*SPOILER WARNING*

Against the backdrop of a post-apocalyptic New York City a lone scientist-soldier searches for a cure to the virus that killed off humanity.

My heart sank almost at the very first frame of this film.  The opening sequence appears to be little more than an extended advertisement for the Ford Shelby Mustang GT500, and features Will Smith racing around the deserted streets of New York hunting deer from the driver’s seat.  There are perhaps more practical - and certainly less noisy - methods of stalking game, but one hardly has time to reflect on the alternatives before we are thrust into a stand off between the protagonist and a pair of wild lions hunting the same prey as Smith.  This brings me to the second reason to be disheartened early on in the film: the CG.  Both the deer and the lions are indistinct, colourless and unconvincing, which is both disappointing and unacceptable in a film with such a large budget.  It might not have been quite as much of an issue if the graphics weren’t so central to the film, but sadly these vague and pallid forms go on to let down almost every action sequence and would-be suspenseful moment in the rest of the movie.

We soon move on to safe ground with a tour of Smith’s post-outbreak life, witnessing him gathering food, eating breakfast, securing his base of operations and driving golf balls from the wing of an SR-71 Blackbird.  All fun stuff, no doubt, if for no other reason than it’s easy to project yourself into the same survivalist scenario.  But there’s little that’s new here, and it’s all been done better - and for less money - in films like Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later.

Of course, the tranquility of Smith’s urban existence is soon shattered by the appearance of what remains of the human species; now unfortunately mutated into aggressive and under-fed zombie monsters by a virus that was designed to cure cancer.  And this is where the visual effects department rears its ugly, insipid, malformed, and conspicuous head once again.  It’s quite simple really; if I can’t believe that the villains I’m seeing are anything more than an assemblage of pixels then I’m going to have a hard time having any kind of strong emotional response to them.  And it’s not just that the monsters look obviously fake; the way they move and interact with other objects is all wrong too.  We are told that they are mal-nourished – and their lanky, sinewy, pale appearance certainly supports this – and yet they are still able to throw a heavily muscled Will Smith bodily across a room, and overturn gear-laden SUVs simply by running headfirst – velociraptor style – into them.

But that’s not the worst thing about the film.  Not by a long shot.  No, the worst thing about this film is the insidiously anti-scientific, messianic, and pseudo-religious undertone that permeates the entire movie.  Very early on we are shown a television interview with the scientist – superbly played by Emma Thompson – who developed the cure for cancer.  Already – before there is even a hint that things are going to go awry – her manner seems uncomfortable and almost guilty or regretful; as if she somehow knows that meddling with nature will inevitably bring disaster upon humanity.  “Take something designed by nature and reprogram it,” she says, while looking like she has been caught experimenting on her own children.  Later in the film Smith argues that “God didn’t do this … we did,” again reinforcing the message that we ought not to be interfering with the natural order.  To finish it all off, Smith’s companion Anna starts getting instructions from God that ultimately lead her to the promised land (which turns out to be in Vermont) where she can begin to reverse the damage done by the plague.

Yes, Will Smith is excellent, and to carry an entire film almost single-handed is impressive.  But that doesn’t make up for the movie’s very fundamental shortcomings.
 

A tale of true love in which a simple farm boy must do battle against a dastardly prince for the hand of a beautiful princess.

A charming fairy tale that successfully combines elements of fantasy, comedy, and romance?  Inconceivable!  But that’s exactly what Rob Reiner has achieved with The Princess Bride.  I watched this film, as I always try to, with as little information as possible.  I had the vague idea that it was a fantasy, so I was surprised and delighted when I realised that it was something quite different; something I had never seen before.

This film plays up all the classic fairy tale stereotypes to create laugh-out-loud high adventure.  Our heroes travel to the Cliffs of Insanity, the Pit of Despair, and the Fire Swamp.  They do battle with giants, master swordsmen, criminal masterminds, evil princes, and Rodents of Unusual Size.    And although this film relies on the conventions of the genre to produce comedy, the thing that makes the picture great is that it is not by any means a spoof of fairy tales; it is a celebration of them.

The film drives the point home by framing the main story within the meta-narrative of a grandfather reading The Princess Bride to his grandson.  He comments that "When I was your age television was called books", and the boy is seen playing video games with a glassy expression before becoming absorbed by a more old-fashioned form of entertainment.

The characters here are all vivid, colourful, and hilariously funny.  The dialogue that has been written for these actors is some of the funniest I have ever seen in a film, especially a fantasy fairy tale.  Why this film wasn’t at least nominated for best screenplay I will never know.  The writing absolutely sparkles, and somehow the whole film seems to be imbued with a sort of magical fairy dust that lifts the movie from being great to being transcendent.   The only slightly boring character here is the Princess herself, who serves as little more than the MacGuffin around which the rest of the film revolves.

It’s not just the brilliance of the writing that creates the genius here; the perfection of every inflection in the delivery is what elevates the lines from witty to magical.  I have a feeling that some of the lines could have fallen flat if they had not been delivered perfectly, so it’s a tribute to the talent on show here that every line comes off flawlessly.  Of particular note are Cary Elwes as Westley, Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya ("My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die.") and Wallace Shawn as Vizzini.  There are also great cameos from Christopher Guest, Peter Cook, Mel Smith, and Billy Crystal.

Naturally I watched this film twice and, of course, the first time around I was simply caught up in the story and my own private war of trying to stop crying from laughter.  But the second time around I was looking to be a bit more critical, and it’s fair to say that this film does show its age in its editing, shooting style, and storytelling structure.  It’s all a little slower and slightly more clumsy that we have become used to recently.  But it really doesn’t matter, and, if anything, the unrefined filmmaking even adds a bit to the movie’s fairy tale-like charm.

Coming to this film a little late - well, actually more than two decades late - it is obvious to see the influence it has had, and I was particularly struck by similarities between certain events and characters in this film and those in Greg Keyes’ excellent The Kingdoms of Thorn and Bone saga.  The Princess Bride is the first film I have reviewed on this blog that I can honestly say I will be coming back to again and again, and because of that I have decided to introduce a new feature to properly show my appreciation.

The Princess Bride will be the first recipient of the Lack of Faith Classic Award.  I will be awarding this to films that are not only great in every department, but which also have that extra magic that makes them tirelessly re-watchable.  These will be the films that enter into my personal culture, and will influence every other cultural experience that comes after them.  They will be the films that I quote from endlessly, and measure all other films against.

Lack of Faith Classic Award

The Simpsons has been running for 19 years and 409 episodes, so the surprise here is that the show didn’t make the transition to the big screen earlier. With all those years of experience it’s certainly not going to come as a shock to anybody that Groening et al have created a film that is both funny and clever. The real test was always going to be whether they could successfully make a movie, rather than just an extended, feature length episode.

Well, I’m happy to report that this absolutely is a movie. In fact, it’s very self-consciously a movie, and the writers have inserted plenty of film references and an array of self-referential movie gags. There are also a lot of big screen action ‘movie moments’, my favourite of which is a Matrix-esque slow-time bullet shot. These moments go a long way to making the film feel bigger and more epic than a TV episode. The film starts out in the normal Simpsons aspect ratio but then, with the opening credit sequence, it switches to wide screen. This sudden transition, perhaps more than any other part of the film, sent an ‘I’m watching The Simpsons and it’s a movie! Wow!’ thrill of revelation up my spine.

The score, too, has really stepped up to the cinematic plate here, and Hans Zimmer has done a wonderful job of taking the familiar Simpsons themes and upscaling them to movie dimensions.

The most important thing, though, is that the story itself is big enough to feel at home on the big screen. The central characters are set on suitably important journeys of self discovery, and the themes that are explored go to the heart of what The Simpsons is all about; family, fatherhood, and community.  These themes come complete with genuinely emotional high- (and low-) points that provide essential breaks from the gags.

The other notable thing about this film is its restraint. Almost two decades of writing 22 minute television shows has obviously taught the Simpsons writers a lot of storytelling discipline. This film runs at a trim 87 minutes and every single line of every single scene is either a joke, a set-up, plot progression, or character development. There’s no waste. It’s very tight, and even though the movie is short, it doesn’t feel like we’re being short changed.

This is unarguably a success, and all the potential pitfalls that this film might have fallen victim to have been deftly sidestepped. Can there be any doubt that The Simpsons Movie II is just around the corner?

New York cop John McClane teams up with elite hacker Matt Farrell to save the United States from an all-out electronic attack masterminded by a crazed computer genius.

Like everybody else on the planet I’m a huge fan of this franchise, so I was naturally excited to hear that a new Die Hard film was coming out.  I was looking forward to joining John McClane in another Christmas-themed adventure.  I was looking forward to hearing his irreverent witticisms and watching him confound the plans of an evil enemy.

So I was disappointed when I realised that Die Hard 4.0 isn’t a Die Hard movie at all.  I can find almost no commonalities between the two films beyond the name of the protagonist.  The McClane of this film bears little resemblance to that of the original.  There are no witty one-liners, and none of the John McClane attitude we have come to know.  The only ‘attitude’ McClane exhibits in this film comes in the form of banal threats of the ‘I’m gonna come and beat the crap out of you’ sort.  What’s more, Bruce Willis seems to be half asleep throughout, which does nothing to help the situation.

Furthermore, this film is not set at Christmas, does not start with McClane in his usual guise as civilian (he gets involved during the course of his police duties), and features none of his down-to-earth resourcefulness that has been a theme of earlier movies.  On a few occasions the film touches on Die Hard-like moments, but then seems to recoil in horror as soon as it realises what it is doing.  For example, at one point an unarmed McClane picks up a wrench to use as a weapon, but this never goes anywhere and seems to be promptly forgotten.  Later, we see McClane talking to the bad guy over hand held radios - very Die Hard - but the banter between the two is so boring that the scene only serves to highlight the gulf between the two movies.

But never mind, maybe we should get past this film’s failed Die Hard pretensions and simply try to appreciate it as a generic action movie.  Does it fare any better when considered on these terms?

Die Hard 4.0 is broadly a mix of two types of scenes.  First there are the long, and frequent, travel sequences in which McClane and Farrell sit next to each other in vehicles (usually cars) in order to move from one location to the next.  Apparently the purpose of these scenes was to slow the film right down, and bore everybody half to death.  Second, there are the frankly ridiculous action sequences in which characters make unbelievably stupid decisions, and are then involved in some of the most absurd stunts I have ever seen.  The worst of these is the scene in which McClane is under attack by an F-35.  This scene contains so many absurdities that it would pain me to detail them all, but suffice it to say it was not an accurate portrayal of this type of engagement.

These days, though, even if an action film fails to tell an interesting story, or to create convincing characters, or even to show us some cool action sequences, you can usually still count on the technical production values to be quite high.  But, incredibly, Die Hard 4.0 manages to fail on even this score.  Some of the visual effects in this film are appalling, and the CG here is conspicuous on several occasions. At one point in particular - unsurprisingly a car scene - the green screen imagery is just unbelievably bad.  Furthermore, there are a few action sequences where the inserts are so obvious that they really jar the audience out of the fluidity of the moment.  Maybe you could get away with stuff like this 10 years ago, but not today.

There’s just so much that is absurd, nonsensical, or just plain bad in this film that it’s hard to find any positives, but if I looked hard enough I would probably come back with Justin Long’s refreshing performance as McClane’s hacker sidekick.  But ultimately there’s nothing that can save the picture.  This movie actually made me a little sad.  It almost seems like John McClane has grown into an old, embittered, washed up, and boring shell of the wisecracking hero we remember.  Funnily enough, that’s a pretty good metaphor for where the Die Hard franchise itself has ended up.

The Autobots battle the Decepticons on Earth for control of ‘The Cube’.

 What is it with Michael Bay and the US military? Is this guy getting sponsorship money or something? After The Rock, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and now Transformers, I’m starting to wonder if he knows any other way to approach a movie. I can’t help but feel that this might have been a more interesting film if Bay had come at it from a War of the Worlds-style, bottom-up perspective rather than his traditional Independence Day-style top-down perspective.

As a fledgling movie critic the prudent thing would be to trash this picture, thus establishing my sophisticated and refined cinematic taste. Let’s face it; the characters are mostly two-dimensional, there’s really no meaningful story to speak of, and the film requires very little in the way of brain power to follow. But none of that matters in Transformers. This film is about one thing only; bringing the cool.

Say what you like about Michael Bay - and I could say plenty - but the guy knows how to do action. And in this picture, action mostly means visual effects. I would hate to think what the VFX budget was on this film. Not only is there huge amount of CG, but the models used to create it are the most complicated I have ever seen.

Bay’s films have always pushed the envelope in this area, and Transformers is no exception. The robots here look simply spectacular, and they are used to great effect in some stunning action sequences. This was never going to be a great character film, a monumental storytelling epic, or have any sort of deep meaning or message, but as a straightforward action blockbuster it succeeds, at least to a point.

Transformers also has some entertaining dialogue moments. The Autobots tell us that they learned Earth languages from the web, which results in some hilarious pop-culture references. My favourite of these comes from Optimus Prime as he accidentally crushes a garden ornament underfoot, apologising with a Joss Whedon-esque "Sorry, my bad". The script is rather patchy though, and for every bon mot that succeeds there’s another that falls flat.

Even when evaluated as a simple action film there are still a few problems with this movie. First, the story is paper thin. Now, I understand that the story is merely a device to lead into all the great action that follows - and that’s fine - but it also has to be solid enough to make us care about what happens. The ‘Cube’ thingy around which everything revolves is so vaguely explained that it is difficult to know what our heroes are fighting for, and without spoiling anything there are several other plot points that are even more unclear.

Second, and less importantly, there are too many robots in this film. There is just not enough time in a 144-minute movie to properly develop and make use of ten Transformers. We get to know Optimus Prime, Megatron and Bumblebee well, and several other robots are used extensively but there must be two or three that are hardly used at all. The film would have felt tighter and more focussed if we had been limited to fewer robots and had been allowed to know them better.

Finally, I have to talk about the casting which, along with the effects, is the best thing in this film. First, Shia LaBeouf absolutely steals the show, and I have to give massive props to Steven Spielberg for finding this guy. As I mentioned in my last post I’m really looking forward to what he does next. The robot voices are also bang-on, with Peter Cullen making a welcome return as Optimus Prime, and Hugo Weaving the perfect choice for Megatron. The rest of the cast is mostly solid.

Transformers absolutely succeeds as a Summer Blockbuster, and I enjoyed watching it immensely. But it could have been much more, and the plot flaws are so annoying that they really distract from the good things here. It’s a shame, because Transformers could have been this generation’s Terminator. As it is, it will be remembered merely as another solid piece of Michael Bay entertainment.

Happy New Year!  While we’re all looking forward to Iron Man, Cloverfield, Jumper, Indiana Jones, Valkyrie, and the rest, I thought it might be cool to take a quick look at some of the lower profile films that will be coming out this year.  Here are ten films that deserve more attention.

10.  Eagle Eye

This is on my radar for the sole reason that Shia LaBeouf is in the lead role.  After his sterling performance in Transformers (see my upcoming review) I’m keen to see what this young talent turns his abilities to next.

9.  2k3

This one’s something of a gamble.  A sci-fi picture from a first time director/writer - Gray Miller - with a relatively young and inexperienced cast.  But the stills that have been released look impressive and the premise sounds suitably intriguing. 

8.  City of Ember

I was attracted to this because it stars Bill Murray - one of my very favourite actors.  The little that is currently known about the plot - which is based on a novel by Jeanne Duprau - is intriguing; "For generations, the people of the City of Ember have flourished in an amazing world of glittering lights. But Ember’s once powerful generator is failing … and the great lamps that illuminate the city are starting to flicker."

7.  Boone’s Lick

The plot here sounds like a sort of reverse Odyssey; a wife decides to go - with the rest of her family - in search of her husband to tell him that she’s leaving him.  On her dangerous journey she encounters a series of trials and hazards.  One of the cool things about this offering is that the screenplay is written by the author of the source material - Larry McMurty - which should ensure artistic integrity.  The icing on the cake is Tom Hanks in the lead role.

6.  Silence

Has Martin Scorsese ever made a bad film?  Not only is his filmography impeccable it is also incredibly diverse.  Silence looks like it will continue that tradition with a film about the adventures of Jesuit priests in seventeenth century Japan.

5.  Adam Resurrected

It’s the acting talent that attracts me here, with Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe, and Derek Jacobi heading the cast.  The premise - "In the aftermath of WWII, a former circus entertainer who was spared from the gas chamber becomes the ringleader at an asylum for Holocaust survivors." - should give these three plenty of opportunities to shine.

4.  World War Z

It’s a zombie flick written by J. Michael Straczynski.  I think that’s all I need to say.

3.  Burn After Reading

The Coen brothers have been going from strength to strength lately and I’m always going to be excited about a new film from my favourite comedy directors.  Even better, they have a great cast in George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and John Malkovich.  The premise sounds a little screwy ("A disk containing the memoirs of a CIA agent ends up in the hands of two unscrupulous gym employees who attempt to sell it."), but this does nothing to dent my confidence that the brothers will produce something worthy.

2.  Body of Lies

Well, it’s hard not to be excited by a new Ridley Scott movie, and with William Monahan adapting the novel by David Ignatius, and Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe heading up the cast it’s difficult to see how this can fail.

1.  The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The premise sounds intriguing (a man starts ageing backwards), but it’s really the people involved that make this film my number one.  David Fincher is one of my favourite directors and I’m certainly not disappointed to see him teaming up again with Brad Pitt.  Furthermore the screenplay is by Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) and based on a novel by the great F. Scott Fitzgerald.

In the midst of a dangerous and brutal civil war a diamond smuggler seeks his fortune, a father seeks his son, and an American journalist seeks the story that will bring the truth to the world.

It is easy to imagine the sort of reviews Edward Zwick imagined for Blood Diamond.  The terms ‘heart breaking’, ‘eye opening’, ‘hard hitting’ and ‘penetrating’ are probably the sort Zwick had in mind.  Unfortunately the result is a film better described as ‘over-bearing’, ‘moralistic’, and ‘preachy’.

Blood Diamond is centred around the juxtaposition of Leonardo DiCaprio’s self-interested smuggler in search of a £2M diamond, and Djimon Hounsou’s hard-done-by family man in search of his kidnapped son.  No doubt Zwick was going after a message film about what we should really value in life.  Sadly he has actually produced a two-plus hour lecture that plays like an extended high budget documentary on the state of the African continent combined with a stern diatribe on the evils of western materialism.  So obvious and over-played are Zwick’s themes that by the end of his tirade we end up resenting his condescending tone and rebelling against what is probably a reasonably accurate portrayal of some serious problems.  Blood Diamond displays the same cultural self-loathing that Zwick brought us in The Last Samurai, but without the compensating entertainment value.

Narratively, the whole thing unfolds with tedious predictability as our anti-hero Danny Archer reforms his amoral ways in an abrupt ethical about-turn in the film’s dying moments.  Unbelievably, Blood Diamond becomes even worse in its final act as it augments moralism with sentimentality.  The biggest problem here is that while Zwick no doubt intends Archer to amend his behaviour as a result of moral revelation he in fact does so merely because of a debilitating injury.

On the positive side there are solid performances from both DiCaprio - who nails the South African accent - and Hounsou (sadly Jennifer Connelly is rather wooden).  Having recently caught a few minutes of Titanic on TV over Christmas it is quite startling to witness Leo’s transition from clean-shaven, baby-faced pretty boy to rugged, stubble-faced pretty boy.  Cinematography, direction, and editing are all competent, but nothing can really make up for the picture’s fundamental flaws.

Ultimately I found this film annoying, and at 137 minutes, remarkably wasteful.  I really hope that Zwick abandons the moral overtones in his next film and channels his talent into something that might be enjoyable to watch.

LA detectives Dormer and Eckhart head up to Alaska to help solve a grisly murder case, but while in pursuit of their suspect Dormer mistakenly shoots his partner dead.

This is Christopher Nolan’s first Hollywood film, following his independent pictures Memento and Following.  It seems tempting to infer from the comparatively subdued and conventional nature of this film that Nolan has been overwhelmed by his debut in the world of big budget, big star Hollywood.  This, however, would be a mistake.  The restraint and subtlety shown in this film is a sign that Nolan is emerging as a master craftsman in his field, not that his creativity has been stifled by the studio system.

Everything about this film is under-played.  Nolan’s naturalistic shooting style never distracts us from focussing on the story itself.  Unlike the heavily designed shooting style of Sunshine and Apocalypto there are very few stylised set-up shots in this film, and Nolan’s frequent use of intense close-ups and texturing inserts draws us into the film world without ever calling attention to itself.  David Julyan’s score, too, is understated but works perfectly without any fanfare.

There are compelling performances all round here, but Williams’ against-type turn as everyman killer Walter Finch is the biggest surprise.  Resisting the temptation to play the character up as a Hannibal Lecter stereotype Williams instead opts for a subtle approach, playing Finch as an ordinary man who just happens to be a killer, and in so doing creates a far more menacing character.

Pacino, of course, is also on top form and captures Dormer’s character arc perfectly as he transitions from the master detective to a sleep deprived, guilt ridden shell of his former self.  On the first viewing I was somewhat sceptical of the on-screen chemistry between the two leading men.  However, having now watched the picture twice I am convinced that this was merely a reaction to seeing these two together for the first time.  A Williams-Pacino leading duo isn’t something that would immediately have struck me as the best idea, but once you get over the initial strangeness the pairing works well.

There are plenty of memorable scenes here, but I particularly want to mention the chilling telephone conversation between Dormer and Finch in which our killer attempts a therapy-like rationalisation of his crime.  The frequency of cutting between Finch and flashback shots of the murder increases with the crescendo of Williams’ excitement as he describes his crime.  The contrast between Finch’s clinically cold justification and the visceral brutality of the inter-cut murder shots works to establish the Finch character brilliantly.  The combination of superb acting and inspired directing and editing in this scene produces a truly chilling effect.

There’s really nothing to complain about here at all.  While the film is not cinematically ambitious, everything in this movie is perfectly formed and the care that Nolan has taken over every scene is evident.  It may not be as inventive as Memento, but Insomnia succeeds quite nicely on its own terms and I look forward to seeing where Nolan goes after he finishes up his run on the Batman films.

The tranquility of utopian jungle living is disrupted when a group of slave traders kidnaps our heroes in order to sell them off for divine sacrifice.  ‘Jaguar Paw’ manages to escape, and must evade re-capture in order to be re-united with his stranded family.

How should we assess Mel Gibson’s directorial ability?  First of all, he clearly knows how to frame a shot.  He uses a bewilderingly wide array of angles and shot types to frame this film, and the result is that we rarely see a scene in the same way twice.  Hand held close-ups, wide shots, steady cam, and crane sequences are all used to great effect, but it is the aerial shots that really steal the show here with some truly beautiful moments.

Gibson’s other real achievement in Apocalypto is how he has managed to extract some great performances from a largely untried local cast.  It is a testament to his directorial prowess that all of the major characters, and most of the multitude of extras, are completely believable.

Sadly, though, he does have his weaknesses.  This film is vastly under-cut.  The first act drags along so slowly that I found myself fighting to maintain attention.  Long stretches of time are given over to character set-up that ultimately goes nowhere and serves only to delay the arrival of the chase sequence that forms the core of the film.

So, would the film have worked if Gibson had cut the waffle and moved along more speedily to the final act?  Unfortunately, no.  The film suffers far more fundamental flaws that reside in the underlying premise of the movie.  The movie opens on a quote from Will Durant: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within", the implication being that the Spanish were only able to subjugate the Mayan civilisation due to its internal moral decay and spiritual disharmony.  In fact, of course, the Conquistadors finally conquered the Mayans (after nearly two centuries of failed attempts) due to superior arms.  Furthermore, the Mayan peoples exist to this day and maintain a distinct culture and language.

Nevertheless, there is a level on which at least part of this film works.  If you can make it through the soporific opening to the core chase sequence then you will find a fairly solid - if unspectacular - mix of Homer, Die Hard, and Predator that comes together to tell the story of a man fighting against the odds to get home to his family.  This is entertaining and thrilling, if occasionally far-fetched, and works in isolation from the flawed elements in this film.

Finally, I can’t sign off this review without mentioning Apocalypto’s costume and make-up, which is extraordinary.  Every one of the hundreds of extras and cast is completely believable, and the artistry that has gone into accomplishing this goes a long way to drawing us into the world of the Mayans.  The sets, too, are remarkable in their detail and depth, and the city scenes in particular really benefit from the effort that has been put in here.

Ultimately this film fails, but Mel Gibson is obviously a talented director, and I really hope he can move beyond the spiritual clap-trap that infects this movie to do something more compelling in the future.

The Sun is dying, and eight improbably youthful scientists and astronauts must travel 92 million miles on board the pessimistically-named Icarus II (perhaps ‘Prometheus’ would have given our heroes more confidence) to save humanity.

Let me start with what this film does well.  It is one of the most visually arresting movies I have ever experienced.  The visual effects come courtesy of the Moving Picture Company, and they have succeeded in realising an absolutely beautiful vision of the sun as a dominant character in itself.  The star hangs in space with malevolent indifference, unaware of the carnage its enormous power is wreaking on our heroes.  There are a few truly astonishing shots, notably when we get to see the transit of Mercury across the face of the Sun, and when Cillian Murphy hangs alone in space between his bomb and the ship.  These images alone are worth the price of admission.

The first hour of the film is a taut, and relatively closely plotted, exploration of the psychological impact on the crew of the long space mission as they come to terms with their fate.  We are treated to some exceptionally well written scenes (thanks to Alex Garland) probing the tough decisions the cast must make as the mission spirals out of control.

This portion of the film belongs squarely in the ’serious sci-fi’ canon along with 2001, Alien, and Solaris; films that have obviously influenced Boyle’s vision significantly.   It is unfortunate, therefore, that the discipline exhibited here could not have been carried through to the close of the movie.

The laws of physics appear to be suspended for the last 40 minutes of Sunshine as it goes the way of the Matrix trilogy by severing its connection with reality.  The film seems to flounder about desperately in search of ultimate meaning as we are led through a bewildering pseudo-philosophical hodge podge of thematic indecision.  Is this film a reminder to remain humble in the face of the power of science?  Is it about the battle of science versus God?  Is it about the triumph of the human will over nature?  We’re never really quite sure.

But perhaps I’m being too hard on Sunshine.  Danny Boyle has crafted a beautiful film that really tries hard to be about something important; it’s just that it never quite pulls all his ideas together into anything truly compelling.