X Men First Class, is the stylish origin story set in the 60's, of how the mutants came to be, and explains more fully the relationships of the characters that we see in the later ("original") X Men Films.
The film is set in the 60's and follows Erik's (a superb Michael Fassbender) hunt for his mother's murderer and his sadistic mentor Shaw, (Kevin Bacon). Meanwhile Charles Xavier, (James Mcavoy) a proffessor of genetics and mutant mind reader is approached by a member of the CIA (Rose Byrne) to help them find Shaw and his mutant friends, to stop him from starting world war 3. In this plot to save the world, new young mutants are found and trained to hone their powers and use them for good.
It was a big risk making this film. X men one and two were entertaining enough, but the third was a huge flop and wolverine origins (as much as I am a fan of Jackman) was a disapointment. However, what we have in First Class is a very stylish, clever and well acted film. My favourite thing about it is its two leads, Charles and Erik (Proffessor X and Magneto). Mcavoy is in my opinion (to some peoples disagreement) a very good Xavier, creating a cheeky and youthful character, but still managing to work the fatherly care and affection that he develops for his younger mutants. Fassbender blew me away as the character of Erik (despite a bit of dodgy accents). He just brought so much charisma and charm to such a confused and vengeful character. Together, Mcavoy and Fassbender create a very sweet realtionship that does add to the context of the first X men films. Jennifer Lawrence is also very good as Mystique, giving us an intriguing backstory to the blue beauty.
So was this a five star film? Not quite. Whilst this film did very well in it's leads, and in general the story of discovering new mutants, it lacked oomph with its "baddies". Kevin Bacon was fine as Shaw, and in fact had a promising start at the beginning when he kills Eriks mother. However, he gets a little dull after that, losing personality and becoming nothing more than his powers. I also felt that Shaw's companion Emma Frost (January Jones) was just a bit of a waste of time. She didn't add anything to the film, and it also seemed like she was developing added powers left right and centre.
So by all means, not a perfect film, but really quite entertaining. It sort of makes me sad that there are already films when they are older, not giving them much space to go into further films and plotlines. But i would not be suprised if they gave it a go anyway.
Stylish, entertaining and clever. 4/5
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Hanna
Hanna is a quirky, timeless and very watchable movie.
The film is based around the character Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) - a teen assasin who has lived in a snowy forest all of her life, only knowing what her father has taught her, including how to kill. It turns out that Hanna was a specially enhanced foetus who is now wanted by the CIA especially by Marissa (Cate Blanchett). Hanna sets out to kill Marissa, and along the way learns who she is and what it meansto actually be human.
Hanna has a weird eerie and contradictory feel about it. It is timeless and placeless, yet so many different places and environments are used. One moment you feel like you are in the technological future, the next you feel like your camping with a very english and annoying family in the 60's.This could be disorientating and disjointed, but actually it works very well.
A lot of people were quite surprised when Joe Wright (director of Atonement and Pride and Prejudice) was set to direct this film. But actually, he pulls it off beautifully, using cinematic techniques that were used to emphasise the beauty of his period dramas. My favourite thing about Hanna are the visuals and the soundtrack. There are some truly brilliant and gritty fight scenes, and also a lot of the chasing and running (as dull as they can sometimes be) were actually exemplified by brilliant camera work, and the Chemical Brothers's exciting and edgy soundtrack.
All the actors pulled their weight, delivering what was needed to make a good film. Eric Banner (Hanna's father - Erik) just about pulled off the role without being too annoying, but did lack a bit of emotion, as did Blanchett in her enemy role (which she apparently is getting quite used to).
Of course the star of the show is Ronan, being quite brilliant and realistic as the violent but innocent and naive teen. A shout out also has to go to Tom Hollander and his character of Isaacs. He looks so camp, but is vicious and very well cast in his sadistic and menacing role.
The acting is good, the storyline is interestingt, but what makes this film, is Joe Wright's very good directing, and the often stunning visuals that are placed alongside a stellar soundtrack
4/5
The film is based around the character Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) - a teen assasin who has lived in a snowy forest all of her life, only knowing what her father has taught her, including how to kill. It turns out that Hanna was a specially enhanced foetus who is now wanted by the CIA especially by Marissa (Cate Blanchett). Hanna sets out to kill Marissa, and along the way learns who she is and what it meansto actually be human.
Hanna has a weird eerie and contradictory feel about it. It is timeless and placeless, yet so many different places and environments are used. One moment you feel like you are in the technological future, the next you feel like your camping with a very english and annoying family in the 60's.This could be disorientating and disjointed, but actually it works very well.
A lot of people were quite surprised when Joe Wright (director of Atonement and Pride and Prejudice) was set to direct this film. But actually, he pulls it off beautifully, using cinematic techniques that were used to emphasise the beauty of his period dramas. My favourite thing about Hanna are the visuals and the soundtrack. There are some truly brilliant and gritty fight scenes, and also a lot of the chasing and running (as dull as they can sometimes be) were actually exemplified by brilliant camera work, and the Chemical Brothers's exciting and edgy soundtrack.
All the actors pulled their weight, delivering what was needed to make a good film. Eric Banner (Hanna's father - Erik) just about pulled off the role without being too annoying, but did lack a bit of emotion, as did Blanchett in her enemy role (which she apparently is getting quite used to).
Of course the star of the show is Ronan, being quite brilliant and realistic as the violent but innocent and naive teen. A shout out also has to go to Tom Hollander and his character of Isaacs. He looks so camp, but is vicious and very well cast in his sadistic and menacing role.
The acting is good, the storyline is interestingt, but what makes this film, is Joe Wright's very good directing, and the often stunning visuals that are placed alongside a stellar soundtrack
4/5
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Water for Elephants
Water for Elephants is a beautifully set 1930's drama based around a lush American circus.
We are presented with Jacob (Robert Pattinson), a bright young man who is about to sit his last vetenary exam, when suddenly his parents die in a car crash and he loses everything and is left with nothing. On venturing out into the big wide world, he hitches a ride on a train which turns out to be a travelling circus. At first he finds menial work there, but when his vetenary skills are found out, he becomes more deeply involved, not only with the most beautiful and talented elephant (Rosie) but also with August (a superb Christoph Waltz) the charismatic but terrifying ring master, and even more so with his wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon).
The reviews for this film have been average; not bad, but not overwhelmingingly good either. I think this is because although this film is a nice story, the set and themes could provide so much more. This could have been a film that deeply impacts you like Titanic does, or even The Notebook. But it doesn't. But you know what, I like nice stories. The circus setting with all the animals really is beautiful, it is shot extremely well, and is a pleasure to watch.
And Christoph Waltz. Well, I just have to look at him and i shiver in terror. He will never be cast as anything other than the bad guy, some may say this is a bad thing, but why change something that's not broken? He's simply brilliant as the dominating ring master, and i even felt a tiny bit sorry for him at times. Next we have Robert. Ahh. I actually think, as bad as you may say twilight is, he isn't a bad actor at all, and in this film he shows it. He maybe gets off to a slow start, but after a while he really seems to blend in with the scenery and the action, not in a way that you don't notice him, but in a way that works. My only vice with this movie, is the part of Malena. Although i think Witherspoon is very good, and does play the part well, i don't think she works well with Pattinson. It's not awful, I just think that she should be mothering him rather than having sex with him...
It has been said in other reviews, but this film would lack a lot of charm if it wasn't for Rosie the elephant. She is simply stunning.
Lush, sweet, classy, just lacking chemistry between the two leads, however, Rosie the elephant makes this film more than watchable.
3 and a half / 5
We are presented with Jacob (Robert Pattinson), a bright young man who is about to sit his last vetenary exam, when suddenly his parents die in a car crash and he loses everything and is left with nothing. On venturing out into the big wide world, he hitches a ride on a train which turns out to be a travelling circus. At first he finds menial work there, but when his vetenary skills are found out, he becomes more deeply involved, not only with the most beautiful and talented elephant (Rosie) but also with August (a superb Christoph Waltz) the charismatic but terrifying ring master, and even more so with his wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon).
The reviews for this film have been average; not bad, but not overwhelmingingly good either. I think this is because although this film is a nice story, the set and themes could provide so much more. This could have been a film that deeply impacts you like Titanic does, or even The Notebook. But it doesn't. But you know what, I like nice stories. The circus setting with all the animals really is beautiful, it is shot extremely well, and is a pleasure to watch.
And Christoph Waltz. Well, I just have to look at him and i shiver in terror. He will never be cast as anything other than the bad guy, some may say this is a bad thing, but why change something that's not broken? He's simply brilliant as the dominating ring master, and i even felt a tiny bit sorry for him at times. Next we have Robert. Ahh. I actually think, as bad as you may say twilight is, he isn't a bad actor at all, and in this film he shows it. He maybe gets off to a slow start, but after a while he really seems to blend in with the scenery and the action, not in a way that you don't notice him, but in a way that works. My only vice with this movie, is the part of Malena. Although i think Witherspoon is very good, and does play the part well, i don't think she works well with Pattinson. It's not awful, I just think that she should be mothering him rather than having sex with him...
It has been said in other reviews, but this film would lack a lot of charm if it wasn't for Rosie the elephant. She is simply stunning.
Lush, sweet, classy, just lacking chemistry between the two leads, however, Rosie the elephant makes this film more than watchable.
3 and a half / 5
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Goodbye Sociology, Hello Thor, and absolute intrigue with Catfish
Yere, this blog has pictures and everything!
So yesterday i did my first exam and finished sociology forever, phew, and then we headed (unsuprisingly) straight to the cinema, to get a bit of cheap tuesday action with a rather beautiful looking Chris Hemsworth as the title character of Thor. Thor follows the comic bookstory (and countless myths and legends) about the different worlds in our universe and the God like beings who live in Adwar. Thor (Hemsworth) is the son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and Frigga (a forgotten Rene Russo), brother to Loki (relatively unknown but quite good Tom Hiddleston) and is the next heir to the throne. Thor is due to become King shortly, before messing up an alliance between the Asgards and their life long enemies (some sort of frost people - their name escapes me). As punishment, Odin sends Thor to earth, removing his powers and hurting his pride in order to teach him a lesson and the skills that he needs to become a good leader. Add in a mix of Natalie Portman as the love interest, Stellan Skarsgarrd as an intriguing and intellectual scientist, a family disloyalty and a few fight scenes, and boom. We have ourselves a pretty good movie.
Kenneth Brannagh does not strike me as the type of person who would even want to direct this sort of hollywood monster (seeing him more in a shakesperian light), but actually he does a pretty good job. The film is good to look at and he packs a lot of information and plot into a two hour movie, and for me, it just about works. I also think he (or more likely the person he hired) did a pretty good job of the casting. Hemsworth is pretty perfect as the leading role, making me fully believe anything he would say or do, Hopkins is good in a role that's not so heavy as his usual stuff but still quite effective, and equally, Portman on her crazy run of films, was delightful to see in this light and quite sweet character. So, what's wrong with it? Well, there were moments that were really good (particularly when Hemsworth was on screen) that were really really good, but they were fletting, leaving the rest as merely fine. I also felt like the transition between earth, and the mystical worlds were a bit jilted, and not as smooth as they should have been.
Overall, i really quite enjoyed it, and thought it was a good set up for the avengers movie (Hemsworth and Downey Jr. in a film together... YAY). 3 and a half / 5
I apologise for this hefty post, but i have to blog about Catfish. I read about it last year when it came out at a similar time to The Social Network (with a similar idea - facebook) but didn't think much about it, until an advert appeared on more 4 (i know). So intrigue made me watch it. It's basically a film/documentary about a guy (an actually good looking, intelligent film/photographer in New York) who is having various relationships with a family on facebook. The guy - Nev, is being filmed by his brother and friend, as his relationship with these people develop. It starts off with him getting "poked" by an eight year old - weird i know - but then acquires paintings from her which are actually very good. He becomes friends with the whole family on facebook - mother, father, sister, brother - and even talks to them on the phone. He develops a "sexual" relationship (online and on the phone) with the sister, and becomes very involved with the whole situation. What unfolds is really not what it seems.
Disclaimer - spoiler alert - i am going to say what happens in the end
After getting a bit suspicious about some of the things Nev is being told by Melody and Abby (Older sister and young painter girl) he decides to go up to see them (across the other side of the country). What he finds there is a bunch of lies. No Melody, an Abby - but not an artist, and Angela (the mother) is the conspirator of it all. She is a woman who wants attention and love, who paints the pictures she has been sending Nev and who has made every intricate lie (and phone conversation) up.
I felt a mixture of emotions whilst watching this movie. Firstly you kind of think Nevs a bit of an idiot for believeing it all, but then why should he doubt it? it was all so intricately planned and thought of that it sort of seemed impossible for it all to be lies. Then you want to feel angry at Angela, but you just can't. She looked so sad, and her life seemed so disapointing to her, that i sort of just wanted to cry for her. The film is shot in a documentary style, but it's not crummy or unprofessional, it's intriguing and extremely watchable. There have been criticisms as to whether this film was truly real, whether it was filmed in the order we see it, and whether actually it is ethical. I think these things are valid points, but if thought upon too much then they do ruin the impact of the film, and i think that's unnecessary.
Not only does this film give such a raw and emotional look into a few people's lives, but it also shows how dangerous and complicated social networking can be and become. You should give this film ago.
4/5
Kenneth Brannagh does not strike me as the type of person who would even want to direct this sort of hollywood monster (seeing him more in a shakesperian light), but actually he does a pretty good job. The film is good to look at and he packs a lot of information and plot into a two hour movie, and for me, it just about works. I also think he (or more likely the person he hired) did a pretty good job of the casting. Hemsworth is pretty perfect as the leading role, making me fully believe anything he would say or do, Hopkins is good in a role that's not so heavy as his usual stuff but still quite effective, and equally, Portman on her crazy run of films, was delightful to see in this light and quite sweet character. So, what's wrong with it? Well, there were moments that were really good (particularly when Hemsworth was on screen) that were really really good, but they were fletting, leaving the rest as merely fine. I also felt like the transition between earth, and the mystical worlds were a bit jilted, and not as smooth as they should have been.
Overall, i really quite enjoyed it, and thought it was a good set up for the avengers movie (Hemsworth and Downey Jr. in a film together... YAY). 3 and a half / 5
I apologise for this hefty post, but i have to blog about Catfish. I read about it last year when it came out at a similar time to The Social Network (with a similar idea - facebook) but didn't think much about it, until an advert appeared on more 4 (i know). So intrigue made me watch it. It's basically a film/documentary about a guy (an actually good looking, intelligent film/photographer in New York) who is having various relationships with a family on facebook. The guy - Nev, is being filmed by his brother and friend, as his relationship with these people develop. It starts off with him getting "poked" by an eight year old - weird i know - but then acquires paintings from her which are actually very good. He becomes friends with the whole family on facebook - mother, father, sister, brother - and even talks to them on the phone. He develops a "sexual" relationship (online and on the phone) with the sister, and becomes very involved with the whole situation. What unfolds is really not what it seems.
Disclaimer - spoiler alert - i am going to say what happens in the end
After getting a bit suspicious about some of the things Nev is being told by Melody and Abby (Older sister and young painter girl) he decides to go up to see them (across the other side of the country). What he finds there is a bunch of lies. No Melody, an Abby - but not an artist, and Angela (the mother) is the conspirator of it all. She is a woman who wants attention and love, who paints the pictures she has been sending Nev and who has made every intricate lie (and phone conversation) up.
I felt a mixture of emotions whilst watching this movie. Firstly you kind of think Nevs a bit of an idiot for believeing it all, but then why should he doubt it? it was all so intricately planned and thought of that it sort of seemed impossible for it all to be lies. Then you want to feel angry at Angela, but you just can't. She looked so sad, and her life seemed so disapointing to her, that i sort of just wanted to cry for her. The film is shot in a documentary style, but it's not crummy or unprofessional, it's intriguing and extremely watchable. There have been criticisms as to whether this film was truly real, whether it was filmed in the order we see it, and whether actually it is ethical. I think these things are valid points, but if thought upon too much then they do ruin the impact of the film, and i think that's unnecessary.
Not only does this film give such a raw and emotional look into a few people's lives, but it also shows how dangerous and complicated social networking can be and become. You should give this film ago.
4/5
Thursday, 28 April 2011
The Kids Are All Right
This is a highly critical acclaimed film about a modern family that consists of a lesbian couple Nic (a superb Annette Benning) and Jules (Julianne Moore) who have both had a child each by the same sperm donor. At the age of 18, their daughter Joni, (Mia Wasikowska) encouraged by her younger brother Laser (Josh Hutcherson) contact their sperm donor father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo) and start up an awkward yet sweet realtionship with him. Jules and Nic aren't sure about the realtionship, and Nic is very disaproving, but Jules starts up an unorthodox and sexual relationship with Paul, which eventually causes problems and rifts for them all.
I really like films that are more like character studies, focusing on the people and their relationships, and potentially a family which could exist in real life. This film is not afraid to leave the hollywood ideal, and to leap head first into quite unchartered areas. Ruffalo and Benning shine in their indie and complicated roles, but Moore disapoints a little bit, not bringing much likability to a character that should be quite likeable. Waikowska and Ruffalo are fine as the kids, but are underused in a film that should maybe focus more on them. For me, there is also unnecessary drug use and references that don't go anywhere, and sex scenes which are more cringeworthy than appropriately passionate.
Overall, this film is an attractive character based look at a modern and contemporary family. It feels real, and is to the merit of Lisa Cholodenko (director) that it doesn't feel too Hollywood. My main criticisms are with the lack of use of the teens, and the lack of empathy that Moore should make people feel.
3 and a half out of 5
I really like films that are more like character studies, focusing on the people and their relationships, and potentially a family which could exist in real life. This film is not afraid to leave the hollywood ideal, and to leap head first into quite unchartered areas. Ruffalo and Benning shine in their indie and complicated roles, but Moore disapoints a little bit, not bringing much likability to a character that should be quite likeable. Waikowska and Ruffalo are fine as the kids, but are underused in a film that should maybe focus more on them. For me, there is also unnecessary drug use and references that don't go anywhere, and sex scenes which are more cringeworthy than appropriately passionate.
Overall, this film is an attractive character based look at a modern and contemporary family. It feels real, and is to the merit of Lisa Cholodenko (director) that it doesn't feel too Hollywood. My main criticisms are with the lack of use of the teens, and the lack of empathy that Moore should make people feel.
3 and a half out of 5
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Your Highness
Erm...Yere not brilliant.
The adverts didn't look bad, there is some high potential acting power behind it (James Franco, Natalie Portman) and i did love the cheesy medieval adventure flicks as a child (Princess Bride, Willow), but it lacks the charm of these films and instead replaces likeability with swear words, sexual innuendos and finishing it off with a hefty dollop of general crudeness.
The story follows two princes, the charming and valiant Fabias (Franco), and the not so lovable brother Thadeous (Danny McBride). Fabias claims the virgin Belladonna as his wife (Zooey Deschanel), but on their wedding day the evil warlock Leezar (Justin Theroux) steals Belladonna, with the hope of impregnating her on the day when the moons collide in order to have a dragon child... Thadeous is sent on a quest with his brother Fabias in order to rescue Belladonna, and prove to the kingdom that he is not such a waster after all. Along their journey they meet the beautiful and feisty Isabel (Natalie Portman) who eventually helps them on their quest.
Apart from the unnessecary crudeness, nakedness and countless penis references, there are some very surreal and odd moments. Such as a fight with a five headed dragon and some quite gory killings, which just don't seem to blend with the type of humour that has been battered around thus far. In my opinion there are two saving graces which makes this film watchable, rather than atrocious. The first is Franco. The part isn't brilliant and there's not a lot to play with, yet he manages to make it playful and cheeky, rather than annoying and loathsome which a lesser actor could have done. And the second is Theroux playing Leezar. Again, it's a pretty rubbish character / baddie, but he manages to act it with a sarcasm and subtle wit that is quite funny.
There are some films that are crude and rude, yet still seem to be funny. 40 Year Old Virgin is one of these. The difference is that these films, amongst the sex jokes, still have a heart and charm. Unfortunately, Your Highness lacks both of these. I think Danny McBride should leave the writing to someone else (maybe Judd Apatow?) and work on the acting skills. Sorry love...
2/5
The adverts didn't look bad, there is some high potential acting power behind it (James Franco, Natalie Portman) and i did love the cheesy medieval adventure flicks as a child (Princess Bride, Willow), but it lacks the charm of these films and instead replaces likeability with swear words, sexual innuendos and finishing it off with a hefty dollop of general crudeness.
The story follows two princes, the charming and valiant Fabias (Franco), and the not so lovable brother Thadeous (Danny McBride). Fabias claims the virgin Belladonna as his wife (Zooey Deschanel), but on their wedding day the evil warlock Leezar (Justin Theroux) steals Belladonna, with the hope of impregnating her on the day when the moons collide in order to have a dragon child... Thadeous is sent on a quest with his brother Fabias in order to rescue Belladonna, and prove to the kingdom that he is not such a waster after all. Along their journey they meet the beautiful and feisty Isabel (Natalie Portman) who eventually helps them on their quest.
Apart from the unnessecary crudeness, nakedness and countless penis references, there are some very surreal and odd moments. Such as a fight with a five headed dragon and some quite gory killings, which just don't seem to blend with the type of humour that has been battered around thus far. In my opinion there are two saving graces which makes this film watchable, rather than atrocious. The first is Franco. The part isn't brilliant and there's not a lot to play with, yet he manages to make it playful and cheeky, rather than annoying and loathsome which a lesser actor could have done. And the second is Theroux playing Leezar. Again, it's a pretty rubbish character / baddie, but he manages to act it with a sarcasm and subtle wit that is quite funny.
There are some films that are crude and rude, yet still seem to be funny. 40 Year Old Virgin is one of these. The difference is that these films, amongst the sex jokes, still have a heart and charm. Unfortunately, Your Highness lacks both of these. I think Danny McBride should leave the writing to someone else (maybe Judd Apatow?) and work on the acting skills. Sorry love...
2/5
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Source Code
It has been a long, bleak, cinema lacking time, however last week i managed to hijack a friend and make them come see Source Code with me, so i can finally blog again :D - Definite Spoiler Alert.
I'd heard good things about this conceptually complicated film, and to say that it is an action flick with Jake Gyllenhaal in it and along similar lines to a pretty bad De Ja Vu, this is high praise indeed. The story starts with a man (an always lovely Jake Gyllenhaal) waking up on a train and not knowing where or who he is. Confusion follows, until 8minutes later, the train blows up and jake finds himself alone in a dark capsual. The story follows the idea of the "Source Code", a scientific revolutionary idea, that a certain part of a dead persons mind can be tapped into, in order to send them into a certain situation for 8minutes to obtain information. Jake is being sent to this train (in the form of another guy - confusing yes) in order to find out who set the bomb in order to prevent future bombings that are suspected to happen in the present. The idea is that jake is sent not into the actual past, but a paradigm, the scientists (a quite scary Jeffrey Wright, and Vera Farmiga) stress that the past cannot be changed.
Heres where it gets more confusing. Jake finds out who is behind the bombing and informs Farmiga, and asks if he can go back one last time (determined that he can change the past) and then be switched off the life support (which his actual dead, half a body is on). Farmiga agrees without Wright knowing, and Jake goes back into his 8minutes of bomb hunting before he is turned off on the life support. The whole premise so far has been pretty bleak. Scientists have developed technology that uses (arguably abuses) a practically dead bodies last bit of brain activity, and sends them on"missions" in order to get the information they need. The past cannot change, the missions are not real, it is not time travel.
So, how on earth, do we finish this film, with the life support monitor being turned off, and Jake having succeeded in not only changing the past - stopping the bomb, capturing the guy, getting the girl - but also in staying in the past (in some other guys body). For me, Duncan Jones (also the director of the highly critically acclaimed "Moon") copped out at the end of this movie, deciding that an unhappy ending, a film of fate, would not satisfy mass audiences, and therefore decided to soften up the ending by going against everything the film has been saying so far.
This film poses somereally good philosophical questions about the development of science and the worth of one human life against the massess. There are some top acting skills in it with an on form Gyllenhaal who manages to get the tone just right, and a refreshingly good Farmiga, as always showing versatility. However, a cop-out ending that goes against the whole idea of the source code, is a bitter disapointment.
Would have been 4 and a half out of 5, dropped to a 3 because of the end. Tut.
I'd heard good things about this conceptually complicated film, and to say that it is an action flick with Jake Gyllenhaal in it and along similar lines to a pretty bad De Ja Vu, this is high praise indeed. The story starts with a man (an always lovely Jake Gyllenhaal) waking up on a train and not knowing where or who he is. Confusion follows, until 8minutes later, the train blows up and jake finds himself alone in a dark capsual. The story follows the idea of the "Source Code", a scientific revolutionary idea, that a certain part of a dead persons mind can be tapped into, in order to send them into a certain situation for 8minutes to obtain information. Jake is being sent to this train (in the form of another guy - confusing yes) in order to find out who set the bomb in order to prevent future bombings that are suspected to happen in the present. The idea is that jake is sent not into the actual past, but a paradigm, the scientists (a quite scary Jeffrey Wright, and Vera Farmiga) stress that the past cannot be changed.
Heres where it gets more confusing. Jake finds out who is behind the bombing and informs Farmiga, and asks if he can go back one last time (determined that he can change the past) and then be switched off the life support (which his actual dead, half a body is on). Farmiga agrees without Wright knowing, and Jake goes back into his 8minutes of bomb hunting before he is turned off on the life support. The whole premise so far has been pretty bleak. Scientists have developed technology that uses (arguably abuses) a practically dead bodies last bit of brain activity, and sends them on"missions" in order to get the information they need. The past cannot change, the missions are not real, it is not time travel.
So, how on earth, do we finish this film, with the life support monitor being turned off, and Jake having succeeded in not only changing the past - stopping the bomb, capturing the guy, getting the girl - but also in staying in the past (in some other guys body). For me, Duncan Jones (also the director of the highly critically acclaimed "Moon") copped out at the end of this movie, deciding that an unhappy ending, a film of fate, would not satisfy mass audiences, and therefore decided to soften up the ending by going against everything the film has been saying so far.
This film poses somereally good philosophical questions about the development of science and the worth of one human life against the massess. There are some top acting skills in it with an on form Gyllenhaal who manages to get the tone just right, and a refreshingly good Farmiga, as always showing versatility. However, a cop-out ending that goes against the whole idea of the source code, is a bitter disapointment.
Would have been 4 and a half out of 5, dropped to a 3 because of the end. Tut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)