As a follow up to his directorial debut, Moon, Source Code is absolutely legit. What if Hitchcock made a Sci-fi film? That's basically it. It has charm, humor, and a bit of a twist. It's simply yet unique. Across the board, all the main cast did well. I'm not saying it's amazing, but you'll probably love it. Rango and this are my favorite films so far of 2011. If you need to watch a film this weekend, watch this!

Gonna check it out manana....

It's too damn confusing to explain though. I understand film makers have the hardest time placing time travel in realistic settings but the fact that he can take over another person's psyche 8 mins before they die makes no sense....

On The Lookout 4:
some new music. WTF is going on this year?

and that is a terrible film.

That film had several major loop holes.

One being that this detective was never notified that his body was discovered during his first attempt to save the people on the cruise ship....


On The Lookout 4:
some new music. WTF is going on this year?

Jesus that movie was shitty.

It hurt the little black boy inside of me to see The God Denzel in such a shit-tastic movie.

Moon was one of the best sci fi films in the past decade.

...one of my all time favorites

cause the original script (before it went into development) is page turner...

i'll have to see it next week when I get paid and do a two-fer with HANNA

Cant wait for Mute.

even though i thought moon was corny and unoriginal.

It's not his script but there's certain tropes in sci fi and "time traveling" movie he uses. It also ends a bit corny too. I love the film though. Again, don't expect amazing, but it's not bad either.

Still, how can any technology perform mind control and time travel at once? Still can't really understand the premise....

On The Lookout 4:
Maxwell - BlackSUMMER'SNight (2011)
Drake - Take Care (Summer 2011)
Musiq - MusiqandMagic (2011)

i mean the movie didnt go too technical on how it works, but its probably for the best that they didnt.

sometimes in science fiction if you try to validate the science and explain too much in the film, it raises even more questions and makes it less plausible.

still, the concept worked and it was fine to me and not very confusing

Extremely well done. My only gripe, and it might have just been me, was that I was so focused on figuring out what was going on and the science of it that I didn't feel that much of a personal resonance/attachment with the Captain.

Two very good genre films that manage to do all the little things right. They don't really try to bog themselves down and come up with bullshit explanations for the science. It's more about the characters in the film than it is about the science of the film. Good performances from everyone especially Jeffrey Wright and Gyllenhall.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

But I don't care. I enjoyed Moon and Source Code.

Would you rather I'd said JJ Abrams? You got someone better to mention?

but the trailer and my reading of the spoilers feels very vagiency to me.

what I'm arguing against here is the trend of a motherufcker maknig a decent attempt at a sci fi movie that really isn't all that fucking good and then have to hear about how the writer/director is the fucking god of sci fi from then on out when the motherfuckers really not all that great.


I'm talking about district 9.



http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Very little of the film is about him saving a girl. In fact, really none of it is. I was relieved to see that.

When a person dies, their brain still has activity because electricity is still bouncing around inside the brain and in the nerves... making synaptic connections....

the "source code".. is the mapped electro magnetic activity in the brain of someone who has died.. the scientists made a copy of what the person experienced and transfered it over onto a living brain... allowing that "user" to replay the scenario over and over....

there are a lot of plot holes in the logic and science of this movie.. for that they gave very general and broad strokes by attributing it to "quantum physics", which in fiction could literally be spun into anything "scientific".. the fiction is what drives the story and what provides the dramatic aspect of the people behind the roles...

I thought it was a brilliant movie.. very entertaining.. doesn't take it self too seriously and delivers some really cool and interesting ideas.. even if they don't make a lick of sense in the real world... I especially liked how you assumed she saw his face.. but all she was was text on a small tiny terminal.. lol.. there were so many clincher moments where i was completely entertained and sold by this film... there is one thing i missed though.. when did he have time to send an email and how is it possible that he got the message out to the real world?

is that some type of metaphor for the connection between the alternate universes.. or did he leave it as a possible prequel to this movie to answer and explain???

>When a person dies, their brain still has activity because
>electricity is still bouncing around inside the brain and in
>the nerves... making synaptic connections....
>
>the "source code".. is the mapped electro magnetic activity in
>the brain of someone who has died.. the scientists made a copy
>of what the person experienced and transfered it over onto a
>living brain... allowing that "user" to replay the scenario
>over and over....

I don't get where there was actual time travel. I thought it was a half dead man basically living in the memories of dead people.

one
k. orr

that giant sphere structure being seen each time he hops into the code, and the 'do you believe in fate?' line. for me it was somewhat like a dream state when he's coming in and out.

actually, this only scratched the surface of ideas floating around about the true nature of our conciousness. explanation wise IMO you'd have to start thinking about supernatural causes for him being able to transfer completely into the other guy, things science is incapable of really digging into, astral planes and the like.

another question, and here's where/why i see a franchise with serious legs: he said source code was creating whole new worlds, but is that true? it would seem to me that those worlds already existed and source code merely provided the window needed to jump into those worlds. personally that's a really intriguing concept to me and one that i'd love to see further examined. there has to be consequences to this. there have to be ramifications of *some* kind, because this is a completely different guy now and people in his life will start to catch on. also, what happened to that guy? his entire conciousness was simply written over and reformatted. his mind has to be floating around out there somewhere, because he never gets killed.

there could be a major butterfly effect set in motion and this could allow for a wealth of creative options to explore the concept of alternate realities without delving into sliders/twilight zone territory, and so long as we didn't get stuck with an absurd action endgame where they're jumping from world to world trying to catch some insidious villain i think it's material prime for a sequel.

the fact that each world was roughly identical with minor changes means that there can still be open communication with vera's character.

oh and one last question- did anyone else get the feeling at the end that the professor might have orchestrated the entire thing so as to give his project credibility? something about his words lingered for me. it wasn't an unbreakabel type reveal (not a reveal at all, i know) or anything but the idea was just sorta... in the air to me enough to wonder if that last line of his was a very subtle hint.

but she said it's dope.
i hate gellin yall.
but i'll watch.

when ole girl came back telling him he died in a crash.

he was shaking his head like somebody told him Jay better than Biggie.

i'm a fan now.

It's the type of movie where I think the concept dictates how it's destined to end-- you can either take the depressing ending or the happy ending, but the happy ending is going to make you roll your eyes.

I was really pleased with the movie UP TO the point where *mild vague spoiler* the movie screen unfreezes. I knew it was going to, and I was kind of hoping it wouldn't, but I knew-- just KNEW-- they were going to go the route that was going to feel like a cop out. And they did.

So in the end, I thought it was good, engaging, and maybe one of Gyllenhaal's best performances to date. But overall, I don't feel like it's going to leave a big impression by year's end.

It does still prove, however, that Jones knows how to give these films heart and how to make you really care about the characters.

Well, I should say moral loophole issue




















SPOILERS
------------------------
If in that timeline he saves the train and the girl, then the original 'host' doesn't die, so you effectively have the soldier character body jacking the guys body and living happily ever after

.. about time travel, etc... because it wasn't time travel, lol... they really relied heavily on the idea that quantum physics, even if you don't understand it, explains why it was possible for a new universe to emerge and allow him to remain alive in the end in happy bliss.. i think the overall theme is that the human consciousness and existence is not confined to typical and linear thought... because the human consciousness is so vast and impossible to define.. they chocked it up to "life cannot be extinguished" and thus he remains alive in the universe he helped create even though he is dead in the other..

they hinted at this by his email to the girl... he said... "listen to him".. so.. he is basically speaking to her from another universe and giving her instructions to listen to his original self... so in fact.. he is not dead in the end...

all in all.. it does not make a lick of sense... it was just a feel good sci fi movie which played with some interesting ideas but was not nearly as potent as that leo movie.. yeah, Inception..

Especially the screen freezing point. I was so hoping it wouldn't unfreeze.

What's wrong with a happy ending? sheesh.

>What's wrong with a happy ending? sheesh.

Like, we didn't have to see an alternate universe where Gyllanhall was stole someone elses body in a fucked up way to live happily ever after and that the program (at least in that dimension) was going to be destroyed.

Him dying would have been perfect and imho a happy ending. (frozen in time at his happiest moment). Them wasting another fifteen minutes super hammering it home on some "EVERYBODY WATCHING THIS, LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL" oversharing..etc..imho detracted a bit.

i think the movie has enough depth in the beginning to make up for the ending...

THAT'S the happy ending.

god forbid someone lives happily ever after in a movie

The happy ending, in the context in which it occurs, doesn't make sense. The whole dramatic thrust of the film is, "He's doomed to a sad ending-- what will he do with his final moments?" The film ending with his having achieved a perfect moment and understanding the worth of his life IS the happy ending. Instead, the movie gets weird and sappy and undercuts its whole dramatic thrust.

I'm usually the guy who loves happy endings. I'm a big fat sap. But this movie took the wrong one.

>Instead, the movie gets weird and sappy and undercuts
>its whole dramatic thrust.
>I'm usually the guy who loves happy endings. I'm a big fat
>sap. But this movie took the wrong one.

to me, it opened up a million more questions and created far more intrigue ending the way it did. him just dying peacefully would have been fine too, but *personally* the ending was handled very well, and was by FAR the more thought provoking option. you have him jumping into all these other worlds that are slightly different, having him die doesn't really touch on that. him living opened a huge can of worms for us to ponder.

personally i like the idea of further exploring the consequences of that in a sequel, which is another reason i liked the ending, i actually want to see more of it now.

Cuz them walking off happily ever after seemed fairly open and shut to me. Not trying to snark, I'm curious what potential you see there that I don't.

he actually took over a mans existence. in that world, that man never dies because the accident that caused his death never occured, because it was stopped by the guy who took his body. so that mans conciousness.... what happened to it? did it die? did it cease to exist? is it still there, sleeping? physically, it's the exact same guy, brain matter and all, but another mans conciousness inhabits that same shell.

so what happens when all his friends and family start noticing that he's essentially not the same? you know his mother or bff or whatever would notice somethings off with him. what if that dudes own conciousness trys to awaken and take his body- and life- back? this is a bit of a gateway into astral planes, out of body experiences, etc. anyhow, we're talking butterfly effects out the wazoo imo; because in each world he went to, that crash HAPPENED. this one, it didn't. so what does that say about disrupting the order of things?

what about the world where he beat up the arab dude? his conciousness got pulled out, but that man who's body he was in didn't die, so he's still there living with the consequences of flipping out and beating the hell out of an innocent man. etc, etc. each time he went in he disrupted the natural order of that world in a big way, and in a few cases left that poor guy stuck with consequences of actions he never comitted.

also, i got a lingering feeling that the professor running the show had a hand in the catastrophe. he'd like to create an event that source code would be used to avert in order to prove it's worth. granted i have zero evidence aside from his final words and how they personally made me feel.

also: does source code create new worlds as the captain said, or simply provide a method of 'jumping' into a world that already exists? my guess would be the latter. these are all questions i had and those questions, IMO, would be great foundational material that would be ripe for a sequel.

not to mention, there was a sliver of possible fate/destiny involved in the end, when he saw that huge ball structure, the structure he'd seen each time he went into the source code. sort of like when you have a dream and 6 months later you find yourself briefly within the exact same scenario you were in within the dream. not really a foundation there but a minor aside.

so the proven existence of a multiverse+the fact that he's in another mans body, living another mans life, a man who never died and who's conciousness has to be out there somewhere+the professor having the potential of being something of a calamity inducing villain= great 'source code' (RIMSHOT! HA! WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!) for a sequel, in my humble opinion.

>Cuz them walking off happily ever after seemed fairly open
>and shut to me.

not at all. that ending brought about a TON of questions, not that 'need' answering, but that would, imo, serve as great fodder to continue the story with. not only that, it'd be the rare case where you could argue that, in light of the myriad of possible implications, it would actually warrant a sequel. the sequel would make sense in terms of the story itself, not just make sense for financial purposes. but that's me.

>Not trying to snark, I'm curious what
>potential you see there that I don't.

well that was all a scratch on the surface. to me the possibilities are endless. the story was open and shut, but the potential for serious ramifcations of everything that happened before the end are potentially immense if you ask me. what they did was large scale and affected other worlds in various ways.

that said, i don't have the plot mapped out, i just see an open sea of intriguing elements that can be explored to create it.

>he actually took over a mans existence. in that world, that
>man never dies because the accident that caused his death
>never occured, because it was stopped by the guy who took his
>body. so that mans conciousness.... what happened to it? did
>it die? did it cease to exist? is it still there, sleeping?
>physically, it's the exact same guy, brain matter and all, but
>another mans conciousness inhabits that same shell.

It's a morally reprehensible thing the character was doing; yeah, it wasn't his fault...but that doesn't make it any less fucked up.

His character died in the war, period. As the movie went on he accepted it(even got to say goodbye to his father) and just wanted death, and the movie gave him a pretty noble and heartfelt one.

For him to live happily ever after by assuming another mans identity(a man who should have lived a normal life because in his time line the bomb never went off) is problematic; as a movie watcher it made me go from very sympathetic to the characters plight to a bit angry. The real ending opened up a whole can of worms which imho I saw less as opportunities for sequels, but plot holes that involved some very dubious ethical choices. The sequels you described would be total 180's from the feel of the movie because personal ethical consequences had nothing to do with the original (the 'bad guys' were set up as flat because of this)

>It's a morally reprehensible thing the character was doing;
>yeah, it wasn't his fault...but that doesn't make it any less
>fucked up.

fine. but that's what happened. sometimes what happens in a story isn't neat and pretty, and this is one such case, even in light of the happy ending for HIM. sure, it's fucked up, but it's what happened.

>For him to live happily ever after by assuming another mans
>identity(a man who should have lived a normal life because in
>his time line the bomb never went off) is problematic;

well... the only reason the bomb went off was because the captain saved the day, so that guy was a goner anyways. in effect, his life was sacrificed so that countless others could live. not only that, it was a completely unforseen side effect for the hero to die in his world while his conciousness remained in another. that;s a moral ambuiguity if i ever saw one.

>The real ending opened up a
>whole can of worms which imho I saw less as opportunities for
>sequels, but plot holes that involved some very dubious
>ethical choices.

plot holes? ellaborate. also, the entire movie was BASED on dubious ethical choices. i'm not understanding your fierce stance on the morals present in the story. the can of worms was great if you ask me, it added so many layers to the story and those are things that can easily be dealt with in another film. i didn't see plot holes at all, it was completely unforseen. you don't need to tie up all the ramifications in the film, because again... it can be explained in another one, and really, there would be far too little time to explain all that stuff in the scope of this film. but that's just me.

>well... the only reason the bomb went off was because the
>captain saved the day, so that guy was a goner anyways. in
>effect, his life was sacrificed so that countless others could
>live. not only that, it was a completely unforseen side effect
>for the hero to die in his world while his conciousness
>remained in another. that;s a moral ambuiguity if i ever saw
>one.

It's not his fault, but it's problematic. So when he sits at thanksgiving dinner and has to admit he's not the 'real' Jeff and the family demands he bring the real Jeff back, what does he do? Probably the reason why it's been bothering me is it kinda ties into a storyline currently happening on Fringe, and it's an interesting contrast on how resolutely taken aback by the ethical problems being faced where in Source Code Gyllanhall effectively gets rewarded for it.


>
>plot holes? ellaborate. also, the entire movie was BASED on
>dubious ethical choices. i'm not understanding your fierce
>stance on the morals present in the story.

There were ethical choices, but they fell in very stereotypical fashion...as far as the character archetypes are concerned imho there wasn't anything really dubious cause they played their role the way we've seen them do time and time again:

Jeffrey Wright as evil government/scientist dude who saw no moral consequence followed his path straight through.

Gyllanhall as the hero locked in a new world also followed his path straight through. Even him forming a bond with a world that he was told to be was 'fake' made perfect sense: considering the fact that in 'real life' he was locked in a chamber with only a shitty tv to the outside world(not even factoring the reveal) it was a given he was going to be attracted to the characters.

Only one that was uncertain in their role and had to weigh a choice was Vera Farmiga's character, and even then I felt it wasn't really that tough considering the world was saved by the time she actually had to make it (stopping the torture of a fellow soldier)

While it dealt with fate, alternate dimensions, etc...the characters themselves didn't have to deal with a moral quandary outside of Vera. (the movie raised hella ethical questions to us as thinking movie watchers, but character and plot wise it was kinda straight forward in their choices).

>It's not his fault, but it's problematic. So when he sits at
>thanksgiving dinner and has to admit he's not the 'real' Jeff
>and the family demands he bring the real Jeff back, what does
>he do?

that's part of what i meant by consequences- this would come into play at some point. personally, i'd like to see what goes down.

Probably the reason why it's been bothering me is it
>kinda ties into a storyline currently happening on Fringe, and
>it's an interesting contrast on how resolutely taken aback by
>the ethical problems being faced where in Source Code
>Gyllanhall effectively gets rewarded for it.

agreed. i just feel like a sequel would be warranted in this case to explore those consequences.

>While it dealt with fate, alternate dimensions, etc...the
>characters themselves didn't have to deal with a moral
>quandary outside of Vera. (the movie raised hella ethical
>questions to us as thinking movie watchers, but character and
>plot wise it was kinda straight forward in their choices).

those ethics don't come into play until the source code world becomes 'real' though, in all fairness. there is no ethical dilemma in regard to the effects on that other world until it happens there.

all in all i agree with these dilemmas however that's precisely the foundation of a sequel imo.

>those ethics don't come into play until the source code world
>becomes 'real' though, in all fairness. there is no ethical
>dilemma in regard to the effects on that other world until it
>happens there.
>
>all in all i agree with these dilemmas however that's
>precisely the foundation of a sequel imo.

I guess it's just depends on your perspective, you rightfully see a bunch of future things that could get mined with that ending: me I was happy enough that they balanced all the plates for an hour and a half, lol.

SPOILERISH...


















I agree with everyone in here, not sure why they unfroze that freeze frame and kept going after that. It was like having someone explain something to you and you get it and you're happy cause you're on board and you understand whats happening and then they punch you in the face.

It was fucking stupid with all that existing in someone else's consienceness and all of that because it was an 8 minute computer generated simulation. It wasn't a fucking alternate universe.

It's as if the director had this blueprint for an alternate reality movie, and during the movie, it kind of turned into something different, a movie honing in on the value of one's life and it's interconnectedness with others, but NOPE, let's keep drilling this alternate idea in there cuz that's what we want.

Some wierd dialogue moments too. I cringed when Jeff Wright said "Yes. We now have a powerful weapon in the war against terror." *GROAN*

spoilers















dead guy creates a holographic image of himself(remember residual self image from the Matrix) ha, ha, ha

Dead guy jacks in and experiences another person's memories(Strange Days)

Espionage and romance and parallel worlds we saw that in Inception and Vanilla Sky.
Going back in time to prevent a terrorst attack (12monkeys). I know there are many other films that we could name. I did not find the film complicated at all becaue i have seen it all before.

Has anyone ever heard of the Montauk conspiracy? lol A guy named Peter Moon(there are other) claims to have been involved with secret government experiments involvimg time travel. Check it out for yourself.

I would not be to concerned with whether or not the science makes any sense.
Grade B+
Solid film with good acting but nothing groundbreaking.

How many movies have you seen where you legitimately could say you saw major elements that you've NEVER, EVER seen before?

..decent premise for a film, horrible execution on the plot

the dialogue in this is down-right painful and jake didn't sell this character.

the ending was about as bad as you can possibly get from a sci-fi thriller, with loop holes abound.


..and miles to go before i sleep...