Source Code is the Son of Bowie's (sorry, couldn't resist) sophomoric cinematic outing, and it's pretty smokin'.  Like 2009's "Moon" before it, Duncan Jones grapples with themes of isolation, identity, and, as Jodo mentioned, exploitation - where existence is more of a state of mind than a state of being, and the ideas of time paradox and alternate realities come into play.  It gets a tad jumbled once it starts tripping over its own logic, and while your mileage may vary, the ending didn't quite gel with my sensibilities.  Saying much more about the plot would risk spoilers, and this is the sort of film that's better appreciated the less you know going in.

Unlike Moon, Source Code is much more action-thriller, and it really deliver on that front.  The suspense is engaging, thanks to a constantly harrowing 'race against the clock' atmosphere, and it's commendable how Jones is able to bring in smart, subtle variations every time the story jumps back to its eight minute timeline.  It's also a brilliantly shot movie, with stunning aerial shots of Chicago and great angle work from both inside and out of the train's set piece.  Gyllenhaal does good as the film's protagonist, and it's easy for the audience to buy into his bewildering predicament.  Discovering his true identity is as much a part of the overall mystery as it is to finding the bomber.  Michelle Monaghan plays the unwitting foil to Gyllenhaal, as well as part of the emotional anchor in what could have ended up being a cold and calculating affair.  Vera Farmiga also plays a surprisingly well rounded character; even as just a face on a screen, she expresses a wide range of reactionary emotives throughout.

I'm relatively new to Chris Bacon's musical work, having only heard some of his score material when he collaborated with James Newton Howard on Gnomeo & Juliet earlier this year.  While he mostly goes for minimalistic and momentum-building here, his proficiency in mixing up the orchestra with electronics is notable.  Not an especially memorable soundtrack, but contextually befitting nonetheless.

It's a little more mainstream and Hollywood than Moon, but Source Code's got enough smarts to hang with some of the better sci-fi movies of recent times.  On top of which, it's an excellent mystery thriller, making it a winning combination.  Indeed, this is the first time in a while where a movie delivers exactly what I wanted to see from the trailer.  That ending, though..... it manages to infuriate me the more I think back on it.

I was out with my dad and we were looking for a film to see. We were sort of between showtimes and so we opted to check this one out. The movie sounded interesting, but I hadn't really planned on seeing it. I guess what I gathered from the trailers was that it was an action/romance with a mild sci-fi premise. Turns out that was a little misleading! Overall I was actually really impressed. I went in expecting a rather average, "chase" film and instead got a rather well-made sci-fi, intrigue film with a little romance and philosophy on the side. There really wasn't any traditional action to speak of.

Even though the film didn't blow my socks off, I had a good time and was pleasantly surprised. The film was well paced, had some really nice scenery and shots, and the story kept me quite engaged and had a little depth to it as well. The ending didn't bother me too much, but I think I know exactly where you're coming from, Angela. During the film, I thought for sure it was going to end (abruptly) right when the captain's life support was turned off and the digital world was frozen. I was thinking, "Man, this is a pretty cool ending and kind of gutsy too." Then, time resumed and the film kept going. I was kind of shocked and disappointed at first, but, as the ending continued, I thought they handled things pretty well overall. It did lean more towards fiction than science. All I can figure is that either they wanted an obvious and traditional happy ending or maybe the studio/backers demanded one. To a limited extent I totally agree with you, Angela, but I guess in the end I just sort of went with it and said, "Eh, that works." XD

Bottom line: I'm glad that I ended up giving it a chance as it was a surprisingly good time.

I get what they were going for, but I still think it's an unfortunate storytelling choice.  To quote from another forum's thread:

*ENDING SPOILER* ..... It helps show the idea that by using the source code program, he wasn't just going back in time, but also every time he went back, it basically created an alternate universe.  Most of the other ones end the same, but since he didn't die in this one, it keeps on going now.  But to me, the theme of the entire movie up until the ending seemed to be the exploration of constant reliving and redying, and what constituted reality for a man who was essentially dead.  The movie would've been very poignant with him dying at the last source code.  The actual ending -- implying the creation of multiple realities -- takes all of that philosophical exploration away.  It's a deus ex machina to let the protagonist "live" to the end.

The ending is logically inconsistent, although so is time travel in general (not bad; just reality). Now that I think about it, Source Code reminds me of the short story Steve Fever from this book: http://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Nights-Ot … 1596062401

Both Source Code and Steve Fever make use of repetitiveness very effectively, although the story by Egan does not involve time travel.

Edit:

After thinking about it some more, Source Code is also similar to the novel Cosmic Engineers, by Clifford Simak.

http://johnnypez9.blogspot.com/2007/11/ … neers.html

The similarity I found was the use of potentialities. Cosmic Engineers used future potentialities, in which they visited a potential future to extract useful information, while Source Code used past potentialities to extract information. That's really what time travel is, since going ahead or into the past is not what will happen or did happen. You'll get a skewed version of reality. I don't believe there's any way to coherently explain Source Code, anymore than there's any way to coherently explain Back to the Future. Source Code had a very extreme violation of logic at the end, which forces one to pick "time travel" or "parallel universe" (both can be justified and shown to be wrong - at the same time). Most people won't notice that delicious subtlety.