Review: Source Code

Summit Entertainment

With the release of 'Moon' in 2009 I not only gained much more respect for Sam Rockwell as an actor, but also for the film's director, Duncan Jones. 'Moon' proved that Jones has a knack for handling both the tension and progression of stories; especially in the sci-fi genre. Within this genre it's so easy to let the effects, action, and spectacle take over and you lose any sort of connection to the audience and the characters as human beings. It's easy to understand since sci-fi mainly revolves around the science (duh), technology, and fascination with the undiscovered (often UNdiscoverable) elements of the galaxy and the limits of human life and perception. Thanks partly to Rockwell's strong performance as Sam in 'Moon', Jones was able to keep the focus trained on Sam as a human being. The emptiness and seclusion of Sam's position and predicament revealed towards the end only succeeds to emphasize his character and not the 'sci-fi' elements. It makes for a very fascinating movie visually but also emotionally.

So has Jones done it again with 'Source Code', the new sci-fi thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal? I'd say he has. While the overall tone of the film is quite different from 'Moon', it succeeds on multiple levels of tension, twists, and most importantly, character development.

Summit Entertainment

The concept of the 'source code' in the movie triggers and automatic connection to themes in many different movies: can one change the past? The 'source code' allows the military to access the last memories, specifically 8 minutes, of a specific person's life in order to figure out the circumstances and causes at the time. In this case, Gyllenhaal's Captain Colter Stevens is in the source code and his task is to find the bomb and bomber on a train by taking on the identity of a man named Sean aboard the train. This train had already been destroyed by the bomb earlier that morning, but the military hope to discover who the bomber is so they can stop another potential bombing. Naturally, Stevens starts to wonder if he can save the train (and a specific woman, Christina, played by Michelle Monaghan). The scientist who invented the source code (Jeffrey Wright) and Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), a military official, tell him that it is impossible to do anything for the people on the train.

As you can see this situation raises a lot of possibilities for twists in the movie, and there are even more that I can't hint at without giving too much away. So while this may seem like typical thriller, sci-fi material, Jones' keen sense of pacing is what wins out in the end. The repetition of Stevens reliving those last 8 minutes could've become monotonous and could've only kept the attention of the audience for a short time. And instead of overdoing the drama and trying to stylize everything like Tony Scott would (see: 'Man on Fire', 'Unstoppable', etc), Jones gives the plot some variety. Each 8 minutes relived not only builds on the case surrounding the bomb, it also establishes Stevens and Christian more. Gyllenhaal really does a fine job, even though Wright's portrayal as the scientist is a bit distracting because of the silly way he talks and acts. He tries a bit too hard to pull off the egotistic, greedy scientist thing. But thankfully, Gyllenhaal, Farmiga, and Monaghan pull things off.

Summit Entertainment

And as you may have guessed, the ending is a sort of twist. You may find that disappointing because it seems like all movies are just one big twist these days, but 'Source Code' does it better than most. For one thing, the 'mini-twists' leading up to the final one play well into the lives of the characters. The more that is uncovered about Stevens, the more you begin to care about him. It made the twists feel like they were necessary and not just something to make that says "oh! you didn't see that coming, now did you?!" In fact, many of the 'twists' are fairly predictable. The predictability of a plot is another thing people like to criticize, and they often have a right to. But in this case, the quality of the characters and pacing give the twists credit. 

The ending felt a bit cut and dry, but it accomplishes all it could have. I guess the question to ask now (which is often forgotten by many who aren't pessimistic enough), why? Entertainment value aside, why was watching this movie worth it? It's a lot easier to answer this question after watching dramas. It's harder to find a reason for thrillers and action movies. There's the obvious theme of time. Just like Stevens says in the trailer "What would you do if you knew you only had less than a minute to live?" While this is a relevant theme to anyone, it is a bit over-played. Movies like 'Never Let Me Go' do a much better job of developing this question. 

Summit Entertainment

And then there's a theme that Jones seems to have carried over from 'Moon'. In both cases, Stevens and Sam are isolated and being forced to do things against their will. Sam must live on the moon (it's a bit more complicated than that, but whatever) and Stevens can't leave the source code. This theme is probably more important a plays a larger role in both films as both characters plead to let them try to break out. In Stevens' case, he wants to save the people on the train.

I think it's important to pick patterns and themes like these and try to form a theoretical foundation for movies and if there's even a worthwhile point. There usually is always a 'point' to be made in every movie, but they're not always useful, obviously. So while 'Source Code' may not have been quite as memorable as 'Moon', Jones has shown he can handle a wider variety of tension and has knack for the human element which many directors lack.