Dark Mysteries of The Deep

Blurred Cognizance

Fading into an unconscious State

Visualized Heat Sensors reveal an ominous presence

The unknown is either real or imagined.  Even though, their images grow closer into focus.

The Case of the Curious Ant

Drive

For a film with very little commercial hype, I was instantly drawn to Drive, starring Ryan Gosling.  The short preview I saw for the first time a few days ago showed enough to entice me from skipping out on seeing Straw Dogs, which was what I had planned on seeing this weekend for a few weeks now.  I’ll probably still wind up seeing it, but Drive definitely forced my hand into seeing it, which is exactly what I did this afternoon. 

The plot in Drive is a basic story of a man who tows the line of legality and finds that he’s been double crossed in the process.  This film then becomes a tale of setting things right, with a dash of vengeance stirred into the mix.

The story, if it was just for plot alone, would not be a winner on the story’s own merits.  What makes this film a rather unique and very intriguing tale is the mystery that is ominously looming with everything that surrounds the main character.  This is one of the best cerebral films I’ve seen in some time. 

Ryan Gosling’s character is a Driver.  He’s the getaway driver that operates in a fashion very similar to that of Jason Statham’s character in the Transporter films.  He’s extremely quiet, yet through facial expression and body language some of his character is revealed.  I say only some for a reason though.  It’s the not fully detailed, almost shadow-like nature of the character that is the draw.  The audience can see there’s more to him than we are, and then after the credits roll, had been shown.  I got the impression that he moved to the area 6 years earlier to get away from a past life, and that he was keeping as low a profile as he could, avoiding questions and the like.  But all this changes for him when he gets involved with Irene, his next-door neighbor and her son.  Genuine emotions are formed, not just for the girl, but also for the son.  His entire method of operating gets thrown for a loop from this point forward, where his stable calculations and under the radar way of doing business is tragically altered.

The ending is as open ended as the ideas are surrounding the past of the main character. It’s definitely a movie where more than one interpretation is possible, it’s only after resolving the matters of his past that I feel we, as the audience, are able to gather a solid opinion as to what happens once we get to fade out.

If you don’t like slower paced, cerebral films I would advise that you avoid this film.  While there are a handful of action centered scenes, that’s not the point of this film, and you can easily get your action fix on just about any drama on television.  If you’re going to see this movie you’ll have to accept that it’s chock full of one word statements by the main character, there’s a good deal to observe and the angles provided give you plenty of opportunity to do just that.  This is what I liked about the film more than anything, in that you get to play detective, psychologist and observer as you’re thrust into a world where answers may be what they seem, but the motivations of the characters are the real mysteries you’re there to uncover and decipher.  There’s a ton of layering and a very good use of sound. 

If you like this type of film I would recommend you run out to your local Cineplex and then glue your eyes to the screen, pulling as many clues as you can as you attempt to unlock the mysteries of this character’s past and then attempt to provide your mind an ending suitable to the ideas you’ve unearthed.

Source Code

Source Code

The new technology based time-travelling thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga.  Opened April 1st, 2011.

Seeing this is the first film I'll be reviewing for Sqwerm I'd like to detail my process up front, to avoid any "huh", "what" moments.

The way I see movie reviews in general is a very subjective medium that everyone and their brothers and sisters, and sister-girlfriends sister's put together.  The reason for this mass interest in movie reviews is that it's not as hard as those who do it professionally would like to convince you otherwise. 

For this reason you can find everything from blurbs on fandango.com/, to in-depth reviews on numerous other source-sites.  Since the user can easily do a google search, and find the review for whichever film they're considering laying down the forty or fifty dollars that the cinema will likely extract from them after all is said and done; I'd like to just get my take down, on record, a little differently than the others.

While I certainly, on most occasions, will not be as detailed or thorough as the long review, I will put a little more into then the blurbs and five word reviews found in cyberland.  This all stated, lets get into the Source Code.

Before heading down to the local Regal, a few blocks from my home, I often try to get myself into the mood of whichever film I'll be seeing that afternoon.  This time was no different.  I thought the previews did a pretty good job explaining the gist of the premise, without giving away the interesting details.  I knew this would be a film about a soldier who would be travelling back into the body of another man for the last eight minutes of that man's life, all in an attempt to curtail or stop domestic terrorist activity.  I knew there would be a bit of romance between Gyllenhaal and Monaghan's characters.  And I knew something would be some bit of conflict going on between Gyllenhaal and Vera Farmiga's characters.  All this worked out, except what they didn't tell you was that there really was a lot more going on thematically in this film.  You can find a trailer at enterthesourcecode.com.

So I knew there would be a sort of Groundhog Day thing going on, and wondered if they'd do a good job with the repeating scenarios or if it would simply make for an overly repetitive experience. 

To the film itself.  For starters I'll say the repetition was well done.  Bits of new information would appear as Colter Stevens travelled his way back into Sean Frentiss in each eight minute interval.  There were elements that they had to keep each time, but they put them in there in a neat way.  An example, A woman would walk by and spill coffee on Steven's shoe.  Later in the film, Stevens would give the lady a head's up, and watch her step.  Also pay close attention to the flashbacks that repeat each time Gyllenhaal gets transported back to the present day.  I'm not going to spoil it for you, but there is something in the flashback that is off and you'll later find out as the movie finishes up. 

The main themes in this film I saw were, The ability to Play God, What's good for the Goose..., Remorse and Repent, and Simply doing the right thing.

The ability to play God is not stated, however anytime something significant about going back and changing events in time, the idea must pop into your head.  A perfect way I find analyzing such impossible questions with no correct answer is to look at it as what would happen if no one tried, what then would or could happen.?  And what are we really supposed to do?  Is there a reason for this ability or tactic as being conceived, or is it all a test?  Anyhow, I may get a bit more thought provoked than the average viewer, but I think it's an important notion to mention.

Another unstated element to this film regards Business vs Employees so to speak.  Is the right for the worker outweighed by the future for the organization.  It's very subtle, and I'm towing a fine line without spoiling anything but after you see the film, just think for a minute, what reason could the head research scientist have for some of the decisions he makes on Steven's behalf, despite a repeated favoring towards a very different direction by the Capt.


Remorse is shown through Steven's own family shortcomings, and his drive towards helping those people on the train really reflect his need to atone for what he felt as a major dissapoint in his own life.

Doing the right thing falls squarely on the shoulders of Vera Farmiga's character, Goodwin.  She is posed with doing her job, obeying direct orders or doing what is right for another human being(s).

Altogether it played out well.  Could they have done things a bit differently and perhaps added a little more oomph at times?  Sure, but the same can be said about a lot of other films, and should not detract for the quality of what was made.

I'd reccomend this film for anyone who enjoys films with suspenseful overtones amongst a mystery, or for those who enjoy science fiction without out too much of what is typically included in its genre.

The next film I'm looking to see is Hanna, which opens pretty soon.  For more information and traditional styled reviews for Source Code or others, you can visit rottentomatoes.com, variety.com, and also imdb.com, a personal favorite for all things film.