Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Aug 22, 2011 - 7:05 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

I've only seen the movie once, so maybe I need to watch it again, but what is this flaw you all are seeing in the ending, aside from the, um, ethical problem?

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 4:27 AM   
 By:   stb247   (Member)

I've only seen the movie once, so maybe I need to watch it again, but what is this flaw you all are seeing in the ending, aside from the, um, ethical problem?

Are you kidding?








SPOILERS!!!!

I felt the movie was almost ruined when they decided to continue after the final kiss. You have a perfect ending in a Hollywood film where the audience actually wants the protagonist to die (what a great concept) and get a beautiful moment with a kiss and everyone in the train laughing at some stand up jokes... it just felt like a very poetic moment to me. AND THEN they shit all over it!!! With this happy ending, and trying to explain the whole parallel reality thing and so on. I was like..."WHAT?!" I was rooting for this guy to get his wish of dying in peace (while accomplishing the mission) and they make it all to be useless, cause he can live his dream life in a new body. That's not what the film was about up till this point.






SPOILERS END


 
 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 4:29 AM   
 By:   Mink   (Member)

Thanks, finally someone who thinks like me. The ending was garbage. And the ideology behind it is more than questionable.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 5:29 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Thanks, finally someone who thinks like me. The ending was garbage. And the ideology behind it is more than questionable.

Oh, I agree that the ending is ethically unsound, and wish that the movie had taken even a few seconds to consider that, but I didn't think it was so horrible to have a happy ending darkened by what is, essentially, an unacknowledged murder. So while I may have a problem with his action, it didn't translate for me to a problem with the movie. It sounded to me like people were complaining about some sort of plothole.

As for stb247's comments, I thought the parallel reality thing had been pretty fully explained already. The only ambiguity was whether Jeffrey Wright's character knew what was really happening and was lying for the sake of his program and prestige, or whether he actually thought he was basically sending someone into a recording. And I didn't think the ending was pointless at all: in one reality he did accomplish the mission and then arrange so he couldn't be (ab)used again, and in another he got to live again . . . only the happy ending was darkened a bit, as mentioned above. I am curious, however, whether the final ending was in the original script or whether it was a studio-mandated "happier ending" as sometimes happens.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 6:30 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

I agree totally with these comments on the ending.

As for me saying earlier that Herrmann shouldn't be mentioned alongside this score: I'm not suggesting that the score isn't Herrmann-esque (it's obnoxiously so), but that it doesn't offer the wealth of rhythm and melody that Herrmann brought to the Thrillers he scored. I thought the opening piece was nice, but there just wasn't much there beyond that for me. A case of great titles, with everything else falling short. No hard feelings, and I'll still look forward to any future projects Bacon gets.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 8:32 AM   
 By:   Saul Pincus   (Member)

There's little doubt in my mind about why Source Code's main title evokes a Herrmannesque vibe.

Source Code's editor, Paul Hirsch, actually worked with Bernard Herrmann twice. Those films were Obsession and Sisters. Only a handful of living filmmakers can say they've collaborated with Herrmann directly.

Hirsch also edited Carrie, Star Wars (with Richard Chew and Marcia Lucas), The Fury, The Empire Strikes Back, Blow Out, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, etc.

I'd say Mr. Hirsch knows more than a little something about great film music - but the best editors generally do.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 10:02 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

There's little doubt in my mind about why Source Code's main title evokes a Herrmannesque vibe.

Source Code's editor, Paul Hirsch, actually worked with Bernard Herrmann twice. Those films were Obsession and Sisters. Only a handful of living filmmakers can say they've collaborated with Herrmann directly.

Hirsch also edited Carrie, Star Wars (with Richard Chew and Marcia Lucas), The Fury, The Empire Strikes Back, Blow Out, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, etc.

I'd say Mr. Hirsch knows more than a little something about great film music - but the best editors generally do.


Hirsch is one of my favorite editors (just look at this resume for crying out loud!) and I think that Duncan Jones was turned onto Bacon via Hirsch when original composer Clint Mansell had to drop out at the last moment. I think this is even mentioned in the liner notes for the soundtrack.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 1:07 PM   
 By:   Hester_Pryne   (Member)


The Ghost Writer also has a 'watered down' Herrmann-eque kind of score by Desplat.

I don't think a composer OWNS a sound style... ask Horner... but Herrmann developed an interesting pizzicato & repetitive sweep of strings which generally set you on the edge of your seat or announced something creepy was going on.

I like Mr. Bacon's score and welcome new film composers as much as I admire those from the past. New things are happening today.

Yet at the same time I delighted in JNH's score Water For Elephants since it was very 'traditional'- and also very beautiful. That score as well as Kaczmarek's Hachiko remain welcome new discoveries.


 
 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 2:51 PM   
 By:   jonathan_little   (Member)

SPOILERS!!!!

... trying to explain the whole parallel reality thing and so on. I was like..."WHAT?!" I was rooting for this guy to get his wish of dying in peace (while accomplishing the mission) and they make it all to be useless, cause he can live his dream life in a new body. That's not what the film was about up till this point.


One thing I found a bit odd is that the scientist who created the machine seemed to be quite knowledgeable about what it could and could not do. With the weird tacked-on ending, he either didn't have a clue what he was talking about or he was just lying to everybody for no apparent reason.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 2:55 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

One thing I found a bit odd is that the scientist who created the machine seemed to be quite knowledgeable about what it could and could not do. With the weird tacked-on ending, he either didn't have a clue what he was talking about or he was just lying to everybody for no apparent reason.

Yes, but it was clear to us that that was what was going on from much earlier, when Gyllenhaal's character started having experiences that went well beyond the parameters of what Wright's character insisted was going on.

But a reason for him lying would be to continue the project: any IRB worth its salt would pull the plug on a project that did what was actually going on, so he had to insist on another thing happening. Alternatively, he could have figured out the process without knowing how it worked, and so "made up" science to fit his observation of what was happening without really understanding the mechanism.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 3:02 PM   
 By:   The REAL BJBien   (Member)

I've only seen the movie once, so maybe I need to watch it again, but what is this flaw you all are seeing in the ending, aside from the, um, ethical problem?

SPOILERS / SPOILERS / SPOILERS

My problems with the end was the following:

I enjoyed the explanation of the whole JUMPS being what they said, a simulation that allows for 8 minutes at a time to go back and we saw that no matter what or where Colter was, he was always yanked after that time [or when he died which was usually when the bomb went off].

I don't buy it being time travel or alternate/parallel universes because how would they always start the same and always have the exact same people on the train yet always be different [no one made a slip second mistake that made them miss the train?] but further more, this is the reason why...

Once Colter asked to be killed and the plug is pulled and you see that freeze frame everything after is Colter's brain making it up and NOT a simulation, time travel, or anything of the sort. It is Colter's last bit of life as the oxygen leaves his brain and his brain is essentially giving him a happy ending but when you see his face on the orb and he realizes that this is the image he has been constantly seeing I took from that that was always how it ALWAYS suppose to end.

That it was his fate or destiny.

Then when it keeps going and it makes it seem like all of it was for nothing and we see him still "alive" the film completely lost me as Colter being kept alive that way was just awful and considering he is a service member he deserves better.

It also ruins him making peace with his father.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 3:05 PM   
 By:   Hester_Pryne   (Member)

"peace"


 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 3:24 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

Did you guys notice Scott Bakula on the other end of the phone line when Colter was talking to his dad? Talk about a Quantum Leap!

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 3:35 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

I don't buy it being time travel or alternate/parallel universes because how would they always start the same and always have the exact same people on the train yet always be different [no one made a slip second mistake that made them miss the train?] but further more, this is the reason why...

Well, there are infinite parallel universes. I just figured that each time, the program selected the one that was a closest match from the "origin" universe.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 4:24 PM   
 By:   franz_conrad   (Member)

A couple of thoughts from seeing this movie.

- It reminded me of how strong Groundhog Day was. To just tackle the scenario as drama, with a sense of humour, unburdened by the mechanics of why. That's a great film, that makes me believe in its sweet ending.

- This film does go well past its proper ending point. Even on its own terms.

- Basically, the story is the same as MOON. A man engaged in some remote duty (afghanistan, moon patrol) discovers that his duty is darker than he thought (he is dead and plugged into a simulation; he is a clone who will be resurrected every time he dies), that his aspirations are meaningless (to send a message to his father in Source, rescue the people on the train and spend more time with the girl / send a message to his wife/child in Moon & go home), but nonetheless is enabled to achieve outside of his duty in the end (clone 1 enables clone 2 to escape to earth at end of Moon; a fellow officer enables Jake to go back into the source code and he survives his own death). For all the overlaps in the writing, it wasn't unfortunately as strong as Moon.

- It would have been nice to throw this little wrecking ball into the plot: not only does she not remember, he doesn't remember previous encounters either. Not sure I needed the backroom simulation stuff either really, it's a whole layer of the story that is interesting, but not as interesting to me as nailing the idea of reliving the same moment and trying to improve on it.

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 5:39 PM   
 By:   Hester_Pryne   (Member)

'12:01' was a better film than Groundhog Day.




 
 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 6:39 PM   
 By:   franz_conrad   (Member)

Ok, it probably is. Many films are. I don't think SOURCE CODE is one of them though.

(Is this the short film by the way? Which I haven't seen. But it makes sense to me that the best way to treat this material is in a long-form short, and without the appearance of science to explain it. Whether it's La Jetee or Groundhog Day, to me it usually works best when the author keeps the mechanics behind the hero's spatio-temporal dilemma veiled.)

 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 7:38 PM   
 By:   The REAL BJBien   (Member)

I only saw MOON because of CLINT MANSELL's wonderful score and along with DISTRICT 9 didn't think it was a good or great movie and along with SOURCE CODE feel all three are below average.

SPOILERS / SPOILERS / SPOILERS

MOON lost me when we are suppose to believe that the company would create and store what looks like thousands of clones in a rather advance facility and that the cost of making and keeping them alive was actually less then paying a human to work the lunar rotation. Further more why couldn't they make their clones resistant to the side effects of the moon [which I believe is the reason they are dying right?]

Not to mention the fact that each clone always wakes up and is essential told that "X" occurred and somehow Sam is in a medical bay but the only other soul is a robot that can't carry a human and they show how long it takes for anyone to reach the base.

DISTRICT 9 lost me when baby prawn can control and fly technology that pre-dates him by 20 years but other such stupidity like South Africa wanting to create new weapons to sell which are clearly modeled after alien technology yet no one is suppose to notice?

Why let the Nigerian's stock pile weapons and if the world is watching I'm sure that alone would be cause to do something. If the world is watching Joberg then why is Wikus and his organization allowed to burn babies and if they do that, why not just "kill" loads of the population and blame it on the Nigerians and miss use of the weapons.

Why didn't they just look at the camera crew's footage when Wikus was changing and what good would it do to slice up Wikus to figure out how alien tech works if Wikus is clearly a HYBRID and also this would be like slice up a dog to figure out how the nose work.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 23, 2011 - 9:01 PM   
 By:   franz_conrad   (Member)

SPOILERS / SPOILERS / SPOILERS

MOON lost me when we are suppose to believe that the company would create and store what looks like thousands of clones in a rather advance facility and that the cost of making and keeping them alive was actually less then paying a human to work the lunar rotation. Further more why couldn't they make their clones resistant to the side effects of the moon [which I believe is the reason they are dying right?]

Not to mention the fact that each clone always wakes up and is essential told that "X" occurred and somehow Sam is in a medical bay but the only other soul is a robot that can't carry a human and they show how long it takes for anyone to reach the base.


This is exactly my point. Sci fi frequently doesn't know when it's better to just not go into detail. An unnecessary explanation is one that can rejected.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 28, 2011 - 3:08 PM   
 By:   RM Eastman   (Member)

Just watched the film last night on Blu, I thought it was decent but failed to understand the conclusion, maybe a second viewing? Chris Bacon wrote a fine score, I particurly liked the main and end titles. One of the most interesting scores I have heard in a while from a new composer, and I believe it was all orchestral. A composer to watch!

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.