Monday, June 20, 2011

Seconds


Much like director Duncan Jones’s debut “Moon” (2009), his second film “Source Code” is, for better and for worse, a rather low budget and old-fashioned science-fiction story. In the opening scenes of “Source Code”, Colter (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train en route to Chicago. Across from him sits a complete stranger, Christina (Michelle Monaghan), who calls him Steven and speaks to him as if they’ve known each other for some time. Colter tries to make sense of it all; he is a soldier and supposed to be in Afghanistan, so what is he doing on the train? 

Someone spills a drink on his shoes. The conductor punches his card. Minutes later, there’s a powerful explosion and the train goes up in flames. Everyone dies, but Colter wakes up in a crude-looking pod of some kind. There’s a video screen, which is how Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) communicates with him and tells him that it is his mission to find out who blew up the train and why. Colter has to keep going back to the event, into the “source code”, until he finds the answers. One of the characters, Dr Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright), refers to what Colter’s doing as time re-assignment, not time travel. I’m not sure what the difference is, especially considering how the movie ends. For that matter, the ending goes much too far in what it’s trying to accomplish. 

In its rather short running time, the movie addresses a lot: fate and predestination; life purpose; sacrifice. In helping these themes to manifest, Gyllenhaal is solid and Farmiga is sublime – note how striking she appears the first time we see Goodwin on the video screen. Monaghan has a bit of a thankless part, trying to convince us that a man might be convinced to fall in love with her based on very little. You know that when someone starts alluding to “finding themselves” there may not be much of a future for the two of you. Monaghan looks adorable, I suppose, and she does what she can. 

With its brevity, fast pace and compelling story that altogether constitute considerable entertainment value, the film is never more than popcorn entertainment, and it’s not the type of film you return to for repeat viewings. A major problem is the one-dimensional villain. The movie goes to such trouble to almost explain everything that happens I had to wonder why there was no meat to the villain. And would the film have really been poorer without the obligatory romantic subplot?

No comments: