July 27, 2007, 9:11 a.m. CST
I got nothin' else
July 27, 2007, 9:11 a.m. CST
I mean first
July 27, 2007, 9:13 a.m. CST
nice sci-fi...has some tense moments, but gets a little corny towards the end. Maybe I'll change my mind once I see it on the big screen.
July 27, 2007, 9:13 a.m. CST
I can't wait to see this. I am a huge Danny Boyle fan and this looks like one of his best yet. Almost 2001ish, by the looks of it.
July 27, 2007, 9:14 a.m. CST
This doesn't sound....terrible.....I don't know gimme a trailer and we'll see
July 27, 2007, 9:14 a.m. CST
I thought I was first
July 27, 2007, 9:21 a.m. CST
by Kentucky Colonel
This movie had posters everywhere...Picadilly, in the Underground, ads all over TV. It was with fuckall frustration that I knew I'd have to wait at least 6 months before it arrived here. Sounds like it will be worth the wait. BTW- loved the quote from Hawking. I'll bet he says "fuck" a lot...esp. to his ex-wife ("Fuck you...I wrote the damned book, I have to sit in this fucking chair...I have to talk through this goddamned box straight out of "Wargames"...how about fucking the good professor...you get my drift). This is going to be a goddamned busy weekend at the movies....this, the Simpsons, Lawrence of Arabia at the AFI (in GLORIOUS 70mm!) and tonight double feature (also at AFI) Purple Rain & This Is Spinal Tap...and Harry Potter at the Bengies in Baltimore (biggest movie screen in the US). Popcorn burnout...here I come! Final thought...what other problem can we solve by strapping a big fuckall bomb to it....I'm thinking TALIBAN! Fuck 'em...kill every mother's son, get all Hebrew on their asses...
July 27, 2007, 9:32 a.m. CST
...really wanted to like it, love Boyle's work in general, but this just did'nt make the grade.
July 27, 2007, 9:33 a.m. CST
by Borgnine JR
It's a freaking cultural icon!
July 27, 2007, 9:41 a.m. CST
an amazing movie, had the claustrophobic feel of Alien and also packed a punch at the end. Nearly as good a ride as 28 Weeks Later! Damn that movie was blood thirsty!
July 27, 2007, 9:42 a.m. CST
was the moment where I realised that this movie is one big, bad trashfest clad up in way-too-stylish garments (a.k.a. the superb cinematography). This is a much trashier version of Event Horizon, except even more overstylized.
July 27, 2007, 9:42 a.m. CST
July 27, 2007, 9:44 a.m. CST
July 27, 2007, 9:46 a.m. CST
Common Massawyrm,you say you haven't seen a sci-fi movie as original as this in a long time?How about Aronofsky's The Fountain?Hugh Jackman goes into space on a bubble space ship,and I've seen Sunhine's trailer and it looks like it has ALL of the typical cliches of sci-fi movies regarding the crew dieing one by one and about the ultimate sacrifice for humanity...
July 27, 2007, 9:49 a.m. CST
by Franklin T Marmoset
Has Massawyrm discovered a possible solution to the terrifying global problem of Michael Bay?<p>Nah, he'd probably live through it.
July 27, 2007, 10:01 a.m. CST
I love it.
July 27, 2007, 10:11 a.m. CST
of course I pass the theater at 1 AM, 3 hours after the screening. Considering he's in my top 5 favorite directors working today, I was more than a little pissed.
July 27, 2007, 10:15 a.m. CST
by Steve T
"we haven't really had a film that makes people stand up and say I want to make a film just like that! Until now" The problem is, that was what ran through Danny Boyle's head. It was a Sci Fi film built to spec because he wanted to make a sci fi film. I was brilliantly made, greata cting, good story until the end which sort of felt apart for me, but it just had no real ideas of it's own.
July 27, 2007, 10:17 a.m. CST
was original, thought provoking and profound. Sunshine is a standard 'calamities befall crew while trying to save the earth' movie with better than average direction.
July 27, 2007, 10:18 a.m. CST
by Steve T
I hated the storytelling conceit of calling the ship Icarus! Oo let's name it after the guy who flew too near the sun and it all went tits up, just like in our film!
July 27, 2007, 10:22 a.m. CST
I swear to GOD the main webpage for the movie actually uploaded YouTube videos of every last death scene from the movie. What the HELL kind of promotion is THAT?!
July 27, 2007, 10:22 a.m. CST
This movie was fucking boring.
July 27, 2007, 10:35 a.m. CST
by Bungion Boy
I saw this yesterday. While some of it was visually striking and I liked the first half, it just all fell apart at the end and became to reminicent of other better sci-fi films.
July 27, 2007, 10:49 a.m. CST
by council estate scumbag
but there were major discrepancies in plot & believability. I wont spoil it, but lets just say that the sun's temperature varies depending on what the narrative requires. Don't expect to much, american cousins, and you wont be disappointed. Its only Danny Boyle afterall. he WAS the guy capable of making "A life less Ordinary" & "The Beach".
July 27, 2007, 11:51 a.m. CST
it was far from Boyle's best. I really enjoyed the change of direction in 28 Days Later, and felt it worked well thematically, but had the opposite reaction to Sunshine. I felt the last third was too heavy of a shift. Although interesting, the religious ruminations didn't seem to fit with the rest of the film. I did think it was daring to switch into a whole new genre for the ending, but again, it was too jarring for my tastes. Still, it's one of the best sci-fi films I've seen in a long, long time.
July 27, 2007, 12:18 p.m. CST
I went to great effort to see this in Toronto last week. It was completely worth it. Although I didn't really like the 90-degree turn in the third act, as with 28 Days Later the rest of the movie is so good it makes up for the sudden insertion of a Rambo element.
July 27, 2007, 12:23 p.m. CST
so if we don't like what you like, we don't understand the material? think much of yourself?
July 27, 2007, 12:27 p.m. CST
after 300, came a bunch of crap. sunshine is the start of the next real films for this year. things like 3:10, bourne, american gangster, trick or treat, etc. screw the summer stock of 3 peats and torture films.
July 27, 2007, 12:45 p.m. CST
More like winter movie? Ye know, last year?
July 27, 2007, 2:15 p.m. CST
"Ratatouille" and "28 Weeks Later." That's it, though "1408" was fairly enjoyable. "Sunshine" falls down in the last reel.
July 27, 2007, 2:16 p.m. CST
by D. Allusion
Is like naming the Titanic the Big Rock.
July 27, 2007, 2:20 p.m. CST
about a year, then saw that it was FINALLY opening "wide" on July 20th. Talked the wife into going (I had to convince her it would NOT be a repeat of Even Horizon) got a sitter for the kids, pulled up the movie listings and...nothing. Not showing. Not close. Not far. I could not drive a hundred miles (to Houston) to see this movie. Could not find when, or even IF it is going to open anywhere within a thousand miles of here. Can someone please explain this to me?
July 27, 2007, 3:12 p.m. CST
by The Cosh
Loved this film when it actually came out about 9 months ago. Best sci-fi film in years (since Soderbergh's Solaris?), comfortably the best thing Boyle's ever done and probably my fave film of the year. Excellent use of music: the scene where the captain and the shitbag go EVA is absolutely awesome.
July 27, 2007, 3:45 p.m. CST
my favorite'. <p>Your opinion is your own right and it is correct as far as you're concerned, but you're wrong. Danny Boyle will never top Trainspotting. There aren't many filmakers alive who could top Trainspotting. Trainspotting is about as alive and fresh as cinema could ever hope to possibly be. And it was the first '18' that I ever got in to see, so nuts to you Massa!
July 27, 2007, 4:01 p.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
I said FAVORITE, as in the one I will watch the most. Trainspotting is by far his best, and occupies a special place in my heart as it was the night I went to see it that I proposed to my wife. Thankfully, I proposed BEFORE the movie with the dead baby and the shitter swimming. =D
July 27, 2007, 4:33 p.m. CST
I loved this movie. I saw it last weekend in NYC and came to the conclusion today that Sunshine goes into my top 10 movie list of all time. If the ending (as in 3rd act) would have been a little better or different, this would have been top 3 for sure.
July 27, 2007, 6:09 p.m. CST
...in the sun's face. It would actually make a better film than "Sunshine" is.
July 27, 2007, 8 p.m. CST
Massawyrm! Stop taking my name in vain. :) This talkback raises an interesting point, though. Which is worse, the Fountain or Armageddon? If they ever remake War Games, that's the question they should ask the computer at the end to drive it crazy. It's like "Could god make a rock that he couldn't lift?" A paradox, because each established previously undreamed-of realms of shittiness. I'll tell you one thing though, Wolverine's flying bubble could have used Bruce Willis and a drill. And why don't I get a blackground, like you and Bruce Willis?
July 27, 2007, 8:37 p.m. CST
I am sorry. What a way to ruin a good movie. Sam Neil from Event Horizon shows up and starts slicing everybody with sharp medical tools. Sucky suck sucked. And the way they edited the burnt psycho was the WORST...all shakey and blurry like. Maybe I will warm up to the ending eventually, but the twist kinda didn't fit in my opinion.
July 27, 2007, 8:50 p.m. CST
by Amy Chasing
people who say this film is a must see for sci-fi fans... nope. <P> Science fiction may be fiction, but the science involved should be at least reasonable, hopefully even plausible. And you don't put out a fire on a space ship by flooding the compartment with oxygen. That's just bad science. <P> 'twas pretty though. well, in parts.
July 27, 2007, 9:11 p.m. CST
...and the best soundtrack to any film in many years wake up tards
July 27, 2007, 9:12 p.m. CST
July 27, 2007, 9:12 p.m. CST
The main thing that I liked about the movie was the realism involved with their situation. I agree that oxygen may not be the best idea to put out a fire, and it would be stupid to look at the sun even at 3.1% that close to it, but every little detail seemed explainable and realistic. The comm towers and Harvey exploding once it went so far past the shield, the freezing in outer space (awesome visual by the way!), the cooling systems, it all seemed legit to me. But then again, I am no scientist. This was prehaps the most visually stunning piece of work I have ever seen.
July 27, 2007, 9:15 p.m. CST
I say again: SPOILERS! ...Okay, I really enjoyed this film. I was incredibly moved at times, like when the whole crew witnessed the planet Mercury, and when the captain sacrificed himself as the sun "rose" over the crest of the ship. Beautiful, unique. <p>What I'm having trouble grasping is the captain of the first Icarus. What was this "thing"? Obviously not still "alive" in the traditional sense, right? The way he was shot, in that time-lapse blur-style, seems to suggest he could be occupying some sort of slightly different time continuum, which was actually briefly mentioned early in the film, i.e about how time/space would be corrupted once the ship/bomb reached a certain point. But had they reached that point yet? <p>Yes, in retrospect, Cap 1 WAS a little too Sam Neil-like from EH, but I honestly don't have a clue as to exactly what sort of life form he was now supposed to be. <p>Thoughts?
July 27, 2007, 9:53 p.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
Just got back from watching this and I was sorta having the same questions bumping around my brain.<p> I'm sure I'll be able to come up with SOMETHING after I sleep on it but right now I'm just confused. But in a good way. I loved the heck out of this movie.<p> Then again I think 28 Days Later is actually a genius film (not a genius zombie film, a genius film period) and Millions makes me cry everytime I watch it. So maybe I'm just a Doyle fanboy.<p> My early thoughts on Cap1...<p> What we know:<p> *Being "enveloped" by the sun again and again played with people's minds... the Captain had the same black eyes that the psychologist had after he'd become a sun junkie.<p> We can assume, I think, that there's something unexplained and "supernatural" that happens when the light is mixed with the heat is mixed with the gravity.<p> It may just be that it effs up your mind.<p> *I wondered for a while how he got onto the Icarus II but it's easier than I thought... he just walked across when no one was watching the hatch then busted it from the IcII. In other words, he didn't necessarily have supernatural powers.<p> *Boyle's angles and cuts gave him a demonic quality. He kept referencing "God" but kept committing acts of "evil." Was he possessed?<p> *I think ultimately he just lost his mind, radiation poisoning maybe, and went on some sort of murder spree.<p> Thoughts?
July 27, 2007, 10:28 p.m. CST
We just saw it tonight. Absolutely not impressed. Once again AintItCool has failed to inform. The movie succeeds at keeping you on the edge of your seat, but it devolves into a silly horror movie EXACTLY like Event Horizon did, with its ridiculous combo platter of Hellraiser and 2010. There are no questions at the end of SUNSHINE, nothing left unanswered. In fact there's nothing to understand at all. Its' a straightforward suspense/horror flick. The captain of the other ship went crazy, survived the attempted suicide that killed the rest of the first ship's crew (hence him being horribly burned), went even more crazy in the intervening 7 years, and then began killing everyone that showed up from the second crew. It just ends up being a horror movie...THAT'S IT!! We were tremendously disappointed. The movie tries to be very artsy and high-minded, but the end result is less than the sum of its parts. This one is not even a rental. Sorry, but decent sci fi with an original premise is still forthcoming. The makers of Sunshine failed completely and utterly to bring anything new to the table. Honestly, we've all seen this before and liked it more.
July 27, 2007, 11:25 p.m. CST
metaphor for religious zealots, in my opinion. He was so certain in his belief, that he had "talked to God" that he was willing to commit a sin in his attempt to bring the rest of humanity closer to God, which in his mind was the ultimate good. It's kind of like suicide bombers who believe in killing innocents because they believe God wants Muslims to control the Middle East, or American Christians who believe in fighting Muslim countries because they believe the Bible requires Israel to be held by Jews so that the end times may arrive. It's the ultimate immoral act to accomplish what they believe to be a moral good. Anyway, he's a paradox and I assumed him bein blurry was as stylistic choice but now that people are talking about it maybe Boyle wanted us to ask maybe Pinbacker did reach a higher plane of being.
July 27, 2007, 11:28 p.m. CST
by Turd Furgeson
You heard it here first..... This guy can do no wrong and they should jump on him now before he goes onto something else.. Can you imagine the performances he could get out of those actors and the cool as hell camera angles he would employ to bring that to life... Awesome.
July 28, 2007, 12:26 a.m. CST
I was covering my ears.
July 28, 2007, 12:35 a.m. CST
the psych officer was beginning to go through the same thing. Come on people, pay attention.
July 28, 2007, 2:55 a.m. CST
anything that is influenced by Alien is good in my books for the most part. what a use of atmosphere.
July 28, 2007, 5:04 a.m. CST
by Call me Kenneth
What a mish mash of the worst Hollywood clichés - the only surprise was that Rose Byrne didn't trip and twist her ankle when she was running away from the stock Bad Man. 'Science fiction'? Hah, right. The Fantastic Four is Solaris compared to this predictable yawnfest.
July 28, 2007, 7:32 a.m. CST
Yes, with the benefit of sleep and hindsight, I suppose the original captain of the first Icarus was not intended to be some sort of "superhuman" or "supernatural" type of life form. That actually adds to and detracts from the film for me. <p>I much prefer the absence of the supernatural here - it's much scarier/creepier to think of a deranged sole human left to orbit the sun in an abandoned space craft for seven years. However, the way he was shot, and the acts he committed while looking so horribly disfigured (holding Cillian up in the air with one arm at the end) really stretch the bounds of belief. <p>As for getting through the airlock, wouldn't there be more involved than simply walking through? Wouldn't he have to open a door, go through some sort of procedure that he'd have to initiate through contact with the computer on the Icarus 2, which later said that "she" didn't recognize him, so probably she wouldn't have responded to his voice command anyway? <p>And back to the way he was shot - the motion blur, where it APPEARED as if other characters might be seeing him in that state as well, as it seemed as if there were times when he was on camera in that blur state while other characters were in the same frame but were NOT blurred. <p>So, I guess what I'm saying is, it looks like he WAS still human, which is cooler conceptually, but I think they should have made his body a little less "ravaged" to make us believe that his physical body could still move, run, attack, etc. in that horrible condition. <p>In any case, I need to see it again. It's a flawed film, but a beautiful, passionate effort by the great Danny Boyle. The music was, once again, perfect. The entire scene where the captain of Icarus 2 was preparing to meet his end was just ... utter brilliance and completely awe-inspiring. And the CASTING (although I didn't really like Mace too much) was also inspired. So many interesting, non-traditional types. <p>FInally, I think the religious metaphors are right on, and that makes the film even more powerful to me. The notion of religious fundamentalism/lunacy represented by the first captain really hits home with me and my own personal beliefs on the state of things on this pale blue dot.
July 28, 2007, 8:46 a.m. CST
OK....lets talk about the "crazy captain" Twist "EVENT HORIZON" ending... Captain of first Icarus goes bonkers, sabotages mission and kills crew. Survives 7 years, goes even more crazy. Some here say he deludes himself into thinking his God is the only God...and some how stows away on the Icarus 2 and starts killing off the crew there. I can ALMOST buy that. But I just think it was handled so poorly. I am sorry. Starting with the way Boyle TOTALLY blurred the crazy burnt captains character. I mean...WTF was up with that. You wanted to SEE the character. You wanted to understand him better. But all you got was choppy editing and blurred out images of the guy sneaking up on characters and killing them with no suspense. It just happened to quick. Maybe Boyle thought the guy would look too silly walking around all naked and crispy so he blurred everything. But it would have been better to SEE him as a REAL entity....not the GOD like vision he touted himself as. And WHAT was up with the way he just picks up Cillian Murphy's character by the throat with one hand and walks with him like he was some super monster. WHEN IN REALITY he was just a crispy crazy human being?? Then the female character just rips the flesh off his burnt arm like it was butter???!!! Now if Boyle showed this tortured soul in full focus hobbling around the ship in pain and delusion....and let you ACTUALLY SEE him as flesh and blood....it would have been MORE powerful. Here is ONE crazy human KILLING in the name of GOD...and there is Cillian Murphy trying to save life and humanity and having a spiritual experience. Boyle should have kept it REAL.... I think the way he handled the crazy captain was wrong. But then...It ain't my movie. :-) Just my 2 cents. Otherwise, I dug the movie. And the way it treated "reality" in space. I wouldn't put it in my "Top 10" of all time like some posters here did tho.
July 28, 2007, 9:27 a.m. CST
You tell these sons o' bitches....im sick of them slagging creative folks like Boyle while filling up page after tb page of drivel on nonsense like eli roth or jj abrams...well done old boy
July 28, 2007, 10:24 a.m. CST
Could not agree more with your assessment. I actually had an argument with my wife after the movie because she thought the Captain was simply a deranged human (which apparently he is), while I was like, "WHAT, are you kidding me? Did you see how he was shot in that blurry way, did you see how he held up Cillian with one hand at the end, how could he have possibly done all these things if he hadn't been 'altered' in some way?" <p>And yet, it seems like my wife was probably right from the director's standpoint: it WAS the same human captain from the original ship. <p>But, as you say, it would have been SOOOOO much more effective to have the guy be portrayed as a human without any question. He should have been far less burned, he should have NOT been shot in that blurred, time-shifting way, and he certainly shouldn't have had that kind of superhuman strength he showed at the end. Would've been much more effective AND scarier that way.
July 28, 2007, 11:07 a.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
Just to continue the discussion...<p> *I do NOT believe the film was supposed to represent science beating faith. Boyle is a deeper filmmaker than you guys give him credit for. This film was abou FAITH prevailing over everything, even sheer lunacy.<p> It was an ENDORSEMENT of faith.<p> They didn't KNOW what would happen when they delivered the payload.<p> They didn't KNOW that anything would happen even if they delivered it correctly.<p> They didn't KNOW what the deal was with the Captain of IcI.<p> People kept dying, killing themselves and being killed. Every instinct, every scientific conclusion would tell them they were doomed. But they kept going because they had to. They were devoted and they had faith that their mission would succeed.<p> *The captain of IcI was not some religious fanatic or crazed follower of God. He was CRAZY. Period. Did he ever quote scripture? Talk about Jesus? Or Mohamad for that matter? No... it was just "God wants me to destroy humanity." If you read that as Boyle saying "science must trump religion" I think all you're really doing is admitting your own (likely anti-Christian) prejudices.<p> *I agree that the Captain was just a normal human... but messed the F up. And in these ways:<p> --Burned to a crisp. He was a crispy crispy dude and had spent 7 years communing with the sun. Somehow he felt no pain. That was apparent. So something happend there.<p> --If you feel no pain then often times human beings are capable of "superhuman" feats of strength. That would explain how he could lift Cappa with one arm. Think Darkman.<p> --Clearly the skin off the arm would be possible if he really was burnt to a crisp. Another movie reference, think We Were Soldiers and the napalm on the legs.<p> *As far as Doyle's direction and use of angles, blurred images and the like I have ZERO problem with it.<p> The crew is in Deep Space. They're entering the orbit of the FREAKING Sun. The ship is all shot to heck so who knows how messed up things would appear with gravity and a million other factors the way it would be.<p> Then while they're dealing with super atmospheric changes there's some unknown apparently super-human killer running around killing people mumbling nonsense? Yeah, that might be a stressful situation and tough to get a handle on.<p>
July 28, 2007, 11:32 a.m. CST
YMG, I disagree. The film wasn't an endorsement of faith. Not blind faith, anyway. The symbolism involving fundamentalism vs. science is right on the money, as the filmmakers themselves have talked about it. In fact, I've read that Boyle and Garland (the writer) had disagreements over this issue, but they were definitely thinking about it. <p>Just check out Cillian Murphy's own comments from the Sunshine wiki, which says: "Murphy said that being involved in the production of Sunshine had converted his spiritual belief from agnosticism to atheism, saying, 'For me, the film ultimately is a battle between science and religion, or science instead of fundamentalism.'" <p>Obviously films like this should be open to interpretation as the viewer sees fit, but that's how I saw it (and see it), too. <p>Why does this suddenly mean people who see it this way have "anti-Christian" prejudices? My "prejudice," if you want to call it that, is against people who blindly cling to ancient fundamentalist beliefs (WHATEVER the religion) based on superstition, fear, etc. and people who use those beliefs to thwart true human breakthroughs in science, etc. It's happened throughout history and continues to happen. <p>Personally, I love that interpretation of the film. That works for me brilliantly, because I DESPISE that sort of behavior/mindset that says, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." I come from an intense Christian background, and I probably know more scripture than most here. I used to be VERY devoted, but one day I began questioning things and questions led to other questions until now, I see it all as one big fable. Do I know what's out there? Of course not, but I have always believed that the greatest threat to civilization is people who DO claim to know what's out there, and not only that, who claim to KNOW what "what's out there" wants from US. <p>That's what the movie says to me - not necessarily that religion has to be done away with, but that the insane fundamentilism that has hindered society's development since it began has to one day be overcome, or mankind will never make it. <p>And I don't think you need a movie to make that clear. Just a quick glimpse of the news.
July 28, 2007, 12:46 p.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
I'd love to read Boyle and Garland's differing takes... do you have a link?<p> And I can appreciate where you're coming from. In a traditional Hollywood blockbuster if a character rambles on and on about God this and God that then I think you'd be right on that the film is about the dangers of fundamentalism or whatever. I think a Boyle film is different.<p> He sets up the CapIcI as a lunatic. Completely mentally unbalanced. Off his rocker. That isn't fundamentalism. That doesn't represent the dangers of fundamentalism. That represents a lunatic who's mentally unbalanced and off his rocker.<p> The utilitarian crew (note Cappa's statement when asked to vote on the whether or not to kill the suicidal crewmate) of IcII proceeds to act in the face of imperical data, evidence and probability in pursuing their objective SPECIFICALLY because they have FAITH. It might not be faith in a god or in a higher power. But it's unquestionable that the one thing they have is in fact faith.<p> It is an informed faith. It's a reasoned faith. And it's a compelling faith. It compells them to action. To sacrifice their very lives.<p> Boyle isn't the sort of director to use throw-away lines and discussions. It is specifically and clearly outlined that within a certain point in the mission there is NO way of knowing what will happen. But they continue. Faith.<p> Now here's another possible tract... follow the crew's philosophy (Utilitarianism) through their actions and one might even be able to conclude that the Boyle is making the argument that FAITH maximizes utility! FAITH provides the "most good."<p> It's a beautiful and compelling film. The more I think about it the more easily I label it my favorite of the year.<p>
July 28, 2007, 1:03 p.m. CST
Good impressions YMG. <p>I still believe, however, that the first Captain is a good metaphor for religious fundamentalism. And that's just it - he's a metaphor for it, not meant to be a literal incarnation of what a typical religious fundamentalist might look like, but perhaps an incarnation of what some of the people behind the film believe is the ultimate outcome of such fundamentalism. <p>And I viewed the crew's actions to stem more from a sense of hope rather than faith. They knew they were going to die. They had no proof that what they were doing would work. FAITH would've caused them to BELIEVE it would work even WITHOUT that proof. They didn't believe it would work. They simply HOPED it would work, knowing they'd done everything they could and believing that the only thing they could morally do was follow their mission through to the end. That combined with the love and dedication to their loved ones back on earth drove them to do what they did. I see their actions more as a metaphor for the survival instinct in humanity, the strange condition in humans that keeps them trying to improve their lot, rise above problems and impending doom, increase their knowledge, etc. I think it's that drive that SOMEONE behind the film is championing. Sure, faith can be a part of it, but unless I missed it, I never heard the word uttered once. Everything they did was based on "risk assessment" which in itself was based on the overall mission: preserving humanity. <p>As for links, here's a link to the wiki I mentioned earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_(2007_film) <p>The one mentioning Boyle and Garland's disagreements, as well as atheism playing a role in the film, is here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/trivia <p>Unfortunately, that last one doesn't go into much detail about what those disagreements were. <p>It's a testament to the power of the film and talent of the filmakers that it can inspire such discussions. That's what it's all about. Boyle is just amazing.
July 28, 2007, 1:09 p.m. CST
OK, I had to post again obviously after finding this link that better explains the disagreements between Boyle and Garland mentioned above. <p>Garland is an atheist, whereas he claims Boyle is "not as atheistic as me." Some very interesting info can be found about the meaning behind the film at this link: <p>http://whatismoderation.blogspot.com/2007/04/alex-garland.html
July 28, 2007, 1:11 p.m. CST
Let's try tinyurl this time: http://tinyurl.com/377mal
July 28, 2007, 3:56 p.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
I'd argue you can't have HOPE without FAITH.<p> You're right about the risk assessment stuff and you're right about the love stuff. Ultimately they sacrificed themselves for "humanity." These are, fundamentally, acts of FAITH. Faith that life matters. Faith that there's something greater than one's self.<p> Also, I've never known Boyle to work in metaphor. His films are much better described as morality plays (all of them).<p> But you're absolutely right about this being a testament to the skill of the filmmakers. Great flick. No one's having these discussions about Transformers (though that was a fun enough movie too).<p> Now, I'm off to go click those links...<p>
July 28, 2007, 4 p.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
Just read that Garland "intro" blog.<p> Looks like Garland and Boyle had the same basic discussion we're having. :)<p> That's pretty cool, really.<p>
July 28, 2007, 4:44 p.m. CST
by Anakin Whoopass
What is with the shaky/blurry cam, camera movements for no reason other than ADD, and extreme closeups of everything, with editing designed to disorient rather than clarify? And why is everybody dirty, long-haired, and sweaty all the time? And what was the music in this movie? 2001, Aliens, Blade Runner, those were movies. What is this crap now? Jesus.
July 28, 2007, 7:07 p.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
Boyle said that the close-ups and distorted view of CapIcI weren't stylistic. Rather, that's how the crew saw / experienced him due to his long exposure to intense gravity and the sun.<p> Now, you could argue that that's just a crap cop-out they used to make the case for the style choice but...<p> As far as the music, I thought this was one of the better more effective soundtracks I've ever heard. Boyle and Mann are the only directors who consistently hit home runs in the music department (obviously with very different styles) and this was no exception. I'll be purchasing this soundtrack. Loved it.<p>
July 28, 2007, 10:46 p.m. CST
...about the way the crew was seeing Captain Icarus I? Sounds interesting.
July 29, 2007, 7:39 a.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
Behomoth, here's the link to that Boyle interview. It's a video interview.<p> http://madaboutmovies.net/?p=751<p> M-o-M: You said that all fundamentalists are want to destroy the universe. Please re-read the conversation Behomoth and I have been having to see how real, reasoned discussion takes place absent the ridiculous. When you want to join the grown-ups then formulate your argument and support it with aspects of the film. Thanks.<p> I will address one point you managed to make absent your histrionics...<p> You said that CapIcI was a cost-saving / practical effect problem that forced the team to blur. Boyle points out quite clearly and specifically that he was shot that way INTENTIONALLY and SPECIFICALLY because he'd absorbed so much energy his very physical being had shifted and changed and that is how he appeared to the crew. No camera effects. That's the way he looked from their perspective.<p>
July 29, 2007, 7:45 a.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
Garland, the athiest, also said that Boyle made the film and read the screenplay believing it was ABOUT God, not the ABSCENCE of God. That instead of disproving him in the end that the crew actually, in their own way, found God.<p> Garland went on to say that the polar opposite conclusions could both be easily supported by his script and that Boyle's end-result didn't change that fact.<p> So I suppose that if you want to see a condemnation of faith Garland wrote you that story and Boyle shot it.<p> But if you see a celebration of faith (remember, we're talking concept here, we're talking philosophy... not faith in a specific "god" or religion) it seems Boyle shot that movie too.<p> Makes me feel not so bad being the lone voice disagreeing with everyone when the screenwriter says even the director disagreed with him on the foundation of the film.<p>
July 29, 2007, 11:47 a.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
1) I never claimed it was a "religious" movie. I said it was about "faith."<p> 2) Athiest screenwriter Alex Garland said that Danny Boyle believed the movie was about "meeting God." That wasn't my argument. It was Boyle's. I never said they met God. Boyle seemed to interpret the subject matter that way (according to Garland).<p> 3) Boyle says he did NOT make a full athiest movie.<p> 4) "Us" religious people (and I never claimed to be religious) have tonnes (sic) of religious movies to enjoy? As a percentage of cinema films postively and overtly portraying "religion" amount to what, .001% of the marketplace? Maybe you think that's too many, I don't know. I try not to make assumptions.<p> 4) Film is art. Different people see different things. When I watch this film I do not see an anti-religious theme. I see a movie about profound faith. Is it there on the surface? No. I'll readily admit it's a more nuanced approach to the film. But I think Boyle's genius is in the nuance.<p> Another Boyle film, 28 Days Later, for instance, wasn't about zombies. It was about the irrepressible and unavoidable nature and NECESSITY of violence.<p> It's a genius film. But if you saw it as just a zombie flick you could enjoy it that way and I won't say you're wrong. It's art. And in Boyle's case it's almost always layered, nuanced and brilliant.<p>
July 29, 2007, 11:49 a.m. CST
by YO MOM'S GOAT
"...do not try to claim to you what is not yours to begin with. Are you cool with that?"<p> They didn't ask me to show my athiest ID card at the ticket booth and since the state hasn't yet legislated what I view and how I interpret it... no, it's not cool.<p> Long live freedom of thought.<p> Long live freedom of expression.<p> Long live art.<p> OK, NOW I'm finished.<p>
Aug. 2, 2007, 1:15 p.m. CST
by Johnny California
I thought the movie was alright until Freddy Krueger showed up. Actually his neamed was Penbeck, right? Is that a ref to Pinback from DARK STAR? Still, even though it took just about every element you could from the similar movies that came before it (even going back to ROBINSON CRUESOE ON MARS), the mission still didn't make much sense to me even though it was supposedly hard science. Why would you have to slingshot around Mercury to get to the sun? It's the most massive object in the solar system. Its like trying to hit the broadside of a barn by ricocheting a bullet off a nickel right next to the barn door. And why would Icarus I just be sitting there almost right in the way of Icarus II? Planets and everything else in the Solar System move around. Even if Icarus II left on the same date as the first mission, Mercury would have been in a different place and they would've had to take a completely different approach to the sun's poles. In that time, Icarus I would have continued moving in relation to Icarus II, Mercury and the Sun. Then, when Cappa finds out a stranger is aboard the ship, he just runs right over there. Why wouldn't he inform the other members of the crew immediately so they can go together? It's kind of an important discovery, don't you think? Finally (and there is a lot more that just doesn't make sense, but...) exactly how in the hell were they ever going to get back to earth without the shield? It looked like it was meant to go with the bomb and certainly an even brighter sun would have fried them before they could somehow escape its gravity.
Oct. 17, 2007, 5:48 p.m. CST
by barnaby jones
Only a hundred times better. Sunshine is one of the biggest stinkers of the year.