RE: Source Code

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Source Code

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Source Code

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Source Code - 3/4/2011 11:46:26 PM

paul_ie86

Posts: 11207
Joined: 4/1/2007
From: Chelsea Hotel #2

I think he's just looking for a bit of outrage at his comments tbh.

_____________________________

My Group Project's facebook page. Please like

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 31

RE: Source Code - 3/4/2011 11:52:49 PM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul_ie86

I think he's just looking for a bit of outrage at his comments tbh.

I think you might be right.

(in reply to paul_ie86)

Post #: 32

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 12:32:42 AM

vad3r

Posts: 4233
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

Oh, and Moon had a love interest in it too. Or is it just Americans that you have issues with?

Moons cast were Americans so I don't see your point. And it was a hardly a love interest, she didn't even have a single scene with him and was in the film for less than 5 minutes.

_____________________________

Single Virgin

Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 33

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 12:43:26 AM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

Oh, and Moon had a love interest in it too. Or is it just Americans that you have issues with?

Moons cast were Americans so I don't see your point. And it was a hardly a love interest, she didn't even have a single scene with him and was in the film for less than 5 minutes.

It was his wife, of course she was his love interest! He loved her, and he was interested in her. End of.

Oh, and just for the record, Vera and Jake don't share a single scene, but you've already written her off as his love interest. In spite of not seeing the film...

< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 4/4/2011 12:45:31 AM >

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 34

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 12:47:07 AM

homersimpson_esq

Posts: 19969
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

I hope this film flops so he can get back to making interesting films set in space rather than boring ones with a love interest set in America like 99% of movies released.

I'd like to see the source for your figures, here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

I hope this film flops so he can get back to making interesting films set in space rather than boring ones with a love interest set in America like 99% of movies released.

Have you seen the film?

Why else would Vera Farmiga need to be there?

Nice bluff, but it appears to have been called.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul_ie86

She's not the love interest.

The film is about Jake G, what other reason is there for a female lead other than to attract a larger female audience to a sci fi movie?
Even Bowie & Darko said during interviews they tried to appeal towards both men and women and that there is something for everyone. Studios won't risk a high budget blockbuster featuring an A-lister without a damsel in distress in there.

Yep. Bluff called.

Also, WOAH. Just, WOAH. So, taking your somewhat antiquated views of the female audience for films at face value for a moment, you're saying the female audience aren't coming to see Jake Gyllenhaal? You know, the really fit, good-looking actor that stars in it, but they actually come for a female lead who, it transpires in the viewing of the film, isn't even the lead?!

Perhaps Jones and Gyllenhaal are appealing to everyone by making, I dunno, an entertaing and intelligent thriller.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

32 million is high-budget? And romance is the only thing that appeals to women?

Well it's six and a half times the budget of his other film.
Of course there are women who like many other genres, but I think you will find undoubtedly that the most popular genre amongst women are romance and comedy hence rom coms (2 for 1).

Again, I'd like to see some sources for these generalisations you seem to have on the female gender.

< Message edited by homersimpson_esq -- 4/4/2011 12:48:05 AM >

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

TREK WARS

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 35

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 12:51:49 AM

Spaldron

Posts: 10487
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

Oh, and Moon had a love interest in it too. Or is it just Americans that you have issues with?

Moons cast were Americans so I don't see your point. And it was a hardly a love interest, she didn't even have a single scene with him and was in the film for less than 5 minutes.

It was his wife, of course she was his love interest! He loved her, and he was interested in her. End of.

So have you seen Source Code?

Don't waste your time adambatman82 he's a shit-stirrer of the highest order, nothing better to do clearly. As for me after reading the feedback here and some good reviews I'll definitely be heading off to catch this soon as. I loved Moon and if this is anywhere near as good as Inception was then I think we can safely confirm Duncan Jones as Britain's new hot-shot director.

And for the record if this is as good as people say then I hope it isn't a flop at all.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 36

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 12:54:00 AM

vad3r

Posts: 4233
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ

Woah calm down folks, I certainly didn't mean to come across as sexist, I was just having a moan because I would rather Duncan Jones work outside the system and make interesting and unique films like Moon rather than this sci fi/thriller fluff we seem to be getting so much of nowadays (The Adjustment Bureau). It just seems yet another promising director has gone Hollywood.

_____________________________

Single Virgin

Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 37

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 12:55:03 AM

vad3r

Posts: 4233
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

Oh, and Moon had a love interest in it too. Or is it just Americans that you have issues with?

Moons cast were Americans so I don't see your point. And it was a hardly a love interest, she didn't even have a single scene with him and was in the film for less than 5 minutes.

It was his wife, of course she was his love interest! He loved her, and he was interested in her. End of.

So have you seen Source Code?

Don't waste your time adambatman82 he's a shit-stirrer of the highest order, nothing better to do clearly

Charming, coming from the man who continues to stalk and hurl abuse at me thread after thread despite being warned to leave me alone.

_____________________________

Single Virgin

Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to Spaldron)

Post #: 38

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 1:21:35 AM

paul_ie86

Posts: 11207
Joined: 4/1/2007
From: Chelsea Hotel #2

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

I certainly didn't mean to come across as sexist

While I don't think you are sexist, I do think you meant to come across as such for a laugh.

_____________________________

My Group Project's facebook page. Please like

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 39

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 1:45:06 AM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Woah calm down folks, I certainly didn't mean to come across as sexist, I was just having a moan because I would rather Duncan Jones work outside the system and make interesting and unique films like Moon rather than this sci fi/thriller fluff we seem to be getting so much of nowadays (The Adjustment Bureau). It just seems yet another promising director has gone Hollywood.

WHICH YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN SO DO NOT HAVE A VALID OPINION ON!

Pretty much everyone who has seen the film in this thread thoroughly enjoyed it. It is nothing at all like The Adjustment Bureau, it is a great piece of original science fiction, that actually gets in to some pretty hard sci-fi ideas. In fact "interesting and unique" is the perfect description for Source Code. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't seen it.

< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 4/4/2011 1:51:44 AM >

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 40

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 1:46:20 AM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul_ie86

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

I certainly didn't mean to come across as sexist

While I don't think you are sexist, I do think you meant to come across as such for a laugh.

I don't know, nothing in his "argument" suggested he wasn't being sexist. Generalising, sweeping sexism is exactly how I read it.

(in reply to paul_ie86)

Post #: 41

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 1:54:20 AM

vad3r

Posts: 4233
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: paul_ie86

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

I certainly didn't mean to come across as sexist

While I don't think you are sexist, I do think you meant to come across as such for a laugh.

I don't know, nothing in his "argument" suggested he wasn't being sexist. Generalising, sweeping sexism is exactly how I read it.

Yeah by saying the majority women prefer romantic and comedy movies compared to sci fi. How sexist of me.

_____________________________

Single Virgin

Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 42

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 9:22:14 AM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

The only warnings on the Board are given by the Moderation Team, vad3r - if you have a comment to raise then please use PMs or the report system.

If you wish to generalise about women's taste in film then there's a thread somewhere in Movie Musings for that. If you want to complain about Duncan Jones' career, which is fair enough, then please do so Actors and Auteurs (or perhaps a more general thread on claims of selling out to the Hollywood buck elsewhere if more than one person comes under that general complaint).

If you see the film feel free to contribute a review. At the moment this is very close to the border of trolling.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 43

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 9:55:22 AM

shool

Posts: 9612
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

Obvious troll is obvious.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 44

Film to see Again and Again and Again - 4/4/2011 11:51:45 AM

katelm76

Posts: 7
Joined: 10/1/2006
From: Bristol, UK

Could not recommend this film enough. It's not Inception but it gets close. Thrilling, entertaining and emotional. Gyllenhaal is excellent as always and a great 2nd film for Jones, I really enjoyed Moon and was a bit worried when I read he was doing a Hollywood film. But no need to worry!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 45

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 12:16:36 PM

vad3r

Posts: 4233
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The only warnings on the Board are given by the Moderation Team, vad3r - if you have a comment to raise then please use PMs or the report system.

If you wish to generalise about women's taste in film then there's a thread somewhere in Movie Musings for that. If you want to complain about Duncan Jones' career, which is fair enough, then please do so Actors and Auteurs (or perhaps a more general thread on claims of selling out to the Hollywood buck elsewhere if more than one person comes under that general complaint).

If you see the film feel free to contribute a review. At the moment this is very close to the border of trolling.

Noted, thank you.

_____________________________

Single Virgin

Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 46

RE: Source Code - 4/4/2011 12:32:05 PM

theieuan

Posts: 282
Joined: 1/9/2006
From: Llanelli

Really looking forward to seeing this film. Absolutely loved Moon so wasn't sure how his second film would turn out. But reading the comments here from people who have seen the film, it seems that Duncan Jones hasn't disappointed.

_____________________________

You know, this place makes me wonder...Which would be worse, to live as a monster or die as a good man?

(in reply to vad3r)

Post #: 47

RE: Film to see Again and Again and Again - 4/4/2011 12:36:10 PM

superdan

Posts: 7230
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: katelm76

Could not recommend this film enough. It's not Inception but it gets close. Thrilling, entertaining and emotional. Gyllenhaal is excellent as always and a great 2nd film for Jones, I really enjoyed Moon and was a bit worried when I read he was doing a Hollywood film. But no need to worry!

I think comparisons with Inception are misleading, the thing that struck me the most when I was watching it was how much it brought to mind Twelve Monkeys.

(in reply to katelm76)

Post #: 48

RE: Film to see Again and Again and Again - 4/4/2011 12:56:36 PM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: katelm76

Could not recommend this film enough. It's not Inception but it gets close. Thrilling, entertaining and emotional. Gyllenhaal is excellent as always and a great 2nd film for Jones, I really enjoyed Moon and was a bit worried when I read he was doing a Hollywood film. But no need to worry!

I think comparisons with Inception are misleading, the thing that struck me the most when I was watching it was how much it brought to mind Twelve Monkeys.

With me it was Total Recall. Oh, and Quantum Leap!

(in reply to superdan)

Post #: 49

RE: Film to see Again and Again and Again - 4/4/2011 1:03:29 PM

homersimpson_esq

Posts: 19969
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: katelm76

Could not recommend this film enough. It's not Inception but it gets close. Thrilling, entertaining and emotional. Gyllenhaal is excellent as always and a great 2nd film for Jones, I really enjoyed Moon and was a bit worried when I read he was doing a Hollywood film. But no need to worry!

I think comparisons with Inception are misleading, the thing that struck me the most when I was watching it was how much it brought to mind Twelve Monkeys.

With me it was Total Recall. Oh, and Quantum Leap!

When he looked in the mirror I did expect him to say "oh boy".

With Duncan Jones' first film, people mentioned a host of SciFi films like 2001, Silent Running, Soylent Green, THX1138, etc, to which it pays homage. With his second film, people so far have mentioned Total Recall, 12 Monkeys, Groundhog Day, Inception, D�ja Vu...

And yet, critically no-one is saying that this is a bad thing, despite so often it being the case when films recall other films. It's referential, reverential, without being derivative. Which I rather like.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

TREK WARS

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 50

RE: Film to see Again and Again and Again - 4/4/2011 7:52:28 PM

Castor Troy

Posts: 7057
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Rocky's graveside

SPOILERS

I wasn't impressed really. It was pretty good - Jake was solid. But I didn't feel like I was watching anything amazing or original. It didn't play with the format enough. The love interest was under-developed - I don't think he could have grown to like her as much as he did in the space of about 32 minutes. I didn't see the point in him following that guy off the train and then fighting him (the first guy, not the real guy). Why not just watch what he did. He knew he couldn't change any thing. And he seemed to accept that he was half dead pretty easily. Aaaannnndd, was the fact that he only had half a body meant to be a little twist? Because it was obvious earlier on when you saw the little capsule he was in.

Having said all that - the last set of 8 minutes was good.

_____________________________

The individual human mind. In a child's ability to master the multiplication table, there is more holiness than all your shouted hosannas and holy holies. An idea is more important than a monument and the advancement of Man's knowledge more miraculous than all the sticks turned to snakes and the parting of the waters.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 51

RE: Film to see Again and Again and Again - 4/4/2011 10:58:47 PM

bigbadbeasty

Posts: 12
Joined: 7/1/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
With me it was Total Recall. Oh, and Quantum Leap!

Yeah I really got that vibe to, plus Twelve Monkeys as Superdan mentioned.

As for the film though, I did enjoy it, but I did feel that I was looking for another twist at the end. I think it will probably be more successful than Moon, but I really didn't think it was up to the same quality. I don't mean that as a negative, I just think Moon is a very special film, and it makes harder to repeat.

I will certainly be keeping an eye on Duncan Jone's future films :)

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 52

RE: Film to see Again and Again and Again - 5/4/2011 12:46:18 AM

threshold

Posts: 319
Joined: 26/10/2010
From: Sydney, Austraiia

So glad after moon, duncan jones is getting hollywood offers. I sense he is the next christopher nolan.
Although would've preferred sam rockwell instead of jake gyenhaal, but I guess thats just my love for moon talking.

(in reply to bigbadbeasty)

Post #: 53

RE: Film to see Again and Again and Again - 5/4/2011 8:53:41 AM

MOTH

Posts: 3172
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Sittin' on the dock of the bay

Time and time again, we've seen this concept explored, but thankfully Jones appreciates that sci-fi is as much about stimulating the emotions as well as the mind, and delivers a worthy follow-up to Moon, helped along by nice performances all round. Although I would have preferred it finished about 5 mins earlier (you'll know when you see it) and Gylenhall's character really should have been called Major Tom. Otherwise, very good (8/10)

_____________________________

I've only gone and set up a blog! This week I've been mostly reviewing Les Miserables and The French Connection double bill Click : The Fast Picture Show

(in reply to threshold)

Post #: 54

RE: Film to see Again and Again and Again - 5/4/2011 10:13:28 AM

bid red mcneil

Posts: 40
Joined: 4/4/2011
From: 1984

loved Moon, i'm a fan of the more simpler style of movie making and found this one a brilliant example of it, plus loved clint mansells score.

i'm looking forward to source code, not a massive fan of jake gylenhal but i have a feeling the story and direction will be so good, he will not overshadow the film.

_____________________________

"That was irrational of you... not to mention unsportsmanlike."

"Well it appears to me that there can't be too many guys driving around this valley with an ape."

(in reply to MOTH)

Post #: 55

Unresolved Questions About Source Code. - 6/4/2011 12:42:40 AM

Cruisecontroller

Posts: 4381
Joined: 28/4/2006

SPOILERS ABOUT THE END!

I saw it tonight and thought it was a very clever and gripping sci fi thriller but it isn`t perfect so I can`t give it full marks. I have two major queries about it the first being as it was such a vital and crucial mission to go back in time in someone elses body (who was there when the bomb went off on the train with the clock ticking) that the first time he does so Jakes character would have been aware of why he was there and what to do. What was the point in them sending him back the first time without making sure he knew what was going on? Having him getting freaked out and not knowing why he was on the train and someone else when he looked in the mirror when he had been in Afganistan before that was wasting valuable time in trying to get the bomber. Okay it clarified the story for us that he wasn`t supposed to naturally be there but it was wasting time surely for him to find the bomber?

My other query is so his life had been switched off at the end and before that he was now in someone elses body again and when he saved the day he in that guys body, got to live and everyone else got to live and the old bodies life was switched off then. Time had then changed and the bomb blast hadn`t happened, the culprit was caught in time and this came to light the next day. So was he completley dead still in his own body once he had changed time or gone back to having a concious still in that body as the blast hadn`t happened and he didn`t need to go back in time? If so couldn`t they just jank him back to conscious again to go back into someone elses body who died in another terriorist atrocity? Not very clear and maybe not quite the happy ending for him to die and be reborn in another mans body who now survives thanks to him...

Maybe its meant to be ambigous on that point to leave you wondering and talking like Inception or maybe I`ve been over analysing the plot. Any thoughts my head hurts!

Oh and I liked it more than Moon. 4/5.

_____________________________

MyDVDCollection.http://www.empireonline.com/myempire/mydvdcollection.asp?UID=49319

Last five movies seen & rated by me.

1. Star Trek: Into Darkness. 5/5
2. I`m So Excited. 3/5
3. Iron Man 3. 4/5
4. Olympus Has Fallen. 4/5
5. Oblivon. 3/5

(in reply to bid red mcneil)

Post #: 56

RE: Unresolved Questions About Source Code. - 6/4/2011 6:41:37 PM

CORLEONE

Posts: 4594
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Green and Pleasant Land

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cruisecontroller

My other query is so his life had been switched off at the end and before that�he was now in someone elses body again and when he saved the day he in that guys body, got to live and everyone else got to live and the old bodies life was switched off then. Time had then changed and the bomb blast hadn`t happened, the culprit was caught in time and this came to light the next day. So was he completley dead still in his own body once he had changed time or gone back to having a concious still in that body as the blast hadn`t happened and he didn`t need to go back in time? If so couldn`t they just jank him back�to conscious�again to go back into someone elses body who died in another terriorist atrocity? Not very clear and maybe not quite the happy ending for him to die and be reborn in another mans body who now survives thanks to him...�Maybe its meant to be ambigous on that point to leave you wondering and talking like Inception or maybe I`ve been over analysing the plot. Any thoughts my head hurts!�Oh and I liked it more than Moon.�4/5.

SPOILERS

There's the key word in bold. Time. There is no time travel in this film. As Jake said, they hadn't just recreated 8 minutes, they had created an entire alternate reality altogether. His character cannot be disturbed by the scientists as the brain in which he entered the source code is now at rest. But in the alternate reality in which he lives, where he'll be enjoying life to the full with his new woman, there is a copy of his body (upper torso at least) in a lab somewhere, where they'll continue their experiments. Who knows, the same thing could happen all over again, and again and again.

I thought this was easily the best film I've seen this year. Dare I say I enjoyed it more than Inception? Yes, I think I did. 5 stars.

_____________________________

Al Swearengen: "Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back".

(in reply to Cruisecontroller)

Post #: 57

RE: Source Code - 7/4/2011 8:18:06 AM

Timon

Posts: 14545
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol

I really enjoyed it and I can't help but think the ending was very much like the 'Quantum Leap' finale.... except with alternative realities.

Actually, the more I think about it... the more I'm not sure whether I completely got it.... which I love almost as much as I loved the Scott Bakula cameo.

4/5

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 58

RE: Source Code - 7/4/2011 4:58:45 PM

Osbi-Wan

Posts: 4
Joined: 20/10/2005
From: London

SPOILERS

I saw Source Code last night and initially my gut said to give it 4 out of 5 because it was a very entertaining, thrilling and intelligent sci-fi movie. There were some great performances, especially from Jake Gyllenhaal, and a good, witty script. But the final act didn't sit well with me so after some musing I think it only deserves 3.

The ending would have been bittersweet if it had finished with the last kiss on the train and it would have made for a much better film. I suspect test audiences and producer pressure were to blame here. I will admit that sometimes a happy Hollywood ending can be bearable if you have enjoyed yourself, become invested in the characters (as I had) and are willing to suspend disbelief to a point. However in this case the explanation of the Source Code earlier in the movie made me annoyed with how events played out. Now in a nutshell the Source Code enabled someone to live out the last 8 minutes of someone's life by means of a computer simulation. The extended ending is explained away as an alternate reality which makes no sense at all as we are dealing with the constraints of a computer program in a limited time frame and not time travel. And unless a program was left running forever with an infinite source of information it would not continue to function. This in turn made me question the rest of the film. How could Cpt Colter (Jake Gyllenhaal) have played detective and accomplished everything he did based on 8 mins of memory from a single person? Anything that happened outside of that memory would be an unknown rendering any investigation impossible. I think the explanation of the Source Code should have been left more to mystery. And that a happy ending could still be achieved without contradicting the core concept.

It was a great ride though and I would not want to discourage anyone from seeing it despite these faults.

_____________________________

"Jayne, how many weapons you plan on bringing? You only got the two arms."

"I just get excitable as to choice - like to have my options open."

(in reply to Timon)

Post #: 59

RE: Source Code - 7/4/2011 5:21:41 PM

redpaw

Posts: 146
Joined: 28/3/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Osbi-Wan

SPOILERS

I saw Source Code last night and initially my gut said to give it 4 out of 5 because it was a very entertaining, thrilling and intelligent sci-fi movie. There were some great performances, especially from Jake Gyllenhaal, and a good, witty script. But the final act didn't sit well with me so after some musing I think it only deserves 3.

The ending would have been bittersweet if it had finished with the last kiss on the train and it would have made for a much better film. I suspect test audiences and producer pressure were to blame here. I will admit that sometimes a happy Hollywood ending can be bearable if you have enjoyed yourself, become invested in the characters (as I had) and are willing to suspend disbelief to a point. However in this case the explanation of the Source Code earlier in the movie made me annoyed with how events played out. Now in a nutshell the Source Code enabled someone to live out the last 8 minutes of someone's life by means of a computer simulation. The extended ending is explained away as an alternate reality which makes no sense at all as we are dealing with the constraints of a computer program in a limited time frame and not time travel. And unless a program was left running forever with an infinite source of information it would not continue to function. This in turn made me question the rest of the film. How could Cpt Colter (Jake Gyllenhaal) have played detective and accomplished everything he did based on 8 mins of memory from a single person? Anything that happened outside of that memory would be an unknown rendering any investigation impossible. I think the explanation of the Source Code should have been left more to mystery. And that a happy ending could still be achieved without contradicting the core concept.

It was a great ride though and I would not want to discourage anyone from seeing it despite these faults.

SPOILERS

Yep, have to agree with all of the above. How is it that this hasn't been brought up yet, or is it that we're just missing something? This film, while entertaining, is a MASSIVE contradiction of itself. Even IF Jake's character was able to repeatedly explore those last eight minutes on that train, which shouldn't be possible since it's out of bounds of the 'memory' as highlighted above, but there's NO WAY it would be able to create any kind of alternate reality as the film suggests since it's all happening inside Gyllenhaal's head - or inside a computer program. And with the logic set up in the film, this is impossible. And if it IS possible, it's been made far too cryptic.

Please, somebody help me out here - I wanna believe this film is smarter than I'm capable of understanding.

(in reply to Osbi-Wan)

Post #: 60