I have this problem.
Sometimes I get too curious.
I want to read about a movie, so I read reviews. Most reviewers can't help but spoil something or another about a film, which is a problem if a film relies on surprises to make it work. I suggest you don't read reviews if you don't want to know much going in.
So I read a review by Mike D'Angelo on Danny Boyle's latest called Sunshine, and he basically spoils something.
But he is right. The film, for the most part, is far more intelligent than its trailers let on. A key example is in the trailer, one guy (played by Chris Evans) says "If the Sun dies, we die. Everything on the Earth dies. There is no more important mission that this.", or something inanely obvious.
It's the kind of tripe dialogue that goes in movies where either the writer or director thinks we are total idiots, and thus need something terribly obvious like this, or because they want a moment where some character can yell something out, and that's the best they can do.
Except, when it is uttered, it makes a lot of sense, and the advice not to listen also makes sense. In particular, Icarus 2 is a mission sent to implant a bomb in the Sun to reignite it. It's called "2" because a previous mission sent seven years earlier had mysteriously failed, and there was only one more chance to get it right. But as the mission moves forward, there is a distress beacon from Icarus, which has managed to survive all these years.
The crew is deciding whether they should rendezvous with the previous ship, which is nearby or not. Chris Evans, who plays headstong Mace, then utters the aforementioned line, arguing against trying to rendezvous with the other ship. Another crew member, Searle, the doctor, gives a counterargument why they should make it.
For a while, you think Sunshine will draw more inspiration from Apollo 13 where brains saves what appears to be a disaster. Alas, it draws from two other sources. Most heavily, it borrows from 2001, from the look of Icarus, to the voice of the computer (cleverly, they chose a woman's voice, though it lacks the dispassionate menace of HAL, which would have perhaps been too close in imitation). They use exploding doors to propel people.
Unlike 2001, the film wants to have characters, though character development isn't the important part of the film. Of the seven main characters, two are almost insignificantly minor, one has a bigger role. The main character is the narrator, played by Irish Cilian Murphy, who plays a physicist that has created the bomb to reignite the sun. Michelle Yeoh plays a botanist of some sort who is in charge of making sure there's enough oxygen and food. There's the previously mentioned doctor. There's a woman, Cassie, and I suppose Chris Evans, who plays Mace is the second most important character.
The other source is the one everyone loves to draw from, which is Alien, where space is menacing.
Science fiction films have rarely been about mind-altering ideas like SF books have been. They are either adventures or horror, or some mix of the two, with an occasional comedy (like Hitchhiker's Guide) thrown in for good mix.
This film most reminds me of Event Horizon, which started off eerie and creepy, and ended up ridiculously stupid. Alas, Sunshine does the same, except it is far smarter, and creates a much greater sense of awe due to the mission. And the stupid parts, while astoundingly idiotic, still make for some excitement at the end.
The writer or director really struggled mightily to figure out an ending for the film, and came up with something so crazily bad, it's hard to believe.
But up until then, it's fairly compelling stuff. Sure, they fall for the usual science problems. Ships rumble. Outside space is freaking cold.
There are also problems with characters, who, with a frickin computer as their help, still make life-threatening mistakes.
The film looks pretty gorgeous, though. I wish they had more downtime to talk about their mission or had certain personality traits that would make them take a risk that means their lives.
Ultimately, this film would have been far better served in a miniseries format. They could have done several things. First, they should have spent a good deal of time on Earth, probably shortly after the failure of the previous mission. Second, they should have delved into the characters more, possibly interesting in deciding who goes and who doesn't. Then, they should have had their mission, but jettisoned the plot-point at the end, and possibly replaced it with something else.
Even though the characters aren't particularly deep, there is sympathy in what they are doing, and so, at a simple level, just caring how their mission turns out is indeed a success for me. It's more intelligent than most SF movies, which is to say, a bit above average.
Certainly worth watching, even for the mess of an ending.
Three opinions on theorems
-
1. Think of theorem statements like an API. Some people feel intimidated by
the prospect of putting a “theorem” into their papers. They feel that their
res...
5 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment