The genre is doing well. The genre is experiencing a wave of enthusiastic support from the industry and audiences alike, like it did in the noughties. The sci-fi game has hit shows like Stranger Things and Severance that have become fan favorites.
The genre is more popular than ever, and we might be on the verge of a full-blown sci-fi renaissance. It might have been acknowledged for the masterpiece it is if Danny Boyle had released his film in this setting. When audiences weren't feeling its brand of thought- provoking, almost philosophical gloom and doom, it came out in 2007. It barely made an impact in cinemas. The production budget of 40 million dollars was not enough to make up for the $34 million gross. If there ever was one, that would be a flop. It wasn't like it gained new life on DVD, it died, like the sun in its daring plot, and no bomb or heroic crew saved it.
It isn't a perfect film but it never tries to be one. It tries to evoke intense emotions from its reluctant audience by avoiding in-your-face story telling. Some of the main cast went on to become A-listers, but audiences didn't want to see a film that ended with the deaths of the entire cast.
There was a previous attempt at sci-fi by the man. His breakthrough hit, the zombie apocalypse horror film 28 days later, went on to make $85 million at the international box office, despite a measly $8 million budget. The film made him an obvious choice to direct a big Hollywood sci-fi film since he could deliver spectacle on a budget.
Alex Garland, who wrote the script for 28 days later, was also associated with the unique style of the film. The key components of 28 days later with five times the budget seemed to be a sure way to get five times the box office. Not quite, isn't it? Garland and Boyle's approach isn't "commercial."
The attempts at commercial film-making by Danny Boyle have fallen short of expectations because he can't seem to reconcile his interests with the nature of blockbusters. Slumdog Millionaire, Trainspotting, and Yesterday were all hits at the box office because of their director, Danny BOYLE.
Between his ambitions as a filmmaker and his interests as a storytellers,Sunshine got caught up in the middle. The film has a plot that is slightly more demanding than your average blockbuster, but doesn't do much to make it easier to understand. It is not like it is provocative. It isn't Armaggedon or Contact either. It's not quite auteur-driven, but it's not quite commercial. It doesn't succeed.
It is impossible to deny that it is a triumph from a visual point of view. It looks and feels amazing. At a time when $250 million blockbusters look objectively ugly and disappointing, Sunshine stands out as a technical marvel, proof that magic can happen when a gifted director gets a decent budget.
They say that the visuals are the key to a successful movie. There is a lot of discussion about whether or not auteur filmmakers should be in blockbuster cinema. The recent release of The Batman and Dune seems to suggest that there is, however, the argument goes back to square one when films like The Northman flop at the box office.
Hollywood's success depends on movie stars. Nowadays there are few movie stars and they are still needed. The Lost City had a domestic gross of $105 million. Top Gun: Maverick was the highest grossing movie of all time, grossing over one billion dollars.
Movie stars are important when it comes to original ideas and cinema. Had it not been for Amy Adams, Arrival would have made over $200 million. How significant was the box office for The Martian? Both Inception andGravity had the same thing with the same guy. The movie stars are important for original movies. There's nothing. I didn't find anything.
Cillian Murphy is a great actor, but he is not a movie star. The leading man is ideal for television. He doesn't have the charisma to be a real movie star. The film's supporting cast is made up of recognizable faces that would go on to find great success later on. One familiar face after the other. None of them were movie stars back then.
They were the most famous of the bunch, but now they are the most famous. The film makes it clear that their roles are not necessary for the third act. She is the closest thing to a female lead, and he is the bad guy, so he is playing the bad guy.
Not having a movie star that could burn as bright as the sun in the film may have been the true mistake. Would things have changed if there had been a DiCaprio or Washington in the lead? I can tell you that the budget wouldn't have been that big. In the middle of his Pirates of the Caribbean fame and with enough star power to help Ridley Scott's 2005 epic Kingdom of Heaven cross the $200 million mark it might've made more sense. The extra $10 million might have been worth it.
It takes six words or less to make a perfect film. Gripping, thrilling, profound, and ambitious to a fault, is what Sunshine is. The film presents a deep look into a technology-obsessed genre while steering away from the usual sci-fi clichés.
Why is it that Sunshine is not appreciated as much? The film's fate was worse than infamy because it wasn't good. It's a disservice to sci-fi that no one talks about it or remembers it. It was doomed by going for a more grounded and reflective approach. Who doesn't want quiet reflection from a sci-fi movie? Not a lot of people then and now.
That is the only fault ofSunshine. It is nearly perfect, but by choosing restraint and favoring humanism over tech ideals, it puts itself at a disadvantage. There is a lack of spectacle and Vanity in sunshine. It can't overcome its initial timid approach even as it succumbs to trite stories in the third act. What makes Sunshine unique is what dooms it to oblivion.
There is a film called "Sunshine."
The film is worthwhile. One famous cinephile has advocated for it to be included in the sci-fi classics pantheon. The film has been overlooked because of its forgotten status. If you are willing to pay a certain amount of money for a chance to see this film, you will most likely be happy with it.
If it doesn't have the tense, claustrophobic quality of Alien or the timeless quality of 2001: A Space Odyssey, what would it be like? Who wouldn't want to see that?
All Rights Reserved © 2024
