AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Duncan Jones' latest -- 'Source Code'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Duncan Jones' latest -- 'Source Code' - Page 4

post #91 of 106
8/10/11 at 10:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Ron, you remind me of my wife trying to watch The Matrix. She literally fell asleep during the Warner Bros. logo at the start of the movie, was dead asleep for the entire thing, woke up as the end credits came on, and then loudly proclaimed: "THAT MOVIE SUCKED!"
The scientific mumbo jumbo in Source Code was no more or less improbable than 99.9999999% of all science fiction movies ever made. In fact, just about the only "science fiction" movie with even remotely plausible science was 2001: A Space Odyssey. Other than that, almost no other sci-fi movies even pretend to be based in reality.

The premise of Source Code was set up pretty clearly and effectively. Aside from the tacked-on ending, the plot stayed true to the rules that it established for itself. If you had trouble following the movie because you weren't paying attention (which you have admitted), that isn't the movie failing you. It's you failing the movie.

I don't think that Source Code was one of the greatest movies ever made, or even one of the best films of this year. But it's a perfectly decent little sci-fi thriller, and your complaints about it are more about your own hang-ups than about the movie itself.
The bolded part certainly had something to do with my not engaging with this one. But, I stand by my MST3K script proposal. The movie was ok and I'm having more fun laughing at it, than watching it. Had it grabbed me, I wouldn't have faded, but I think I demonstrated that I caught the gist...hangups...them's fight'n words
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 106
8/11/11 at 12:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
But it's a perfectly decent little sci-fi thriller
I am sorry, but I have to disagree.

Sci-fi (by definition) only works if it suspends disbelief...
As you know, there are many, many ways to do that.

SC works until the 3rd Act.
When the "romance" element is inserted, it completely loses all credibility the film had earned up until that point.

Movies are not a collection of pieces.
They are complete....not a series of scenes strung together that are semi-related.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 106
8/11/11 at 8:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

SC works until the 3rd Act.
When the "romance" element is inserted, it completely loses all credibility the film had earned up until that point.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

From the very beginning of the story Christina had a crush on Sean, and all things considered, you would assume Sean had a crush on her. Colter, using Sean’s body, with his continual coming and going got to know and like Christina. Why is it inconceivable that a romantic relationship would develop; not in the 3rd act of the movie, but built throughout, especially for Colter the more he got to know her? Lets try this. Not that there is anything wrong with Michelle Monaghan, but lets suppose Emily Blunt took her role. After continually having 8-minute ‘visits’ in which you get to know and fall for her, are you saying you would not go out for coffee and visit Cloud Gate with her?
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 106
8/11/11 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post


Sci-fi (by definition) only works if it suspends disbelief...

Not really. Perhaps the modern movie goer dogma would have it seem that way, but science fiction, taken literally, would simple be a fictitious film based on subject matter that was grounded in science. It shouldn't require suspension of disbelief. Not "good" sci-fi movies, anyway (which I thought SC was).
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 106
8/11/11 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

IWhen the "romance" element is inserted, it completely loses all credibility the film had earned up until that point.

At least the characters didn't fall in love because God made them do it.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 106
8/11/11 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

At least the characters didn't fall in love because God made them do it.

In spite of being a confirmed atheist, I might become a "believer" if Emily Blunt fell in lust love with me...
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 106
8/11/11 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

"Hey, I've got a great idea for a new movie. Let's keep sending Jake back in time to the same 8 minutes to thwart a bomb on a train and subsequent nuclear attack on Chicago. Each time he goes back he gets closer to solving the case, detail by detail. There will be a romance and a twist...it will be cool. The kicker is that Jake's dead...sort of. He'll be operating a friend's body. Along the way, he'll thwart the bomber, get the girl and come back to life...sort of"

"Awesome...how do we make that work"

"No problem, we'll create a super secret project that's really electric and dangerous. Jake will be hooked up to a quantum computer"

"Cool"

"He'll just be a husk...even better...just like Anakim Skywalker before he got the DV suit."

"No sh*t. How's that work again?"

"Not a problem, it's just a McGuffin, nobody will care...we'll have computers, blinking lights, a wrecked helocopter set..."

"Huh"

"It's all in Jake's mind...he doesn't know he's dead...sort of"

"Huh"

"I forgot to tell you, we've got to bring him back to somewhere after each 8 minute action segment. We've got to explain to the audience what's going on...and setup the twist. The wrecked helo is where Jake lives...sort of"

"What twist?"

"Jake's dead...sort of, but we'll bring him back to life...sort of...and he'll get the girl . Oh, and there will be a cripdoc in charge of the project. He'll be a real pr*ck...and a sympathetic nurse...uh, Captain...a chick anyway."

"What are you going to call it?"

"Source Code"

"What's that mean?"

"Haven't you been paying attention? It don't matter. It's not supposed to make sense...it's the cool action wrapped up in a time travel story that will sell it....91% of the RT critics will love it."

" We're not worthy."

Dude! I think you're onto something here. They really should make a movie out of it, I think. Maybe even call it, 'Source Code' like you mentioned. Oh man! That would be sick!

Reply
Reply
post #98 of 106
8/25/11 at 6:15am
Saw this one on Netflix BD last night. Another stripped down disc, but the movie looked great. The missus & I really enjoyed it overall; one of the better flicks we've seen this year. Having seen "Moon", you could see Duncan Jones playing with many of the same themes. This guy is good; let's hope he doesn't flame out like M. Night Shamalamadingdong.

Couple of nits, though. We thought that last scene was unnecessary and unfortunate. It also introduced paradoxes (paradoxi?) that needlessly complicated things. We felt the logical place for the movie to end was....... (I'm going to use spoilers because everyone else has to this point but after the movie has gone through its theatrical run and been out on disc for several months, isn't the use of tags no longer necessary? I didn't visit this thread until I saw the movie.)

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The perfect - and logical - place for the movie to end was with the kiss and everybody on the train smiling and happy. A beautiful moment frozen in time, and the last moment Jake's consciousness experienced. He could then have died as he wished, and he should, his final mission accomplished. He would never have been used in this fashion again. All the loose ends tied up. Fini.


Instead, they had this ridiculous ending that felt tacked on. An alternate universe (which wasn't supposed to be part of this sci-fi mythology), fraught with paradoxes.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Jake doesn't get to die; and presumably will have to live an endless "zombie" life as a tool of the military. Dr. Rutledge, the movie's true villain, will continue to use him like a...well....piece of meat, unconcerned about his fate or the fact that every soldier killed in action deserves a decent burial, his family deserves closure. And what about poor Sean in this alternate universe? That guy's consciousness disappears and somebody steals his body and makes off with his girl! How is that just and fair?


I think this movie suffered from the Hollywood requirement to provide a happy ending so people will say good things about it as they leave the theater and positive word of mouth will lead to greater ticket sales. But here's the thing: they already had a perfectly fine, happy ending! And more importantly, it worked better with the story they had been telling for the last hour and a half. Too much meddling spoiled a really good film and diminished it somewhat, IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 106
8/25/11 at 8:07am
Hey archiguy,
Good points but weren't they hinting towards the parallel thing from the beginning? I admit that it's a stretch beyond what they'd already set up as the movie's science, and that was somewhat believable, but it wasn't much of a surprise to me. I think they were setting it up early on.

Cary
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 106
8/25/11 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmccorm View Post

Hey archiguy,
Good points but weren't they hinting towards the parallel thing from the beginning? I admit that it's a stretch beyond what they'd already set up as the movie's science, and that was somewhat believable, but it wasn't much of a surprise to me. I think they were setting it up early on.

Cary

I thought Dr. Rutledge stated that all this was happening in this one specific universe when he first let Jack know something about what was going on. I don't believe they ever mentioned alternate universes at all, and then there's this weird ending where everybody (except poor Sean, who everybody seemed to forget about) had a feel-good moment that, to me, felt very tacked on and at odds with what had come before. If it had ended with the frozen kiss, I would have felt it was a much better, more cohesive movie.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 106
8/25/11 at 10:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmccorm View Post

Hey archiguy,
Good points but weren't they hinting towards the parallel thing from the beginning? I admit that it's a stretch beyond what they'd already set up as the movie's science, and that was somewhat believable, but it wasn't much of a surprise to me. I think they were setting it up early on.

I was getting ready to respond to archiguy's post by making the same point you did, that the premise of the film was that there were myriad possibilities, which could play out in Jake's multiple realities. In their commentary, Duncan Jones and his screen writer, Ben Ripley made clear that the ending they chose was just one of an infinite number of possibilites that Jake might have experienced. Anyway, the ending worked for me. That said, I agree that the ending archiguy suggested would have been good, too.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 106
8/25/11 at 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I thought Dr. Rutledge stated that all this was happening in this one specific universe when he first let Jack know something about what was going on. I don't believe they ever mentioned alternate universes at all, and then there's this weird ending where everybody (except poor Sean, who everybody seemed to forget about) had a feel-good moment that, to me, felt very tacked on and at odds with what had come before. If it had ended with the frozen kiss, I would have felt it was a much better, more cohesive movie.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


I don't think Dr. Rutledge or Goodwin knew about it. Once Colter learned about what was going on, he seemed to disagree with the limitations. He was noticeably incredulous about how "real" everything was. I think he formed his own theory about parallel universes and at one point even asked Goodwin about "what if there was another *you* that didn't get divorced or didn't get married".

I think he had hunch that the source code was more than what the researchers had envisioned. He tested his theory on his last trip back "in" and was proved correct.


Cary
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 106
8/25/11 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmccorm View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


I don't think Dr. Rutledge or Goodwin knew about it. Once Colter learned about what was going on, he seemed to disagree with the limitations. He was noticeably incredulous about how "real" everything was. I think he formed his own theory about parallel universes and at one point even asked Goodwin about "what if there was another *you* that didn't get divorced or didn't get married".

I think he had hunch that the source code was more than what the researchers had envisioned. He tested his theory on his last trip back "in" and was proved correct.


Cary

I believe you are correct, Cary, and the questions to Capt. Goodwin wouldn't have made much sense otherwise.

Nevertheless, I agree with Archiguy about his perfect place to end the film. I agree it would have been nice and tidy, still hopeful and happy, and the panning stopped cinematography would have served as a beautiful ending shot.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 106
8/25/11 at 12:23pm
Well, I sure can't disagree with either of you. I really thought that *was* the end of the movie at that point and would have been happy if that was it.

It didn't ruin it for me though for it to continue on. I enjoyed the fact that he got a message out to Goodwin so that at least she could figure out what was really going on.

Cary
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 106
8/25/11 at 1:27pm
In one universe at least.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 106
8/25/11 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny5nz View Post

In one universe at least.

Good point!

Cary
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Duncan Jones' latest -- 'Source Code'