web
counter
 

Source Code Review: You'd Take The Red Pill, Am I Right Or Am I Right? Or Am I Right? Or Am I Right?

By Seth Freilich | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (23)



source-code-film.jpg

With Moon, first-time director Duncan Jones set a high bar for himself, providing a stylized and thoughtful sci-fi flick that was as much a character drama and exploration of identity and self as a techy, genre film. With Source Code, Jones continues to look at some of those same themes and play with science fiction in a way which remains refreshing in the wake of the typically rote and thoughtless sci-fi offered to the masses. That said, the film is better in concept than it is on screen, though that is more the fault of the Ben Ripley’s script than it is of Jones, who wrote his own Moon screenplay.

Source Code begins with Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) waking up on a train across from Christina (Michelle Monaghan), and waking up across from someone who looks like Monaghan is not at all a bad way to wake up. He’s confused about how and why he’s on this train, particularly because Christina thinks he’s some else, someone she apparently knows. Several minutes later (*minor spoilers in the rest of this paragraph, but nothing that’s not in the not-too-spoilery trailer*), the train blows up. It’s here we learn that Colter is in the military and taking part in a new kind of Matrix-y investigation.  Colter is helping investigate the possible terrorist origins of the explosion by being plugged into the Source Code, a techno-babble setup that repeatedly inserts him onto the train eight minutes before Kingdom Kablooey. From here, the film follows Colter repeatedly repeating those eight minutes, trying to figure out what happened while developing a crush on the now-presumably dead Christina. It also follows some real-world stuff outside of the Source Code between Colter and his military handlers, played by Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright, who may have their own separate agenda.

To say much more about the story than this would be spoilers in the literal sense, though few of the plot points really come as a surprise, even when they’re not telegraphed ahead of time. It’s here, in the details of the story, that the film is the weakest. While the conceit offers an interesting amalgamation of several often-seen tropes, it fails to really explore some of the more interesting questions any reasonably smart viewer would have. In fact, during the post-screening Q&A, writer Ben Riley (who wrote the third and fourth Species sequels) was actually asked one of these questions, and to paraphrase another critic (who shall go unnamed because I don’t remember who said this too me), it looked Riley had never really thought about the question before. That’s disappointing, since the best science fiction stories are generally the ones that take things heads on. The film also opts not to say too much of the techno-babble behind the Source Code, which leaves it susceptible to a variety of nitpicks (though, to be fair, there’s surely be just as many nits with a more detailed exposition on the tech as well). Ultimately, the script boils down to something which bit off more than it was apparently capable of chewing.

That said, the movie is redeemed by Jones and his cast. Gyllenhaal is very likable, and while most of his performance is nothing out of the ordinary, one strong scene late in film reminds you why he’s more than just a pretty face. Monaghan is absolutely gorgeous, and it’s easy to see why Jake’s Colter wants to try to save her. Farmiga is dependable as always, and though Wright’s performance is a little unnecessarily affected, he serves his purpose. Meanwhile, Jones isn’t tasked with quite as much heavy lifting as he had in Moon, given that film’s bottled-up setting and focus on a single character(s), but the film is still well shot — it looks good, it’s paced well, and it’s able to shift back and forth in a smooth, unconfusing way. While Moon didn’t fully or satisfactorily explore all of the questions its concept raised either, it at least tried. Here, Jones is saddled with a script that doesn’t even try to do more than brush up against the questions it raises, and it hard not to wonder if a re-write by Jones wouldn’t have provided a more rewarding film. That said, although Source Code does not deliver the full extent of smarts or insight contained in the possibility of its premise, it’s neither a dumb nor bad film, particularly for science fiction (and for those who dislike or loathe sci-fi, it should be noted that it’s not heavily steeped in the genre once you get past the whole Source Code business) and although I wouldn’t recommend rushing out to see it in the theaters, you could do far worse once it’s released for at-home consumption. More than anything, though, the film keeps excitement alive for Duncan Jones as a filmmaker and suggests that he may be something greater than a one-hit wonder. We desperately more dependable genre guys like him out there.

Source Code premiered at South By Southwest 2011.  









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Insidious Review: A Five-Star Seat Jumper for a Two-Star Horror Flick | An Open Letter to Jessica Biel on her Break-Up with Justin Timberlake









Comments

for those who dislike or loathe sci-fi

Those people exist? What's wrong with them?

the third and fourth Species sequels

Those things exist? What's wrong with people?

I'm so glad to hear that this isn't just Deja Vu on a train like the trailer made it out to be.

Posted by: Paultera at March 14, 2011 3:18 PM

I really like Moon but that script is full of holes, man.

Posted by: the new transported man at March 14, 2011 3:45 PM

Does Jake Gyllenhaal really have a pretty face?

Posted by: John G. at March 14, 2011 4:39 PM

I've been a computer programmer for 30 years, and WTF? I try to reproduce the same error over and over again, and my job it TO MAKE IT BLOW UP in a repeatable fashion. The problem is, computer programming is damn boring to watch.

So, this movie is Groundhog Day On A Train?

Groundhog Day In A Computer Program?

Posted by: BWeaves at March 14, 2011 5:36 PM

@ BWeaves-

Could you imagine if Bill Murray was in this? I'm laughing now just typing it!

Posted by: Kristin at March 14, 2011 5:49 PM

glad to hear this isn't a diaster

Posted by: splinter at March 14, 2011 5:56 PM

Groundhog Day in The Matrix... Bill Murray in The Matrix... Waking up to Michelle Monaghan... Kung-fu fighting...

I'm getting close, ain't I?

Posted by: godzilla_foil at March 14, 2011 10:05 PM

That is a travesty and I’m with you on this one Jake …This needs to stop because if they can do this to you and get away with it they can do it to anyone…meaning me .

Posted by: Atlanta Roofing at March 14, 2011 10:20 PM

Did the spambot just get lucky by randomly spewing out the name Jake, or are they getting smarter?

Posted by: marya at March 14, 2011 11:01 PM

So its a remake of Quantum Leap? - I hope Dean Stockwell gets a gig...puffing on a stoogie...

Posted by: Lenoir at March 15, 2011 5:30 AM

How is this not a remake of "Deja Vu", the movie with Denzel Washington where they have him (eventually) go back in time to figure out who blew up a boat?

Posted by: morganew at March 15, 2011 11:50 AM

"We desperately more dependable genre guys like him out there."

I desperately WANT Pajiba to hire me as their new editor/proofreader. I work cheap!

Posted by: kat at April 1, 2011 1:58 AM

That's funny, kat, because that line, We desperately more dependable genre guys like him out there, bothered me in another way, too.

You're damn right we need more Duncan Joneses out there, but suggesting to your readers that they maybe ought to wait to watch it at home, rather than going to the theater, is not going to help the other Duncan Joneses, or even this Duncan Jones, make more movies. This was a decent review, Seth, but considering how little quality sci-fi gets made, if the movie's as, at least competent, as you say, that's enough reason to go to theater to support it.

Posted by: RobP at April 1, 2011 2:27 PM

We saw this one earlier this week, and I had a good time, but both my husband and I thought that the movie needed more focus on the mystery/thriller/whodunnit process and less focus on the shmoopy romance. We also disagreed on the ending - he wasn't too keen on it, and while I agreed with his criticisms, I liked it anyway.

But we had fun, and it was a pretty good movie, all things considered.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at April 1, 2011 2:58 PM

Colter Stevens

Really? That's his fuckin' name? Colter? Not just Colt, but COLTER???

That should have stopped Duncan Jones right in his track and forced him to go back to the writer, slap him with the script across the face and go "PAGE 1 REWRITE, YOU HACK!"

Posted by: Fredo at April 1, 2011 4:09 PM

I'm thinking... wasn't this published before, with more or less the same comments?

Posted by: godzilla_foil at April 1, 2011 8:37 PM

Godzilla_foil, are you going to tell me you are reliving parts of your life? Looking at Source Code, that might be a bad thing.

Posted by: Matthijs at April 2, 2011 5:10 AM

Better than Jake

Posted by: bj at April 2, 2011 11:05 AM

Because I am an jerk...

If a person suggests or alludes to a re-write, maybe they should proof read their criticism first. Nothing worse than a non-self reflecting person telling someone else to self-reflect.

"and it hard not to wonder if a re-write by Jones wouldn’t have provided a more rewarding film."

He’s confused about how and why he’s on this train, particularly because Christina thinks he’s some else, someone she apparently knows.

**someone else, someone she apparently knows

(though, to be fair, there’s surely be just as many nits with a more detailed exposition on the tech as well)

**(thought, to be fair, there surely is just as many nits with a more detailed exposition on the tech as well)

We desperately more dependable genre guys like him out there.

*We desperately need more dependable genre guys like him out there.

Posted by: Max Gudmundson at April 3, 2011 2:09 PM

*a jerk

Posted by: jesuschrysler at April 4, 2011 1:10 AM


gyllenhall and monahan make a nice couple and they are easy
to root for. this film, however, and it's silly conceit is too much
like work.

Posted by: snake at April 5, 2011 12:48 AM

great movie, solid performances by the 4 main characters, nothing wrong with the premise if u r familiar with any other time travelesque episodes of STNG.
Fine follow-up to Moon by Duncan Jones, let's hope he can continue with these tight sci-fi stories.

I generally read and enjoy the Pajiba reviews after I have seen a movie - so i really have to disagree with your comments Seth.

I even found the movie quite moving towards the end - but I tend to enjoy these kind of sci-fi thriller movies. Wish there were more like it.

Posted by: jaybee at April 8, 2011 1:26 PM

I saw this last night and thought it was really good. Just a solid sci-fi film with enough to make you think and it was quite moving towards the end. My only real nitpick is SPOILER

That the poor guy Jake jumps into is the only one screwed over by the alternate reality. Everyone else gets a laugh on a train and to go on their merry way, and he's dead with Jake living his life. Poor guy. Course, alternative Jake has no legs and is plugged into the source code, so maybe he deserves a break.

END SPOILER.

I really liked it. Except the music. Too overdone.

Posted by: Carrie at April 13, 2011 6:40 AM