Why all the hate for this film?

I've considered calling it 'Average' as 1-4 are negative ratings and 6-10 are positive ratings. Since 5 is in the middle, I wanted to call it 'Average' meaning that movie is eventually good and bad. But, then I came on an idea to call it 'Tolerable'. I was doing some rethinking whole the time, negotiating between 'Average' and 'Tolerable', but I've decided to name the rank 'Enjoyable' because my ratings are strict already. I simply couldn't feel good if I would rate some movie 5/10 whilst considering that movie is either tolerable or average. 5/10 is in my opinion movie which I enjoyed, meaning that movie could have been definitely much better and it lacks many things to receive a higher rating. Still, I may do some rethinking once again, now that you mentioned that rating I may have to do something to change it. But, as I am strict in rating movies I don't want to be strict with giving a rank too much of negative meaning, which in that case, I'll have to give all movies which I rated 5/10 higher rating which will ruin my whole rating criteria.

Don't understand why people need to "prove" themselves to the essentially anonymous populace of the internet.

You feel compelled to mention that you've numerous achievements and accreditations, specifically listing one degree, and appended a dubious disclaimer that you don't want to brag when the existence of these claims in your post is inherently bragging. As a side note, your other posts revolve on minor non-issues, critiquing the OP's English and a somewhat vague insult to another user. People say I'm an arrogant person myself when it comes to flaunting intelligence, yet I'm taken aback by the extreme height of the horse you're riding.
Personally, I just see myself as one who endlessly lectures for others' benefit, like a Shikieiki from Touhou. Speaking of...

If one wants to be perceived as smart for whatever reason, let it show in the quality of thought expressed in one's post.
You don't simply list off or mention various academic achievements. It's not just pointless in regards to validity, it's a sad and forced way to gain respect. Saying something like "take my word for it" adds detriment. Recall that you're trying to prove yourself to (in regards to you) random nobodies with this forced tactic, an already silly concept, but you're trying to get them to take your words at face value; you, who would also appear as a random nobody to everyone else.

Know that this is the internet, Colfer. I don't know how experienced you are communicating through it, but you're clearly not understanding key points about it. We don't just read everyone's posts in forums and take them all as the truth. Only the naive and idiots do that. If you, a supposed person of intelligence, gets off on boasting to the ignorant and stupid, then I'm not sure what to say (and just to be clear to others, this is a hypothetical scenario. I'm not implying anyone here is stupid). A proper intellectual would try to hold conversations as normal or, failing that, take it elsewhere. These conversations would be limited to just the point at hand, without useless fluff like how smart you are and how many certifications you have. Ideal compositions would simply contain irrefutable facts or thoughts and opinions with sound reasoning, advancing the debate. The other party would ideally follow suit and not detract with pointless comments.

Incidentally, attacking someone directly based on something trivial, like bad spelling, is a big no no in more ways than one. You attack the point, not the person (e.g. You don't go and say, "Your grammar is bad, so you're stupid and that's all I need to say to be 'right'"). You shouldn't care less about the way someone expresses their point, so long as it is a good point. I admit in my younger years, I spent more time on types of ad hominem than actually constructing good responses, but I discovered how silly that was. Having a post which brings question to one's validity of argument simply based on their spelling and grammar is as nonsensical and superficial as doing the same in a formal environment where the speaker is in casual clothing. Sure, it's jarring, but again, the manner of delivery is irrelevant as long as you can get the point across. Of course, if the delivery is -so- bad, like if you're unsure if the writer is typing his thoughts or mashing the keyboard, then it's understandable to question the writer.

Now, if the other person has a bad point or one that you find disagreeable, as is the case most of the time, same rules apply. Take the OP's (James) comments and your reply, for example. James liked the movie. He thought it was clever and thoughtful. He also made an assumption that people who didn't like it were stupid and couldn't comprehend the film. Naturally, that was an unneeded addition to his point. If I were to reply, I'd probably ignore that part, since I know I dislike people who go through -my- compositions and nitpick on a tiny little thing, ignoring the big picture. Else, I'd reply as normal and do a "P.S." calling him out with something simple like, "Don't generalize people you disagree with as simply stupid." Your reply consisted of the following, in order:

1) A pointless disclaimer.
2) An attack on James' spelling/grammar. It wasn't even that bad, compared to the horrors I've seen in my time.
3) An attack on James, employing sarcasm (for lack of a better word).
4) Another attack on James, via a rhetorical question.
5) Another rhetorical question with the same intent, but mainly there to ensure the snide tone.

When broken down to these basic elements, anyone can see this was not a quality post. Sure, your ability to write properly is nice, but anyone with sense would take from that post the same thing they'd take from childish, grade-school "yo mama" jokes or something. Utter garbage. Please review the topic at hand and your posts. Simplified, the topic is "I think Source Code is brilliant". Your stance, I gather, is that it's a nonsensical, yet entertaining film; however, across all of your comments you have the vast majority of your words dedicated to attacking others and bluntly presenting yourself as an intellectual. You spend no words explaining the reasoning behind your opinion. You just lazily state your opinion and end it at that. Pinxit has a marvelously thoughtful reply, the epitome of what I like to see in a debate. Your reply to that (and this is where I couldn't help but put my palm to my forehead): boasting, and worse. You ended the post with the laziest, "you might have a point, but keep explaining until I like it" tactic.

I haven't seen your post history, but as presented here, you are the worst type of self-proclaimed intellectual. What type of intellectual, when presented with an idea, has to just sit there and be spoon-fed explanations? Instead of your laughable reply (essentially, "I'm smart and have studied this field of science, but explain it to me"), you ought to have pondered the possibilities yourself! Then, as an intellectual, you should have come back with a counter-argument thoroughly detailing the results of your thoughts. It would compare and contrast the theory of parallel words versus the movie in regards to Pinxit's post. All you came up with, and I hate to put words in your mouth again, especially another iteration of the same thing (give me some credit when you hardly had any substance to work with), "Well...the movie explicitly shows a simulation, and I'm not willing to explore the possibilities of anything other than that on my own. Please do it for me." Laziness in the highest degree! How could someone be an academic with this line of thinking?
Take some time out of silly stuff like what's shown currently in your posts and put it into meaningful debate about the topic.

Now, I realize the irony of my post, especially since I won't discuss the topic at hand, but for someone apparently so smart, with achievements and accreditations, you are poorly representing that, and I felt the need to give some advice and insight to help improve not just the quality of your replies, but maybe your way of thinking. If you really want to seem smart, put some effort into it.

tl;dr: Anyone who skipped to this is a tool.

"Matey"?

Well, since you asked so politely, the movie never tells us that the train environment that Colter experiences is a simulation. This is just one of several guesses that Colter makes about what is going on, but he is wrong, which he comes to understand after he gets an explanation from Dr Rutledge in a bit of dialog that runs from about 32:55 to 33:20. The key lines spoken by Dr. Rutledge are near the beginning and near the end of this dialog:

(1) Rutledge: "It's ah, quantum mechanics, parallel calculus, it's very complicated." Colter: "Try me."

and

(2) Rutledge: "Source Code is not time travel; rather Source Code is tme reassignment. It gives us access to a parallel reality..."

In between these lines, Dr. Rutledge explains that the similarity between Colter's brain and the brain of the late Sean Fentriss enables Colter, with the help of Source Code to access the eight minutes of Fentriss' memories prior to death and through that, link into the parallel world. Obviously, this is Sci-Fi magic, but it enables the thought experiment at the heart of this movie's plot, which is based on the concept of parallel worlds - which is a real, current hypothesis in physics.


So, either you weren't quite paying attention when you watched this movie, or you're not quite as smart as you think you are.

Nobel Prise

[deleted]