Nah, he'd probably live through it.

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!

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.

'twas pretty though. well, in parts.

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?

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.

Thoughts?

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.

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.

My early thoughts on Cap1...

What we know:

*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.

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.

It may just be that it effs up your mind.

*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.

*Boyle's angles and cuts gave him a demonic quality. He kept referencing "God" but kept committing acts of "evil." Was he possessed?

*I think ultimately he just lost his mind, radiation poisoning maybe, and went on some sort of murder spree.

Thoughts?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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.

It was an ENDORSEMENT of faith.

They didn't KNOW what would happen when they delivered the payload.

They didn't KNOW that anything would happen even if they delivered it correctly.

They didn't KNOW what the deal was with the Captain of IcI.

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.

*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.

*I agree that the Captain was just a normal human... but messed the F up. And in these ways:

--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.

--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.

--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.

*As far as Doyle's direction and use of angles, blurred images and the like I have ZERO problem with it.

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.

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.

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.'"

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.

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.

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.

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.

And I don't think you need a movie to make that clear. Just a quick glimpse of the news.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

It's a beautiful and compelling film. The more I think about it the more easily I label it my favorite of the year.

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.

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.

As for links, here's a link to the wiki I mentioned earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S unshine_(2007_film)

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/tt04 48134/trivia

Unfortunately, that last one doesn't go into much detail about what those disagreements were.

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.

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:

http://whatismoderation.blo gspot.com/2007/04/alex-garland .html

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.

Also, I've never known Boyle to work in metaphor. His films are much better described as morality plays (all of them).

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).

Now, I'm off to go click those links...

Looks like Garland and Boyle had the same basic discussion we're having. :)

That's pretty cool, really.

Now, you could argue that that's just a crap cop-out they used to make the case for the style choice but...

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.

http://madaboutmovies.net/?p=7 51

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.

I will address one point you managed to make absent your histrionics...

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.

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.

So I suppose that if you want to see a condemnation of faith Garland wrote you that story and Boyle shot it.

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.

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.

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).

3) Boyle says he did NOT make a full athiest movie.

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.

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.

Another Boyle film, 28 Days Later, for instance, wasn't about zombies. It was about the irrepressible and unavoidable nature and NECESSITY of violence.

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.

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.

Long live freedom of thought.

Long live freedom of expression.

Long live art.

OK, NOW I'm finished.