Review: Sunshine -- Nick's Review
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Thrillers, New Releases, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters, Fox Searchlight
.jpg)
The sun is dying in Sunshine, but the familiarity of Trainspotting director Danny Boyle's latest makes one think an equally dire death is the sci-fi genre's aptitude for invention. A gorgeously crafted intergalactic saga sorely lacking in originality or profundity, Boyle's film marries 2001 aesthetics with an Alien narrative to create a rather straightforward – and superficially entertaining – adventure devoid of much meaning. Talk of God, humanity and morality abound but Alex Garland's screenplay only lightly grazes such heady philosophical issues, instead investing most of its time and energy on decently drawn characters, an authentic sense of setting, reasonably taut set pieces, and custom-built showcases for dazzling CG sunscapes, twinkling light flares, and immense cascades of roiling fire hungry to fill the void of space. On a purely visceral level, Sunshine is never less than engaging, and frequently gripping. Yet the general emptiness of its head is frustrating given its pretensions of high-minded deepness, and the commonplaceness of its plot is ultimately dispiriting for a movie seemingly so in awe of the beguiling, near-incomprehensible mysteriousness of the vast universe.
Boyle's film charts the mission of those aboard Icarus II, who have been charged with traveling to the perishing sun and reigniting it with a nuclear bomb (dubbed the "Payload") in a last ditch effort to save Earth from the grip of a solar winter. Icarus II is a marvelously envisioned vessel, its interiors full of high-tech doodad-ery made raggedy after 16 months of use by its human inhabitants, and its exterior marked by a giant, circular solar-paneled shield that protects the craft from the sun's lethal rays. Less impressive is the standard-issue motley crew, comprised of a stoically heroic captain (Hiroyuki Sanada), a sensitive girl (Rose Byrne), an arrogant coward (Troy Garity), a nondescript nobody (Michelle Yeoh), an out-there shrink (Cliff Curtis), a cold pragmatist (Chris Evans), and a sympathetic hero (Cillian Murphy). Save for Evans, who finds himself stuck with the most thanklessly schematic of roles, the cast admirably infuses their sketchily conceived astronauts with a dollop of relatable personality. Their hopes, dreams, and quasi-religious musings, however, are mere specks on the cosmic windshield of Sunshine, whose primary focus always remains on its computer-generated intergalactic wonders.
This isn't a wholly negative tack to take, as the film is a sensory feast, its bounty of trippy imagery and haunting sonic design – melding ominous silence and hollow whooshes with schizoid electronic blips, buzzes and beats – frequently helping prop up the somewhat hackneyed proceedings. And the director's transitions between claustrophobia (in the ship's quarters, in the men's spacesuit helmets) and expansiveness, as well as between stillness and cacophony, are technically dexterous, and bolster the tension which grows exponentially more oppressive as Icarus II – motivated by a surprise distress signal – decides to take a detour to Icarus I, their failed forbearer. But the question persists: to what end these aesthetic sensations? Boyle's camerawork strives for hallucinatory insightfulness even as Garland's script emphasizes action over ideas, a strange combination that keeps one transfixed by the goings-on at hand and yet hungry for greater intellectual sustenance, a thought-provoking scrap or two that might make the crew's dire attempts to fulfill their mission resonate as more than a routine sci-fi escapade.
And routine it eventually becomes. Internecine squabbles, investigations of apparently abandoned aircrafts, and surprise dilemmas all come to play a part in Sunshine's story, developments aided by the lead performance of Murphy – who, in an underwritten part, sturdily balances average-Joe sweetness with whacked-out agitation – but which, for the most part, pay off in disappointingly banal ways. While I wouldn't think of spoiling the outcome, anyone acquainted with the genre will quickly recognize the rather mundane "who dies next?" game being played by Boyle and Garland, whose reverence for Alien is initially tolerable but soon leads them down a path of unimaginative scary movie tactics. Things devolve into wonky time-space craziness during the film's riveting conclusion, thankfully decimating the preceding events' safe predictability with an electric blast of reality-disturbing fantasticality. Unfortunately, though, even this bizarre finale says next to nothing meaningful about free will, mankind's place in the universe, or the divine, instead proving merely a narratively consistent but largely unfulfilling last-gasp attempt to make Sunshine more than a ho-hum voyage into the great unknown.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-19-2007 @ 11:31AM
Sy said...
I love the feel and soundtrack of this film but in the end, it was very disappointing. I don't how one spaceship had problems because it was just .00000000000037 degrees off in their trajectory to the sun while another spaceship seems perfectly fine for being unmanned with no power, closer to the sun, and drifting aimlessly 7 FREAKING YEARS.
Reply
7-19-2007 @ 2:54PM
El N said...
"Yet the general emptiness of its head is frustrating given its pretensions of high-minded deepness, and the commonplaceness of its plot is ultimately dispiriting for a movie seemingly so in awe of the beguiling, near-incomprehensible mysteriousness of the vast universe."
Wow. Now that's what I call one hell of a sentence.
Reply
7-19-2007 @ 4:03PM
ErikDavisisAJerk said...
Hey Nick your a jerk for making me have to break out a dictionary and thesaurus to read your review. Seriously the majority of us want simple basic reviews. In my case I'm at work and reading what I can when I can. I dont have time to think. Keep reviews simple... its not like your going to get pulitzer . Well there may be other you appreciate your thesis like writing which I'll give you credit as being good but this isnt the place for it.
Reply
7-19-2007 @ 4:19PM
Ryan Stewart said...
ErikDavisisAJerk -- Sorry our reviews are over your head. Get used to it.
Reply
7-19-2007 @ 4:26PM
Erik Davis said...
I'd just like to point out how awesome it is that commenters are now attempting to insult me in someone else's post.
Reply
7-20-2007 @ 7:47AM
Michael said...
I couldn't disagree with ErikDavisisAJerk more.
There is nothing worse than reading the same superficial review over and over again when there is nothing substantial to the review. I would much rather read a review that tells me why the reviewer liked or did not like a film than one that tells me nothing. At least then I may make a valued judgment on whether or not I will enjoy a film based on what I read.
Nick, I've been waiting for close to a year to see this film. Your review was spot on as far as I'm concerned. Keep up the good work for those of us who care for a decent review.
http://www.myspace.com/scoobarama
Reply
7-20-2007 @ 10:27AM
ErikDavisisAJerk said...
I'm not stating that this was a bad review just not right for this site. It was in fact very well written but this isnt the New York Times! My point is cinematical is inconsistent with its type of posts and reviews. Some might say a variety of styles is good but I disagree. A site and or Magazines success derives from its consistent content. What they write about and how they write it. Cinematical is all over the place. I actually like the way Erik Davis writes cause he talks to you like a person but he has set his standards to high and has forgotten how to enjoy films or rather is to critical. This guy Nicks review was good but not right for this site. If you guys want to be like Variety or the Times then write all your reviews like this but please pick a side and commit!
Reply
7-20-2007 @ 2:01PM
ErikDavisisAJerk said...
cinematical is a mediocre sight that post random obscure news with a few jems. but often the news that is worth reading is posted by someone who is un-familar with the material and winds up looking like a moron ( i.e. jessica barnes saying that zach and miri make a porno is the first time smith cast a female lead?? WTF?) and then we have every other post written by some wanna be pulitzer prize winner. Post reviews as if you were talking to your friend and or co worker.
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 10:26AM
Michael said...
I still disagree with you EDiaJ. I come here because the reviews that are written "as if you are talking to your friend and or coworker" are generally useless, not to mention that they are plentiful to boot. One might simply read the one line quotes in the movie ads if that is all the qualification necessary for a successful review.
No, I prefer my reviews written for those with more intelligence than a small soap dish. Please leave your criticism at the door and go watch ET for your movie reviews. Something tells me they will suit your needs nicely. The fact that there are occasionally errors or oversights in some of the reviews here simply points to the fact that the writers are just as opinionated as the average film goer is - and about as prone to error as most of us are as well.
I will restate why I read the reviews here: I would much rather read a review that tells me why the reviewer liked or did not like a film than one that tells me nothing. That requires the writer to form an opinion about the film they viewed and then convey that to us here. I then base my decision to see a film on the opinions (plural) of other people who have seen it before me. The studios are always going to spin how great a film is, whether it be on the press tour promoting it or in the trailers. I'd rather find a few critics I trust such as those here on Cinematical and find out what they think before I decide what to see. The more info the better in my opinion. I detest the soundbites most critics use in their reviews. Cinematical gives me real opinions from real people who enjoy film - like I do.
http://www.myspace.com./scoobarama
Reply
7-21-2007 @ 6:26PM
dumbass said...
Micheal.. if you enjoyed Nicks post then thats great but dont you agree if thats the style of writing that you enjoy then shouldnt cinematicals content be exclusivly the same? I wouldnt mind reading these kind of post/reviews if I knew thats what I could expect from cinematical. Nicks review doesnt coencide with the sites track record of " entertainment tonight" like posts/reviews. If I want to read an over complex review then I know I could find one in the N.Y. TIMES.
Reply
7-30-2007 @ 11:53AM
KKP said...
I enjoyed your review, Nick.
Here is Anthony Lane's Review taken from the New Yorker. It is a very entertaining, tongue-in-cheek review of Sunshine. Variety is the spice of movie reviews.
Hot Stuff
Climate change is coming, and it’s serious. None of the traditional folk remedies—switching to a Prius, recycling your eggshells, or taping the Bon Jovi set from the Live Earth concert—will avail you now. The earth is breathing its last, because the sun is dying: such is the premise of the new Danny Boyle movie, “Sunshine,” which turns its gaze upon a group of astronauts who have been dispatched to set the problem right. Their task is to explode a stellar bomb, “with a mass equivalent to Manhattan island,” on the surface of the sun. The effect will be, we are told, “to create a star within a star,” a plan that has not succeeded since the union of Vincente Minnelli and Judy Garland.
The spaceship that bears our heroes is called the Icarus II. There was an Icarus I, but it failed to keep its appointment, for reasons as yet unknown. The two vessels share the same mushroom-based design: a vast, curved shield to fend off solar glare, and, tucked safely behind it, a long modular stalk in which the astronauts live, breathe, and philosophize. There are eight of them, and such is their youth, ethnic diversity, and all-around funkiness that one shudders to think how they might hail a passing alien: “Greetings. We come from Planet Benetton.” Hippest of all is Capa (Cillian Murphy), a physicist with eyes of ocean blue. I found it moving to think of a nuclear payload being delivered by the kind of pale, perfect lad you normally glimpse on the fringes of a Masaccio fresco. Other crew members include the captain, Kaneda (Hiroyuki Sanada); the in-house psychologist, Searle (Cliff Curtis), who is, needless to say, several degrees loopier than the rest of them; and the elegant Corazon (Michelle Yeoh), who tends the jungly garden at the heart of the ship, from which they draw their oxygen.
This green refuge is a lovely invention on the part of Boyle, the screenwriter, Alex Garland, and the production designer, Mark Tildesley. Having last ganged together on “28 Days Later,” a brisk resuscitation of the zombie genre, they are obviously hoping to give the solar system the same kind of makeover. “Star Wars” showed us clean and rustless spacecraft, “Alien” muscled in with dank and dripping ones, and now “Sunshine” catches the mood with verdancy—the most startling shot in the film is of a loamy-fingered Corazon digging carrots, millions of miles from earthly soil. There are, it seems, no baddies here, no galactic trolls, nobody whose first name is Darth: just a benign coöperative, acting on behalf of a doomed world. Welcome to eco-fi.
This still leaves one great danger—the black hole of boredom—confronting both the crew of the Icarus II and those of us watching from the stalls. Boyle, as befits the director of “Trainspotting,” does everything he can to perk things up, whether it’s hastening the beat of his editing or setting off utterly random fights between his characters. Finally, resorting to an old favorite, he arranges for one of them to initiate an S.O.S.—that is, Something Overwhelmingly Stupid—and thus to set in motion the calamity that will engulf the rest of the film. What happens is that the ship picks up a distress beep from Icarus I and, perhaps unwisely, changes course for a rendezvous with its stablemate. The flight engineer makes the necessary adjustment but forgets to realign the protective solar panels, despite having an onboard computer of limitless complexity to help him with his sums. “My head was full of velocities,” he says, the wuss. I wouldn’t trust him with a barge pole.
• from the issue
• cartoon bank
• e-mail this
From here on, we get the works: dockings, conflagrations, overloaded mainframes, and sacrificial space walks. Before venturing outside, the astronauts strap themselves into lumbering padded suits made from what appears to be gold lamé. If Liberace had ever stepped onto the moon, he would have dressed like this. At one point, there is only a single suit among three of them, so Capa (the indispensable one, thanks to his bomb-priming skills) puts it on while his colleagues cling to him, wrapped up nice and warm in torn-off hunks of wall panelling and aluminum foil: just the thing for that merciless interstellar void. It was at this moment that I stopped worrying about the science of “Sunshine,” which clearly has as much to do with the verities of astrophysics as Carmen Miranda did with the economics of fruit cultivation. The film is nonsense, and what counts is whether viewers will feel able to lay aside their logical complaints and bask in what remains: a trip in search of a tan.
Early on, Searle declares that “total light envelops you. It becomes you,” and the bulk of the action, which will mean more to bronzed old hippies than to thrill-thirsty kids, pays homage to that becoming. We are invited to worship the sun both as lifegiver, for those left behind on Earth, and as a kind of annihilating deity; when one spacewalker drifts beyond the limits of the sunshield and catches a direct blast of solar ray, there is a tiny pffsst, and he boils away to nothingness, like a waterdrop on a stove. I am a sucker for such grandeur, and I wish that Boyle hadn’t spoiled it by turning his film into a mad, overcooked exercise in stalk and slash. Was this the only way to stop the kids from walking out of the cinema? Whatever the case, his change of tack feels jagged with impatience and panic. Villainy descends upon the spaceship, but so pressing is the question of why and how it got there, and what factor sun cream it must have been lathering on, that Boyle tries to disguise the uncertainty with visual effects, smearing almost every shot into a distorted haze. Beware of filmmakers who shy from clarity just when we need it most, and ask yourself what happened to the Danny Boyle who offered that unflinching view of drug abuse in “Trainspotting,” with its scabrous highs. He has not so much taken leave of his senses, I think, as allowed them to overwhelm him. Blame it on the sunshine.
Reply