Boring, trite and everything mainstream cinema has been for too long

Rating: 2/10 (13 April 2011)

I had seen Moon and thought there was definitely something there.
As someone who grew up on sci-fi books and Twilight Zone, I was well-prepared for the story and "twist" that -- frankly -- was rather obvious and direct from the get-go. But, I love Sam Rockwell, thought he was the key to the film, and I was ready to see something from the same director. I was particularly interested to see what the kid would do with a bigger cast, more money and a larger platform.
Well, he did exactly what every other small, indie director does once he can "break out": he made a total flop of a film loosely based on ideas and stories we've seen a million times before.
Now, I didn't much care for Inception (and those who did might enjoy this film, because it's very similar, less for story -- which is comparable -- and more for tone: a heady, needlessly complicated film that puts style and pseudo-intellectual malarkey above plot and character development), and I did not see Deja Vu (which sounds very similar, especially the "eight minutes" part, if I recall from trailers).
Regardless, Source Code was no more "original" than any other large-scale movie that has come out in the last 20 years (if you think Sixth Sense -- which I actually thought was a decent film -- was "original" in its "twist" ending, then you really need to read more and/or, again, watch a few episodes of Twilight Zone). Frankly, no studio and no investor (indie or otherwise) can take a chance on a director's sophomore effort and -- essentially -- a first- time writer. Nolan got to do what he did with Inception because of the Batman franchise. Period. It's Show "Business," not a non-profit museum board. These movies have to make money, not art. It's just the way it is nowadays, especially with more and more execs fearing for their jobs.
To be blunt, I fell asleep through most of this film. Granted, it was late and I was a little tipsy from a previous dinner, but the sleep saved me from having to watch endless repetitions of the same series of sequences running with -- again -- far too little actual plot and almost no real character development.
I'm not surprised at all that this film was the writer's first theatrically released project and that his previous endeavors are straight-to-DVD Species sequels. This film was exactly the kind of project that a fellow like that has mulling around in his head -- we've seen it before, has little to no real substance, understands little of traditional plot/character development, shoddy/wooden dialogue with "hollow men" type characters who are all completely 2-D (some rather "intentionally").
And, yes, regardless of what anyone might want to say about quantum physics or whatnot, it will be as clear as day to anyone else who understands both narrative screen writing theory and Hollywood politics that very obviously there was an ending (which was neither "tragic" nor "happy," just a little more "real")... and then the studio brass probably got nervous and had one of their nephews slap on the saccharine "Everything will be fine, folks, go home and tip your waiter on the way out" tag that so many people are complaining about (even though I fell asleep, I awoke for the last 30 minutes or so, and both my friend and I were well aware that "second" ending did not belong).
I'm surprised that David Bowie's son would be involved in a mess like this (another reason I had seen the film), but -- as they say -- "even Karl Marx had to pay for his beer."
Overall, this movie has nothing to offer an educated audience nor one looking for something unique and even remotely interesting. Yes, I felt similar viz. Inception, but look what happened there. So, many I'm totally off-base.
Up to you!