Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Thank you, Clorox. People, (Great Spirits) like yourself, are what I live for. I'm reading this script again before I see it on the big screen. G-d bless, Sandra

I forgot that I sent it to you!

Quoted from cloroxmartini This kept to the spirit of the original script and I thought it turned out better. The set up for the ending was in the quantum mechanics mumbo jumbo from Rutledge.

I missed that!  Do you have any idea of roughly what he said?

Quoted from cloroxmartini I forgot that I sent it to you!

Don't worry. Your memory outshines my memory any day.  

Thank you so much, Clorox!

Sandra

Quoted from Heretic I missed that!  Do you have any idea of roughly what he said?

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but one thing I remember in the movie that wasn't in the script, was the description of (I'll call it the shadow effect) where the analogy is given of:

When a light bulb is turned off, but you still see the light in your eyes for a little bit of time after...

...So this is kind of a solid "thing/idea" that they built into the movie that I don't recall in the script.

The time period "in between". In between life/death. In between the time the light is switched off/then still seeing a remnant of its effect...

In short-- a pocket of time.

Now, I don't know, but it may be that Ben Ripley knew this, but he wasn't able to quite put it down in the original script. Much like myself. Have the idea, but can't quite formulate it. Or, the many people that assisted on the script later, helped to nail the "blurriness" and bring it into focus.

Sandra

I have to confess I was disappointed with this. I expected a time-bending sci-fi / thriller classic on the level of Minority Report. This is only a sniff above Deja Vu.

The villain was forgettable. A nondescript 'American patriot' that you get in endless stories. The premise - which in the trailer seemed so strong - ended up not making sense to me. Jeffrey Wright said he only had those eight minutes, yet that time early on he saw the bomb go off and then got hit by that train. So he clearly lived beyond the original Sean Fentress' death - and didn't think to mention it? How and why did Colter fall in love with Christina so quickly? She alone seemed to act differently each time - a point Colter did briefly pick up on and hints at a really free will / determinism thingy - but this was left unexplored, too.

Also, I never really got a sense that Colter was doing this again and again. Take Groundhog Day - Bill Murray is stuck in that day so long he learns to sculpt ice, play piano, flick cards - I watched a behind-the-scenes documentary where the writer said he believed Murray lived for thousands of years within that one day, which raises it to a fairy tale, legend-like level. There's that wonderful line where he shows off his card-flicking skills, Ally McDowell smiles and says, "Is this what you do with eternity?" I know the set-up is different here because there's the time constraint of the second bomb, but even so. I felt like Colter only did this about ten times. It sounds a weird thing to say, but he didn't make enough mistakes.


Lots of things were good. The performances, parts of the dialogue...it just left me disappointed, until the ending where I was VERY disappointed. End on the kiss, goddamn it! In Children of Men they don't get on the boat, towel off and have a cup - they're left floating in the water. They had a wonderful American Beauty-style ending, and they tossed it for THAT. Grr.

Overall though, I was underwhelmed. There just wasn't enough going on for me - bizarrely, given its looping, back-and-forth / 'anything is possible' premise, it felt too linear. I've heard so many good things about the script that it surprises me to say that my problems were basically all story and character-related. However, it's good to see original stuff, particularly spec stuff, get made on this type of budget with that standard of talent, and overall it WAS enjoyable. Now Jones will hopefully go off and make Mute. Now there's a sci-fi I'm waiting for.

P.S. Could someone who has the script send it to me? I'll PM you my email. Cheers.

SPOILERS

Quoted from JonnyBoy Jeffrey Wright said he only had those eight minutes, yet that time early on he saw the bomb go off and then got hit by that train. So he clearly lived beyond the original Sean Fentress' death - and didn't think to mention it?

I wondered about this too.  I assumed that that would be a relatively subtle setup to the idea that he could potentially live on longer in the source code.  Then, of course, it turned up to be a setup for what I thought was a much lamer ending.  The fact that he didn't mention it is definitely strange...I think at the same time that that's part of what made him so certain that he was able to save everyone.  There was definitely no clue as to whether or not he consciously recognized that disconnect with the information supplied by Wright, though.

Quoted from JonnyBoy Jeffrey Wright said he only had those eight minutes, yet that time early on he saw the bomb go off and then got hit by that train. So he clearly lived beyond the original Sean Fentress' death - and didn't think to mention it? How and why did Colter fall in love with Christina so quickly? She alone seemed to act differently each time - a point Colter did briefly pick up on and hints at a really free will / determinism thingy - but this was left unexplored, too.

I think the answer to "what the source code really was", lies in the fact that Colter does live on after those eight minutes. Obviously, Rutledge was wrong.

Regarding Christina's character, you might agree with me that it's much better in the script and the relationship/love thing does not happen that way at all in the movie, which came off to me as far too (I don't know)" I'm so happy I'm going to work and sitting on this train" kinduv thing.

The showing of the idiot who built bombs and showing that bomb, as I recall, did not exist in the script either.

I think they chose to deflect away from Christina, as I had mentioned earlier, in order to add dimension to the script. Perhaps, (now I'd have to go and scrutinize) they did a breakdown of the screen time she had and it was too much and thus, they decided to change her character.

Let me know if any of you actually go and measure this one, against the other.

Sandra

Almost spat my tea across my computer screen when I saw IMDb ratings put this (a good but fairly hollow movie in the grand scheme) at 7.9 and the masterpiece that is RoboCop at 7.6. Baffling.

Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure Colter does allude to this train death but is cut off and shoved back in or something to that effect. Almost certain it's brought up.

New movies just have higher ratings on IMDb, presumably because the demographic that uses the site is largely comprised of a younger audience.  Inception and Dark Knight are #8 and #10 on the top 250, and I've no problem with either of those films but they're not exactly Seven Samurai or Paths of Glory.

Yeah, it's a decent point but I know that. It doesn't really explain why RoboCop is so low comparatively. It's more symptomatic of Robo being woefully underappreciated.

Most definitely fair enough Andrew, I see what you mean.  Definitely an under-appreciated film.  

I guess other things that might work against it in terms of an IMDb rating are the extreme violence and the lack of young characters -- unfortunately, of course, movies are a lot more concerned with appealing to all demographics nowadays.  A quick glance at the user ratings for the two movies shows a much larger gap between male and female ratings for Robocop (Women 7.1, Men 7.6) than Source Code (Women 8.0, Men 7.9).  The violence in Robocop was I assume a factor for the older crowd (Age 45+ gives Robocop a 7.3, its lowest rating for an age category, while they give Source Code a 7.9, higher than Age 30-44 gave it).  Also, the youth factor I mentioned earlier, while not as significant as I thought, is considerable: the under-18s were 4.9% of Source Code's vote, with an average rating of 8.7, while they constituted a mere .51 of Robocop's voters with a rating of 8.2.  Pays to have those excitable kids voting for you.

I think it also has to be considered in context.  Robocop came out when some of the top-grossing films of the year were Good Morning, Vietnam, The Untouchables, and Lethal Weapon.  Source Code comes out in a year where so far the top-grossing movies are Rango and The Green Hornet.  I would imagine that tends to push the ratings on good movies up quite high; Hollywood movies that are competently made or unique are just a breath of fresh air sometimes.  

Not meaning to sound like I'm arguing with you by the way, I totally agree with you.  Just thought you raised an interesting question!

Oh hey man, I don't think you were being argumentative - sorry if I gave off that vibe or appeared to be doing so myself, as it wasn't my intention.

Very interesting breakdown there and I suspect that violence is the main factor, which is a shame. Don't get me wrong, I liked Source Code and thought it was largely successful - but I didn't think it had much to say and hung on an underdeveloped questioning of reality. After reading a webchat with Dunc Bowie, it appears he actually has very little to say himself. Seems a decent chap but not what he's being built up to be. On the other hand, Verhoeven said so much in RoboCop and produced something truly special with blockbuster and artistic merit. I cannot think of a film to achieve that since (although I'd imagine some might think District 9 may, but that clearly owed a large debt to Robo.)

I took a look at this one last night.
It reminded me of the final shots of "Thelma & Louise".
And how a rotten conclusion can take a dump all over an earnest effort.

Not that I think Source Code is in the same league as the Ridley Scott film.
But closing shots can really make or break the movie for the viewer.
Seems it takes a few moments to ruin what it took 90 minutes to set up.

Yes, the ending of Source Code railed against all the information given to us.
We are told so many times what the rules are, only to ignore them in the end.
It felt like a studio slapped on the ending as some pacifier to the masses.

My other problems with the film are the male cast.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a fine actor, but he's no leading man.
This, "Love and Other Drugs" and "Prince of Persia", prove it to me.
For me, the guy can't carry a blockbuster or rom-com, period.
Donnie Darko, sure, it's kooky. His strength seems to be in support of leading men.

And what's with Jeffrey Wright?
The cane. The hair. He talks like he's got marbles in his mouth.
Seriously?

If I were to go for that kind of ending, why not go the Hollywood route sooner?
Perhaps clues within the code could indicate to Colter change was possible.
Then, he could relay those clues to his handler, Goodwin.
Goodwin denies everything, but she learns a loved one was on that train.

Now, Colter and Goodwin have something in common.
Goodwin steers Colter to re-write the source code, now we've got cooperation.
Goodwin has to cover her tracks, so her black Robert E. Lee boss doesn't suspect.
He will literally pull the plug on Colter once the "mission" is complete.

Something like that is a lot more Hollywoody, for sure.
But if you're gonna slap us in the face with that marketed ending.
Why not give us some blockbuster rollercoaster suspense thrills along the way?

I can't believe this movie has a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes. Wow.
A decent effort undone by a schizophrenic conclusion.

E.D.

The main problems with the film - and there were several - are imo:

A) Duncan Jones. He's simply not a thriller-director. He did a fantastic job with Moon, creating a really moody atmosphere, but this is a thriller and an entirely different beast. The mood is all wrong and the pacing is too slow almost to the point that it lacks any urgency - at least compared to Ben Ripley's script.

B) Jake Gyllenhaal. As ED pointed out the man simply can't carry a movie like this. I understand that they went for a "vulnerable" lead with big puppy dog eyes to sell the whole save-me-I'm-dead-arc but in the process they forgot that this is a thriller and that you need a powerful lead, someone we want to save the day.

C) The ending (which, to be fair, was ridiculous in the script as well). In an interview with Jeff Goldsmith from Creative Screenwriting Magazine, Ben Ripley was asked about the ending. The interviewer thought it was a little fetched that, as Colter takes over Sean Fentres' body, at some point someone who actually knew Fentres would, you know, miss him or maybe even contact him, and then what? What was Ripley's reply? "I haven't really thought about that".

Another thing that bugged me about this movie is that it pretty much just rips off Deja Vu (a vastly superior movie on all levels).

Big explosion - check
Patriotic terrorist - check
Save the girl - check

Never saw Deja Vu, and that's the movie everyone seems to compare this to.  But, as Andrew brought up, the comparison to Robocop is valid, as they used Gyllenhaal's character(what was left of him) as a piece of organic meat to connect to a computer program.  I liked the movie as decent sci-fi.  But, it really, really should have ended at that freeze frame scene with Jake kissing the girl and everyone laughing.  A good ending to a clever film.

Alas...the last tacked on six minutes tanked.  It actually reminded me of a Star Trek TNG episode where the holodeck creates its own intelligence and becomes a life form unto itself.  Didn't really make any sense on the Enterprise and it didn't work any better in Source Code.