Movie review: "Sunrise" -- contains spoilers

[Leovinus]

<p>I just watched "Sunrise" and this is my review of it.&nbsp; It will contains spoilers so if you want to watch the movie, don't read further.</p><p>=========</p><p>First of all, I never heard of this movie when it was out in the theaters.&nbsp; I was running down the shelves in Blockbuster looking for a movie to watch on my flight back east on business.&nbsp; The cover art of the box caught my attention and it looked like a "cool" sci-fi flick to watch. &nbsp; I put "cool" in quotes because in reality most of the movie involves fighting the heat of the Sun.&nbsp; The short and sweet 1-line review is:&nbsp; Some of the "science" is laughable so don't think too hard about it and enjoy the picture for the characters, the story, the visuals, and the action.</p><p>Here's some of the laughable science:</p><ul><li>Ship flies into "Dead Zone" before reaching the orbit of Mercury.&nbsp; This is a zone where the solar wind is so strong that radio communications with Earth are blacked out.&nbsp; In reality, we have no problem receiving radio messages from probes to Mercury.&nbsp; They put this in so that the crew would be on their own when deciding to investigate Icarus I.&nbsp; It was a plot device which contradicts science.</li><li>Icarus I interior coated with dust which is evenutally explained as the ashes of the crew who got toasted in the observation room.&nbsp; However, there is too much dust.&nbsp; It turns out that the producers didn't have enough money for a separate set for Icarus I, so they simply blew dust into the Icarus II set to make it look different.</li><li>Why are the comm towers spinning?&nbsp; That can't do anything to improve communications.&nbsp; It was just put in so that it would look cool when rotating out of the shadow and vaporizing in the sunlight.</li><li>And if we accept that there is rotating comm towers, why not rotate them into the shadow and hold them there so you don't lose them.</li><li>When the rotating comm tower vaporized in the sunlight and was in effect sheared off, how then could it reflect sunlight back to the oxygen garden on a subsequent revolution?</li><li>The artificial gravity was not explained in the movie, however I did see in the special features or perhaps reading on IMDB that the mass of the payload was so great that it had its own gravity field.&nbsp; You see this in action near the end of the movie when the 2 crew members fall off the "top" of the payload and come to a rest on the "side" of the payload (which is shaped like a cube).</li><li>The payload is protected by a big solar shield.&nbsp; Yet when the payload goes into the Sun, the shield is gone and the payload is still intact.&nbsp; What did we need the shield for?&nbsp; Just put the crew quarters behind the naked payload.</li><li>We saw how reflected sunlight is just as deadly as direct exposure when the oxygen garden went up.&nbsp; How then do you explain Icaraus II coming up behind Icarus I without incinerating it?&nbsp; The II shield was fully reflecting the Sun onto I.&nbsp; Then later, II's shield comes in front of I's shield and the reverse should have happened.</li><li>The dying Sun was explained as having absorbed a Q-ball.&nbsp; However, the Sun's mass is insufficient to contain a Q-ball.&nbsp; Only a science nut would know this and I didn't know it until I read it. so this doesn't detract from the movie.</li><li>How stupid is it that Icarus 2 computer can take over flying the ship when the oxygen garden goes up, but is too stupid to realize that the shield is not protecting the ship after the course change?&nbsp; Very stupid indeed.</li><li>How stupid is it that Icarus 2 computer doesn't alert the crew that there is an unknown passenger on board?</li><li>How can enough oxygen surrounding a payload the size of Manhatten not be enough to provide air for 5 people for more than 24 hours?</li></ul> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>"Sunshine" <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p><p>I overhyped myself for this movie and set myself up for a letdown.&nbsp; Not bad and worth a watch, but quite forgettable.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[10_stone_5]

<p>I saw this when it came out in theatres. Its probably better not to watch from&nbsp;DVD so you can't rewind and parse the mistakes. Of course, the biggest mistake - as I think BadAstronomy pointed out - was the notion that the nuclear weapon used by the crew would be inadequate to reignite the sun. Also, for the re-energized photons to travel from the Sun's core to heat the earth would have taken many millenia, even hundereds of thousands of years -- not 8 minutes.</p><p>So there was a lot of creative license, but I'd still say that unlike most sci-fi, Danny Boyle at least consulted scientists when making the film. Also, the visuals were impressive.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><strong></strong></em></p> </div>

 

[baulten]

I agree that the movie had some glaring scientific errors (I really think the power of the solar wind was way too strong in the film, though I guess they could pull some explanation like "The sun is dying, it got stronger!"), but I think it was a good movie nonetheless.&nbsp; I believe it was intended to show the stress caused on a crew of such a long mission more than scientific accuracy, and that I do feel it achieved.