I read Bill Gibron's DVD review of Sunshine at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31787 and...

Agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Boyle's latest creation. It is the very best science-fiction film of the decade, trailing only Spielberg's "AI," well, at least 3/4 th's of the film is. I would like to have seen an alternate "take" on the twist to the film, which frankly contravenes stylistically (if not necessarily thematically) what had preceded it. Nonetheless, many thought-provoking ideas on display here.

I'm frankly surprised at the overwhelming praise that "Sunshine" has gotten from here as well as some other sites. While the visual beauty of the film is undeniable and I really liked the first part of it, the final act is one of the biggest jumping off the rails of any movie I've seen in quite some time. (Though not the first for Danny Boyle because his otherwise great "28 Days Later" also jumps the rails in its final act). Intelligent "Thinking Sci-Fi" is so rare these days and I do think "Sunshine" would be better in repeat viewings, but anyone seeing it for the first time will most likely be (very) disappointed by it.

(And my favorite film is "2001: A Space Odyssey" and this one, disappointingly, is simply not in that league of "Thinking Sci-Fi" IMO.)

I agree with dhmac. Sunshine continually evokes 2001 through its first act, then inexplicably takes a turn towards Event Horizon. It wasn't bad, but I do think it's not as good as many are giving it credit for.

I know this movie was suposed to be thought provoking, and maybe it was. But haven't we already had these thoughts? Nothing new. Those who have never seen similar movies may feel it's worthy of 4.5/5. I'd give it a 3/5. I liked it.

I enjoy the look and atmosphere of the movie, enjoy the stimulating plot for the first 2/3rd. The final 1/3rd is just too jarring and finale too jumbled for me to fully embrace, but I do recommend the movie. I agree, it's a bit overrated on a lot of sites, but I do think it's one of the better recent scifi flicks.

Just watched it, and no question 2001 Comparisons jump out.

And also no question, the movie comes crashing down in the final act.

It does have rewatchability, but overall, I was preparing for much more, and was left vacant.

I'd give a 7/10, mostly for effort and some interesting ideas tossed around.

"Sunshine" is no "2001". It isn't even "a.i.". But it's nonetheless one of the finer sci-fi movies I've seen. That said, I'm not sure I understand why the 3rd act is being criticized.

Spoilers to follow, of course...

As I read the film, it's a confrontation between two world-views: the religious point of view vs. the scientific. Capt. Pickering (or whatever his name is) and the remaining crew members of Icarus-I who refused to complete their mission and instead emolated themselves represent the religio-mythic POV, a relic of humanity's past and a grave danger for its future. Cappa (the physicist) and the crew of Icarus-II represent the scientific-empirical POV, and humanity's best hope for the future. The 3rd Act is no less than a physical dramatization of this battle of world-views. In other words, it doesn't "go off the rails" or "on a tangent". It neither comes out of nowhere or in anyway undermines what came before. It is the final confrontation between these two warring POVs that the first two acts had developed.

And isn't it nice, for once, to have a science fiction film that doesn't go soft in the end, reverting back to some pre-enlightenment superstition or soft-peddling the inherent naivete of the religious mind? I found it refreshing in that regard.

But of course, I have my criticisms: I suspect Capt. Pickering (again, correct name?) would most likely have phsycally regressed after so many years in space and in such close contact with the sun's radiation, however dampened by the shield. I think his extra-human powers (strength, essentially) are probably the opposite of the affect most scientists would attribute to having endured that. Given that the film provides a good dose plausibility on many other aspects of longterm space travel, this one somewhat less plausible aspect stood out. A little explanation, however bogus, might have made it go down a bit easier (like "some scientists suggest that longterm exposure to the enormous gravitational power of the sun would increase muscle mass and density by a factor of blah blah").

That said, a really good flick. And a sci-fi one, to boot. Those two virtues don't come together very often.

I think I struggled with how Pickering if thats him, survived and became essentially superhuman. I was enjoying the sci-fi aspects of the film strictly in the first 2/3s, and really thought that the metaphysical part of the movie was not set up well, and boom, here comes a the sole survivor 7 years later waiting for the ambush. I don't know, I really struggled with the leaps of faith as it were to accept this. His backstory was minimal, and his "superhero" qualities were really glossed over.

I was not satisfied that the film was trying to be more than a Sci-Fi film as it delved into religious and spirtual avenues, I felt those were not really that well drawn out, but thats just me.

As I said, I do think its rewatcheable, so maybe these will hit me better the next time around.

I don't find the Captain's survival to require much in the way of a logical (or logistical) leap. The oxygen garden was thriving, and - as we knew from a conversation on Icarus-II - food supplies wouldn't be an issue. But his overwhelming strength did strike me as both counter-intuitive and inexplicable. I suppose it may just have been to allow that final confrontation to be sufficiently dramatic in a way it would not be if Capt. Fundie McDeathcult were nothing more than a physically ravaged victim of solar radiation barely clinging to life.

But as we came to understand what went wrong the first time, setting up the final confrontation between the forces of superstition and reason, I don't think we needed any additional backstory on Icarus-I. The tapes that were discovered and the Captain's subsequent proclamations provided us with enough specifics to discern the essentials of what occurred on Icarus-I. Moreover, we can infer a psychological/emotional toll on the captain and crew of Icarus-I similar to that which we witnessed with the crew of Icarus-II.

But, even given that emotional/psychological toll, would a man of science succumb to such irrationality and believe himself to be "the last man, alone with god" (and, further, in a position to determine the fate of mankind)? Perhaps it's not so terribly far-fetched under these circumstances. After all, the very first object of divine worship among we humans was the sun. A scientist might find this to be quite compelling, as we now know more than our primitive ancestors possibly could that, indeed, this object gave us life and sustains it. When it's said that we are, after all, stardust, that's not merely a poetic metaphor. It is, in fact, what we are.

Also, I checked imdb for "memorable dialog", and found this:
Searle:In psyc tests on deep space, I ran a number of sensory deprivation trials, tested in total darkness, on flotation tanks - and the point about darkness is, you float in it. You and the darkness are distinct from each other because darkness is an absence of something, it's a vacuum. But total light envelops you. It becomes you. It's very strange... I recommend it.

Almost like "communing with the light", and certainly of-a-kind with a wide-range of earthbound phenomena misinterpreted as being of divine origin. But imagine being 90 million miles from earth and in the direct presence of the largest object in our solar system, an object considered divine during the lion's share of human history (and likely proto-human history, as well), all of which is wreaking havoc on your psychological balance. And imagine yourself alone with this enormous, blazing orb, possibly the very last man alive given that you have no notion of what's going on back on earth... one might become a tad, er, off one's rocker.

But I want to come back to the most common criticism of the third act, what some perceive as a too-abrupt shift of tone. I came across an interesting blog discussing "Alien" and "Sunshine", and I think the writer made an interesting point (slightly redacted): "There are no androids hidden in Icarus II, but Ash has some of the same characteristics and character purpose as Captain Pinbacker. Even some of the criticisms which have been leveled at Sunshine - an “unexpected” shift in the story with the arrival of Pinbacker - this criticism could just as easily be made about Ash who is “unexpectedly” revealed to be an android and also attempts to kill the crew. In fact Pinbacker['s twist] is more [justifiable] because he continues one of Sunshine’s thematic explorations, representing the extremist theological point of [view], whereas Ash is merely a catalyst and a twist."

Interesting points from all and I admired and enjoyed "Sunshine". That said, the stylistic change in "Sunshine" is quite a bit different from that of "Alien". In "Alien" there was a creature aboard and a creepy quality to the first half of the film totally missing from the two-thirds of "Sunshine". Also, Ash isn't all that unexpected once the big twist (Where it is revealed "the Company" conspired against all of them and that Mother kept key information from them) is revealed in the third act. The fact that Ash is different from the beginning is revealed in little bits of dialogue. To the writer(s) and Scott's credit, though, they try to make Ash seem the "reasonable" one by suggesting quarantine for John Hurt's character.

SPOILERS BELOW:

That said, the shift in tone and style is significantly different for the last third and I suspect that the dissatisfaction is that it smacks of deus ex machina which is a pretty cheap trick for a seasoned screenwriter like Garland to put on the stage. That said, the stylistic jump is jarring which I think was intentional.

As others have pointed out the film really is about the conflict between reason and zealots.

The character of the Captain didn't strike me as having super human strength--instead I surmized that he had survived in a low oxygen environment longer than the other crew members (remember the oxygen was rapidly becoming depleted and he was completely insane--the mentally unbalanced can show super human attributes particularly when they have a rush of adreneline running coursing through their veins. The big questions for me was whether the "suicide" was, indeed, a "suicide". I believed him to be the first victim once he got on board the Icarus II.

Whoever wrote that blog completely missed the point entirely regarding Alien and the android Ash (played by Ian Holm). For one thing, Ash did not attempt to kill the crew. Instead, Ash was secretly put on-board the ship by the Company (i.e. the corporation that owned the mining ore transport ship) with special instructions to bring back any alien life encountered at all costs, even if it risks the crew's lives (i.e. "Crew Expendable"). This is completely consistent with the ship's computer (called Mother) also being programmed to divert course if any alien transmission are detected. With these instructions, Ash would only kill crew members if they threatened the life of a discovered alien. This behavior was not at all "out of left field" but was entirely consistent with the Company's primary directive to stop their work and find and bring back any detected alien life at all costs.

Pinbacker (btw, did they take that name from Dark Star?) was, on the other hand, an entirely out of left field character that only showed up in the final act, and was killing everyone without much apparent reason. If anything, it seemed more like he just went crazy from sun exposure than any well-thought out reason. I mean, if it was this religious idea of Sun worship, then wouldn't he want a mission to revive his "god" to succeed instead of fail (in which case, the Sun, his god, dies)??? Sorry, although there are some interesting ideas in Sunshine and its visuals are incredible (I saw it on the big screen during its all-too-brief theatrical release), the movie does fail apart in its final act because it's very inconsistent with what went before.

(Of course, that's just my opinion)

Although I agree that the third act is pretty lousy overall, I took it to mean that the death of the sun was the natural order of things, something put into place by God. Pinbacker viewed any attempt by mankind to reignite the sun to be subverting God's will.