Movie Review: Fast 5

“I think what keeps it going is that it’s not really about cars. At the core, Fast and the Furious is about family and how to create them.” – Justin Lin, director of “Fast 5.”

The fifth installment of the “Fast and the Furious” saga, “Fast 5”, opens with stars Vin Diesel and Paul Walker as fugitives on the run from federal agents (led by a shiny biceped super cop played by Dwayne Johnson.) Together, Diesel & Walker lead an elite team of street racers (which includes series returnees Tyrese Gibson, Sung Kang, Ludacris, and the very sexy Gal Gadot & Jordana Brewster) as they prepare for “one last job”: a high-stakes heist in Brazil that involves stealing a vault, literally, out of a fortified police station. If they can accomplish this seemingly impossible mission, they can use the money in the vault to buy their freedom (and completely stick it to a corrupt business man who set them up in a train-car heist that, literally, goes south earlier in the film.) That is, if they are not first captured by Johnson, who mounts an all out assault through the slums of Rio De Janeiro to apprehend all of them. He even gets to utter that direst of commands “…NEVER let them near cars!”

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: "why do we need a 'Fast and the Furious 5'?! Did they not say all that needed to be said in the first 'Fast and the Furious'? How about '2 Fast to 2 Furious'? 'Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift'? How about plain ol' 'Fast and Furious' (not a reboot, but the 4th chapter!) What is the appeal of this series, anyway?” I highly doubt it is the family dynamics Linn mentions in the above quote (can you see any of these guys choosing a family station wagon over an American muscle car? Don't think so.) For some, it might be to see if all of the blatant bromancing will lead to more than just that (judging by the way Diesel & Johnson are looking at each other in the above pic, you could cut the sexual tension with a spork!) All kidding aside, maybe much of the appeal can be attributed to one thing: eye- candy. This is a series that sells eye-candy better than most commercials sell it. When a ticket is purchased for “Fast 5”, here is what is guaranteed: cool guys, sexy babes, badass attitude, and enough absurdly cool stunts to make me want to get in my little Chevy Impala and “Tokyo Drift” out of the movie theater parking lot. Although, a disclaimer in the end credits prevented me from realizing this fantasy: "the following stunts were performed by professional stunt drivers. Please, do not try this at home." OKAY, ya talked me out of it!

The franchise seems to be making a fast dash away from the street racing and car culture that has come to characterize the franchise up to this point. Instead, they seem to be heading in the direction of the heist genre (think "Oceans 11"). Why change a franchise that has currently grossed almost a $1 billion worldwide? Maybe the previously successful “Furious” outings were just too limited in their box office reach and Universal Pictures felt like they needed to expand the franchise into something more. Whatever is made of it later (a "Fast 6" is already being planned) the heist aspects worked for me. Where most series are winding down at the 5th entry (tiresomely repeating the same shtick over and over again) the "Fast" series gets points for at least trying to mix in some new genre blood (although, there is no shortage of car action!) It also helps to have a pretty good returning cast: Vin Diesel's chisled biceps and charisma continue to command the screen, Tryrese Gibson brings some much needed comic relief, and Kang, Brewster, Gadot, & the sexy Elsa Pataky (as one of Johnson's cops) are all serviceable; meaning they deliver exactly what is required of them. Though a special kudos to Dwayne Johnson, who fully embraces his cheesy character by playing it completely straight, yet also permitting himself a goofy smile every once in awhile; he seems to be genuinely having fun! And those oiled biceps of his, I mentioned earlier, never appear un-glistened! I was surprised he never tried to blind anyone with them while in one of his many fights scenes (his muscles should really be credited separately; let's put it this way, his biceps are so big they have their own gift shop!) 

Overall, I really enjoyed "Fast 5"! It's big, loud, & dumb fun that goes really good with a large soda and popcorn (the more butter, the better!) Director Linn deserves an especially big bucket of win with his truly audacious flair for action (especially the final car chase which manages to top, in sheer mass destruction, the chase in Michael Bay's "Bad Boys 2") and it is always refreshing to see real cars being employed in stunts (as opposed to obvious CGI.) Also, if you ever wondered what a fight scene between Diesel & Johnson would look like, then look no further; Linn stages a brutal Clash between these Titans which left me exhausted by the end of it (and also wanting to work out!) Yes, the plot is total nonsense, the dialogue is simplistic & cheesy, and the action sequences make the expression, "over-the-top", sound subtle. Yet, "Face 5" kept me entertained for 2 hours with a big silly grin on my face throughout. Side note: if you are at all a fan of this series, stay through the end credits!

Blu Ray Review: The Cable Guy

The macabre dark comedy, “The Cable Guy”, stars Jim Carrey as a wacky cable TV installer who, one day, meets Steven Kovacs (played by Matthew Broderick) on a “routine installation.” Steven thinks that by offering him $50, the cable guy will in turn give him all of the movie channels for free (“even the dirty ones!”) Of course, the cable guy (who calls himself Chip Douglas) is happy to oblige, and even does it free of charge. What Steven doesn’t realize is that he has just entered a pact with a desperate, lonely, and twisted (did I mention pathologically unstable?) man who very carefully insinuates himself into every aspect of Steven's life. He is a complete nightmare of a friend: he leaves dozens of phone messages (daily), shows up randomly when Steven is out with other friends, and even buys him elaborate gifts ("...a big screen TV, deluxe Karaoke machine, and THX quality sound that would make George Lucas cream in his pants!", Chip proudly declares.) Eventually, Chips sinister motives become clearer as Steven realizes that Chip is a man who will stop at absolutely nothing to a have friend.  Thus begins the incredibly dark and funny rollercoaster ride infamously known...as “The Cable Guy.”

For some context, I want to pause for a minute and allow you, the reader, to accompany me back in time to the year 1996. This was the year that Al Gore was doing the Macarena, Alanis Morissette had the #1 album in the country, and “E.R.”, “Seinfeld”, and “Friends” were the top shows on TV. Also, of course, the biggest box office star on the planet (indeed the universe) was funnyman Jim Carrey. Carrey previously had starred in an impressive succession of blockbusters with “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective”, “The Mask”, “Dumb and Dumber”, “Batman Forever”, and “Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.” Because of his proven track record, Carrey became the first actor to be paid $20 million when he signed on to star in Ben Stiller’s “The Cable Guy.” Yes, I said, BEN STILLER. Yes, THE Ben Still from “There’s Something About Mary”, “Zoolander”, and “Tropic Thunder.” Many of you may not know that Stiller directed “The Cable Guy” (also produced and co-written by Judd Apatow who would later direct the “40 Year Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up”), but he did. Anyway, the film was released in the summer of 1996 and was the subject of a lot of hype and publicity (mostly surrounding Carrey’s record making salary which set a precedent in Hollywood's deal structuring with future stars.) It was a summer that also touted blockbusters like “Twister”, “Mission Impossible”, and “Independence Day.” Carrey even hosted Saturday Night Live for the first time in his career, and to highly rated success. Yes, “The Cable Guy” was being positioned as the motion picture comedy event of the summer.  Why, just look at this trailer:

Some of you are probably thinking, “It looks pretty wacky; like a Jim Carrey movie usually does.” Yes, the Columbia Pictures marketing team did their best to sell this movie as another slapstick comedy (in the vein of Carrey’s other hits.) However, “The Cable Guy” was not really in the vein of those films at all, instead adopting a much darker tone (with Carrey playing less a loveable goofball and more a creepy stalker); instead, it was something much more unique. It was a dark satirical attack on how watching too much television could lead to violent anti-social behavior. Yes, the above trailer does not suggest even a HINT of that message, but it is pretty clear by the end of the movie. Carrey’s Chip Douglas is revealed to have been a person for whom the TV was always a babysitter. We see him as a child asking his mother when he will get a brother to play with. She responds (while dousing her hair with hairspray), “That is why Mommy is going to Happy Hour!” Not being adjusted to a normal family life (or even socializing with other kids) leads Chip down a dark path of social alienation, so troubling that…his real name isn’t even Chip Douglas!  He makes up names for himself (based, no doubt, on the TV programs he consumed as a child) whenever he meets a potential new friend.

The new friend that he wants so desperately to possess is Steven, a man whose girlfriend has just dumped him and who also finds himself watching a lot of TV. At first, Steven can sense that Chip is a little odd (on their first “Date”, he takes him to see how the giant cable satellite works.) Over the course of their several adventures (including jousting at a Medieval Times themed restaurant and having a karaoke party where Chip covers “Somebody to Love”, by Jefferson Airplane) Steven realizes that Chip is far too clingy and may be causing more trouble than he is worth (especially in the scene where he finds out that the woman at the party that Chip sets him up with…was a prostitute. “You think a girl like that would hang out with us if we weren’t paying?” Chip asks matter of factly.) Chip desperately tries anything to keep from losing Steven, even violently assaulting another man interested in dating Steven’s ex-girlfriend (played by a hilariously smarmy Owen Wilson.) Eventually, Steven tells Chip “I just don’t have any room in my life for a new friend.”  Steven parts ways, leaving Chip alone in the middle of the pouring rain (rain always being a visual metaphor for somber feelings in the movies.)

Soon, Steven’s life is turned completely upside down as Chip orchestrates a series of schemes that successfully get Steven fired from his job, thrown in jail, and even made to look like a complete jackass in front of everyone who cares about him most (including his best friend played by Jack Black, in a very straight role.) Finally, Steven must confront Chip once and for all (in an action climax comically inspired by “Goldeneye”) if he is ever going to get his life back to what it once was. One of the most interesting aspects of “The Cable Guy” is that the plot could be something out of any number of obsessed-stalker thrillers which were very popular in the 90’s ("Cape Fear", “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle”, “Single White Female”, “Unlawful Entry”, ect.) Yet, this film is still able to successfully incorporate dark comedy, and some darker thematic elements, into it's thriller plot. The whole film seems as if Carrey, Stiller, and Apatow were intentionally, and courageously, trying to go against everything we, as the audience, had come to expect in a Jim Carrey movie (at that time.) Carrey brilliantly plays a character that couldn't be more different than any he had played before (Even Ace Ventura would find Chip Douglas to be an obnoxious pest.) Carrey’s performance paints a sad portrait of a man so lonely and consumed by television media that he is almost pathologically incapable of grasping what is considered acceptable human behavior. That he does this while also keeping the character funny, albeit darkly, is a testament to his brilliance as an actor. This performance would later pave the way for his best performances: Truman Burbank, Andy Kaufman, and his character in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”

It’s really unfortunate that the initial reception of this movie was so bad. Maybe it was the expectations most people had for what they expected from a Jim Carrey movie; maybe some thought it was just too soon to make the biggest star on the planet play such a deeply troubled & unpleasant character (is this what they pay stars $20 million to do, some asked?) It was a minor box office success (but still coming no where near the numbers of Carrey’s previous hits) but was met with mostly negative critical reviews (Roger Ebert called it one of the years 10 worst movies! Although his partner, Gene Siskel did like it.) I’ve always concluded that “The Cable Guy” was a vastly underrated film; a film with a great cast (in addition to Broderick, Black, and Wilson, there is also Leslie Mann, Eric Roberts, Janeane Garofalo, and even Still himself) accompanied by a wildly courageous performance from Jim Carrey and a strong offbeat visual style in Stiller’s wonderful direction. Yes, It’s dark; its thematic undercurrent, satirizing the evils of watching too much TV, is troubling. But it is also a sharp, edgy, manically funny, & wickedly subversive comedy whose satirical targets also include the media's seemingly never-ending coverage of celebrity scandals, popular TV shows & movies, and finally, the wisdom of turning off the TV once in awhile, and reading something. 

Blu Ray Details:

"The Cable Guy" looks and sounds terrific on Blu-Ray! Yes, there's going to be a little graininess (it was made in 1996!), but it is not distracting. There are some very interesting special features including:

-Deleted Scenes

-HBO First Look

-Gag Reel

-Rehearsal Footage

-A Jerry Cantrell Music Video

But the best special feature is an audio commentary recorded by Judd Apatow, Ben Stiller, & Jim Carrey. These three guys need to do more commentary's because they are equally hilarious and informative. Not only do they talk about the movie, but they also talk quite openly about the notorious backlash that came afterwards. Needless to say, they remain proud of their work. This is an excellent commentary and worth the price of the Blu Ray, especially if you are a fan of this movie!

Movie Review: Scre4m

The fourth installment of the horror francise,“Scream” (spelled Scre4m), picks up 10 years after the events of “Scream 3” (spelled 3cream?). Survivor Sydney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell) returns to her small town of Woodsboro only to find herself wrapped up in yet another bloody massacre, orchestrated again by a demented man (or woman?), wearing a black robe and a ghost face mask, who likes to call their victims and taunt them with movie trivia questions (preferably of the horror movie kind) before dissecting them quicker than they can dissect the horror genre itself. David Arquette & Courtney Cox also reprise their roles as Dewey (now the town sheriff) and Gale Weathers, former hard nosed journalist turned wife of Sheriff Dewey. There is also a whole new assortment of characters, fresh for the filleting, and a new generation of horror movie rules that most be followed in order to survive.

There is a word being thrown around a lot these days in the movie blogger world; it’s called “meta.” This is not exactly a new word but it’s used to describe any kind of movie that is so self-aware of its very being that it seems to transcend the idea of simply being a movie itself, and becomes more of a commentary on the idea of being a movie. Well, “Scream 4” takes this definition to its logical conclusion by being a movie that is SO self-aware that at times it feels more like a parody of itself, rather than a horror movie. Every step of the way, characters (including the killer) make numerous references to horror movies (even the idea of reboots and sequels that go on far too long) that it is very difficult to really give this movie much of a review because it has already premeditated the criticisms.  It already knows that it is a sequel merely cashing in on the success of the previous films (11 years later); it already knows that when characters say, “I’ll be right back” in a horror movie, they won’t be right back. And that is the problem with “Scream 4”: It is so savvy about the rules of the game that there never really is a game. It’s just one long running commentary about…itself.

The original “Scream” was something of a rarity in 1996. Before that, horror movies seemed to have run their course. They had recycled just about every clichéd scare while also repeating them in an endless string of sequels. Horror movies began playing in emptier & emptier theaters (Freddy & Jason were “dead” and Michael Myers would soon be) until “Scream” came along and proved that there was still some fresh blood left in the genre. Unlike a lot of what came before, this one had a fresh take: what if the characters had all seen every horror movie and were aware, not only of all of the clichés, but also how to use this knowledge to outwit a killer who was patterning himself on horror movie conventions.  What could be more “meta” than a horror movie about a cast of characters who know they are in a horror movie?  Also, what could be more unsettling than a horror movie that dared to ask the question, "can movies be blamed for violence in our society?" But the difference between the original "Scream and "Scre4m" is that it actually took itself (and that question) seriously enough to work as a scary horror movie. "Scre4m", most of the time, takes itself as seriously as a Mad magazine parody of itself which all but kills any semblance of horror. 

To be fair, a lot of the dialogue is very clever (more than most horror movies even) as characters dissect the conventions (or the ‘rules’) of horror movies and apply them to their current situation (being the latest victims of a deranged psychopathic murderer who is patterning themselves after a killer from the previous movies.) There are discussions here that comment on torture porn, “Asian ghost horror”, remakes, reboots, and even the “found footage” genre that has inspired recent films like “Cloverfield” & Paranormal Activity.” The movie does away with the slickness and gritty realism of recent horror movie reboots (notably “Halloween”, “Friday the 13^th, & “Nightmare on Elm Street”, which this movie also comments on) in favor of a jokier and more self-referential tone. At times this works great (particularly in the opening scenes which, while not scary, are quite funny!) Also, it is fun to have the original cast back; Neve Campbell & Courtney Cox seem to be the only ones acting as if they are in a horror movie (while David Arquette comes off having less fun as the bumbling sheriff; Maybe his recent separation with Cox had affected his mood. Although, his "Axel F." cell phone ringtone is a nice touch.) Other notable standouts include Rory Culkin (as a cinema geek who knows the new horror movie rules) and Hayden Penettiere as a fellow cinema fan, but far to gutsy to just be a geek.  

Yet, for all of its wit, "Scre4m" is completely devoid of anything scary. The movie seems far more interested in commenting on itself than it does providing anything closely resembling the frightening opening sequence in the original “Scream”. In that, Drew Barrymore played a teen that gets a frightening phone call asking that immortal question, “What’s your favorite scary movie?” before she is brutally attacked for getting the question wrong about who the killer was in the original “Friday the 13th.” In "Scre4m", there is never really any suspense because the characters never seem to act like they are in any real danger; they aren’t in a horror movie so much as in a horror movie ABOUT horror movies. They constantly comment on it as if they were providing their own running commentary of the movie. But maybe this is the movies point: have we, the horror movie audience, become so familiar with this genre that we have also become numb to its tricks? That “Scream 4” works so tirelessly to stay ahead of an audience so savvy of it may be why it completely fails at being scary or suspenseful. If this series is going to continue, they’d better pull back on the self-awareness just a bit and take the scares a little more seriously (or at least have the characters pretend that they are in a horror movie.)

Overall, “Scream 4” had enough fun moments to make it an all-around decent flick. It is a lot smarter and more interesting than most films in this genre. Also, the ending brings the 90’s franchise into the modern world with a savagely perverse twist that effectively skewers our whole media-obsessed culture. I just wish the movie had a couple of decent scares! It is inevitable that the long-running horror franchises devolve into self-parody; the more familiar with them we become, the less scary Freddy, Jason, & Michael Myers become. The last really scary movie I saw was “Paranormal Activity” because it relied, not on stylish filmmaking or special effects, but on good ol’ fashioned mystery for its scares. One rule of franchises that “Scream 4” did not point out would easily apply to itself: with all of the great horror franchises, that element of mystery is there in the beginning. However, that mystery is eventually diluted by a parade of never-ending sequels and reboots that render our most frightening movie monsters no scarier than a cheap rubber Halloween store mask of their likeness. 

. 

Movie Review: Hanna

The action film “Hanna” tells the story of a 16-year-old girl, Hanna (played by Saoirse Ronan), who lives in hiding with her rouge government operative father (played by Eric Bana.) Together, the two live off the grid in a harsh Finland arctic environment where Bana teaches his daughter to speak several languages, hunt with a bow and arrow, and to defend herself when that inevitable day comes when her growing curiosity about the world (informed largely by an encyclopedia and some Grimm fairy tales) finally inspires her to leave home. When she finally does leave, she discovers that the real world can be a bit harsher than her fairy tale version of it led her to believe as she finds herself being pursued by other government operatives (led by Cate Blanchett) who will stop at nothing to apprehend her (for reasons she will learn later.) In order to survive, she becomes a full-on killing machine who proceeds to decimate any operative scum who threatens to get in her way.

If the plot feels like a familiar mash-up of “Leon: The Professional”, “La Femme Nikita”, the “Bourne” movies, and “Kick-Ass”, it is, but only on a surface level; but it is not what a movie is about, it is about how it goes about it. Joe Wright’s “Hanna” goes about it in all of the exciting ways. It has a surprising amount of sophistication, particularly in how it reflects the Grimm fairy tales into aspects of its plot. But at its heart, the film is really a coming-of-age story about a young woman who must rely on her wits, and her ability to adapt to changing environments ("adapt or die" her father instructs her), in order for her to, not only survive, but to continue to grow and invent herself as a young adult (to survive the sometimes harsh realities of life, in general.) It's not exactly John Hughes, but the movie is thematically much richer than it's mash-up plot would lead one to believe. 

“Hanna” was directed by Joe Wright (director of “Pride & Prejudice” & Atonement”) and this time he leaves his period costumes at home in favor of a big bucket of buttered popcorn genre movie excess! In “Pride” & “Atonement” he displayed a beautiful visual style (there is an awesome long continuous take camera shot that explores a post D-Day battle field in “Atonement”!); now, he takes that visual style and uses it to energize his action sequences with a tremendous amount of style. He also finds a way to employ more of those long-continuous takes in the action scenes (a great example is Bana’s fight with several men in an underground parking garage.) In addition to his great visual style, Wright also brings a warm human touch into how he handles the complexities of a character like Hanna. Unlike a lot of modern action directors who would've had her in a skimpy outfit firing machine guns before the end of the first reel, Wright seems to have far more respect for his character than that. Yes, she does kill a lot of people in various ways, but she is also allowed to possess real intelligence, particularly in her curiosity for the brand new world she is inhabiting.

"Hanna" also boasts an impressive cast: Saoirse Ronan does a terrific job balancing a starry eyed innocence for the world around her with a savage ability to dispense brutal violence without any sign of remorse (disturbingly, she has probably been sheltered from this emotion as part of her training.) She also has some very nice scenes in which she discovers electricity, boys, and friendship. Eric Bana also does a good job balancing the sweet, caring father with a penchant for dispatching anyone who might threaten his daughters life. Cate Blanchett continues her streak of great character performances by playing a truly cold villain; one with a smooth southern charm and a frightening lack of humanity. At times her performance seems to be chewing the scenery. However, it is such tasty looking scenery! 

On the heels of two amazing musical scores from fellow industrial/electronic artists Trent Reznor and Daft Punk (“Social Network” & “Tron: Legacy”), the Chemical Brothers bring their own unique musical style to their original score of “Hanna”, and it is quiet brilliant! Their music works wonderfully with the amped up visuals and even brings a surprisingly playful tone to some of the non-action scenes. I downloaded it last week and it has continued to play in heavy rotation on my IPod.

Overall, I really liked “Hanna”! Like Kevin Smith’s “Red State”, this is a genre film that took me by complete surprise. It proves that a solid action movie can still be made without it having to be completely mindless. Also, like Hailee Steinfeld showed just a few months ago in the Coen Brothers' "True Grit, Ronan proves that a young actress can still hold her own in a genre typically dominated by male action heroes. Not that there is anything wrong with showing off the physical assets of very attractive people, but it is nice to see an action movie starring a young woman whose sole function is not objectified as just eye-candy with a hand gun.

Movie Theater Experience:

I saw “Hanna” at a 2pm show at the AMC in the Eden Prairie Mall. This would have to be one of my favorite movie theaters! It includes a long, long hallway full of beautiful illustrations of movie icons, and also crisp and clear digital sound & projection. I highly recommend a visit to this theater!

Movie Review: Source Code

Albert Einstein once spoke of insanity as “doing the same thing over and over and over again, but expecting different results.” If this is true, than the sci-fi thriller “Source Code” hopes to have some fun with that idea. The movie stars Jake Gyllenhaal as a military pilot who becomes part of a top-secret government program called the “Source Code.” This is a computer program that allows him to transfer his consciousness into it, where a virtually simulated world is fully reconstructed giving him the ability to exist within it. This world depicts the events of a terrorist bombing on a train from earlier that day. Once inside, Gyllenhaal has 8 minutes to discover the location of the terrorist bomb before it blows up the train; once the 8 minutes are up, the train, and he, explode! Then, he wakes up in a bunker being controlled by technicians…and tries it all again.

“Source Code” plays a little bit like one of those video game where you are forced to play a level over and over and over again until you pass it (wow, remember what it was like to play a video game and not be able to save your progress? What about running out of quarters? Ah, those were the days. Man, I am glad those days are over!) Anyway, once inside this 8-minute loop, Gyllenhaal discovers clues about, not only the location of the bomb, but also who the bomber might be. If he can uncover his identity, then he can be apprehended before he can hit his next terrorist target.

Now, how much of the logic of this story actually makes sense after the movie has ended, I do not know. What I do know is that while it was happening, I really enjoyed it! Duncan Jones, who also directed a very low-budget sci-fi film called “Moon”, directed this movie. “Moon” was a very good film that showed Jones was a director with considerable visual style (most of the visual effects in that film were models and miniatures) but who could also tell a story in a way that kept me wanting to know what was going to happen next. “Source Code” is a movie just like that. He brings his visual flair (there is a great shot of Gyllenhaal jumping off of a train and the camera following him in one continuous take as he roles across the ground and gets back up. I love when a filmmaker shows me something I haven’t seen before!) and he also keeps the suspense going.

He is also given plenty of assists by an impressive cast, which includes Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, and Jeffery Wright. At times, the dialogue gets a little simplistic and on the nose (listening to Jeffrey Wright explain what the Source Code is still didn’t make a lot of sense, even with the light-bulb analogy; maybe the less said the better), but the cast does the best they can with it. Gyllenhaal in particular brings a real vulnerability and intensity to his role that, not only anchors the movie, but also further establishes him as a good leading man.

Where the movie really strains credibility would be the ending. Obviously, when we go into any movie we know it is only make believe. However, the magic of storytelling is that a good story, well told, can make us forget about that and feel as if we, the audience, are experiencing the story as it unfolds (regardless of how many light sabers and dinosaurs may be involved.) Therefore, in stories dealing with the fantastical, they must set up the ground rules (the ‘internal logic’, if you will) of its ‘make believe universe’ if we are to ever really buy into it. In this case, I can accept that a machine was invented that can cause a man to relive the last 8 minutes of someone else’s life before they die. However, I cannot accept what passes for the ending in “Source Code.” It’s as if the filmmakers became wary of sending us out of the theater with any inclination that something vaguely depressing happened, and just tacked on a silly happy ending which does not fit in with the internal logic set up earlier in the film.

Having said that, the ending was not enough to ruin my overall enjoyment. "Source Code" is a really entertaining popcorn movie with some impressive performances and some cool visual touches. It is also refreshing to see a science fiction film with a strong enough story that doesn't need to depend on non-stop mindless action to entertain. Instead, the movie explores the implications of an intriguing question: if we knew that we were going to die in 8 minutes, how would we make those final minutes count? I guess the answer to that question might be easier if someone as fetching as Michelle Monaghan were also standing right in front of me, but that's another story. 

Movie Theater Experience

I saw “Source Code” at the 9:25pm show at the White Bear Township Theater. It was a good experience, overall. Before the movie started, I made a trip into the game room and found an “Independence Day” pinball machine! Anyone who remembers the cultural phenomenon of that 1996 sci-fi action movie might also feel the same kind of chill that I did. I loved that movie when I was a kid and I saw it 6 times in the theater (2^nd only to “Jurassic Park” in theater viewings.) It seems like every movie theater has a pinball machine based on some old movie that most people have probably forgotten about. What is it about seeing these pinball machines that fills me with nostalgia, but also a little bit of sadness? Is it because I can remember when these were movies that millions of people were once talking about, now all but immortalized as a functioning pinball machine that will probably not be replaced when its number is up? Or is it just a reminder of how much time has passed, and yet it all still feels like yesterday.