Kevin's Watch

I thought it was killer all the way (then again I'm a Leo and a big Event Horizon fan) *oh my eyes!*

Finally saw this (because of this thread).

I really liked it. What stands out the most is how effectively they captured the intensity of the suns energy, and how fragile was the crews existance behind their umbrella. That alone made it worth it. I liked the "is that your apology?" bit. I liked the decisions people made. I thought the bad guy was too improbable for an otherwise studied bit of science fiction. (Does that make it soft sci-fi?) The ending (but not the very end) was disappointing in that the movie turned into something very cliche. Odd bits of science were so wrong, which was odd considering how much was so righy. B+.

Yeah, it feels like an awesome movie that got hijacked by nervous executives at the lest second who decided to abort most of the most awesome things about it. It was one of those movies that I feel like a few minor changes could have completely rescued. (A La Total Recall, or Fantastic Four)

Seriously? You enjoyed this film?

For me, it ranked as just a step above Ishtar.

The acting was horrible (sorry Murphy, but you can do better than that), the script inane and the whole concept was laughable*. But then, that's just my opinion.

*I don't have anything against laughable ideas as long as they're given good treatment, for instance Transformers, The Core, and Pink Panther.

You thought the movie got a poor treatment? I thought the visuals were pretty well done.

The visuals weren't bad, about what I would expect for a summer flick five years ago. Nothing that stands out today.

The Dreaming wrote:Yeah, it feels like an awesome movie that got hijacked by nervous executives at the lest second who decided to abort most of the most awesome things about it.

Finally rented this one. I agree with your corporate ending theory. Clearly, the writer knew how to make a compelling story on the merits of character and concept. I don't know why he allowed this story to get hijacked by the slasher ending (unless that was his idea).

Maybe if they had explained the psycho character a bit more, or allowed one of the Icarus II crew members to fill this role, so that we could see the development happen, it would have felt earned. I don't think it would have taken much. The whole movie seemed to be about the hubris (obviously, given then ship's name) of mankind defeating death, defeating entropy, on a species-wide scale. Stakes that high are bound to make people go crazy--not to mention the physical dangers. Hell, it was already affecting the Icarus II, the weight of responsibility and the consequences of failure. When the navigator become anguished because he forgot to adjust the shield, that's when I knew this wasn't your typical "derivative" s.f. story (as said up-thread). These were real human beings with the weight of the our species on their shoulders. That's believable angst.

So all they would've had to have done is connect the dots. Show us that missing scene where one of the crew members goes over the edge. Show us something to earn such a drastic ending. Show us another, more powerful scene, like the navigator scene, where we feel sympathy for the person who goes over the edge, rather than giving us a cheap Freddie Kruger lookalike who evokes no sympathy whatsoever. That's the problem. The tension shouldn't reside in a killer loose on the ship. The tension should come from, well, exactly what they set up during the first 2/3rds: the psychological affects of what they were doing. Technically, that *was* the motivation of the killer, so that theme did play itself out. The execution just sucked.

Malik23 wrote:So all they would've had to have done is connect the dots. Show us that missing scene where one of the crew members goes over the edge. Show us something to earn such a drastic ending.

I do not deny that the slasher ending could have been handles better, but I disagree that they could have done something to make you connect the dots. There was plenty of evidence that the crew were breaking up, and some were similarly affected as Pinbacker was in the Icarus I. I think the I draw your attention to Searle's obsession with the Sun, and the strange behaviour of Captain Kaneda. It seems they were going over the edge, but I don't think it was necessary for one of them to go over the edge to link to Pinbacker. However, if it was up to me I'd definitely change the slasher ending.

I disagree that they could have done something to make you connect the dots. There was plenty of evidence that the crew were breaking up,

Yes, there was evidence. I didn't mean "connect the dots" like "tell us how it happened." I know how it happened. What I meant was, "make it seem believable and sad, as to evoke empathy." Pinbaker didn't evoke empathy.

Wow, I saw the dates in this thread, thought something was wrong with the forum... and then remembered we're in 2009

I'd put this right up there with the most disappointing films I've seen. It's balance was so out of kilter between the sets, special effects and some of the cinematography and the massive plot holes and B grade acting.

That a mission, that is the last hope of mankind as a species could be manned by people, one of whom at a critical mission juncture, decides on a whim to ignore a prefectly good computer and do course corrections manually, then enact them without checking them, whilst everyone else is asleep, really is absurd. At least the dinosaurs didn't die out through mere stupidity!

That the systems did not have any failsafes to prevent this and that the commander had no buddy system to at least require two or more codes to enact a course correction is again unbelievable.

The loss of the antennae is again odd in that you'd think that the design of the craft would not allow for there to be any bits poking out the side when moving the shield...that's part of the shields job! There are many more too.

Add to this the wooden acting and the fact that none of the characters shows any sense of responsibility for 6 billion lives on Earth, are erratic and/or suicidal......... and you really get a howler!

Such a shame since clearly many people did their jobs to make the visuals first rate.

Finn, some of your points are valid. But I think you're a little too harsh on the film's logic. We've had satellites fail because some engineers were using the metric system, while others were using English units. Shit happens. I found this detail to be extremely realistic, the fact that humans of the future still make dumb mistakes. Remember, the ship was called Icarus! I'm sure the writers were deliberate about that, and not merely for the sun theme. Hubris, etc. Only this time, they were able to overcome their hubris, and actually accomplish the mission. So perhaps the criticism is a bit harsh.

They did the course corrections manually because the mission wasn't supposed to do course corrections. They had to override the computer in order to do this. He did check them, and double- triple-checked them. The course correction was fine. He simply forgot to tell the computer to adjust the shield while they changed their alignment with the sun. And because he was overriding the computer, the computer's failsafe didn't catch this human error.

I agree that they should have had a couple people do the course correction. I'll even add another complaint: they should have had more than one man who could set off the "payload." I mean, this guy pushed a few buttons. That's it. They couldn't have trained another member to push those buttons, too?

The loss of the antennae is again odd in that you'd think that the design of the craft would not allow for there to be any bits poking out the side when moving the shield...that's part of the shields job! There are many more too.

Again, it wasn't a design flaw. It was human error in programming a course correction, but not moving the shield to compensate. The shield would have protected them if he had told the computer to do so.

I thought the acting was fine. I thought the people did show human emotion for the 6 billion (especially the guy who made the error discussed above). I wish they'd made their descent into insanity a bit more believable, but that was a script problem, not the acting.

I agree with everything Malik wrote. Good post.

Perhaps I am judging it harshley, especially when by comparison you have movies that have flight sequences that show space craft banking and making noise. I may have been spoilt by Clarke/Kubrick or simply expected more from this, which clearly in some departments was very good.

When will we see a sci-fi movie that engages a Benford or a Brinn or a Vinge to do a credibility check on the science.... its the story that's supposed to be the fiction part not the science.

Hey, I'm always available if they really need me!

finn wrote:When will we see a sci-fi movie that engages a Benford or a Brinn or a Vinge to do a credibility check on the science.... its the story that's supposed to be the fiction part not the science.

The thing is, they hired Brian Cox en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist) to check on the science of the movie. I visited the Royal Observatory in London and was entranced both by Brian's abilities to deliver science to the public and his understanding of astrophysics. He's currently working at the Large Hadron Collider at Geneva right now. Sure, the movie had some errors in science, but they did better than get Benford, Brinn or Vinge (Benford would have been the better option - Benford is a legend).

Interesting facts. Cillian Murphy's character (Capa) is actually based of Brian Cox. And Sunshine converted Murphy from an agnostic to an atheist. He saw the light (pun intended).

Brinn wrote:Hey, I'm always available if they really need me!

Well an Economist could not do too much worse than this particular physicist who was brought in to oversea the science.



Loremaster, Benford is an astrophysisist on staff at IrvineCA, Brin has a PhD in Space Science with a Masters in Applied Physics and a BSc in Astronomy and Vinge is a retired Professor of Mathematics.....given the results...................................

Sure, the movie had some errors in science

..............................I really don't think they did do better!

Anyway time to move on I think.

Ps. the link is to one of my favourite support actors Brian Cox not the physicist

finn wrote:Loremaster, Benford is an astrophysisist on staff at IrvineCA, Brin has a PhD in Space Science with a Masters in Applied Physics and a BSc in Astronomy and Vinge is a retired Professor of Mathematics.....given the results...................................

I know that! I'm just saying Benford would have been the better option. The thing is, you can pick scientific errors in their books as well - even in Donaldson's . . . so what's your point? I know I do it alot, but all this criticism of scientific errors is secondary if the story is told well. Sunshine has a solid story with great characters.

finn wrote:Ps. the link is to one of my favourite support actors Brian Cox not the physicist

Blame me deleting a '_' accidentely. Wikipedia had (Physicist) at the end of the HTTP link following a '_' so it broke the hyperlink to the Brian Cox physicist link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)

Loremaster wrote:Sunshine has a solid story with great characters.

I would respectfully disagree with you, here.

It had solid potential, and the drama and tension were more than enough to make a truly great film out of. But the second half (particularly the addition of Pinbacker) really dropped the ball.