| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 16:20:24
Sunshine
I cannot remember when a trailer last made a film seem so rubbish - the film can surely only be better. If you haven't seen it, the totally moronic concept is that in fifty years the Sun is burning itself out and needs to be relit by astronauts.  |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| damalc |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 11:05:29
my quick take
Alien + 2001 + Altered States |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 07:48:04
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
Roger Ebert answers my question.
Not surprised about that. On top of Mt Everest there is only about 28% of the air pressure that there is at sea level. Survival up there is measured in days (provided you are warm and have enough to eat/drink). Death tends to occur due to oxygen starvation (even with oxygen tanks) due to cerebral or pulmonary oedema (buildup of water in the brain or lungs causing oxygen starvation).
Another way of looking at it, in a vacuum the human skin only needs to hold back half the pressure of a car tyre, or a seventh the pressure of a bicycle tyre, or a seventh the pressure of a Champagne bottle in order to prevent the blood from bursting out through the skin. So 'exploding' won't occur, and death would occur due to brain death caused by oxygen starvation, which takes a few minutes. Reassuring, isn't it?  |
| Ali |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 06:58:10
Roger Ebert answers my question.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/01/2007 : 16:27:26
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
But Sal the greenhouse burned down. Then they had no more.
Yeah, but that was completely unrealistic - for that very reason (or disease etc.) the plants would be in numerous separate areas. Also, young plants give off more oxygen, so replacement seedlings would soon replace the same volume. Anyway, I don't mind that unrealism so much - the bizarre manning of the ship (only one person able to detonate the payload) is more silly. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 05/01/2007 : 12:41:20
MORE SPOILERS
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
there may not have had enough oxygen.
The whole oxygen thing does not make any sense. They could easily recycle enough oxygen using plants (or artificially, for that matter).
Yeah I enjoyed the greenhouse room and the overgrown one in the original Icarus.
Infact I was expecting a Ben Gunn like character to emerge from there instEAd of the supernaturally strong 'altered states' like ex captain who did materialise.
But Sal the greenhouse burned down. Then they had no more.
I did also like the fact that they did proper cooking and none of this pill food crap. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/01/2007 : 11:42:23
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
there may not have had enough oxygen.
The whole oxygen thing does not make any sense. They could easily recycle enough oxygen using plants (or artificially, for that matter). |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 05/01/2007 : 11:05:09
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
one thing I did appreciate was that all reference to its being in fifty years' time (that was definitely mentioned in the trailer) seemed to be removed from the film.
Agreed
quote:
they would definitely send far more than eight people, so as to have spares. It makes no sense that only one person would have the skill to do a certain task (and a task that appears to need no skill at that).
there may not have had enough oxygen.
quote:
Why would the ship be called the Icarus? Icarus wasn't trying to fly to the Sun - it just melted his wings. So that is the perfect name to give something that the Sun will destroy. In another film, this might have been an ironic comment by the film-makers, but I don't think so here.
From the beginning of the movie (and from Cillian Murphys last message home) it was pretty clear that they were not going to make it back but they were going to reignite the sun and the survivors on earth would notice a brighter than usual day etc. it was just a matter of how it happened...in this case with leaps of my imagination that were so great i began to experience vertigo.
But there were pockets that i enjoyed and i agree with you bafta the performances were underused.
Airbolt i liked the idea of a doomed mission piloted by a man from the country who came up with the idea of kamekasi missions.
All in all i did enjoy it despite the bungee like suspension of disbelief.
6/10 |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 14:29:07
By the way, Sean, I wouldn't necessarily recommend this as worthy of an exceptional trip to the cinema for you, but I was definitely happier watching it there than I would have been on the small screen. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 14:08:22
Very good comments, BaftaBabe and demonic. Agreed.
Having read AIRBOLT's post, I wonder if I blinked at the start of the film, but if not, one thing I did appreciate was that all reference to its being in fifty years' time (that was definitely mentioned in the trailer) seemed to be removed from the film.
However, the plot holes are extremely annoying. It is not clear why the mission would need to be manned at all, and if it were to need manning, they would definitely send far more than eight people, so as to have spares. It makes no sense that only one person would have the skill to do a certain task (and a task that appears to need no skill at that).
Why would the ship be called the Icarus? Icarus wasn't trying to fly to the Sun - it just melted his wings. So that is the perfect name to give something that the Sun will destroy. In another film, this might have been an ironic comment by the film-makers, but I don't think so here.
The "our nearest star" line was just as misplaced as I expected.
The end of the film is very confused - it is hard to grasp who is where/how they got there. One just ends up waiting for the chaos to end and to see what the outcome is.
The special effects are quite good - but then how hard is fire to simulate? Not very.
With not much work, it could have been a lot better. |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 01:32:01
SPOILER IN LAST PARA********************
Awww . It started out so well. A nice techno thriller like 2010 but with prettier actors.
I liked that the increasing power of China was recognised as being a factor in the future ( so why have a Japanese commander ? anyone with a grasp of history can see the flaw if China is funding the mission ) However ( as pointed out elsewhere ) the fifty year gap was ludicrous. We are struggling to replace shuttles and the Orbiting Space Station is held together with tape. Even given the ( very sudden ) change in the sun , i just can't believe that we produced this HUMUNGOUS space ship fifty years on.
It was very pretty throughout. Fantastic visual effects. Must have cost a fortune . I assume the majority of the budget was splashed on the CGI cos the remaining $7 was left on the plot.
SPOILER COMING UP****READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WISH TO AVOID SPOILER
if ever a film changed horses in mid-race it was this one ! It starts out as one sort of film then abruptly turns into a Freddie meets Aliens. Absolute Garbage. The plot holes were enormous too ( previously fully noted elsewhere ) . Why ? Why?
|
| demonic |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 21:30:54
1. What the hell was all that fuss about freezing to death -minus 270 degrees outside is a moot point. As soon as you go enter space you'll obviously turn inside out from the pressure. No time to turn into a icicle to make that cool effect.
2. So it takes them years to get to the sun and much is said about the amount of time it'll take to get to the right place (and the remaining oxygen etc) the coordinates they need to be at to deliver the payload, and then all of that is totally forgotten! Following the Icarus 1 debacle the survivors do a bit of "nightmare on elm street" with Mr Crispy and at the first opportunity Capa disconnects and fires the bomb at the sun even though they are probably still hours away from their destination.
3. A bomb the size of Manhattan thrown into a fireball hotter than anything on earth and it takes four minutes to get back to a safe distance? How we laughed. Apart from when the four minutes to safety means absolutely nothing as no one is onboard when it disconnects.
4.The tagged-on dramatic catalyst - one Mr. Pinbacker - practically stolen from "Event Horizon", in a performance clearly so laughable without extreme handheld shake you never once see him properly on screen. And what exactly happens to him? Cassie has been hurt/mortally wounded/come over all airsick, although it's something of a mystery what she's doing there. He sneaks up like a ninja, the bomb spins about a lot, he seems to lose an arm and then sit down. Baffling.
5. Which leads to the point that on probably the last attempted mission to save the entire human race, only one of crew knows how to work the bomb. Well that's incredibly stupid. I also can't exactly remember why he needs to be on the bomb to ignite it - why couldn't he stay on the spaceship portion and fire it from there, rather than kill himself? Was he always going to go down with the bomb? Seems unlikely, but you only ever saw him test it from the explosive side. It kind of makes you wish the mission had failed, if the best scientists and astronauts they can send to save us are this lot, probably better that the human race is wiped out. But then there's always some good skiing to be done in Australia.
I tried not to go off on one, but BB got me started! It's a 5/10 for me, and that's for the very pretty visuals alone. |
| demonic |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 21:29:53
Nice summary Baffy - you're right on the money about the emotional involvement. For me the shameless lack of logic in a film is the killer though. I don't like sitting in a cinema and thinking "what the hell just happened then? That doesn't make any sense" and for no answers to be forthcoming because the screenwriter wasn't smart enough to paper over his plotholes.
The most annoying things (with very necessary spoiler protection): |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 20:22:03
I haven't seen it yet (will this weekend), so haven't read the recent posts above yet. Just came back into this thread because I have for ages meant to note the line that I find most annoying from the trailer. This is "... our nearest star. That star is dying." This is so irritating because there is no group of people that anyone would address in that way. Everyone would just refer to the Sun as "the Sun", regardless of whether they knew it to be a star. The line is thus for the audience's 'benefit', and that's one of my pet hates in films. |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 11:59:28
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
What's your score, Se�n 
Ain't seen it. I seldom see movies at the cinema these days, it'll be DVD or nothing for this one at a guess. First it's gotta arrive at the cinemas in NZ, then the lag 'til the DVD is out, then another lag 'til it gets to the front of my netflix queue, so will be quite a few months at least. And by then a few thousand will have IMDb-scored it instead of the few hundred so far.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 10:14:36
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
That's more than four words, BB.  What score did you give it?
(I'm serious! What would you give it out of 10? No worries if you aren't the sort who likes to grade art with a number. )
Welp, it loses bigtime for being pretentious, but I guess I'd have to give it about 4 - because some of the fx really are stunning, the photography is terrific, and Murphy is one of those actors I'm beginning to think can make a reading of the phone book sound good. [Contrast this intelligent portrayal of a physicist with his Kitten in Breakfast on Pluto and the 'good' brother in The Wind That Shakes The Barley.] At least he got some fat dosh from this not-so-sunny delight [a UK drinks reference, b4 u ask].
What's your score, Se�n
|
