Source Code is about Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is subjected to this military technology called the Source Code to fulfill a mission: know who was behind the train bombing in order to thwart the culprit's next terrorist attack. To do this, he's taken back to the last 8 minutes of the life of passenger Sean Fentress and he is made to relive those moments again and again until he exposes the bomber's identity and plan.
Neat story, right? I know it sounds kinda familiar, as it may have borrowed ideas from other movies, but after watching it, I realized that the concept has never been interpreted that way before. But I guess that also serves as the film's flaw -- or, to be more exact, burden. Since the premise is unique, the movie is obliged to explain the mechanics of the technology, or at least give enough details for the audience to figure it out, in its 93-minute runtime. That is where the film fell flat.
But let's not cut to the chase yet. I liked the movie, anyway, so I'm gonna lay out the merits of the film first before I explain the negative verdict. Orayt? Game.
Positive
- Impressive storytelling. Sci-fi thrillers that were made to mess with our minds don't usually possess this trait. Source Code's plot points didn't have to be presented in a confusing pattern to make the movie look clever. Bit by bit, the mystery was unraveled to the protagonist as it was done to us, so as Colter Stevens got it, we did too. So kudos to director Duncan Jones.
- Amazing cast
- Jake Gyllenhaal was exceptional in showing how his character adapted to each 8-minute scenario, which hugely contributed to the smooth progress of the story. If an action star were made to do his role, say Gerard Butler or Sam Worthington, Colter Stevens would have felt like a character cut out from cardboard.
- Michelle Monaghan's portrayal was good enough to make us empathize with Jake and his motivations for wanting to save her life. This was pivotal because the romance subplot in sci-fi thrillers usually feels artificial, but in this case it wasn't.
- The two had an undeniable chemistry. I didn't feel alienated upon seeing the two in one scene, knowing that Sean Fentress was supposed to be there and not Colter Stevens. Instead, I quickly accepted that Colter was supposed to be there.
- Vera Farmiga's performance was also commendable because she was able to stretch out an underwritten role and stuff it with depth. With her acting, she gave dimensions to a character that had a tendency to be flat. The gestures of her face were enough to let us know the struggles that she went through in her head.
Negative
- Jeffrey Wright. There was something wrong with the way he delivered his lines, especially when he explained the mechanics of the Source Code. His portrayal was so stereotypical and off-putting that instead of deciphering what he was saying, my mind just focused on how it was offensive to real scientists. And unlike Vera Farmiga, he didn't give soul to such character with limited lines, in spite of his spot-on acting.
- Obvious special effects. You know those scenes in cartoon shows like X-Men where the background evidently looks like it's gonna be animated? Source Code had a couple of scenes like that. It's quite disappointing because with the technology American filmmakers have now, there should be no excuse to such mistake.
- Opening film score. What was with the fright-inducing score that was used on a showcase of Chicago's beautiful scenery? I know it was supposed to give hints of looming peril in the city, but it was just too much. It felt like the climax of The Dark Knight.
- Russell Peters' character. I knew him even before the movie, and I think he's a gifted comedian. But the role that he served was utterly contrived. I mean, the best excuse that they came up with to make the train's passengers laugh was to put a real comedian on board? What the F.
- Ending. I was already satisfied with my understanding of the film's concept when the ending ruined it all. As Colter Stevens found out the true capabilities of the Source Code, I got thrown off-board. The last-minute discovery made things more complicated, and the explanation felt rushed. It was like they came up with this twist and they didn't know how to give details anymore without overstretching the film. It might have worked if it were just a matter of a few choices, like the ending of Inception. But nooooo -- it left a trail of unsettled questions and revealed a different thread to the storyline.
That's why I think the movie failed to explain the concept in full. Maybe it was their intention, that they really wanted to pass the burden to us because that's the way twists work, but the execution was not the kind that would give you chills after you've figured things out. Rather, it would make you feel exhausted because of the extra thinking you had to do. I'm sure that had left many viewers baffled and disappointed.
But do I recommend this film? Yes. By all means, watch it! Despite the many flaws, it still is a very entertaining movie that will make you realize that playing on the truths of reality can still be twisted in movies in many other ways. I just hope that those new concepts will still be in the hands of Duncan Jones. Stories like that need a good storyteller.
Rating: 4/5 stars
