Source Code–Movie Review

source-code-movie-2011 An action thriller centered on a soldier who wakes up in the body of an unknown man and discovers he’s part of a mission to find the bomber of a Chicago commuter train.


Source Code, starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan, is “an action thriller centered on a soldier who wakes up in the body of an unknown man and discovers he’s part of a mission to find the bomber of a Chicago commuter train.” I cannot describe the movie much more without ruining the plot so I will leave the overview at that.

I disagree to an extent about the movie being classified as an action thriller. There are certainly action and thriller elements to the movie, however, the movie is primarily dialogue driven with action sequences kept to a minimum. This might be bad news for those looking for nothing but action.

I’ll start by saying that the movie was extremely good. It might even have made it into my Top 5. The storyline was original – and so was the “gimmick”. In my books, uniqueness is weighted heavily and certainly helped boost my rating. The dialogue was also one of the best parts of the movie, although I have seen a lot better (think The Taking of Pelham 123).

There was a distinct humanistic element of the movie – seemed a little tacked on near the end but did help to develop the characters and add charm to the movie. Usually these elements are added to appease the critics – whom seem to be won over almost entirely by the amount of human emotion in a movie. Unlike some movies that overdo the love story, this movie kept a delicate balance between nauseating emotion and emotionally devoid.

I saw the movie in AVX (better sound, bigger picture) but it wasn’t necessary. The movie is story and dialogue heavy with little action and special effects to make use of AVX. Although, in general, I do recommend AVX as it is a great experience – just choose the movie wisely. I will say that for this movie, you will enjoy it just the same in a regular theatre (or even at home for that matter).

Overall, the movie was fantastic and definitely worth the watch. There was essentially a two-part ending – with the second part being completely unnecessary. In fact, I think the movie is a lot better if you ignore the last 5 minutes and just pretend it ended at the “first ending”. For those who have seen the movie, you probably know what I mean. 5 out of 5.

Spoilers from this point on ——————————————————>





The first part of the two-part ending that I described above is the happy scene when everyone is on the train happy and laughing and the lead actors kiss. It would have made a fantastic ending to finish off the movie with them kissing and then have time stop. Or, alternatively, for Jake to realize that time had not stopped and he had beat the system. Unfortunately they decided to continue the movie past that part and add in a twist that was completely unnecessary and I believe really hurt the ending of the movie. He should have died happily after having accomplished his goal.

Reliving the memories of another individual through a computer program is a neat concept. For a while I was confused by the fact that he was able to act outside those memories. I later determined that anything that happened outside those memories were an extrapolation performed by the Source Code “software” – the calculus that was referred to, although I cannot be sure.

I do have some questions for those who have seen the movie:

Why were the memories changing each time he went in? Perhaps more extrapolations made by the software depending on slight variations in his behaviour? That is one thing left open in my mind. Otherwise the movie made a lot of sense (excluding the ending).

Can anyone explain how it makes sense that he was then able to influence reality from within a computer program? I presume it was just an artistic twist they decided to add that I believe really took away from the movie. Ending was garbage in my opinion. Felt tacked on just to add another twist and something to think about. Not all movies have to leave you guessing – it would have been perfect to leave it as it was.

What did you think of the movie? Any help interpreting it Is welcome.

Is the Nintendo 3DS a Bust?

Whenever, I am truly interested in something, I tend to do a lot of research on it. Needless to say, when Nintendo announced the launch of their next big thing – the Nintendo 3DS – I never stopped reading about it (partially due to interest, and partially because the news was inescapably everywhere).


Haven’t heard about the 3DS? Have you been living under a rock?


I am certainly not going to get into a full review here, as they are very easily found via a Google search. If you want all the nitty-gritty details, see IGN’s Review.What I will cover here is my overall opinion and a summary of the neat little device.

  1. The 3D is great

    I was lucky enough to get a chance to test out the device days before it came out and was very impressed with the 3D. I played around with some 3D pictures I took with the 3DS and they looked awesome too

  2. The 3D is limited

    Apart from the fact that not all of the games for the device will fully utilize the 3D to its potential, it is still really neat. However, you will likely find yourself turning off the 3D a lot to avoid headaches and to avoid having to deal with the very narrow viewing angle with which you can actually see the 3D (reiterate: the viewing angle is VERY small)

  3. The games are crap

    The 3DS has some great potential given how good the 3D actually looks, unfortunately most of the games available as of its release fail to impress. Pilot Wings may be the only game released that truly makes good use of 3D. Most of the other games were unimpressive or targeted towards young children (with Street Fighter as a possible exception)

  4. It’s expensive as hell

    When your options are to pay $299 for a PS3 (which is a powerhouse console that includes a Blu-Ray player) and $250 for a 3DS the correct choice is obvious. Also, games will be priced around the $50 mark, only $10 less than console games . . . That being said, if you already own all the consoles you want and are currently reading this article in a bathtub full of money – you might as well run out and pick it up.

Okay, so after all that it probably looks like I think it was a bust. For the most part, now, I think it is. However, I do realize that it has a ton of potential with future improvements. As the games get better and the price drops, it will certainly start looking very pretty. I definitely think Nintendo is on to something here but in the meantime I await the next iteration.

Have you run out and purchased one yet? If not, why?

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of UBB in Canada


I recently joined in on a podcast with Shaminda (Shum) Attygale, a friend of mine and fellow digital marketer, to discuss UBB and what it means for Canadians. This post will serve as a summary of what we discussed, however, for the full story check out the podcast. You can also check out his other podcasts here.

What is UBB?

UBB is an abbreviation for Usage Based Billing. The name mostly speaks for itself. It is the concept of billing customers based on their internet usage. This is already done to extent today, but a recent decision from the CRTC could change the amount that large telecoms are allowed to charge smaller internet service providers (ISPs). What this means is that smaller ISPs will no longer be able to offer unlimited bandwidth – one of their biggest value-propositions.

Canadians fought back against this decision, however, and this issue is now currently in hot debate between various levels of government, the CRTC, telecoms and ISPs as well as the Canadian public as a whole. To become involved in the discussion and get information on the topic visit:

I will now attempt to present my arguments with as little bias as possible. However, it should be very clear that I am very much against UBB.

The Good

  1. Heavier users will pay more for heavier usage

    Currently a relatively small number of users fall into this category, however, soon most of us will as our consumption of media on the internet increases

  2. Economically you should pay more if you use more

    This is true, however, due to the extremely low cost of providing additional data, the actual cost of an additional GB should be much less than ISPs are looking to implement

  3. Will help cover increased provider costs

    There is also merit to this argument. Interesting however, is the idea that although providers have had to incur costs to expand their networks to meet with traffic demands, their overall costs may have actually decreased over time. Technology continually lowers the cost to provide internet service. So arguably provider costs are largely offset by increased technological efficiencies/a growing user-base (more fees)

The Bad

  1. Internet usage is vital for many businesses

    In the digital age, many businesses rely on affordable internet access. If, for example, a video streaming site were to operate under with UBB in place, they would not be able to cope with the cost of delivering rich media that is high in bandwidth. The cost of doing business would quickly become too high, stemming innovation.

  2. Canada is already lagging behind other countries

    Many other countries have comparatively cheaper internet use rates (and mobile as well). If we allow ourselves to increase the cost of accessing the internet we will fall farther behind other developed nations.

  3. It eliminates competition & stems innovation

    As touched on previously, new innovative companies like Netflix attempting to revolutionize the way we consume content will be forced out of business. This is a big problem for consumers. UBB may also indirectly (or directly) be a means of eliminating the competition. Large ISPs like Bell and Rogers that are also cable companies support UBB because it reduces competition for their media businesses.

The Ugly

  1. Unfair pricing

    For a moment, let us assume that UBB is fair and will not hurt the economy (a BIG assumption). What should the price be to deliver a GB of data to the end consumer? Presumably the cost for the provider to deliver it plus a reasonable margin. ISPs are proposing to charge FAR above their costs. It has been estimated that it costs an ISP about 3 cents to deliver a GB of data (Source Article) and yet many ISPs charge overage fees in the neighbourhood of $1-$2 per GB. Margin like that charged for any other product would not be acceptable for consumers – so why should be pay so much for something that is so important in our daily lives?

What do you think of UBB? Agree or Disagree? Do something about it