Leaves a lot to be desired from the standpoint of plot, character development and scientific credibility.
i rented this movie long after it had been released, and was so piqued that I searched the internet and found....that most of the criticism about the movie was about the feasibility of recharging the sun with every nuclear weapon we have on earth. which is obviously not the point. it's a metaphor. it's not supposed to be literal. but why do we take things so literally. i mean, unimaginable things in other movies don't make us think twice, so why all the hub bub about this movie's scientific butchering. I have to think to myself, as a person that majored in a science in college, that the people garnering this criticism are dumb two-fold. one, the don't really understand the science, and two, they don't really understand the metaphor. the latter being more unbelievable, because if you don't understand the metaphor, then why are you watching movies instead of documentaries?
Jun 18 - 11:04 PM
@ Justin f.
I completely understand your argument, but I'm not sure why you've posted it here in reply to this review. Ultimately, I think the scientific credibility is just a minor concern of the reviewer.
Yes, the reviewer did spend an entire paragraph pointing out the implausibility of the film's sun-is-dying premise. However, while you seem to believe the reviewer cannot see passed that implausibility, he does indeed look passed it: he looks passed it into deeper and more specific elements of the film, and still does not like what he sees. After the aforementioned paragraph, the reviewer goes on to discuss two more points, which touch upon, not scientific credibility, but rather two components of storytelling: plot and character.
Such components are the core of any film or story, and a film with weak plot and characters will be a poor film, no matter how scientifically credible its premise is.
And so, again, I'm not sure why you are grouping this review with the rest of the criticism you are accusing. It is not that our reviewer does not understand the metaphor; it is that he believes it was not delivered in a manner that was narratively coherent or compelling.
Oct 19 - 01:42 AM
This particular reviewer is a bit lost. The movie had tons of scientific credibility seeing as they had Brian Cox, a Royal Society University Research Fellow and a professor at the University of Manchester, on the set the entire time purely to keep the science accurate. Do your research.
Jul 29 - 06:19 AM