253

    ah, playkins: you post so much but you read and understand so very little. i listed 'children of men', 'serenity', 'the fountain', and 'scanner darkly' as examples of *recent* quality SF films, not as some kind of top 10 best all-time SF films. i gave you those examples because you seemed to think we're living through some kind of SF drought. yet in the last six months alone, i've seen 'children of men', 'scanner darkly' and 'the fountain' at cinemas. if this is a fucking drought, dude, i'll happily keep living in the desert.

  • March 21, 2007, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Did Winterbottom do Children of Men?

    by Maniaq

    That film was the best Science Fiction I have seen in a long, long time - we're talking just skip all of the nineties and most of the eighties...<br> <br> Yeah sure The Matrix comes close - but no cigar

  • March 21, 2007, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Re-ignite the sun... OF COURSE!! it's bound to work

    by BendersShinyAss

    i wont see this film on it's basic insulting premise

  • March 21, 2007, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Can't the Human Torch just flame on??

    by polyh3dron


  • March 21, 2007, 9:27 a.m. CST

    RE: gayinthebackrow

    by polyh3dron

    Just because Serenity was a continuation of a TV show doesn't automatically make it TV Movie quality.. it WAS beautifully shot and edited, and just because its story began with a TV show your opinion is colored by that.

  • March 21, 2007, 1 p.m. CST

    The premise of this film...

    by Childe Roland

    ...reminds me of the old joke about the Polish space mission tot he sun.<p> "But won't it be too hot?" asked one intrepid reporter.<p> "Oh, we thought of that," answers Dr. Smartski. "We're going at night."<p> And the Guinness guys say: "Brilliant!"

  • March 21, 2007, 2:42 p.m. CST

    pdennett316. Fuck you, pal!

    by council estate scumbag

    you backward northen cunt. who the fuck are you? you're too busy fucking haggis's and vandalizing orphanages in glasgow city centre you fucking inbred. i type the way i speak, fella. you say you wanna bang me? What the fuck!!? i aint into that gay shit, mate. you fuck your friends' arses up there in outer hebrides land. enjoy it too. then u say you wanna bash me? you'll be dead before you've taken one of your deep-fried-mars-bar-grabbing paws outa your pocket to hit me, son. behave yaself. dont make a fool of yourself on here givin it the biggun. you've lost already. you mug old ladies,.....i mug grown men who will kill you as soon as look at ya. unless i'm 132 (which i aint) you aint got no chance. plus you wouldnt be able to afford the train fare down here, and goats take too long. you'd probably end up eating the fucker on the way down here or fucking it to death on the M73 cos you miss uncle Hamish's sweet ass. dont mess with the best. i'm light speed, fucker! now fuck off and jack off to rab c nesbit.

  • March 21, 2007, 2:56 p.m. CST

    posters who pretend to be from council estates...

    by newc0253

    are hilarious. seriously, they are.

  • March 21, 2007, 3:12 p.m. CST

    cheers mate.

    by council estate scumbag

    That's my word from the council estates

  • March 21, 2007, 4:50 p.m. CST

    newc0253 "i'll happily keep living in the desert"

    by Playkins

    "you post so much but you read and understand so very little" Funny, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking about you. Did I ever say those films were in some kind of phantom top-ten? No. YOU picked those out when I asked SOMEONE ELSE what they thought were "sci-fi flick[s] within the last couple years that emphasized plot over visuals". So keep criticizing my comphrehension skills, you aren't doing so hot, either. And for the record, I'm not a DUDE, but I don't feel it necessary to keep correcting you on minutia, do I? As for living in a drought, more power to you. Just understand that there are people that would rather have more choices, even if they aren't as amazing as "Serenity". Please note the sarcasm, I wouldn't want you to misunderstand again.

  • March 21, 2007, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Hi Everyone. I love you!

    by Bronx Cheer

    <DL> <DT><STRONG>Why?</STRONG> <DD>Because you have names like BendersShinyAss and Franklin T. Marmoset! <DT><STRONG>Will I love you forever?</STRONG> <DD>You bet I will! <DT><STRONG>Should you run--RUN--for the exits now?</STRONG> <DD>Oh yes, yes you should. </DL>

  • March 22, 2007, 4:51 a.m. CST

    Light speed, fuckers!

    by council estate scumbag

    That's my word from the council estates

  • April 16, 2009, 8:23 p.m. CST

    by Flummage

    <em> test </em>test

  • April 16, 2009, 8:25 p.m. CST

    by Flummage

    <small>Do you like good music?</small>

  • April 16, 2009, 8:26 p.m. CST

    by Flummage

    <sup>The beat, the secret is in the beat, the beat, the boopity AND the boop.</sup>

  • April 16, 2009, 8:27 p.m. CST

    by Flummage

    <ul> That's what I hear, anyways</ul>

  • April 20, 2009, 8:29 a.m. CST


    by orcus