Nothing remotely like that is in the movie, either.

Nothing remotely like that is in the movie.

I thought the third act was terrific, in large part because "the supernatural component" does not in fact ever arrive. The explanation is completely science-fictional, and it's actually good sci-fi, because it constitutes the allegorical / satirical point. Anything but "disappointingly conventional."

A way to improve the "Reasonable Discussions" 500%: have a moderator immediately delete every comment that merely speculates on the movie without having seen it. It would also eliminate most of the discussion, of course.

Re the various plot holes folks have found … First, the movie consistently buys into the idea that the best AI will never match a human intelligence in its adaptability and resourcefulness. Which is certainly credible. Hence an army of cloned Jacks (presumably augmented by high-tech armor) is better than an army of…

Two related things that Tasha missed, and are the reason (along with the visuals) I give it an A-: first, the movie it owes the biggest debt to, intentionally so, is 2001 (and although IMDB doesn't list it, I know I saw a credit for "Monolith Productions" in the end credits, and the abstract SFX that back them…

I don't think the third act of Sunshine was lazy; it was a bold experiment that worked for some people and seemed like a colossal misstep to others. Unfortunately, the latter includes a lot of people who loved the first two acts. One problem is this, and it's inarguable and inescapable: the action of the third act, no…

This film as at least as smart as you. In fact, it's smart enough to delay the production company credit until the end, because the name of the company is a massive spoiler.