253 of 300 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Sunshine [DVD]  (DVD)
A lot of people have given this negative reviews on here. I've read their reviews and the main criticisms seem to be:
1. It's boring. That's true, if you're the kind of person who can't sit through any film that doesn't have gunfire and explosions through 90% of the movie.
2. It's not a good Sci-Fi movie like Armageddon. Well, the fact that these people think Armageddon is great tells us something about their taste.
3. It's scientifically inaccurate. I find it hilarious that these critics think they know more about physics than Dr Cox, the scientific advisor who provides a commentary on the DVD. Of course there is artistic licence, but there's nothing wrong with that.
4. The end doesn't make sense. No, the end is confusing - there's a big difference.
5. The characters are paper thin. Again, not true. There is so much depth to the characters, but you need to actually think about it. Like any good script, this shows us the depth to the characters, rather than telling us. Look especially at Chris Evans' character.
This is an amazing film, and is easily the best of 2007 (so far). There are plenty of films for the people who didn't like this, but there are only a few movies with the perfect mix of style and substance that Sunshine achieves.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 21-30 of 30 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2009 21:13:29 BDT
Thanks for telling me the end...
Posted on 25 Jul 2009 19:23:40 BDT
I completely agree with David. There are a few parts that are scientifically inaccurate but if you're looking for accuracy you must understand films have to be screened to a large audience - most of whom will not notice minor inaccuracies. From listening to the commentary by Brian Cox and being a physicist myself, most problems (which there weren't many) where artistic licence - as David previously said.
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jan 2010 15:33:48 GMT
Scientist Bryan Cox gets a brief soundbyte in the extras to tell us that the science is just about spot on. That's it. No elaboration whatsoever, not one word. There isn't even a theory postulated in the film about how to re ignite the failing sun. We don't even know which part of the film he was referring to when he said the science is accurate. Technically this is a very fine movie, but there the comparison ends with any of the true greats in the SF genre (2001, Solaris etc) I can say with certainty this is one of the stupidest films i have ever seen.
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jan 2010 14:34:22 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 17 Feb 2010 12:07:00 GMT]
Posted on 21 Jan 2010 09:05:01 GMT
Harry Nicholas says:
Sorry but this is just another disaster movie. If I was on board I think I'd have to shoot myself rather than put up with my crew-mates idea of 'deep', not to mention their total incompetence at space travel, like Big Brother right down to the flames. I watched this on TV, so I don't know what Dr Cox says, but planet Mercury transiting the Sun in under a minute is just plain silly and adds to the silliness of the plot - planet earth would be swallowed up by Jupiter, and Jupiter would be swallowed up in turn by the sun, so even two bombs the size of Manhatten would go totally un-noticed to even the tiniest idiot sun, so you can see I was desparing from the start. It's not boring, but only because I was throwing my rubber brick at the TV every thirty seconds.
Posted on 30 Mar 2010 14:38:14 BDT
Mr. I. S. Starling says:
You have reviewed this film well and fully deserves a good review, a lot of people making comments and reviews seem to forget that the film is Science "FICTION"! The clue is in the "fiction" part of the genre's name!
And I'm still trying to figure out what people are finding confusing about the ending? I think the people that find it confusing should watch the film a couple more times then read Big Bang by Simon Singh and then watch it again, if you still don't understand it then you may as well give up the thought of breathing every second of everyday altogether.
Please remember science fiction is fiction written about future possibilities and tragedies and is open to ideas being made up, not accurracies. I loved the film and saw a few flaws which did not bother me at all as I was impressed with the images and ideas on offer.
No one has even pointed out the fact that the ship wouldn't even be able to get that close to the sun in the first place no matter what the shield was made of as it would melt and be reduced down to its most elementary particles, the shield (as it was built on earth from earths materials) can only be made of particles that the Sun originally made when forming the planets around it upon the stars birth, so nothing could possibly withstand the heat of the sun as it would be returning to it's point of creation i.e. back to it basic particle structure.
and this doesn't bother me in the slightest, it was a good film, and I think Danny Boyle done a good job at his take on a Sci-Fi movie. If anyone who criticised him saying he was just the same as 2001, Solaris, Alien, etc, you should watch the interview with Danny Boyle about the film and he explains that when making a movie like this it will always boil down to the same 3 elements that all the films mentioned have.
In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2010 15:22:30 BDT
tell it like it is says: "There isn't even a theory postulated in the film about how to re ignite the failing sun."
Exactly. I think the problem I have with this film isn't really the scientific inaccuracy (although there are many examples of this), but the lack of any science from the plot at all. So I agree with Harry, this isn't Science fiction, but simply a disaster movie - in a Science fiction film I want at least an attempt to explain the science involved.
Posted on 8 Jul 2010 14:57:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 8 Jul 2010 15:00:47 BDT
Sam (Leeds, England) says:
3. It's scientifically inaccurate. - From what I know of when a star is in it's last days, it expands and becomes bright red as it chokes on its last dregs of hydrogen fusion. Depending on at what stage this is in, the full expansion of our 'giant red star' could reach close to the earth's orbit. The reason for the sun dying is not given in the film, but it could only be for the reason I've explained - and as such when in the film the explanation of the sun 'becoming brighter' if the mission is successful is nonsense, since dying stars are extremely bright and would fill our sky before dying.
ps. I'm not saying the film is bad, it is in fact fantastic, but the science part of the science fiction is not very strong.
Posted on 19 Jul 2011 22:19:56 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jul 2011 22:20:50 BDT
I guess I have to weigh in. I posted a positive review about a year back which seems to have got lost in the several hundred other reviews, but I liked the movie for the *atmosphere* it evoked. The story I found to be engaging and the acting was good and there were some nicely done "tension" scenes. = 5 stars
The science (whether it be good, bad or simply absent) could pretty much go hang as far as I was concerned APART from the hype that attended it's release about how Coxy had been the scientific advisor to the film = less a half a star
The silly chase and slash ending with the captain of the other ship seriously detracted from the /real/ ending = less another half star
For all its faults, and for it's obvious (although it's taken me this long to spot it!) 2001 pretensions, this film beats the best Hollywood "space cowboy" excretions hands down.
Posted on 11 Nov 2013 15:56:49 GMT
Mr. Mungo says:
The positive commentators have got it right; Sunshine is that rarest of things: a classic, post-modern (sci-fi) film.