Southpaw

I love sports movies. There I've said it. I came to a not-so-surprising but still somewhat surprising revelation after recently watching 2015's Southpaw. I've thought of it before, but it hit me square in the face this time around. All boxing movies are remakes of Rocky to one extent or another. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it do make things a tad predictable at times...

From nothing to greatness, boxer Billy Hope (Jake Gyllenhaal) is the light heavyweight champion of the world. He grew up in the system and made something out of himself because of his boxing ability, which his 43-0 record attests to. Billy loves his wife, Maureen (Rachel McAdams), and their daughter, Leila (Oona Laurence), more than anything. It's the point in his career though where Billy doesn't win as easily, taking far more of a pounding in the ring than he used to. Still, he believes and his manager believes that his best days are still ahead of him. That plan and hope for the future though is ripped apart when tragedy strikes his family, putting Billy into a tailspin that causes him to lose everything, including his daughter. He sinks to rock bottom and has nowhere to go but up. Where will he hopefully find his redemption? Back in the ring, going back to the basics of the sport he love(d) so much.

What is it about boxing stories that work so well in film? My thought is the underdog status that hovers above the sport. Boxing is a sport that can chew up its competitors and spit them out in an instant. One loss, and that's potentially it. Your career could be over, your chance at a title belt gone because of one punch, one fist landed. So what do folks love so much about that premise? The redemption factor, a second chance, an opportunity to prove what you're capable of, fighting back against the sport that seemingly wants you to fail. When those second chances turn into success stories...yeah, it makes for a good movie.

From director Antoine Fuqua, 'Southpaw' is a really solid, familiar and well-acted boxing story that certainly shows the impact of Rocky some 40 years since the original's release. It's not that 'Southpaw' isn't good. It is. It's really good, but no matter what I did I couldn't help but feel I'd seen the movie already. First off, the trailer (I'll include the link below as always) gives away a HUGE FREAKING TWIST so don't watch it. Fighter is at the top of his game, he tumbles, must climb back up. Whole scenes felt duplicated from Rocky, from Million Dollar Baby, from Warrior and plenty of others I'm probably forgetting. Now the beauty of that quasi-duplication is that what it's mimicking (or following in footsteps) are damn good to classic movies. So yeah, that's my biggest complaint. It isn't original. If you've watched sports movies, you've seen Southpaw...but it's good, really good.

Man, Jake Gyllenhaal is the absolute best. I don't know if there's a more talented actor currently working in film. He follows up his best performance yet -- last year's Nightcrawler -- with another excellent performance, bringing to life the rags-to-riches-to-rags Billy Hope, a fighter who's made something out of himself with the unwavering support of his wife, Maureen (an excellent part for McAdams). For starters, Gyllenhaal got into extreme physical shape and certainly looks the part of a champion boxer. He looks natural and believable in the ring, a vital part of any sports flick, a believable athlete in the lead. More than that though, it's an acting performance dripping with intensity, rage and tension, a man not too far from going over the edge and constantly pulling himself back to try and make things right. There are some huge, gutting, absolutely draining moments that Gyllenhaal shows (again) what a great actor he is. Can't wait to see what he's up to next!

What does a good underdog need? A coach who isn't gonna take his crap, who instead is gonna push him to his limits and then keep going. In the Mick role, Forrest Whitaker is a scene-stealer, a great match to Gyllenhaal as Tick Wills, a gym owner who works with kids in the city and a former boxer himself who saw his fighting career cut tragically short. He's worn down, beat up by the world but keeps on going. The movie's most effective moments are these two beat-up fighters just talking, shooting the breeze, feeling each other out. Their chemistry is pretty flawless developing a relationship with some extreme highs and lows. Along with McAdams and Laurence (a very talented young actress), look for 50 Cent in slimeball mode as Billy's boxing manager, Naomie Harris as a social worker, Beau Knapp as a friend of Billy's who on his training team, and Skylan Brooks as Hoppy, a teenage fighter Billy works with at Tick's gym.

As emotionally effective and heartfelt as the more emotional scenes are, 'Southpaw' is at its most comfortable in the gym and in the ring. The fights are well-choreographed and brutal as a high-level fight should be. You grimace as the punches land, as the blood starts to flow and the fighters try to punch their way through a fight. Billy's principal rival -- in more ways than one -- is a tough, fast-talking Colombian fighter, Miguel 'Magic' Escobar (Miguel Gomez), outfitted with a brutal punch but the fundamentals and footwork to match it, an all-around specimen. The finale packs the biggest wallop, both in terms of the adrenaline-pumping fight but also the emotion wrapped up in it. Like the best sports movies, you find yourself rooting for our guy, for Billy to come through, to put his demons aside and do what he couldn't. Excellent ending full of excitement as one round turns to two and on and on. Oh, and the training montage is superb. You need a superb training montage.

Nothing flashy, but an excellent cast -- especially Gyllenhaal and Whitaker -- with a familiar but extremely well-told underdog boxing story. Highly recommended. Now bring on the newest flick in the Rocky franchise, Creed!

Southpaw (2015): ***/****

Everest

When asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, English mountaineer George Mallory famously answered "Because it's there." The world's tallest point, Everest has long been a source of the impossible, of reaching up to the heavens and doing something humans simply aren't meant to do. In doing so though, climbers take an incredible risk that often results in death. Nowhere is that shown better than the recently released 2015's Everest.

It is 1996 and Mount Everest remains a climber's dream. Things have changed though as expert climbers now guide expeditions up the famous mountain -- the tallest point on planet Earth -- for hefty sums that hopefully get those climbers up to the top where they become one of the few to accomplish the feat. Among those expedition and guide leaders are Rob Hall (Jason Clarke) and Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal) who have different outlooks on what they do but are both expert climbers. In a crowded climbing season in '96 as many other expeditions go for the summit, both Rob and Scott lead their own teams up. Weeks of preparation and acclimatization ready the teams for a go at the top -- almost 30,000 feet up, the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner -- but no one can know what awaits them on Everest's slopes. There's only a small window to even make a go at the summit, and the window is closing fast.

From director Baltasar Kormakur (Contraband, 2 Guns), 'Everest' is based on the 1996 Mount Everest disaster that claimed five lives (as far as this story is concerned). Obviously, don't read that link if you don't want MASSIVE SPOILERS. The story itself gained notoriety when author Jon Krakauer -- who was part of the expedition -- wrote Into Thin Air, a bestselling book documenting the disaster. It was even quickly turned into an ABC TV movie. This retelling though? Wow. What a moving, uncomfortable and incredibly difficult movie to watch. Trailers and commercials portray this film as more of an adventure story, of spectacle, but it is far-more emotional and personal than I thought. All this is a compliment by the way. It isn't exactly tearing up the box office, but an easy movie to recommend.

Where 'Everest' succeeds best is in its on-mountain portrayal. Much of the first hour is spent establishing the hellish environment the climbers and guides will be attempting to climb. Even base camp is at 17,000-plus feet. By the time you reach anywhere near the summit, you're in what is called 'the Death Zone.' Your body isn't meant to survive in those situations and is literally dying. Kormakur's film gives a window into this terrifying world where ice crevasses and avalanches, frigid temperatures and impending death await around every corner. Even the experts struggle to do it, much less the climbers they're trying to help. The 1996 season for years was the most deadly as the mountain claimed double-digit lives, and you see why. To say you climbed Mount Everest is an incredible accomplishment, but it is far from a given that you will make it to the top.

So that cast...yeah, pretty decent. Jason Clarke is on the cusp of big things, and this is another part that shows off his impressive talent. He's likable, believable and delivers a very real, very human performance as a mount climber who knows the danger but also the glory of making it to the top and finds himself weighing that knowledge in a life-and-death situation. He has some great scenes with his wife (Keira Knightley, excellent as usual) that really help humanize him and give the Rob Hall portrayal another level. Another excellent performance comes from Gyllenhaal (one of my favorite actors) as Fischer, a free-spirit who thinks only legit climbers should see Everest's summit. Hall and Fischer are competitors but still good friends who make a business decision as the final go at the top of the mountain nears. Two excellent performances.

That's not enough though because...well, it just isn't. The main focus on the climbers is Josh Brolin's Beck Weathers, a 40-something Texan with a wife (Robin Wright) and two kids at home, John Hawkes' Doug Hansen, a mailman who's neared the summit twice but come up short both times, Naoko Mori as Yasuko, a climber who's reached six of the seven tallest summits in the world, and Michael Kelly as Krakauer, the journalist writing a story. For the rest of the guide teams, look for Sam Worthington (why is he not in more, better movies?!?), Emily Watson, Martin Henderson, Ingvar Eggert Sigurosson and Thomas M. Wright. Some good performances, especially Brolin and Hawkes and Worthington, among the bunch to round out an impressively assembled cast.

Two things worth mentioning that come as a surprise and make the movie difficult to watch. As I mentioned, previews, commercials and trailers portrayed 'Everest' as far more of a spectacle flick and adventure story because at its heart, it is. It's human beings doing the impossible and attempting to climb Mount Everest. So looking at it solely in that vein, it is a haunting, beautiful movie where Mount Everest becomes an incredible, eye-popping visual character. The long, intimidating and foreboding shots of the mountain in the distance or from far below are a sight to behold. Aided by composer Dario Marianelli's score, the snow-capped, windy, rocky set-up establishing shots are an easy success and a treat to watch. Then you see a speck of a human being traversing up the mountain and it all puts into perspective how difficult climbing the world's tallest summit really is.

The counter is the depths of emotions that get thrown at the viewer. Quasi-SPOILER alert, but the climb doesn't go anywhere near as planned and several lives are lost. Some of the deaths are quick and shocking as we see the Death Zone tear the climbers up as the frigid temperatures and lack of oxygen wreak havoc. The other deaths are slow and drawn out -- with some surprises along the way -- that produce some truly heartbreaking scenes. Surprisingly emotional with a haunting final shot. Not an easy movie to "like," but a very pleasant surprise and a big success on just about every level, regardless of how its doing at the box office. I definitely recommend NOT reading about the 1996 expedition before going to see this one. Go in with a clean slate.

Everest (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Nightcrawler

Name the best actors currently working in Hollywood. You know what name doesn't always come up but definitely should? For me, Jake Gyllenhaal's name certainly belongs on that list with movies like Prisoners, Zodiac, Jarhead, End of Watch and Brokeback Mountain to his name. There's a new movie at the top of the list, 2014's Nightcrawler.

Living in Los Angeles in a small, sparsely furnished apartment with no job, a crappy car and no real prospects, Louis Bloom (Gyllenhaal) is looking for a career. He just doesn't know what. One night as he's driving on the expressway, he drives past a flaming wreck as two police officers pull an unconscious woman from the car. Two cameramen rush past him to get footage of the incident, footage they intend to sell to local news stations. The better the footage? The better the money. With that, Louis sees a new possible career. Through some dubious means, he gets a used video camera and even hires an assistant -- an intern really -- to help him navigate Los Angeles in the dead of night in search of the best, the juiciest (read = bloodiest, most graphic, most grizzly), and most salacious footage. How far is Louis willing to go to create this new niche for himself? Is there even a limit?

Yikes. What a movie, a movie I didn't expect when I headed into it. The plot description mentioned a driven man in L.A. muscling into the world of crime journalism. That is an apt description, an accurate one but one that only gives a sense of what's coming. There's so much more happening here. Reading more into the film, I was a little worried when I saw Dan Gilroy had both written and directed 'Nightcrawler.' Not a hugely recognizable name but one who's worked pretty regularly in Hollywood. My problem was that he'd written Real Steel, Two for the Money and The Bourne Legacy, two films I really didn't like and one I was disappointed in. Making his directorial debut, Gilroy doesn't disappoint, shaking off those disappointments (for me at least, and THAT'S what matters) for an incredible movie to watch, both uncomfortable and entertaining.

There's no place to start here other than Gyllenhaal. When I say I didn't know what to expect of the movie heading into it, it's because of Gyllenhaal. This isn't a movie about L.A. crime journalism. This is a character study of a man in L.A. crime journalism. It isn't an action movie as some previews and trailers might have you think. This is Jake Gyllenhaal's movie, and my goodness, he delivers a captivating performance. You meet his Lou early on and think "Okay, nerdy, quirky dude with no real skillset who's still trying to make something of himself." Yeah, that's what you think. There's so, SO much more to this performance. There is little to nothing in the way of background about Lou got to this point, but as you see the movie develop, you just know that backstory is not a pleasant one. The details? They would be as uncomfortable -- if not more -- if we learned more about Lou.

So how do you describe this character? Hmm, well....Lou is insane. He's a lunatic. He's a sociopath, and Gyllenhaal brings him to life with each passing scene that gets more and more uncomfortable, unsettling and downright scary at times. You laugh at times because what he says is so profoundly wrong. Lou Bloom isn't well-educated or come from an upper class background. He learns. He teaches himself, and he plans. His life is cold, calculating and bottom line with everything. Can you help him? Yes? You're okay. Are you expendable? Watch out. Gyllenhaal commits to the part from his simple wardrobe to his slicked back hair, his lifeless eyes transitioning immediately to rage-filled eyes ready to explode. This is an incredible acting job. It's early for movie awards season, but Gyllenhaal definitely deserves Best Actor consideration.

Three other key parts dot the movie, starting with Rene Russo as Nina Romina, a news director at an L.A. news station looking for some ratings. She sees the talent in Lou but doesn't realize the depths he'll go to for a story or footage. Riz Ahmed is excellent as Rick, Lou's poorly paid intern who is desperate and needs work, dealing with all of Lou's drama and outbursts. Last but not least, look for Bill Paxton as Joe Loder, another nighttime crime journalist who butts heads with Lou and his general aggressiveness.

What Gilroy does so well is build up and create this world. The glimpses of daylight in a 117-minute movie are rare. This is a nighttime movie for the nigthcrawling world. This is a story on the streets of Los Angeles, the fluorescent and neon lights paving the way. It's a dark, grimy, gritty and incredibly violent world. The business is cutthroat if you want to make a name for yourself. You have to push the limits, and in Lou's case, slam through those limits and make up your own. The ending is about as close as you get to a more mainstream action movie, a chase through the open, empty streets of Los Angeles as Lou and Rick push those limits. It builds to an ending I found disappointing, but one that works as you think about the reality of the world we live in right now. Sadly enough, people are incredibly interested in the gory, graphic, bloody and horrifically violent. That's it. That's all.

Oh, and Jake Gyllenhaal is excellent. If you like that sort of thing.

Nightcrawler (2014): *** 1/2 /****

Prisoners

It was a movie that seemed like it was a sure thing to snag some Oscar nominations. Powerful, dramatic acting, incredibly dark subject matter, and a whole lot of talent assembled for a cast. And what did 2013's Prisoners get nominated for? Exactly....one, that nomination for Best Cinematography. Okay, yes, that's fair. It's certainly a visually interesting film, but nothing else?!? Come on now. So....anyways, yeah, this was an excellent movie.

On a gloomy, rainy Thanksgiving Day, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family walk down the street to celebrate the holiday with their neighbors, the Birch's. After dinner as the Dovers get ready to go, they realize their daughter and the Birch's youngest daughter are both missing, nowhere to be found. Minutes turn to hours, hours to a day, and there's no trace of either girl. The police are called in, including lead detective David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a suspect, Alex Jones (Paul Dano), found just a few hours after the disappearance was first reported. Looking for clues/evidence tying Jones to the girls though, the police come up empty and are forced to release him after a 48-hour hold. Keller remains convinced that Jones is the one who kidnapped the two girls and decides to take drastic measures to bring them back. All the while, Loki becomes progressively more obsessed with the case, leads drying up in one dead end after another. The clock is ticking for the two girls.

From director Denis Villeneuve and writer Aaron Guzkowski, this movie is a doozy. Movies about serial killers, murderers, diseases running rampant, they can all be uncomfortable in countless ways. But as for a movie about someone kidnapping two young children? Unsettling doesn't begin to describe that ever-developing story. I watched this one, and I couldn't help but think of my five-year old niece. This is a movie that isn't intended to entertain (obviously) but one you appreciate. Audiences responded to the film, 'Prisoners' earning $122 million, and it's easy to see why. The acting here is what acting is all about. It's human and real, and when it calls for some big, dramatic moments, it doesn't feel authentic. It is authentic, credit to Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins for making a film with a bleak, dreary look that doesn't pull any punches. Deakins picked up an Oscar nomination for his cinematography. Tough to see him winning against Nebraska or Gravity, but he deserved that nomination.

The 2013 film year was very loaded when it comes to acting, especially for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Maybe the issue here was deciding between Jackman and Gyllenhaal in nominations? These are two powerhouse performances and for different reasons. A family man and middle-class dad torn apart by his daughter's kidnapping? A detective with a troubled childhood past who similarly becomes obsessed with finding two missing girls? These are great parts, both actors stepping up to the plate and delivering. Jackman handles his role in the right way with scenes that could feel forced or overdone. He's driven down a road that most would never want to even contemplate, but he's going to get his daughter back. He doesn't care what he does, if it's right, morally or in the eyes of the law, or what his decisions will ultimately do to him. I thought Gyllenhaal's part was underrated, reminding me some of his part in Zodiac. His detective is tough, brutally efficient and the pressure is starting to wear on him, especially with Jackman's Keller pressuring him to close the case and bring his daughters back.

Brace yourself for the rest of the cast though. It is a halfway decent group if you're into that sort of thing. Maria Bello plays Keller's wife, Grace, progressively losing her mind as hours turn into days, needing her husband more than ever as he takes desperate measures to get their child back, Dylan Minnette playing their teenage son. The parents of the second kidnapped girl are played to perfection by Terrence Howard and Viola Davis while Zoe Borde plays their teenage daughter. Dano seems to be typecast a bit as the possibly crazy/unhinged guy but there's a reason. He's good at it, really good. We're never quite sure of his intentions, his background, his motivation, Melissa Leo playing his aunt. Also look for Wayne Duvall, Len Cariou and David Dastmalchian in key supporting parts.

Beyond the general uncomfortable feeling in tone and emotion that basically permeates every single scene in a 153-minute movie (It never drags), what makes it especially memorable and tolerable is that the story becomes a whudunnit story. Yes, obviously, we want to see the girls rescued. But as clues and leads and evidence dry up, we also want to see who did the kidnapping. Why did they do it? Guzkowski's script does a great job keeping us guessing right until the reveal. Hints are dropped here and there, but it's difficult to peg everything down as it comes along. Uncomfortable? Yes, but the mystery aspect makes it interesting on a far different level.

It all builds to an impressive reveal and finale, including a great final scene. Some viewers/critics call it ambiguous, but it really isn't if you think it through. I very much liked this movie, or at least as much as you're supposed to like a movie about child kidnapping. Appreciate it for the top to bottom strengths of the cast.

Prisoners (2013): ***/****

End of Watch

Being a police officer is one tough job, but I think there's one American city where it may be a titch bit worse, according to the movies that is. That city is Los Angeles where movies like Training Day, Colors, Dark Blue, Rampart, Street Kings portray a living hell of crime that police officers must deal with. Adding another name to the genre, here is 2012's End of Watch.

Partners since they graduated from the academy together, Los Angeles police officers Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Miguel Zavada (Michael Pena) are good at what they do, really good. As patrol officers, they're constantly working in the most violent, vicious parts of South Central, dealing with turf wars, arms dealing and rival gangsters. Beyond their partnership as police officers, the duo are best friends, bonded and extremely close through years of working together. As patrolmen, they feel somewhat limited though, questioning what they really accomplish from day-to-day. Working a routine shift though, Taylor and Zavada make a big bust featuring assault weapons and thousands of dollars hidden away. The day-to-day routine wears on them mentally as they see more and more of what people can do to each other, but with this seemingly normal stop, they may have stumbled into something deeper and far more sinister.

From director David Ayer, 'Watch' is interested in the reality of being a Los Angeles police officer. He cut his teeth on similarly dark-themed cop movies like Street Kings and Harsh Times while also writing Dark Blue, Training Day and S.W.A.T so in a way, he's created this Los Angeles cop sub-genre. Gyllenhaal's Brian is filming a short film for a class he's taking so he constantly carries a handheld camera while also attaching miniature cameras to both his and Miguel's uniform. We see the horrors of being a police officer from their point of view. We're on the ground with them, on patrol, in their car, making arrests. We see it all. It's an alarming, unsettling look at the life, one that in a film or real life, gives you an appreciation for what beat cops go through on a day-to-day basis.

The main dynamic here is between Gyllenhaal and Pena, and that's most definitely a good thing. These two young but experienced cops are the same age. So often, cop movies have a grizzled vet and an enthusiastic newbie, but that's not the case here. Taylor and Zavada are on the same page, are near similar milestones in their lives, and even their differences are able to bring them together. Ayer's script is ripe with those buddy moments, two brothers-in-arms busting each other mercilessly, the type of dialogue that flows naturally and effortlessly. It reflects a genuine friendship as two very talented, very skilled actors play off each other perfectly. Brutal realism aside, I thought the strongest part of the film is that relationship. Its a buddy relationship at its best. We watch, and it doesn't feel like acting, just the natural bull-shitting back and forth between two best friends who have been through the ringer together.

In a quasi-documentary format, 'Watch' follows our two lead officers closely, but we see all the aspects of their jobs and lives. The story is episodic, covering eight to nine months in a 109-minute movie. Taylor ends up marrying girlfriend Janet (Anna Kendrick), but we really only see two brief interactions between them before the marriage. We hear more as he talks with Zavada. We meet Miguel's wife, Gabby (Natalie Martinez), we meet fellow officers (menacing David Harbour, capable America Ferrera, and confident Cody Horn), superiors on the force (Frank Grillo and Jaime FitzSimons), and the gangsters, crooks and witnesses they meet from day to day.

The one thing that bothered me is both good and bad. Using the documentary style, there is a focus on handheld camera work. In small doses, that's a good thing. In bigger doses.....yeah, it's an issue. It becomes repetitive quickly, the act wearing thin quickly. The biggest problem is the counter. At times....at times, it does work because we are on the pavement with them. It's personal. It's emotional. It's hard-hitting. My other issue is a little more delicate. The story leans a little toward the cliched, even stereotypical in its portrayal of the gangland fighting between African American and Hispanic gangs. To a point, it's based in the truth to the real-life gangsters (I imagine at least, I've never been to South Central L.A.), but the portrayal was just too much for me, like Hispanic gangster Big Evil (Maurice Compte) explaining his nickname "My evil is big."

While the story leans in the episodic vein, the focus hones in on a more specific story in the final 45 minutes. Introduced early, we see Brian and Miguel get caught up in a drug cartel, one that doesn't appreciate any attention from two lowly, patrolling beat cops. The intensity and action gets ratcheted up, especially when the cartels go on the attack. It builds to an emotional ending, but one that disappoints at the same time because it doesn't go far enough. It almost does....almost...., but it goes for a safer ending. Still effective, just not as effective as it could have been. That said, the final scene is a gem, a great caper to an above average police story. Familiar at times but very good.

End of Watch (2012): *** 1/2 /****  

Source Code

The beauty of science fiction movies is that anything can happen. Can a real, red-blooded person do what is being portrayed in real life? No, of course not, but that is what a movie or a book or a graphic novel can do. They allow you to believe, to experience, to question, to ask, to wonder, and that's part of the reason what works so well in science fiction and across countless other genres.  That's what I thought about quite a bit as I watched 2011's Source Code.

Part science fiction, part mystery/thriller, 'Code' was a moderate success in theaters this past spring, earning over $50 million. Reviews were somewhat mixed, one claiming it was a poor man's Vantage Point because of a plot gimmick the story uses where we see the same (or at least a similar thing) on repeated viewings.  Just one more review that made me mad. It's not fair to compare movies at times, especially on something as minor as a plot device that has little to do with two completely different movies. Maybe you missed 'Code' in theaters, but don't miss it this time around. It is an above average, sometimes great science fiction thriller.

Army captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) doesn't know where he is or who he really is. He keeps waking up in the body of a complete stranger on a train outside of Chicago heading to Union Station. Across from him is Christine (Michelle Monaghan), a woman who apparently knows who he is. As Stevens tries to figure out what's going on, the train explodes as a bomb rips it to pieces, killing everyone on-board. He wakes up in some sort of hydraulic chamber, greeted on a television screen by an army officer, Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), and a scientist, Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright), who in cryptic snippets of conversation explain what they expect from him. A terrorist -- domestic or foreign -- bombed the train and indications are another attack is imminent. Through a controversial but innovative technology, Stevens can be transported into the body of one of the passengers just eight minutes before his death. He now is given the unwelcome challenge of finding out if the bomber was on-board, gathering any clues he can before he is "killed" over and over again. Can he do his mission in time though?

I'm not proud of that plot synopsis, but I think that's about the best I'm going to be able to do.  Attempting to explain too much will ruin your first viewing because the fun -- or the gimmick depending your level of cynicism -- is going along for the ride. How do all the pieces fit together? Is there something more sinister going on that we're not aware of at first?  All the questions are answered though, and unless I missed something major, I felt like the pieces fit together perfectly.  The science actually makes sense -- to my naive analytical, not so science oriented mind at least -- and doesn't try too hard to WOW! you with a new concept. Director Duncan Jones lays out the premise, explains it, and either you go along for it or you don't. I went along with it, falling for it hook, line and sinker. 

What took the movie to another level for me was the last half hour.  There was a moment where I got a little worried, sure the story was going down a road it just didn't need to go down.  I was wrong in my worries.  Some criticisms of the movie were about the ending, viewers and critics upset that the story went for a so-called happy ending.  I really couldn't disagree more. This is not a happy ending by any means if you actually think things through as to what the 'source code' really is.  Instead, we get an ending that is emotionally effective, delivering a message about the simplicity of life, enjoying the little things in a big world where it can feel like one person can't make a bit of difference.  Sappy? Maybe a little bit, but with ideas of fate, predetermination and destiny thrown around, the ending worked for me.

Now for the gimmick, and again, I don't want to ruin the movie for you by trying to explain the science. Here's a cliff notes version. When a person dies, the brain stores the short term memory going back about eight minutes. Imagine a light bulb being switched off, and that light that remains for the quickest of seconds. That is the source code, an alternate reality that exists in some other plane.  That is where Gyllenhaal's Colter Stevens continually finds himself in, always being killed once his eight minutes are up. From the director's chair, Jones never overplays the angle of repeating the same thing over and over, Ben Ripley's screenplay to smart to make that choice. The script has some fun with the repeating 8-minutes, making it enjoyable and never tedious for us. A truly unique premise, and one that delivers. If it fails, the movie sinks quickly.

One of the rising stars in Hollywood, Gyllenhaal is a great choice as the lead here. An actor who can also do thrillers and action, the 31-year old actor is convincing and believable in his part at all times. He handles the action and high-intensity scenes as easily as the softer moments, giving this character a heart as we find out his background (a surprisingly moving, effective sub-plot). Monaghan is good too in a part that through no fault of her own just doesn't have much for her to do.  She looks good though so there's always that. Farmiga and Wright are the opposite sides of the spectrum, those two people with all the answers, but will they be used for good or bad?  Four all-around really solid performances.

Quick addition as I realize the review is getting a little long in the tooth, the on-location shooting in my hometown, Chicago, is a great choice for this science fiction thriller.  The ending especially utilizes the beauty of the city on a crisp, clear fall day.  That's all.  Just wanted to put that out there. Chicago is awesome.

Source Code <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****