Source Code (Duncan Jones, 2011)

[Morris Schæffer]

It is merely mildly spoilerish.

Plot: Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes with a jolt to find himself on a commuter train heading into Chicago. Although the other passengers all seem to know him, he has absolutely no idea where - or even who - he is.
The last thing Colter remembers is flying a helicopter mission in Iraq, but here he is in someone else's life going through someone else's morning commute. Before he can do anything an express train zooms by on the opposite track and a bomb explodes, seemingly killing Colter and all the other passengers.
Colter comes to in an isolation chamber, strapped to a seat, and wearing his military flight suit. He still has no idea what's happening, except that he's being spoken to by mission controller Carol Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), who calmly recites a series of memory questions to which Colter is shocked to realize he knows the answers.

[Raiders]

I think the wikipedia synposis is actually more spoilerish since it explains away some of the strangeness in the above synopsis.

A soldier (Gyllenhaal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Gyllenhaal)) becomes part of an experimental government program that is investigating a train bombing. He is forced to relive the incident over and over again until he can find out who is responsible and how to prevent the next terrorist attack from occurring.

I am sure however all this and more will be given away by the trailer(s).

[Watashi]

We're creating threads for synopsis now?

[Raiders]

We're creating threads for synopsis now?

Nope. We've been doing it for a long time.

[EvilShoe]

We're creating threads for synopsis now?
+ Picture.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2kdKHT_HqJc/TNIsqilXJWI/AAAAAAAACCI/cprbbaME4Qs/s1600/Jake-Gyllenhaal-Source-Code-402x600.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

Thanks for that Shoe. Boy he sure looks concerned.

[MadMan]

The plot intrigues me, but Jake Gyllenhaal in the lead=meh.

[Dukefrukem]

wow (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/summit/sourcecode/). <--trailer btw

[Kurosawa Fan]

Hm. I'll give Jones the benefit of the doubt, considering the high quality of Moon. Also, the cast is solid, Gyllenhaal excluded.

[Ezee E]

Hmm... looks fun. I bet the whole movie relies on how good the ending is...

[Henry Gale]

Definitely seems like the sort of trailer that has to spend most of its time making sense of a complicated story by very likely skipping some important, and possibly intruiging, details. At least they got out the fact that the key sequence is to be repeated many times throughout.

But my love for Moon meant I've been looking forward to this since I first heard about it, the footage on its own looks impresive, and the main four in the cast tend to be pretty strong and reliable presences in their films. Plus, a new score from Mansell is always welcome.

[Dillard]

I think Jones has seen Groundhog Day. Looks like a lot of fun.

[Qrazy]

I liked Moon but this premise seems dumb to me.

[number8]

Here's my take. Not that great.

http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/theatrical-reviews/7589-source-code.html

[Sxottlan]

I thought this was very good. Probably the best thing I've seen from 2011 so far, although that's not saying a whole lot considering what's been out.

Between this and Moon, Jones seems to have a thing for people in boxes and boxes within boxes.

[TGM]

The only real issue I had with the movie was the ending. There was a perfect point where the movie met a nice, satisfying conclusion, but instead of rolling the credits, the movie just sort of lingers on a little longer, for no real apparent reason. It kind of reminded me of The Return of the King in that respect. But that small issue aside, I really enjoyed the movie.

[Raiders]

Pretty good for about 90 minutes. Jones maintains a great pace and I like that it never gets bogged down in the technical aspects (Wright's almost-perturbed rattling of "the how" of the project was pretty funny). The film for the most part plays the tale as a more emotional and psychological journey for Gyllenhaal's character--nothing too deep, but refreshingly focused on the minutia and details and the momentum of the plot. Then though, there are those last five minutes of ARRRRRGGGGHH.

After doing so well to keep the technicality to a minimum, under NO CIRCUMSTANCE can you just suddenly create this entire alternate reality paradox and thrust us into a bizarre, unnecessary coda that does nothing but make everything that was poignant on the train lost in a stream of WTF.
There is a perfect image, a great final resting place for these characters trapped in the never-ending cycle, and the film destroys it. As soon as the freeze frame pan ends, I wanted to yell "FADE TO BLACK!" as I just had this creeping feeling it couldn't do it... and sadly, I was right. GAH, so frakkin' disappointing.

[Thirdmango]

I actually thought it might be going the way it did. I for the most part liked it.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the first alternate reality. Basically I would want to watch it again just to see if the blond woman says, "Everything will be all right". If she does then it's not the first time he's done this.

So because of that and other reasons I disagree with you raiders, I actually would have been pissed if it ended when you say mainly because if it did they would have had to cut out a lot of other "hints" and clues that I caught.

[Raiders]

I actually thought it might be going the way it did. I for the most part liked it.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the first alternate reality. Basically I would want to watch it again just to see if the blond woman says, "Everything will be all right". If she does then it's not the first time he's done this.

So because of that and other reasons I disagree with you raiders, I actually would have been pissed if it ended when you say mainly because if it did they would have had to cut out a lot of other "hints" and clues that I caught.

Unfortunately I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Raiders]

I actually thought it might be going the way it did. I for the most part liked it.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the first alternate reality. Basically I would want to watch it again just to see if the blond woman says, "Everything will be all right". If she does then it's not the first time he's done this.

So because of that and other reasons I disagree with you raiders, I actually would have been pissed if it ended when you say mainly because if it did they would have had to cut out a lot of other "hints" and clues that I caught.

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure what you mean.

Done this before? This is the pilot of the program. Unless the film is lying to us, this wouldn't make sense. There is nothing to suggest this I don't think. I also don't know what you mean about the blond woman. When did she say this?

Ultimately, even if what you are alluding to is in fact the point, it is only the more disappointing as it is an emotionally (as in disorientation and fractured, temporary acquaintance) driven film and the only way to give the closure to what Gyllenhaal's character is attempting at the end is that great image. Otherwise, if what you say is in fact true, it makes it a glib puzzle and that is far more disappointing. Luckily, to the film's favor, I am very skeptical about your insinuations.

[Sycophant]

I like this a whole lot. More later.

For now, I'll compliment number8 on dropping the scores from his reviews on JPP. Not sure when that happened, but it's a change I like to see.

[TGM]

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure what you mean.

Done this before? This is the pilot of the program. Unless the film is lying to us, this wouldn't make sense. There is nothing to suggest this I don't think. I also don't know what you mean about the blond woman. When did she say this?

He's talking about Colter Steven's text message to the officer, Goodwin, at the end of the movie. One of the things he asked her to do was to tell him that everything will be okay. And now that that's brought up, I'll definitely be on the lookout to hear if she does say that the next time I watch it.

Since in that reality, they won't be using him for that mission, it'll obviously be the next mission that she'll tell him this. But as far as the original mission goes, we already know that 2 months had passed since they came into possession of the Stevens. Who knows if he's already been used and created new alternate realities in that two months time, since he still exists in each new alternate reality.

That said, the more I think about the ending, the more it does sort of fit with the rest of the movie. After all, we had at least two other times in the film where the eight minutes had already expired, yet he was still in the Source Code. The train exploded when he was fighting the guy at the station, but he still remained until he got hit by the oncoming train.

The second time, the villain even commented that he was off schedule, meaning the time had already passed without the train exploding, yet Stevens was still in the Source Code. It wasn't until he died from the gunshot wound that he finally left.

So it would appear that the whole "eight minutes" thing doesn't necessarily mean anything. He just started eight minutes before Sean originally died. However, so long as he can prevent his own death, he can remain in Source Code for however long he wants, thus essentially creating a new alternate reality.

[Raiders]

He's talking about Colter Steven's text message to the officer, Goodwin, at the end of the movie. One of the things he asked her to do was to tell him that everything will be okay. And now that that's brought up, I'll definitely be on the lookout to hear if she does say that the next time I watch it.

Since in that reality, they won't be using him for that mission, it'll obviously be the next mission that she'll tell him this. But as far as the original mission goes, we already know that 2 months had passed since they came into possession of the Stevens. Who knows if he's already been used and created new alternate realities in that two months time, since he still exists in each new alternate reality.

That said, the more I think about the ending, the more it does sort of fit with the rest of the movie. After all, we had at least two other times in the film where the eight minutes had already expired, yet he was still in the Source Code. The train exploded when he was fighting the guy at the station, but he still remained until he got hit by the oncoming train.

The second time, the villain even commented that he was off schedule, meaning the time had already passed without the train exploding, yet Stevens was still in the Source Code. It wasn't until he died from the gunshot wound that he finally left.

So it would appear that the whole "eight minutes" thing doesn't necessarily mean anything. He just started eight minutes before Sean originally died. However, so long as he can prevent his own death, he can remain in Source Code for however long he wants, thus essentially creating a new alternate reality.

I guess. Though I would point out:

Yes, he's been there two months, but they make it clear that this is the first crisis where they have been able to use the technology.

As I said before, all this may very well be (I don't agree there are other alternate realities he has created, but rather maybe the film did intend to tip its hat that this is where it was heading), but it nullifies so much of the emotion of the film and creates instead a silly puzzle. That might make it an interesting mystery for some, but it cripples the ending no matter how you shake it.

[TGM]

I guess. Though I would point out:

Yes, he's been there two months, but they make it clear that this is the first crisis where they have been able to use the technology.

It's the first time, as far as the people in charge are aware of. Goodwin never informed her superior about the text she received, meaning that, at least in that reality, whenever the time does come that they use Stevens for Source Code, they'll think that they're using him for the first time (everyone except for Goodwin, that is). But who's to say that this very situation hasn't already occurred before in the "original" reality?

[Raiders]

It's the first time, as far as the people in charge are aware of. Goodwin never informed her superior about the text she received, meaning that, at least in that reality, whenever the time does come that they use Stevens for Source Code, they'll think that they're using him for the first time (everyone except for Goodwin, that is). But who's to say that this very situation hasn't already occurred before in the "original" reality?

Nobody can say, and it's a pointless question to think about in my opinion. It matters not to the central story and its emotional core, and to even create such a quandary hurts what I believe the film to do well. I don't see the point in creating a question. That's my whole point. I have never said it was unjustifiable, just that the film had a great, resonant ending and it killed it by trying to be more complicated than necessary.

I would have preferred emotional honesty over useless cleverness.

[Thirdmango]

Nobody can say, and it's a pointless question to think about in my opinion. It matters not to the central story and its emotional core, and to even create such a quandary hurts what I believe the film to do well. I don't see the point in creating a question. That's my whole point. I have never said it was unjustifiable, just that the film had a great, resonant ending and it killed it by trying to be more complicated than necessary.

I would have preferred emotional honesty over useless cleverness.

TGM has it right as far as I understood the movie and it is the way that I thought the movie was good. I think if it had ended where you said it should have I really wouldn't have liked the movie as much mainly because it just would have been this, "Hey look, you did it good job," with no other consequences beyond what he was doing.

I hadn't thought about it TGM but you added to what I was thinking with the fact that in the other two where he got off the train he did have to die to go back to "reality". That makes it even cooler in my book. But yeah, I was saying if at the beginning of the movie Goodwin says "it's going to be alright" then we know that before this crisis happened she got a text message from Stevens. That to me makes the movie even cooler then just a simple, Hey he did it now he's dead scenario.

[DavidSeven]

Uh, yeah, I didn't like this. The extended denouement is indeed garbage. I didn't think the rest was all that special either. A mildly engaging story delivered with mostly hackwork direction. The film builds up to a single transcendent moment near the end, but it's completely undone with a Spielberg-ian add-on that only muddles the message. This definitely didn't strike me as the work of a significant filmmaker.

I'm with Raiders on this:

The ending only introduces inquiries that don't need to be made. Some of these new considerations might be intriguing in their own right, but they come at the expense of whatever emotional poignancy the film might have had. This is not a cerebral film for it's first 85 minutes; it comes off as a cheat to try to squeeze those elements in after your mindless action movie has reached a satisfactory conclusion.

[number8]

For now, I'll compliment number8 on dropping the scores from his reviews on JPP. Not sure when that happened, but it's a change I like to see.

About a month ago. I'd been lobbying for it for a while, and finally got the others to agree.

[number8]

I'm with Raiders on this:

The ending only introduces inquiries that don't need to be made. Some of these new considerations might be intriguing in their own right, but they come at the expense of whatever emotional poignancy the film might have had. This is not a cerebral film for it's first 85 minutes; it comes off as a cheat to try to squeeze those elements in after your mindless action movie has reached a satisfactory conclusion.

The number of people I overheard walking out talking about

Jeffrey Wright being wrong after all and the Source Code program successfully performing time travel

made me think that it was not only unnecessary and out of place, it's also confusing for the kind of audience who would think the first 85 minutes are cerebral.

[Ezee E]

I think I'll check this out sometime this week.

[lovejuice]

Agree with many people about the ending. It also adds tonal confusion to a movie that already isn't quite sure if it wants to be Eternal Sunshine or Deja Vu.

That sounds harsh, but overall I enjoy it especially the drama/romance/existentialism aspect. The suspense part feels a bit half-assed.

[Thirdmango]

Trouble is, if you get rid of the ending you have to cut out a good ten maybe fifteen minutes out of the regular movie as well. If the ending doesn't happen then there's no reason that he has to die to come out of it, it would instead be once the character supposedly died that's when he would come out of it, every eight minutes, but two of the times he clearly stays longer and has to die. Without the ending the way it was I would have felt cheated because of the two "he has to die" moments. Also all the times he sees that mirror sculpture as he's waking up those all have to go too.

[Sycophant]

I kinda hate puzzle movies. I think Inception would be stronger if there wasn't this whole scene surrounding it, trying to pick out what was really going on the whole time. So while an endless loop or whatever in Source Code may have a "cool" factor, I say screw it, since it undercuts the main moral concerns of the film (and I don't think it's really supported).

I do kind of think the film would've been stronger had it ended on the freeze. It's like it was building up to that, and seeing more after it was a bit like if instead of cutting to black and Jefferson Airplane after holding the tornado shot in A Serious Man, there'd a resolution of some kind, good or ill.

A friend of mine suggested after the film that perhaps from a more religious or afterlife perspective, the extension is more satisfying. But for a bunch of one-life-having humanist heathens like ourselves, the idea that that was worth doing even if it didn't cosmically amount to much is a more heartwarming message.

As to why all that stuff about having to cut crap out of the movie if mango's theory is wrong?

That doesn't really make sense. His body was dying in real life, so until then we had no real proof that these were existing, created alternate realities instead of basically induced dream states. He could well have died when his life support was cut. That he and his universe continued to exist outside this mental exercise (from a now-dead mental) was by no means a given.

[Raiders]

Trouble is, if you get rid of the ending you have to cut out a good ten maybe fifteen minutes out of the regular movie as well. If the ending doesn't happen then there's no reason that he has to die to come out of it, it would instead be once the character supposedly died that's when he would come out of it, every eight minutes, but two of the times he clearly stays longer and has to die. Without the ending the way it was I would have felt cheated because of the two "he has to die" moments. Also all the times he sees that mirror sculpture as he's waking up those all have to go too.

I can't even remember--do we ever see his watch reach zero prior to the final time? It doesn't seem to me the movie definitely said any of the other times that he had gone beyond eight minutes. He died both times in a matter of seconds after the train explodes or was supposed to explode, and I don't think they ever said he was entering exactly eight minutes before the explosion (possibly that Sean lived a few seconds beyond the explosion?). I could be wrong about all that. In either case, they definitely were playing it close enough to the chest that if we didn't have the extended ending I don't think anyone would have noticed otherwise.

The mirror thing--am I mistaken or weren't those flashes both his and Sean's memories intertwined and the mirror thing was just something Sean had seen, so no reason it has to be removed?

[number8]

He didn't just see the mirror thing. He actually flashed seeing Michelle Monaghan with him at the mirror thing, wearing the same clothes. Since Sean never did ask her out on a date, that can't be a memory. That was actually him flashing into his future.

Though I believe it's nothing more than the movie trying to be Twilight Zoney, and not at all justified with the Source Code program.

[Raiders]

He didn't just see the mirror thing. He actually flashed seeing Michelle Monaghan with him at the mirror thing. Since Sean never did ask her out on a date, that can't be a memory. That was actually him flashing into his future.

Though I believe it's nothing more than the movie trying to be Twilight Zoney, and not at all justified with the Source Code program.

I see. Yeah, doesn't matter. Nobody is claiming they didn't intend the whole time to have that ending, just that it doesn't work and undercuts the actual resonant ending they had obtained.

Also, besides that (and really, who could say that everything he sees is intended to be something that has happened/will happen?) nothing that exists in the film would have stopped them from ending with her pulling the plug actually killing him.

[lovejuice]

I don't have that big a problem with the date scene after the freeze frame. Only when the movie goes from "Aww...so sweet" to "Ohh...creepy"

[Pop Trash]

I don't get it:

So as I see it, this has three possible endings:
1. The more ambiguous freeze frame ending that Raiders likes, which is kinda-sorta cool in that 'it's 1999 and the Matrix and Gap ads are all the rage' way. I suppose this is the most ambiguous way to end it.
2. The ending I liked where it should have faded out, around the time the two of them are at Grant Park (err Millenium Park, but seriously it's Grant Park folks, and I've stood right there at that reflecting metal ball thing, so maybe that's why I'm biased that they should have ended it here).
3. The real ending of the film, that has a 'twist' that he is still alive? Or something? This is where I get confused...

...with the whole Quantum Leap-esque aspects of this plot. So he gets to survive but only if his real body/self is alive back in 'reality?' If he dies, he just...dies right. And the dude in the alternate dimension who he is hosting in just goes along and lives the way he was before. But wait...didn't she 'kill' him or something? So he could 'live' vicariously Being John Malkovich style via the other hombre. But then he isn't dead? He's still alive? Errr...what?


Now to the other aspects: I don't know if Duncan Jones has approached a Nolan style level of combining the convoluted twisty plot with the more poetic formal style or philosophical quandaries that go beyond the surface. As far as the acting goes, not sure if I dig Gyllanhaal in action hero mode, Jeffrey Wright was rather hammy, but Vera Farmiga continues to rulez da skoolz.

[Dukefrukem]

I was expecting an ending like this (with Duncan getting his shot into mainstream cinema), so I wasn't surprised they went in that direction with a "happy ending". That said, I don't think the ending is confusing by any means. In fact, I love it when the smart scientist is wrong and the headstrong soldier ends up being right. I gave it a yay, and will put it somewhere in the average ranking mark. I liked the father/son phone call as well.

The ending I saw: Stevens died in real life after Goodwin (stupid name btw) pushed the red button. However, Stevens stayed alive in the alternate universe (which takes place in the past from when the movie was set), which is why Goodwin got the e-mail from Stevens. Everyone's lives continue from that point on, only the dead Stevens would go on to pursue another terrorist act somewhere.

The only question that remains, is why Stevens was able to live out the rest of his live in the source code? Did saving all those people's lives prolong the 8 minutes?

[TGM]

The only question that remains, is why Stevens was able to live out the rest of his live in the source code? Did saving all those people's lives prolong the 8 minutes?


As mentioned throughout this thread (hidden in spoiler tags), the ending wasn't the only time he prolonged the 8 minutes in the movie (it's just the only time the movie makes it obvious). It's pretty much established that at any point he can stay in Source Code for however long he wants. The only thing that sends him back to the original world is dying.

[Dukefrukem]

As mentioned throughout this thread (hidden in spoiler tags), the ending wasn't the only time he prolonged the 8 minutes in the movie (it's just the only time the movie makes it obvious). It's pretty much established that at any point he can stay in Source Code for however long he wants. The only thing that sends him back to the original world is dying.

This is true. yeh I didn't read all the spoiler tags.

Example would be when he was hit by the train

[Pop Trash]

So what happens if his 'real world' body dies? Does his Source Code self die as well? Is it like an inverse of A Nightmare on Elm Street? If you die in the real world you die in your dream? (dream = Source Code in this case).

And didn't Jeffrey Wright want him dead anyways? Or something?

[transmogrifier]

Personally, I think that once a film has been released, it's thread should not need spoiler tags anymore.

In the general threads, of course. But we have the yay/nay thing for basic consensus, so I reckon just let the conversation flow here.

[DavidSeven]

I think it's prudent for people to hold off for at least a couple weeks from the release date before openly posting spoilers because some folks still like to check the main thread for initial reactions. But whatever, I don't police it and won't be too bothered either way.

[Dukefrukem]

Personally, I think that once a film has been released, it's thread should not need spoiler tags anymore.

In the general threads, of course. But we have the yay/nay thing for basic consensus, so I reckon just let the conversation flow here.

I think it's important for the forum to come to a consensus on this because I feel the same way and thats EXACTLY why we have the new release database thread.

[TGM]

So what happens if his 'real world' body dies? Does his Source Code self die as well? Is it like an inverse of A Nightmare on Elm Street? If you die in the real world you die in your dream? (dream = Source Code in this case).

And didn't Jeffrey Wright want him dead anyways? Or something?


Nope, because Goodwin did in fact flip the switch in the end, thus ending his life in the original reality. However, he still remained in the Source Code, which only further emphasizes that the Source Code is, in fact, a completely alternate reality.

[lovejuice]

A point that surprisingly has not been addressed is: from now on every time he looks into the mirror, he will see the face of some other dudes? That doesn't sound very much like an alternate "reality."

[number8]

A point that surprisingly has not been addressed is: from now on every time he looks into the mirror, he will see the face of some other dudes? That doesn't sound very much like an alternate "reality."

And that he stole someone's identity and will be lying to the woman he loves about who he is. The whole thing is just creepy.

[Rowland]

Or how while he is freed, the version of himself in this alternate reality is still trapped inside his body, possibly to never escape. And further, the teacher whose identity he has co-opted, what has happened to him? Did his consciousness just disappear? If anything, the ending would have worked had it been played as a perverse sort of pseudo-happy ending, but the film doesn't really give any impression that it's aware of all this. I've been trying to make sense of it, and so far one of the only strongly positive takes on the movie that seems to defend the ending as appropriately ambiguous is Walter Chaw's review (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/sourcecopy.htm), but I can't make much sense out of his argument: "Among the many beauties of Source Code is that it may not be until later that it becomes clear that there's more than one martyr in this story--and that this secondary martyrdom has perhaps doomed Stevens's self-prescribed outcome."

To be honest, I was really digging the movie until it kept going past that perfect ending it seemed to set up for itself. My three-star rating is based on everything up until that point, which I would have probably bumped up another half star had it ended there. Maybe I'll make more sense out of what Jones was getting at with another viewing, or I'll only confirm that it's nonsense.

[TGM]

Yeah, that thought had crossed my mind, and it is pretty weird. Since he keeps his own personality, but trapped inside someone else's body, he's now essentially forced to live a lie. And really, as a military man trapped in a teacher's body, how long is he going to be able to keep up the charade?

And not only that, but he went in that last time with the mindset that he's going to save everyone from the explosion. Well, he did save everyone, all except for Stevens, who now for all intents and purposes no longer exists within that reality.

Thinking about these things too much does give the movie somewhat of a strange, bitter sweet feeling.

[Dukefrukem]

A point that surprisingly has not been addressed is: from now on every time he looks into the mirror, he will see the face of some other dudes? That doesn't sound very much like an alternate "reality."

I think this just dropped the movie down a peg for me.

[DavidSeven]

I thought that extended ending was morally troubling from the get go. What really knocked it down a peg was how ineffective it was dramatically, but I also think that extended ending turned an interesting, pointed and poetic moral inquiry into a disturbing and messy one. It doesn't seem like anyone in this thread has attempted to give a plausible defense for this yet beyond how the whole thing ties together plot-wise.

[TGM]

The thing is, I'm not sure that it warrants any real defense. Basically, we the viewers had a difference perception of what the movie was about than the director, it just that that difference wasn't made apparent until he decided to keep the cameras rolling.

It's not as strong as it could have been, and it honestly wouldn't have taken that much work to redo plot points that supports the ending we got. But in the end, it is what it is, and while it may not sit well with some, it personally doesn't bother me all that much. I just find it a little odd, but in an interesting way which doesn't make me hate the film.

[Henry Gale]

After wanting to see it since opening day, I finally had a chance to do so last night, and I liked it about as much as I expected to, though not as much as Moon, which I'd easily put on top 50 of my favourites from the last decade.

In terms of getting too much into the ending(s) and where it could have (or in many people's opinions, should have) ended, I don't really see how the story fully satisfies itself without the very last scene. I think the film was very much written to fit those ideas in there, and that's not to say objectively if it should have done so, but it did, and to me it definitely works, especially in terms of dealing with more of the unspecified "how" or "why" discussed earlier in the film, while making an effort to bring extra weight to everything we had seen before it.

Plus, I can't think of any moment from this year so far that got me as emotionally as when the freeze-frame of Gyllenhaal and Monaghan suddenly continued once more. It's just one of those moments I silently begged to happen, and it did so perfectly, also allowing for the call to his father to happen afterwards.
I will say that a lot of the film's success may have to do with how much it subjectively worked for me on that sort of emotional level, but I'm glad I was able to buy into it very early on because I think the character work, despite how potentially suffocated it could have been in this sort of detail-heavy sci-fi movie, does a really great job of finding a balance in its own way. Also, I'm glad it was as funny as it was along the way, because I think that also helped it feel less mechanical when it wasn't spending time deciphering its own plot mechanics for the audience.

***1/2

[Boner M]

I liked how Jeffrey Wright's villain wasn't really a villain so Jeffrey Wright had to play him as villainy as possible.

Was really into this for the first hour, but man does Jones do his best to eradicate all good will by the end.

[Spinal]

Man, this movie was pretty stupid. Vera Farmiga was pretty much the saving grace. But the rest is a low-grade retread of ideas copped from better movies and dispassionately assembled into a frivolous nothing. Despite the film's premise, it creates very little tension. It is the kind of film that gives mindbenders a bad name because its coarse manipulation is laid bare in every tiresome twist and turn. Surely, the filmmakers hoped that the film's ending would spark lively debate. But with such cheap audience pandering, it's really hard to care.

Most unforgivable moment:

Using an impromptu stand-up comedy routine from a moody TV hack as an example of how humanity needs to take time to pause for joy in our lives. They have to be kidding, right?

[Raiders]

Man, this movie was pretty stupid. Vera Farmiga was pretty much the saving grace. But the rest is a low-grade retread of ideas copped from better movies and dispassionately assembled into a frivolous nothing. Despite the film's premise, it creates very little tension. It is the kind of film that gives mindbenders a bad name because its coarse manipulation is laid bare in every tiresome twist and turn. Surely, the filmmakers hoped that the film's ending would spark lively debate. But with such cheap audience pandering, it's really hard to care.

Most unforgivable moment:

Using an impromptu stand-up comedy routine from a moody TV hack as an example of how humanity needs to take time to pause for joy in our lives. They have to be kidding, right?

Eh, I don't know. I liked that moment a lot. In fact, it would have been a perfect ending spot (as I keep saying).

I more or less agree with the rest of what you say though.

[Bosco B Thug]

I didn't mind the final turn of the screw at the end. It doesn't make much sense, but I feel it worked on a semi-abstract level of aggressive optimism. A whole "pay it forward" thing, where Farmiga's moral action results in the creation of proliferate alternate existences for a SPOILERyoungSPOILERdeadSPOILER soldierSPOILER.

The film overall is engaging if nothing more. Jones does have a poetic touch - very minor - but I could see how it set off Walter Chaw's "purplé zone."

[Ezee E]

Watching it, but falling asleep because of a long day.

Please... please not have "him" be the bomber.

[Ezee E]

Good. Glad it didn't end that way.

I liked it a lot. There's issues with the ending, but I can overlook it simply because most movies don't hit the emotional core that it tries to get to. It can be joked with afterwards as it already has, but I think that shows that it actually does resonate. A movie with a true ending? Seems unusual these days. Especially when there's a emotional ending along with a technical ending.

I don't really have any defense to the denouement except that it didn't anger me as much as it did for you guys. I kind of figured that was the case as we saw earlier in the movie when the girl lives, so an alternate reality had already occurred.

Strong work.

[TGM]

Yeah, I enjoyed the movie a lot more when I recently rewatched it. And knowing how it ended, picking up on all the little hints leading to that ending, I honestly have no issues at all with the ending anymore, save for maybe the whole "creepy" argument we had discussed before.

[Derek]

Source Code - ****

Really?

[Robby P]

The most implausible part of this movie was when the dead guy used Bing! as his default search engine. Science fiction, indeed.

[Ezee E]

Really?
Jumping between that and 3 1/2.

[Bosco B Thug]

Jumping between that and 3 1/2. It's just that your initial post doesn't sound that enthusiastic. "Strong work" is kind of like saying "Good job, Duncan Jones, you showed up to set on time mostly, it seems." :)

[number8]

The most implausible part of this movie was when the dead guy used Bing! as his default search engine. Science fiction, indeed.

It is really pathetic how much Microsoft tried to bribe people to do this. I remember an episode of one of those shitty NCSCSI:LA:VSU:JAG: New York procedurals had one detective say to another, "Did you try to Bing this guy?" I almost kicked the screen.

[Watashi]

Who the fuck uses Bing?

[Derek]

Who the fuck uses Bing?

Fictional people. Is anyone really sure Bing exists or is it like the 555 phone numbers they use on tv?

[Mara]

Bing is one of the most heavily-promoted products that most people seem to actively hate. I don't know a single person who uses Bing.

[Ezee E]

It's just that your initial post doesn't sound that enthusiastic. "Strong work" is kind of like saying "Good job, Duncan Jones, you showed up to set on time mostly, it seems." :)
Good point.

Bing is on my phone for the record. It's not a smartphone, and I don't know if there's a way to change it. But it's awful.

[transmogrifier]

Until now, I had never even heard of Bing.

[Irish]

It is really pathetic how much Microsoft tried to bribe people to do this. I remember an episode of one of those shitty NCSCSI:LA:VSU:JAG: New York procedurals had one detective say to another, "Did you try to Bing this guy?" I almost kicked the screen.

Haha there was some procedural that got an obvious product placement from some online storage company. I can't remember the name, but the product was similar to DropBox.

Every time somebody needed evidence or a file or whatever, one of the characters would say something like, "Did you check your StorageCo Box? I just put that key evidence in your StorageCo Box."

I loved it.

[Skitch]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e125/skitchthemovieman/sourceEAAeZZEjpglarge.jpg

[number8]

Someone liked this movie enough to do that?

[Skitch]

That was drawn by Ducan Jones.

[baby doll]

Bing is one of the most heavily-promoted products that most people seem to actively hate. I don't know a single person who uses Bing.It's big in China (at least among foreigners), because when you search for something on Google, you always get a ton of sites that are blocked.

[Dukefrukem]

They're making this into a TV show. Wasn't it called, Quantum Leap?

[Fezzik]

Finally gonna sit down and watch this tonight.

[[ETM]]

I just saw it. Jones does indeed choose the more problematic, yet crowd-pleasing, ending yet again, only it's easier to overlook and forgive in "Moon". Still, a pretty good directorial effort, and good performances across the board. I liked it.

[Ezee E]

Is that crowd-pleasing though? Seems like the shot that many of us wanted to end it on would be more crowd-pleasing. The other sends the idea of sequel possibilities, and even groan-worthy.

[[ETM]]

Is that crowd-pleasing though? Seems like the shot that many of us wanted to end it on would be more crowd-pleasing. The other sends the idea of sequel possibilities, and even groan-worthy.

If you don't think about it too hard (say, if you don't post at Match-Cut... and your favorite TV show is CSI:Miami), it's a "happy ending". The hero wins, everybody lives, who cares about the teacher and the whole living a lie thing.

[Ezee E]

;372382']If you don't think about it too hard (say, if you don't post at Match-Cut... and your favorite TV show is CSI:Miami), it's a "happy ending". The hero wins, everybody lives, who cares about the teacher and the whole living a lie thing.
Meh. I still try to say that the people going to see that movie still have more intelligence anyway.

[[ETM]]

Meh. I still try to say that the people going to see that movie still have more intelligence anyway.

I always hope for that. But there'll also be many of those "whoa, man... that was, like... deep and shit, man" people.

[Fezzik]

Is that crowd-pleasing though? Seems like the shot that many of us wanted to end it on would be more crowd-pleasing. The other sends the idea of sequel possibilities, and even groan-worthy.

Just finished watching this. If it had ended on that freeze frame in the train, it would have been sublime (and would be on my top five "best final frames" list).

But oh, they had to push it, didn't they?

I would love to know if the ending presented was Jones' idea or added due to studio pressure.

That said, even with the poor choice in endings, I quite liked this. Taut, snappy, well paced and well acted. A very pleasant surprise.

[Grouchy]

I liked this a lot. I don't know why you are all so irritated about it.

I did think if it had ended in the freezing time shot, it would've been more poignant. But the ending they went with was fun too.

[max314]

A tight, suspenseful sci-fi thriller whose head and heart are in the right place.

★★★★★

[Qrazy]

Because a train not exploding is such a monumental action that only that would actively prompt the creation of a new stable timeline? That seems quite arbitrary to me.

The core premise doesn't make sense. So let's say that the brain has a short term memory cycle of eight minutes (wtf? but ok) and that these memories can be saved and let's say another person can plug into that series of memories. The person plugging in should only be able to analyze the information obtained by the person's sensory system prior to their death. This would have actually been an interesting movie, figuring out the clues to solve the case in information that was all already there.

But then via a flimsy rhetorical device the film moves from a brain's halo effect/short term memory to somehow new malleable timelines in the past. What? There is zero explanation for this.

There's suspension of disbelief and then there's this nonsense.

[Raiders]

Because a train not exploding is such a monumental action that only that would actively prompt the creation of a new stable timeline? That seems quite arbitrary to me.

As others have explained...

The alternate timeline has always been stable. At every instance, Stevens would have continued living beyond the train's explosion. The evidence is reportedly that he survives beyond the train's explosion on two instances but dies anyway through other means.


The core premise doesn't make sense. So let's say that the brain has a short term memory cycle of eight minutes (wtf? but ok) and that these memories can be saved and let's say another person can plug into that series of memories. The person plugging in should only be able to analyze the information obtained by the person's sensory system prior to their death. This would have actually been an interesting movie, figuring out the clues to solve the case in information that was all already there.

But then via a flimsy rhetorical device the film moves from a brain's halo effect/short term memory to somehow new malleable timelines in the past. What? There is zero explanation for this.

Kind of the same answer as above. He's not "reliving" Sean's memories. He is in fact transplanted into an alternate reality/timeline where he now is Sean, eight minutes prior to the explosion.

The final assumption is that either, a) Jeffrey Wright's character is wrong and unaware of what his invention is creating or b) he is fully aware and just assumes that the individual being sent will indeed die as scheduled every time.


There's suspension of disbelief and then there's this nonsense.

It is unnecessarily complicated. I re-watched this recently and was even more disappointed in the film's ending.

[EvilShoe]

It is unnecessarily complicated. I re-watched this recently and was even more disappointed in the film's ending.
Second time I deducted half a point from my score for a Duncan Jones film because of the ending. Hope he doesn't continue this trend.

[number8]

Qrazy's right, though, that the original simulation concept is more interesting than the inexplicable alternate timeline discovery. I feel like that and the whole twist about Gyllenhaal's character were added on as a measure to make the script more of a movie premise than a TV pilot premise.

[Qrazy]

As others have explained...

The alternate timeline has always been stable. At every instance, Stevens would have continued living beyond the train's explosion. The evidence is reportedly that he survives beyond the train's explosion on two instances but dies anyway through other means.

Yes, I am well aware, it's still nonsense. There are two options here. One is that one can not survive beyond the source code, so the universe manifested by the source code finds a way to kill you off. This doesn't stand up to much scrutiny because if the issue is with changing the past to create a new timeline, then why is his death necessary? Since he has already changed things in that timeline whether he dies or not.

Either way, we know though that this first option is false since at least in one instance he does survive. So the second option is as you say that in every instance a new timeline was created. In this case it was just pure happenstance that he happened to die every single other time he went into the source code (and remember there's a montage of times where he goes in and we don't see what happens to him) and he went in many times. If it's not the 'will of the source code' (so to speak) then why should we buy that it's anything more than a plot contrivance that he died every single other time? If he's trying to ID the suspect who obviously would not be on the train when it exploded then why would he die every other time? Realistically, given his mission he should be out of harms way and off the train most of the times it explodes while he looks for the suspect.



Kind of the same answer as above. He's not "reliving" Sean's memories. He is in fact transplanted into an alternate reality/timeline where he now is Sean, eight minutes prior to the explosion.

The final assumption is that either, a) Jeffrey Wright's character is wrong and unaware of what his invention is creating or b) he is fully aware and just assumes that the individual being sent will indeed die as scheduled every time.

Right, I'm saying that reliving Sean's memories would have been a much better movie. There is zero explanation for how that 8 minute memory loop and brain afterglow tie into this bizarre quantum cycle.

This is the movie's awkward ethical positioning. In the universe where Goodwin receives the text message they didn't use source code which the movie posits is good because then the Captain gets to die as per the agreement. Except they did actually use the source code which is good because he actually gets to live and save all those people. This is beyond trying to have your cake and eat it too. It's like trying to eat all the quantum cakes in every single dimension created by the source code.

[DavidSeven]

Oh, right. This movie exists.

[Raiders]

Just so we're clear, Qrazy, I am not going to defend this movie. I agree with you that the final few minutes of this film are insanely problematic and the whole premise winds up being really silly and poorly thought-out. I was just giving the justification for what did happen that has been put forward.

[Qrazy]

Just so we're clear, Qrazy, I am not going to defend this movie. I agree with you that the final few minutes of this film are insanely problematic and the whole premise winds up being really silly and poorly thought-out. I was just giving the justification for what did happen that has been put forward.

Alrighty.

[Winston*]

If some dude got up on a train I was in and started telling lame jokes about his Indian name, I don't think I would consider it a moment of communal bliss.

[Qrazy]

If some dude got up on a train I was in and started telling lame jokes about his Indian name, I don't think I would consider it a moment of communal bliss.

Set off the bomb already!