Ok, so this isn’t a vampire movie (sorry, Jonathan), but it is a horror film. Well, in the last act it’s a horror film — or more accurately, a monster movie — but in the end, it reverts back to the way it began: an arty science fiction movie.
And that’s the problem with Danny Boyle’s Sunshine: it doesn’t know quite what it is. It begins as fairly “hard” science fiction: the sun is dying and the spaceship Icarus II is sent to deliver a nuclear payload deeo into its heart. The idea is to restart it, to reverse its deteriorization, and by doing so, save the earth and all that are upon it. But note: it’s not called the Icarus II for nothing: the first Icarus, the first attempt to restart the sun, disappeared with nary a whimper some years before. Of course, they find the first spacecraft, drifting aimlessly in the void, and that’s when it begins to veer into monster-land.
Until then, Sunshine is a stylish, even beautiful film: the special effects are well-rendered, and convey a sense of the awesome nature of the Icarus’ mission. The scenes on board the ship are appropriately claustrophobic, and contrast nicely with the immensity of space when the crew ventures out. The acting is fine, especially Cillian Murphy and (strangely) Chris Evans as members of the Icarus’ crew.
Problem is, when it is revealed what killed the first mission, and that it’s still around, the film descends into terminal silliness from which it cannot recover. Pity, that: the first couple of acts carry the promise of a solid — if not terribly original — sci-fi flick. Alas, it was not to be.
RSS 2.0
You seem to have left something off the end of the second to last paragraph.
I really enjoyed the movie when I watched it. I enjoyed the wonderful images and the underpinnings of spirituality throughout the film.
There … it’s fixed. I’d like to blame WordPress’ autosave feature, but it must be old age.
Couldn’t agree more, Rick. I thoroughly enjoyed the first 2/3 (maybe 4/5) of Sunshine, but the last bit completely threw it all away and became so cliche. Such a disappointment. Still, I recommend it for the better parts (specifically the visuals) – see it on as big a screen as you can.
This was one of my very favorite films last year. But, to your point, the wild veering of genre shifts is the common disconcerting factor to people who had problems with the movie. I, for some reason, went with them and found myself completely enjoying Boyle’s erratic shift from heady sci-fi to slasher film.
Fletch, it started out being cliche … in the sci-fi genre, what is more cliche than finding a derelict ship floating around that — gasp! — has something on board?
But I don’t mind a cliche’d plot if something different is done with it, and in the first couple of acts, that was happening.
Joe, we can agree to disagree. Maybe it’s not so much the genre shifts that bother me as how poorly the slasher part was done. You couldn’t see what’s his name clearly … why? Other than it was arty? Did it have something to do with his hours of being near the sun? We’re not sure …
I’ve meaning to poke my head in here for two weeks to say…I completely agree with you and Fletch. I can’t even add anything more than that. Just nice to see some appreciation for this movie – most people completely forgot about the first 2/3 because of the last 1/3.
I wonder if a Director’s Cut has anything different? Like, um, a different last half hour of the movie?
Daniel, I’ll second that for the director’s cut. But given that Boyle directed one of the best monster movies of the last decade (28 Days Later), I’m not sure we’d lose the monster angle.