Movieguide and Source Code

Jake Gylenhaal and Michelle Monaghan. I'll let you guess
 who's who... But that set is so hokey...

If you have not seen Source Code yet and don't want the end of it ruined for you, then I'd suggest skipping this particular post. Its pretty spoilerific from the start. Sorry, but don't blame me, it's all movieguide's fault.

Still here? Then you have been warned and proceed at your own risk... The film is directed by Moon's Duncan Jones and stars Jake Gylenhaal as Captain Colter Stephens who is trying to stop a terrorist in Chicago, with Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright also appearing. Here is our favourite movie website's review for the aforementioned film. Also, notice the lack of spoiler warnings from them:

SOURCE CODE is an entertaining science fiction thriller (It is entertaining, yes. Well done!), where the viewer is taken into alternate universes (Already you're going into details about the end. You're only in the first fucking sentence for God's sake! And besides, it might not take you into alternate universes. It all rather depends on the individuals particular reading of the end). However, the terrorist villain turns out to be a white Southerner, so the movie is too politically correct. (What? Are you fucking kidding me? That's the only possible reason he could be white? Because its politically correct? I suppose you're right. White guys never do anything bad...)

Then it just goes off describing the story, let's cut back as they turn their attention to assessing the craft involved in the film itself:

As a typical mind bender, this science fiction thriller SOURCE CODE is both entertaining, and stimulating, especially, perhaps for sci-fi aficionados (That sentence had way too many commas...). As lovers of this genre would probably attest, one can go in a couple of directions to have fun with this genre. The choice for viewers here is to: 1) not look too deeply behind the curtain and enjoy the ride; or, 2) try to analyze every scientific premise and become bothered by the inevitable, obvious discrepancies that crop up. (To be honest though, the same choice appears with almost every film. They're never exactly like real life are they. Even documentaries are often 'sexed up' so to speak.)

The cast in SOURCE CODE does a good job. Michelle Monaghan as the innocent Christina is endearing and full of life. Vera Farmiga, who gave a very credible performance against George Clooney in the recent movie UP IN THE AIR, does a good job here as well portraying the mission driven, yet compassionate mission specialist, Goodwin. (See? You can make sensible points sometimes. Why do you have to ruin everything sensible you say by following it up with something stupid? Something stupid is, after all, almost certainly going to follow...)

The direction itself is not quite able to create the tension this type of script potentially could have provided (And there we are. I told you. For the record, every other critic I've seen review this film has said that Duncan Jones has done an excellent job and has real talent. A view with which I would concur). Also, the set design is hokey, at times resembling the set in a stage play rather than a design that seems realistic. (What? Which sets, precisely, are 'hokey'? There are only 3 major sets in the whole film. And one of them is a very train-looking train. Another just looks like an office, it being an office after all. The room where Gylenhaal is kept was perfectly acceptable, especially considering where he actually was.)

Most welcome, however, is that the filmmakers keep the obscene language down to almost negligible levels (You see, people don't write in swearing just to hurt you. Its generally because the characters in the movie need to swear to be believable. Here, it is not necessary, so it just doesn't appear. It wasn't a conscious effort I suspect.). In addition, although SOURCE CODE has a humanist worldview (Oh no! See us bloody humanists, eh? We are so craftily evil.), it clearly defines good from evil (Well, there's a bad guy and a good guy. But, then, there is the grey on the ethics of what is being/going to be done to Stephens which has seemingly slipped past you). On the other hand, it may be hard for viewers to avoid suspecting the movie tries to capitalize on a host of other recent productions, such as AVATAR and INCEPTION, not to mention GROUNDHOG DAY. So, writer Ben Ripley does not quite get an A for innovation here. (It takes absolutely fuck all from Avatar. For a start Source Code is good. And comparisons to Inception and Groundhog Day, whilst inevitable, are unfair and very lazy.)

Worse than that, however, the movie has a strong politically correct element (Not that politically correct. I, for example, didn't notice). [SPOILER ALERT] (Oh! Now you put up a spoiler warning! After you've already spoilt the ending. Well done. Fucktard), The terrorist villains turns out to be an All American white Southerner (Yes. You've said that. And then I got very angry. And am barely containing myself once more.). Also, some subtle political correctness infects the movie in some areas (Like what? Where?). Besides being obnoxious (So obnoxious I didn't notice it...), this also has the unintended effect of reducing SOURCE CODE’s credibility (Yeah. Because terrorists are always Muslims. I thought everyone knew that. Still, its nice to know that racism is still alive and well... Wait, no. It's horribly depressing.), while creating the perception that the story’s implausible moments may have been even greater than its questionable humanist science. (Questionable humanist science? Humanism and science are the future my friend. Not your outdated, unnecessary and just plain wrong Christianity.)

Finally, the movie’s underlying theme is the swapping from universe to universe. In the end, it gives the perception that, through science, humans can defeat death. (... In a way... ish... I suppose... maybe... But I really think you're reading too much into it now. And the characters will eventually die. So they haven't so much 'defeated' death as delay it. Which is something science allows humans to do everyday, through medicine. That's more than religion has ever done.)

All in all, therefore, despite some heroic moments where the protagonist is defending innocent people, MOVIEGUIDE® cannot recommend SOURCE CODE. (And I wouldn't recommend you to anybody.)

Well there we are. If a bunch of racists can't raise a smile, I don't know what can...

Moon



Grr! I'm an evil film and I'm boring
and confusing and I'll eat your
babies! Image Via Amazon



Moon, the 2009 Science-fiction movie, won or was nominated for a score of BIFAs and BAFTAs. Empire described star Sam Rockwell's performance as worthy of an Oscar, and the film holds a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, along with 8.0 on IMDB. So, we could say, it is pretty good. Well, some people disagree, of course, and luckily for us, they do it in a stupid fashion. Let's poke fun at them.

Amazon.com:

I seriously can't believe the reviews I'm reading here. (Why? Did you go to the one-star section as well?) I never walk out of a movie (No. You take a run and a jump, spreading your beautiful wings, and you soar out of a movie, don't you?), but when I saw Moon in the theater I came closer than I ever have before (Is this theatre near a busy road? Because I would advocate the walking out. Hell, you should have run out. With no regard for your surroundings.). The plot is tedious and predictable (Yup. Clones on a moon base. Is there a film that doesn't feature clones on the moon?), with several aspects that make absolutely no sense and are never even attempted to be explained (ghostly lady walking around on the surface of the moon? (Memory bleed. When the clones are dying. Explained in the film)) Also, I understand that this was an independent film (How understanding of you!), but the production values and set pieces are laughable (I didn't laugh. I did, however, notice that NASA said the base was very similar to what they were designing though. Which seems to suggest realism. Rather than laughable failure). This movie is so bad that I actually told people to go see it as a practical joke (You must be an absolute wheeze to have at a party_. Anyone with a sense of what makes good sci-fi, or a good story in general, will have nothing but contempt for this steaming pile of excrement (It seems ironic then, that it was so well-received. So, either most people are wrong. Or you're wrong. I wonder who is right...) on celluloid (or blu-ray, in this case) (Yes, we're all impressed that you purchase blu-rays. It makes you a better person.).

A short but... Well, a short review up next:
Amazon.com:

I waited 10 light years (As in, you waited the length of time it would take someone to journey 10 light-years? Because it's a distance, not a time.) for Sam Rockwell to be smacked in the head by Gerty. (Gutted for you then)
Enough said. (No. I want... Nay, demand more insights! Fill me with your knowledge!)

Amazon.com:

I love science fiction movies (Well done. I love my cat.) . My favourites are blade runner, alien and space odysee (Fair enough. I mean, I assume you mean 2001: A Space Odyssey... But decent choices). But this, this is an abomination (No. An abomination would be attaching your head onto the body of a giant mouse, comprised of thousands of normal mice sewn together). OK, here is a sample of the idiocy (Ooh): The initial sequence tells us that in the future the entire energy supply for planet earth will come from the moon (Splendid. You've convinced me. But wait... there's more!). Hence, they bullt a massive site on the moon (With you so far!) and send ... ONE man to harvest the precious resource (Yea. Did you watch the film? They only need one man. And they've got all those clones to replace him. But, fundamentally, the facility is designed to only need one person to operate it. So why would a company pay for more people to man it, when they're not needed?). And it goes on. The protagonist can only communicate with his wife via PRE-RECORDED video messages, unlike the American astronauts in 1969, who sent their feeds back to earth LIVE (Brilliant. You've done your research. Of course, the reason for that was explained in the film. You know, the thing you've watched in enough detail to critique.) . Oh, and he has a robot friend who makes a commodore 64 look futuristic (Fucking hell. It's realistic, robots are crap. That's what real robots, like the ones we have just now, are like. Again, he does the job. So why would anyone pay more for a shiny robot? Perhaps you like your robots to be chrome. But they're not! So there...). Apart from this idiotic set up the movie itself is absolutely painful. The pace is agonizingly slow (Really? I bet they didn't notice it was slow when they were making it. I imagine pacing completely slips by film-makers, editors, directors, cast. I imagine the slow, suspenseful pace of the film was a total accident), the acting by Sam Rockwell is horrible (Actually, it's pretty good. All the critics said so. I thought so. And he was acting against... Well, no-one for most of the time. Ever tried to act against yourself when you're not there?- and the dialogues are is boring as hell. The plot "twist" is super predictable and lame (Super predictable? SUPER predictable? So, I'm assuming, you predicted the twist before you'd even heard of the film then?). To call this "the best sci-fi movie since blade runner" (quote on the poster) is an absolute travesty (No. Genocide is a travesty. This is just a film you didn't like)! The whole production team should be banned from ever making a movie again or worse, sentenced to watch their own work on auto-repeat (Yea. You feel you can criticise other people? You're clearly insane. I hope ferrets eat your poultry).

Amazon.com:

This movie didn't really do anything for me (Really? It granted me sexual favours. Dirty sexual favours). It was just a variation of the theme of a person isolated from other people (Yes. Isolated from everyone except himself! Dun dun duuuu....). It didn't even bring anything new about the theme to the table (Dunno. Pretty sure the whole clones on the moon thing was new). This type of situation has been done so many times before (Castaway, Robinson Crusoe, I Am Legend, etc. (That's three times))in ways that I thought were more interesting. Copying HAL from 2001 didn't help in the originality department, either (Well, he wasn't actually a copy, was he? He was just a computer with a voice. The similarity was probably to make the fact GERTY was on Sam's side a bit more surprising. But, different! HAL - fixed in position, mad. Red blinking dot! GERTY - moving. Not mad. Little smiley faces!). I have to admit I couldn't get into the movie from the beginning because I couldn't believe they would send ONE person into space for three years- ONE person (Well, we do that at the moment. Do you shout at the news?)! After that, I just couldn't get into it (so I probably missed/forgot some things). I also think that a clone of someone wouldn't have such a different personality from the original person if that clone had only been in that kind environment (But the clone hadn't - firstly, up until the events of the film, the clones didn't know they were clones. So the new clone had to deal with this, along with interacting with someone almost identical to him. Surely you can see that would affect someone's personality?). If they can clone him, why don't they just have a bunch of clones up there (Well, cloning appears to be illegal in the film, for one thing. Also, having all the clones working would be unnecessary, since the facility only needs one person to work on it, and costly, since the clones would be using oxygen, food, water, and so on, which they don't need in stasis.)? They'd get things done in a lot shorter time than three years (It isn't about getting things done - his job was to check everything was working regularly and fix shit. He was a janitor. On the moon. How did you miss that?). Also, why did it take him almost three years to go nearly insane (Well, because he was sane up until then. Probably fixing on the fact after 3 years, he got to go home to his family? That could have helped. I mean, I'm no psychologist, but people don't always go mad in semi-isolation.)? I probably would have lost it after three days. (You sure you haven't already?)

This movie was directed by David Bowie's son. (Yea. Well done)

And lastly, a man who believes in the infinite power of David Bowie, a power used for great evil.
Amazon.co.uk

This movie has been hyped to the last ,apparently (Apparently? They did. It isn't a conspiracy.) the Daily Mirror said it was the finest movie since blade runner,how can they say that (Finest sci-fi movie since Blade Runner. They don't think Blade Runner is the greatest movie of all time, followed by this. There were lots of good films between Blade Runner and Moon.),, the whole thing stinks of manipulation or mass stupidity due to duncan being Bowie's son (Really? Elaborate on this conspiracy...),, i'm sure that daddy must have pulled plenty of strings (do i see stings wife involved also ,,oh dear). (Yea. I'm pretty certain the world's leading film critics are greatly influenced by David Bowie. Roger Ebert, for example, gave Moon 3&1/2 out of 4. I imagine he only did this out of a great dedication to David Bowie though. Seriously? You think David Bowie can bribe all the critics in the world single-handed?) 

The movie is complete rubbish , its boring , has NO redeeming features at all (Well, shucks. Not even the little smiley faces?). I thought oh its Multiplicity in space , but then i remembered that Multiplicity was funny and quite a good movie! (Ok. I've done my research now, I know what Multiplicity is. Firstly, that's a film where a man gets himself cloned so he can do more shit at home, and walk the dog while wanking on the roof and flying a helicopter. [I made those things up] It is not at all similar to Moon, except for the fact it features cloning. Likewise, is Moon then identical to: 1) Star Wars: Attack of the Clones; 2) A video of Dolly the sheep, or; 3)The Irish town of Clones?). The movie is bleak (Well, a bit. But it was meant to be. Next you'll complain Schindler's List didn't have enough jokes.) ,,the characters are completely one dimensional (What, the robot? Or the man who finds out he's a clone on the moon?). When the first clone pukes blood for about half an hour (I don't remember a solid half-our of non-stop blood puking, but there you go) of the movie it was just unpleasant to see,,which alienated me further (You're alienating yourself now as well.), i felt no empathy and was mostly repulsed. (Ok, the way you've written that implies you feel no empathy for a man throwing up blood, only repulsion. Throwing or coughing up blood is common in many illnesses and deaths, so you feel no empathy for the sick or dying? Wow... Harsh...)

The end scene was so reminiscent of the ending of Dr Strange Love (Yea. The nuclear explosion montage, the appearance of Peter Sellars, it's all there). I actually bought the movie to watch over the Christmas and it was a total let down. I wish i could get my money and my hour and half back , i feel conned (But you haven't been. You're just stupid).

I cant believe that movies like this still get financed (Seriously? You can't believe good movies get funding? No, I don't suppose you can.), when there are so many great books waiting to be turned into brilliant movies. (Name one. I look forward to seeing what you consider a good movie.)

I will look out for Zowie's next movie and avoid it like a clone with accelerated decrepitude !! (Well, ok. But the clones weren't contagious or anything. You could just help them. It's a bad comparison. I'm going to put bees in your car.)