Sunshine

British director Danny Boyle (of TRAINSPOTTING and 28 DAYS LATER, among others) apparently wants to become the master of all genres. He stretches into the sci-fi territory with SUNSHINE, an on-the-surface brother to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and other intellectual science fiction films. Yet in an effort to appeal to as many sci-fi fans as possible, plot twists taken in the last half of the film propel it to a whole different, disappointing level. When all is said and done, it goes from a thought-provoking metaphorical study piece to a mash-up of a monster movie and Agatha Christie in Space.

As the first line in the film tells us, our sun is dying. After a failed attempt to reignite the sun using nuclear energy seven years ago, a small group of people have set forth in the ominously-named Icarus II to try again. Contact between Earth and Icarus II’s predecessor was lost once the ship entered the “dead zone,” and the mission was considered lost. Yet when the crew of Icarus II detects a distress signal coming from the lost ship, they must decide whether to continue on as planned or attempt to rendezvous with the vessel. To say anymore would require revealing key plot twists, which occur often and in rapid succession.

The film starts off fascinatingly; Boyle’s touch for visuals has never been more apparent than it is here. Each frame gleams with a polished coldness, only enhanced by the blinding rays of the sun that peek around every corner. The alienation on board the ship all feels familiar; the crew are nameless faces that, though ably played by its cast, could easily have been recruited from other films. There’s even an unemotional computer that they hold conversations with. But while the film is not novel in that respect, its impact is not lessened. Several compelling arguments are made about faith, humanity and the limits of survival. Even as the film nears it close, it manages to retain some of these themes.

The major downfall of the film is its second half, when it enters the same horror-movie aspect that played so well in Boyle’s earlier film 28 DAYS LATER. The characters are killed off one by one, and it is soon discovered that there is… GASP! An unknown person on board. While the suspense sequences that follow this are filmed with gusto, and are indeed frightening, it is a marked difference from the quiet meditation of the first part of the film. It’s as if Boyle and writer Alex Garland knew a great deal of sci-fi fans were going to be put off by the lack of action, and were attempting to make the film as marketable as possible. While this is bound to please some, it turns the film into an unfortunately shallow mash-up of two conflicting sci-fi subgenres: the intellectual and the thriller.

While the two parts of the film work fine on their own, they are both negatively affected when put together. The film is saved from being a failure, though, thanks to Boyle’s inventiveness; no matter what happens, the viewer is glued to the screen, wondering what they will see next. On a purely visual level, the film is hard to beat. If only the script had decided which kind of film it wanted to be, a new sci-fi classic could have been born.

**