Wasn't planning on reviewing this initially, but I don't know, it started to grow on me a little bit...

Source Code is The Matrix meets Groundhog Day, a concept-driven action thriller that could have been nothing but a cheap gimmick, but surprisingly finds something original in its familiar premise. To be honest, I hadn't even heard of this film until the night I watched it, but it had Jake Gyllenhaal, a 90min runtime, and an intriguing premise, so I thought 'fuck it, let's see how it is,' and I was pleasantly impressed. Duncan Jones has shown his skill as a director with Moon, a similarly high-concept film that plays out as more of a character study than an exploration of its ideas, the direction Source Code goes for. The problem here isn't at all Jones' directing, I'd say that was the highlight of the film for me, sharp and fast-paced, my biggest gripe was the script, generally unable to convey its far more complex ideas, almost as if the writers didn't quite know what potential they had, but then that begs me to ask the question, why was a sequel being planned, but never released? The ending/cliffhanger of the film is abrupt, out-of-place, kind of like a last-minute afterthought to what was already a fascinating movie on its own. Now, what I believe happened was that a sequel was never in the plan originally, because Source Code feels like it has three separate finales, two of which are conclusive, but the legitimate ending is such a rushed explanation of what we just saw, and it bugged me a little bit, especially since a sequel didn't even happen. Now, I sound negative, but let me assure you, Source Code makes a respectable attempt to distance itself from the majority of average action flicks, and it's carried by another terrific outing from Gyllenhaal, but I wish there was a decision made on where the studio and crew wanted this film to go, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Could it have been more thought-provoking? Yes, but at its best, Source Code dares to defy cliches of the action genre, and proved to be clever and fun, but never brilliant.

70/100