That's not to say I don't think the issues aren worth talking about. The problems I see in this movie are probably caused by the attempt to be somewhat "crowd-pleasing". The theme being explored is compromised slightly by the need to have a nice neat happy ending. But I don't think that's necessarily deal-breaking; it makes the movie easier to watch by a wider audience, but the thought-provoking elements are still there if you care to mull them over. It strikes a better balance anyway than some other films I've seen, like In-Time for example.
At the same time, unlike some of the "high-concept" sci-fi films I've seen in recent years, it didn't feel pretentious or overly drawn out. I felt it was well paced, taking it's time to breath but never quite feeling like it was getting bogged down or being dragged out. What's more, it seemed to me to do a good job of creating a scenario with no obvious "outs": I have a hard time getting into movies that feel like there's too many easy solutions that should be obvious to the protagonists, so I was glad that was not the case here.
Visually much of the film has a somewhat "sterile" feel that did not attract me when I saw it in the trailers, but that I now feel was quite appropriate as it contributed to the sense of isolation. On the whole I felt it was a good looking film with some visually pleasing scenes. Even though it was arguably a small personal story, it felt like a big-budget movie.
I thought the whole cast put in good performances. Jennifer Lawrance really did look devastated in some scenes. Well, a lot of scenes actually; it was quite an emotional performance. Chris Pratt in contrast was more subdued, but I thought it worked, as he played a much more realistic and believable character than I usually see from him. Micheal Sheen was interesting as an android who was not quite human, but almost; there was something very engaging about the way he acted so very human, even when he was unable to process something too complex for his AI. Lawrence Fishburne brought a quiet dignity to his role, creating some heavy emotional moments.
I'm going to give this movie an 8/10: it's an engaging film that strikes a reasonable balance between exploring a concept and providing an entertaining viewing experience.
#####SPOILER WARNING#####
The film explores an interesting idea, but as I said earlier it is somewhat compromised. What Jim did to Aurora was wrong; the film says that in no uncertain terms. The interesting question is whether he can be forgiven: as the Deck Chief so evocatively put it, "The drowning man will always try and drag somebody down with him". I find it to be something worth thinking about: he took her life, but he had been alone for so long he was starting to lose his sanity, and was on the verge of suicide. Should he be forgiven?
But the movie didn't end there. You see, if he hadn't woken Aurora, he wouldn't have been able to save the ship and the thousands of sleeping passengers it carried - he saved thousands of lives by waking her up! So hey, good thing he did, right? But wait! He also willingly sacrificed himself to saved them all! How can you not forgive him after that? Plus, in the end he found a way to put her back to sleep, undoing his original sin. So no harm done! In fact, she CHOSE to stay awake with him; it could be argued that she decided living with him was better than the life that would have awaited her if she went back to sleep! You DEFINITELY have to forgive him now, since his actions were strictly better for everyone involved!
What I'm saying is, the movie made it far too easy to forgive him; you practically have to do it by the end. Which makes it nice and easy to walk away from the theater happy and content with a good warm fuzzy feeling inside. But it seems to me that it undermines the core debate. Well, like I said before you can still think about the moral question yourself in a more abstract way, while enjoying the movie for having a happy ending. So I personally forgive it for making things so easy by the end.
Although I was a little disappointed that he survived at the end. I liked how the movie showed that he has fully prepared to die to save everyone else, it does sell the idea that he truly regrets what he did and wants to atone. But having him sacrifice himself and also survive and live happily ever after is, well, having his cake and eating it too, you know? I don't know, maybe it's not fair of me, and maybe this is less about the story or moral integrity of the film and more about the emotional effect on the audience, but I just feel like heroic sacrifices in movies have more impact if they are real sacrifices and not, well, fake-outs I suppose. This is not the first time that I was disappointed when a protagonist who I liked survived... is that something I should be worried about?
I can't believe Jim survived the venting plasma. That's a hell of a space-suit. Shame it doesn't have, like, manouvering thrusters or something.
Gus should have gone straight to the medical bay as soon as he spit blood into his hands. Just sayin'.
I didn't realise it for ages, but the poster has SOS in morse code right there across the front. I like that; it's a little bit ... ominous.
