SOURCE CODE (Jones, 2011) - Let’s get it out of the way: is this movie as good as MOON? No. Now we can go over to discussing it by itself, and for what it is: a more-clever-than-most sci-fi genre exercise that’s probably best described as a more action-oriented (and ultimately tragic, see SPOILER-filled note at the bottom) version of GROUNDHOG DAY. Gyllenhaal is good, but it’s the ladies who stand out: Michelle Monagnan has to make you believe someone could fall in love with her over the course of 8 minutes (or multiples thereof), and she more than pulls it off, and Vera Farmiga makes her character more than just a head on a screen.
There is one thing I would like to propose though, to all potential makers of science fiction movies: just leave out the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. “Quantum Mechanics and Parabolic Calculus” - sure. The thing is, as long as the rules are clearly explained, and as long as the internal logic works, I don’t care. In this film, a throwaway line about sensory memory being 8 minutes long (I believe the audio loop - the reason you sometimes say “what?” and then realize what was said before the response - is about 10 seconds, but oh well) would have been plenty, and the explanation doesn’t serve any purpose, it’s just a distraction.
Finally, I would like to discuss the ending, so, well, SPOILERS ahead. I don’t mind the “happy” ending. In fact, I foresaw it happening more or less that way (except I just thought Colter/Sean would stay plugged in to the Source Code, a kind of simulation of happiness, which would have been more affecting, IMHO, what with choosing simulated happiness over dedication to reality), but the “many-worlds” solution has a major problem: the one we see might be happy, but it implies that there’s also a dozen worlds in which the dirty bomb did explode. Christina might survive in one, but is probably traumatized by seeing Sean’s head lopped off by a train. I have major problems with the many-worlds theory in physics (mainly that it’s one of those theories that’s “not even wrong”, and I have questions about energy conservation), but I can see it working as a narrative conceit - think it through though, and it’s not exactly life-affirming.
Even so, it’s nice to see a genre movie that’s entertaining on the surface level, and makes you think about these sorts of matters as a bonus. I’m very much looking forward to what Duncan Jones will do next. With so many movies like TRANSFORMERS plaguing cinema screens, genre fiction that doesn’t ask you to leave your brain at the door is refreshing.
