A Modest Selection of Mindfuck Movies -with pictures.

In honour of “I Am Thinking of Ending Things”, A Modest Selection of Mindfuck Filums for those who like to be treated to a self-defeating devilish, logically illogical scenario.

Let's dispense right-away with the number one's number one: “Mulholland Drive”. There. Done. See also the rest of the trilogy: “Lost Highway” and “Inland Empire”.

Chris Marker's short “la Jetée” begat “Twelve Monkeys” with Brad Pitt that begat “Twelve Monkeys” the TV series (whose main actor pops up in the 4th season of 'Westworld'!). Boris Vian's "l'Herbe rouge" arguably led to Alain Resnais's "je t'aime je t'aime".

Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman ...I actually suspect they are but one person operating under different aliases.

“Cronocrimenes” (aka “TimeCrimes”). Your man glimpses a terrifying figure stalking a woman in the distance and decides to intervene. Big mistake. In the same ballpark, “The Butterfly Effect” (two inferior sequels followed). "The grandfather paradox": if you killed your ancestor, would you exist? Huh... See "Dark", "Terminator", "A Sound of Thunder", and what about "TimeCop" where the Lottery is a trap to catch time-travellers!  Not to forget René Clément's "It Happened Tomorrow". 

Ten-star “Primer”. The genius of “Primer” is that its final scene opens the way to further (multiple? never-ending?) revisions, meaning that the film we have just viewed can be seen as a temporary version! Heavy, man...

The “Saw” movies belong here, since 1) the deus ex-machina named Jigsaw manipulates the other characters, entrapping them in his complex schemes despite giving them the illusion of acting out of their free will, and 2) what we see is but the product of devious editing (see also “Mother”...): what we are presented with is not the main plot, but the double plot engineered so as to serve Jigsaw's masterplan.

                                        aka "The Dublin Disaster" - available at Am*zon

“A Tale Of Two Sisters” (South Korea). “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not” with la p'tite Tautou. “Mother” (South Korea again), a terrific demonstration of the power of narration. “Jacob's Ladder”.

Personal favourite of mine: “The 13^th Floor” - the best Phil K Dick adaptation from a non Phil K Dick story ever shot. “Spider Forest” (South Korea) – wonderful. “Possible Worlds”. “The Truman Show”. “Revolver”. “Reconstruction” (Danish).

Your woman in “I Am Thinking of Ending Things”: “Everything is tinged.”

Your man in “I Am Thinking of Ending Things”: “There is no objective reality.”

(taken from “I Am Thinking of Ending Things”)

Kylie's video for “Come into my World”.

SPOILER AHEAD SPOILER AHEAD It has been argued that the second half of “Tenet” paves the way for the first half. Let us recap the main plot briefly: Agent 000 and his merry partner R-Pattso -that's Robert Pattinson to you- attempt to prevent the end of the world, since said apocalypse (what is at stake in the final battle, in case you hadn't got it) would prevent the time reversing machine from being invented in the future and falling into their hands, thereby depriving them of the means to go back in time and “get up to lots of stuff” (in the past before the film started, and including the opening scene assault on the Ukrainian opera) – and additionally prevent the end of the world.

SPOILER AHEAD The resolution of “Dark” is equally ingenious; regular readers know how I feel about “Dark” (I am rather liking it, yes). Our hero and his babe prevent the time-machine from being invented so that the alternate doomed universes cannot be created. Doing so, they erase their own duplicated existence – but disappear happy in the knowledge that they will be born naturally in the original universe where they are fated to meet.

A bit of literature.

Alain Robbe-Grillet: “Les Gommes” - to name but one of his amazing novels. Let's also mention "la Jalousie", whose readers cannot escape the present tense -despite the confusion of past and future events- and are not afforded the breathing space of a narrator (Remember les frères Dardenne's "Rosetta"? Its camerawork suffocates the viewers by clinging to the protagonist for the entire duration of the movie.) Robbe-Grillet went on to create the hypnotic "l'Année dernière à Marienbad". (By the way, talking of “Les Gommes”, it would be interesting to read it side by side with Simenon's “La Mort de Belle”...)

Check out the extraordinary work by French literature professor Pierre Bayard who deconstructed the likes of 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd' and 'The Hound of Baskerville' via literary criticism theories that suggest that characters develop and lead a life independent of their creator's intention! - Hence plot impossibilities...

Another hero of mine: Kurt Vonnegut “Galapagos”.

Loig Allix Thivend, “The Dublin Disaster” - available on amazon. Loig Allix Thivend, “The Rise of the Shadows, 54+1 Stories” - shit-hot stuff and no mistake. Check out in particular “The Controllers”: its author is pretty pleased with it. The Rise Of The Shadows - 54+1 stories: Synopsis 1996-2006 eBook: Thivend, Loig: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

In particular, if you liked the TV series 'Severance' you will love 'The Controllers' (written  a dozen years before, mind).

That “Line Under the World” Italian story from the 50s, which got adapted for the small screen in the 70s (can't recall the proper title, sadly). “The Tunnel Under the World”, Frederick Pohl.

“Happy Deathday”1 and 2. Great craic turbocharged by its main actress miss Jessica Rothe, not at all inspired by the likes of “Lola Rennt”, the never bettered “Groundhog Day”, that bank heist episode of the “X Files”, the “rewind” episode of “The Twilight Zone”, “The Edge of Tomorrow “, “TimeCode “, "Blood Punch' (except why oh why do only two of the protagonists retain memories of what happened and not the third one? Huh?), "50 First Dates" with - and these two names will strike fear into you: Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider. Talking of, you can also check out the underwhelming proto-“Groundhog Day” with a wanna-be Adam Sandler (as if the world needed one!!) titled "Palm Springs".

Infiiiiiiinitely better: the extraordinary "Everything Everywhere All At Once", a quantum physics comedy where Michelle Yeoh demonstrates the extent of her talent - plus you ca never go wrong with Jamie Lee Curtis...

Great craic: "Boss Level" or movie as videogame. In the same area, "Blood Punch" (see remark above) and "12:01". The usual 'if we could relive our life, what would we do differently?'   ('There's a lot of things / if I could I'd rearrange' - The Fly U2)

“L'Appartement” with la Bellucci - brrr...... Monica......  I had this theory, right? If any of the characters showed any bit of consideration towards any of the other two at any stage, the whole edifice would collapse. But they don't. And therefore...

Which brings us to the “Terminator” series. The problem with creating sequels was that they could not fit with the original premise: if Sarah Connor destroys the watchacallit that will permit the rise of the machines, then there won't be any future war with the machines, etc. Plus the terminators could not continue to come back to a path now straightened in Parts 3, 4, 5, 6... (I have lost count now). So, what the screenwriters did, get this, they changed tactics and solved the problem posed by the resolution in Part 2 …by offering alternative timelines. The (present) time-period terminators go back to in the last 2 or 3 instalments is not the same as the one in the first instalment. Ecco!

Free Will... the Nudge Theory... Tight Tank Tops... the Eternal Return.

“Irreversible”.  Martin Amis's “Time's Arrow”.  Takashi Miike “Imprint”.  “Stranger than Fiction” with... Will Ferrell?!??!!??  The vintage “Twilight Zone” episode with the Southern belle marrying the wrong guy.  “Sliding Doors”.

Please note: “mindfuck movie” is not a synonym for “final twist”, otherwise we'd be listing the likes of Agatha Christie, Night Shalamayan, Roald Dahl and so on...  No, the intellectual pleasure of a mindfuck movie lies in working out the unravelling taking place; piercing the mystery; reframing the plot within a grand scheme; appreciating the appliance of a certain logic to the apparent ongoing disintegration - because there is a perverse logic underpinning the plot, there is a carefully planned system at work. 

"The most beautiful things are those that madness prompts and reason writes" - André Gide

Exhibit A: “Seul Contre Tous” - Gaspar Noé. How many movies can you think of that credit an “ethical advisor”? The unbearable logic of the plot is that the protagonist keeps making it worse for himself – but he just can't see it that way. He can only react to the situation according to his -admittedly severely tainted- perspective. Yes, quite clearly, he is not a Very Nice Man ...but we can't help rooting for him nonetheless. His travails turn into a veritable cinematic tour-de-force.

 As far as I know nobody has dared adapt “Ubik” yet.  “L'invention de Morel”- Borges (filmed a couple of times), (“Death and the Compass”- Borges again.) Bradbury's concept short story "A Sound of Thunder" was turned into a terrifically enjoyable action/adventure movie in 2005 featuring Sir Ben Kingsley in a wig (...therefore he is a villain eh). 

“An Occurence at Oak Creek Bridge”. “The Escapist” with Brian Cox. “The Illusionist”. “Sleuth” with Sir Larry and Michael Caine. That episode of "The Avengers" in which the killer turns out to be a computer controlled house... 

They didn't know it was impossible - so they did it.

The Fall "A Past Gone Mad"

“Black Mirrrrr”. It may have tapered off a bit recently, but had provided us with so many terrific episodes. When they got it right in the first three seasons... boy was it sensational. I seem to remember a terrifying Xmas episode with John Hamm amongst others.

The honorary mother of all genuinely great mindfuck movies: “Triangle”. The ever terrific Melissa George ends up on a deserted cruise boat. Ends up on a deserted cruise boat. Ends up on a deserted cruise boat. Ends up on a deserted cruise boat.

“Memento”. Set a mighty challenge to the rest of the world and no mistake. ((Was never convinced by “Inception” -and this despite several viewings - which suffers from the same problems that plague most Nolan filums apart from his terrific first Batman: it is somehow confused and confusing but that's just my two-cents.))

“Coherence” with -of all people- your man Nicholas Brandon outta “Buffy”. The premise is ingenious: What would happen if our world …. ….. ….. with …. …... …...????? Makes you wonder, dunnit!  As with 'Man Bites Dog' where they didn't tell the protagonist's real grand-parents what the movie was about hee hee: the cheeky scamps shot the movie without telling the actors what would happen next.

“The Hidden”. One simple clever idea, brilliantly executed. Shamelessly ripped off by a recent episode of “The Twilight Zone”. Must also mention that it features our very own Kyle McLachlan in proto-Agent Cooper mode, hurrah! 

“Predestination” with Ethan Hawke. Now hold on to your hats! Simply gives “Dark” a run for its money no less. Basically, ........... becomes ............ and ............, which means that ...... is in fact ............ Bet you didn't see this one coming, right?

“Mr Nobody”, great piece of work that somehow flew under the radar. “Nueve Reinas” and “el Aura” with our favourite Argentinian actor Ricardo Darin.

Kurosawa's "Rashomon" offers three versions of the same story. What is "truth"? Is it only perception? Where do facts/actions end and interpretation begins? A certain view of quantum physics holds that nothing exists per se, but only in relation to other events.

“Spider”, Cronenberg and Ralph Fiennes.  “ExistenZ”.  “Identity” with John Cusack. “Donnie Darko”, which you may have heard of.  The first season of “Westworld” (the least said about the third, the better).  “Multiplicity”, a comedy with Michael Keaton and the ever beautifully haired Andie McDowell.  "Black Bear" and Godard's "Nouvelle Vague".  The first two seasons of “Mr Robot”.  “Fight Club”, the spiral logic / end of "Rant".

(“A Brilliant Mind”) (“the Others”) The "locked room" mystery of crime novels.

Nicked from a forum on “Tenet”: “Christopher Nolan should make a romantic comedy where 2 people meet at a party and fall in love, but it turns out one is from the future and the other is from the past and the party is the only present where they can be together.

But here's the real problem- the bass at the party is so loud that the couple can't hear each other talk. If they try to turn the volume down on the stereo, then the party dies, and their love fades away. Because physics.”

                                              Now guess which one is that? Go on..............

Stop Press! An article in The Independent on the subject of time loops (oh, yeah, forgot "Looper" with Bruce Willis): Why there’s more to time loop movies than Groundhog Day | The Independent . Its main point being that such stories have a moral function:    ...to accept death.

Columbo, "telling stories"

Columbo – The Juxtaposition of Narratives

Here is my argument: “Columbo” is about the juxtaposition of narrative layers.

Level 1: the Background Hidden Motive.

In fact, the first sequence of events is not even the murder itself, the act of murder being in fact motivated by an earlier state of affair. The murderer had been driven to commit the crime because of a hidden status that is being threatened with exposure. For example, the future murderer has been fiddling expenses, has been blackmailed, has been leading a double life, is having an affair with the future victim's partner, etc.

So we already have a story here.

Level 2: Reality.

What happens. The murder is being committed. We usually (but not always) see how. This is the base diegetic (=plot) level. This is the genuine narrative that Columbo will be entrusted with uncovering.

Level 3: the Official Version, aka the Staged Crime.

But the murderer doesn't just kill his/her victim. Nope, he/she elaborates a scenario designed to provide him/her with an alibi, the story here being that the perpetrator will get away with it – and, ding! Here comes a new, hypothetical, scenario (according to which the criminal will go free). Often, this involves disguising the time or place of death (an Agatha Christie favourite). Or else the murderer may put appropriate clothes on the victim's body (=disguise the circumstances of death), or pretend being a witness to something that never happened, etc. The objective is to reframe the act, to stage the scene, to lead the police in a wrong direction. This official version of events is imaginary, a construction on the actual murder.

Level 4: Enter Your Man. Counter-Masquerade.

Our hero often gives a wrong impression when he arrives on the (crime) scene. It is not uncommon for the criminal or the local figures of authority to question his presence (“Who is this man? What is he doing here?”) or mistake him for someone else. More often than not, Columbo is not recognised as a police officer, and his unkempt appearance leads his protagonist to instinctively underrate him (more about that later).

The initial appearance of Columbo is often tinged with elements of comedy (for example: look at the state of his car; or he's got tooth-ache; or he's brought his dog along; or he asks people to hold egg shells for him, etc.), which allows the scenario to give the usually smooth and socially higher (ie richer) criminal a false sense of security. Ergo, the criminal does not recognise the brilliant sleuth that we, the audience, know Columbo to be.

Level 5: the criminal plays to the gallery.

One of the figures imposées of the series is the moment when the criminal gets officially notified of his/her acquaintance's death or murder. As a rule, the perpetrator pretends to be ignorant of what happened, makes a show of being taken aback by the news (“What??”), and appears to hurt from the loss (as if, somehow, he/she is also victimised by the crime and -therefore- cannot be suspected). We can choose to see this as simple diegetic role-playing (=as part of the plot) to convince Columbo of the villain's innocence.

But this also points to another, clever, field of story-telling.

Level 6: Winking at the Audience.

So the villain pretends to learn about the apparent accident/suicide/murder. Cue the usual “I can't believe so-and-so is dead!”, which surely must have some viewers responding to their TV “Well you should, because you're the one who murdered him/her!!” (I know I do. I shout at my TV, me.). I believe this is precisely the point of this mandatory scene: it is meant to establish a knowing connection with the viewers: we are in on the joke. It is a clear example of “dramatic irony” (=the audience knows more than some of the characters do). Interestingly, I often have the feeling some actors deliver that particular line badly, as if sending a cheeky wink to the audience: “See? My character is a faker!” It is part of the game, part and parcel of the “Columbo” viewing experience, and must count as an extra meta (=reflecting on itself) layer.

Level 7: Troubling Inconsistencies, or the Emergence of Columbo's Critical Skills.

The investigation has now begun. The police is being led in a false direction (such as: this wasn't a premeditated homicide, or it was an unfortunate accident and nothing more, or the death was the result of a botched robbery). The problem is, Columbo notices details that don't match with the official version. He comes across apparently tiny, trivial, facts that don't fit. What happens here is that Columbo shows himself to be a more observant, astute -and more importantly independent thinker- investigator than expected by the criminal (and pat yourself on the back for uncovering an extra hypothetical layer!). Columbo does not idly subscribe to the official version that is Level Three and, instead, follows his own methodical, logical, line of investigation. He does not obligingly abide by the narrative he has been fed by the scheming criminal and is sometimes advised to approve by higher-ups.

Level 8, a hypothesis of mine: Misgivings and Targeting.

Now level 6 is of a different nature. It does not depict a diegetic, visual, sequence of actions; it is a hunch of mine. My contention is: it is at this stage (after noticing troubling inconsistencies) that Columbo senses that the person of importance he is dealing with is the criminal. Now this layer of revelation is never made clear in any episode; at no moment does our man make a stand of punching the table and exclaim to the heavens “That's it! I know so-and-so did it!”. It is only gradually that the show conveys the sense that Columbo has made up his mind. Surely though, this must happen fairly early on, considering the fact that he will spend most of his investigation/ episode time grilling one person.

This hypothesis (Columbo decides that his main interlocutor -and incidentally guest star of the week- is the murderer) allows for a new, complex, layer: the detective is now conducting his investigation according to his conviction/hunch rather than following the procedure that would seem to apply to the case as presented; he probably posits the fact that the murder did not take place as previously imagined (there must have been another modus operandi); the other protagonist is not only lying (as to his/her actual guilt), but is also actively trying to mislead him. Oh, and the other protagonist is capable of murder (many is the episode in which the criminal compounds his/her case by murdering another person such as a witness or an accomplice, or even tries -sacrilege of all sacrileges- to murder Columbo himself).

Columbo is now proceeding by stealth.

Level 9: Desperate Rationales.

This narrative agenda/layer is basically what got me started on this analysis in the first place. For if there is one classic leitmotiv of “Columbo”, one recurring element in each episode, it is the moment(s) when, prodded by Columbo faux naif questioning, the villain desperately tries to explain away an inconsistency that threatens to scupper his/her masterplan. “Well, the criminal must have (done this or that) because...” “But of course! Ah yes, this is surely what must have happened...” Top of my head, I can't think of other series in which the suspect acts this way in each episode, thereby often digging his/her own hole, instead of just replying: “Well, I have no idea -Why should I anyway!” as any sane disinterested person would do. Instead, the suspect tries to be clever and embarks on another flight of fantasy; he/she creates yet another (ludicrously improvised) scenario that structurally builds up on Level Three ...except that Columbo has already progressed to Level Eight.

Level 10: the Cat-and-Mouse Game.

We the audience are now aware of the previous narratives, we have been guided through the different layers. This one level is for us and us only: we are offered the enjoyment of witnessing the duel between Columbo/Peter Falk and his antagonist/opposite celebrity. We know that he knows and the other one probably knows that he knows. This layer of awareness is, in itself / by nature, a spectatorial one (that is to say, it is for the viewer - it is not part of the plot itself). It is also -as far as purpose is concerned- a reflexive one: should we wish to reflect on how the plot unrolls, we are invited to wonder how Columbo will manage to expose the criminal.

Finally, the Synthesis, the Final Word.

I am loath to call this a proper level as it does not really offer a new narrative. ((Plus it ruins my perfect ten-point structure.)) So let us just make a few points about the resolution of “Columbo” episodes.

At the closing stage of a “Columbo” episode, we have gone beyond: background story, motives, actual proceedings, make-believe, role-playing, misunderstanding, hypothesis, fantastical rationales, and duel.

The final stage is not simply preoccupied with the mere reconstitution of the murder procedure – its recap is often a brisk affair, taking no more than a couple of minutes. No, what this final scene often does is offer a reflection of has happened since the original pretence (ie the murder that kick-started the encounter). Quickly getting rid of this detective story staple that is the necessary admission of guilt, the episode often concludes by reflecting on the relationship that has developed between the two protagonists over the course of the programme. It is not uncommon for example to feature a psychologically nuanced exchange between Columbo and his counterpart that testifies to their grudging respect -and even friendship. (Columbo has even been known to demonstrate sympathy for the criminal, as in the episode with Faye Dunaway or the one with the young female TV producer).

The point is: the murderer is not only admitting his guilt, he/she also concedes defeat to Columbo (more on this theme underneath).

“Columbo” is not a whodunnit, and it is more than an ode to police procedure (“CSI”... to some extent). It is more psychological than factual; it is a battle of wills; and it is meant to be great fun. 

Coincidental Narratives

Not all sub-plots actively vertically serve the resolution of a “Columbo” episode. Its most famous, recurring side-plot and alternative sphere of existence is of course made of the references to Mrs. Columbo. Apart from one episode (starring a poisoner), Mrs. C's existence never really serves the plot, is never really part of the crime story / police procedure. The couple may go on holiday in Mexico or on a cruise - this only counts as context. The phone-calls Columbo sometimes gives his wife serve as a distraction and -more to the point- introduce yet another (non factual, non diegetic) narrative.

In fact, the family theme is a fecund one in “Columbo”: check out the number of times our hero recounts a chat he had with a relative (file under: Background Story). And, this time, these references are significant, insofar as they can be categorised under the Slyly Relevant Meta-Reflexion label: meaning they do serve a purpose, they are part of the case's resolution. In this respect, they probably belong to Level Ten (Columbo's less than entirely sincere dealings with the suspect). Indeed, I was never entirely convinced of Columbo's anecdotes' veracity...

Filigrane

Two other angles of analysis can be applied to “Columbo”: Class Conflict and Competence.

It will not have escaped anyone's attention that most -if not all- of his antagonists belong to the upper class and are consiiiderably richer than him. This is hardly ever explicitly stated but always blatant - check out the size of their houses, clothes, cars, but also their often glamorous or highly lucrative profession. Hence a certain tendency for them to start from a default position of snobbishness. Namely, “Columbo” villains often make the fatal mistake of underrating him at first sight. As we know, first impression matters (see Level Four). They look down on his clothes, his cheap cigars, and of course his freakish automobile. … Never forget which country this is set in: the ultra-materialistic USA.

But the criminals' belief in their impunity is misplaced. They are not insulated by their millions or their fame, they mistake money for privilege. They can't even conceive this simple, terrifying fact: Columbo has no time for that. This doesn't wash with him. Even though he often expresses great admiration for their material success, this means nothing to his sense of justice: no matter what they imagine (And here comes another narrative!), he will arrest the criminal. In this sense, the series constantly plays on an equalising trope: no matter how rich and powerful, criminals will be brought down by a shabby dressed copper. This has to be deeply satisfying in an ultra competitive, greedy, ruthless society. Pride comes before fall.

Another underlying theme is competence. Now competence may be synonymous with material success - or it may not. Take for example the scene where a loser type burglar demonstrates to Columbo his skill at recognising real diamonds from cheap glass copies. Columbo duly bows to his knowledge.

More generally, the criminals Columbo comes up against are great professionals in their field of expertise. Most of them are renowned in their trade – and Columbo recognises that readily. Indeed, the good egg that he is never fails to acknowledge their talent and lavishes praise upon them, thereby giving them a (false) sense of security (“My wife will be thrilled, she's a huge fan of yours!”). But there is one theme to each episode these celebrated pillars of society don't suspect: by the end of the episode (see earlier remark), they will get to recognise Columbo's own expertise. He may not be an outstanding athlete, a great cook, or a brilliant wine taster – but he is lethal at reconstructing murder scenes. ...They messed with the wrong guy, so they did.

The series takes great care to show this: the criminal will get to recognise Columbo's own competence. Once again, this is satisfying: at a stretch you could present this idea as “it takes all sorts”, even authorities on psychiatry or chess, even MENSA geniuses, will recognise other people's own brand of talent.

Telling Stories

It is also worth noting that most of Columbo's adversaries are people used to addressing an audience (musicians, artists, politicians, TV presenters, media producers, psychiatrists, bosses, actors...) They are used to offering a narrative, telling stories; they have an active social life and are accomplished performers for an audience (no cooks, hairdressers, mechanics or cleaners here). Coming up with a crime setting scenario (Level Three) and playing to the gallery (Level Five) should therefore not be too much of a stretch ...or so they presumed.

Pacific Rim - A Review.

So -like- there are these skyscraper high robots fighting skyscraper big dinosaurs from outer space and they go WHAM!!!! and BOOM!!! and BANG!!! it's -like- totally cool yeah, awesome. The big robot, he goes CRASH into the monsterthingy, and the monsterthingy he totally esplodes the robot in return, thousands of ant sized people die underneath and then they all cheer for the hero. No, I am not describing the new Wong Kar-wai but Guillermo del Toro's “Pacific Rim”. Or “Rift”, even. “Pacific Rift”, yeah. (“Pacific Rim” is another -er-video I enjoyed recently).

Let's be frank (and I won't call you Shirley), “Pacific Rift” is the latest installment in the m.a.s.s.i.v.e. genre beloved of children and US Americans: it pummels you into sensory overload submission, ups the ante wayyy past the 11 level, redefines sensory surround sound, and will probably make a mockery of Michael Bay's pants. Move over “Thorrr the Magnificent – Revenge of the Never Forsaken”! Eat your heart out “SuperChromeZone – the Awakening”! “Pacific Rift” will unleash its megacracatosauruses vs. MechaGoldoCracks atcha like Flat Earth believers never happened!

You want non-blood? You goddit.

“Pacific Rift” dispenses swift justice on a cosmic scale that gleefully does away with any semblance of humanity. Take its father figure protagonist Captain MegaSerious for example (ahmygad, that's Idris Elba!!!), he's not a guide – he is a fountain of motivational speeches (“Ask not what a double espresso (easy on the latte) can do for you but for each UVAR”). Take the two rutting alpha male pilotists - you just know they will engage into a hard-on contest before you can say “superfractiliousmancitehisareligiousdictatorshipsportswhashingdisgrace (andsoisqatarsaintgermainfuckthemtoo)”, only to join forces in the third act.

As we woz saying, “Pacific Rift” pitches mankind against tectonic plate invading monsters or something. The downright treacherously evolving monsters appear to be winning ...but maybe just maybe all may not be lost thanks to a jolly bunch of testosteroidal grunts and a token gurrl, all of them coming complete with the mandatory establishing trauma sequence/leitmotiv (as in: guess what, each of them is haunted by an earlier event that scarred him/her for life). Also mandatory is the couple of wacky genius scientists (sorry: nerds in American parlance), one of whom may just happen to be English (“Terribleh sorreh old chap but would you awfulleh mind desynchronising the atomic debilitator before the damn thing blows us up to heaven, what? Splended!”).

Here are a few pesky details that spoiled my enjoyment, though.

To start with, the roaring emitted by the hammer head supersharks slash gorillas slash crocopterodactyls: this … doesn't make sense. Why would they sound like a vaguely dragonesque lion?? (This is in fact a point I already made twenty years ago re. Verhoeven's “Starship Storm Troopers”. For crying out loud, you give us horrifying giant insects and you make them... roar??? What da??!!?!! You missed an open goal here!)

Also, I was rather impressed by the fact the Jaegers (ie them big robots) could be airlifted by 6 or 8 helicopters. It begs the question: ...Just how gigantic must these copters be??

Another possible reservation (after a dozen others I can't be arsed to list) could be made about the creatures' look: they look a bit crap. OK, we are not talking “Predator” or “The Relic” here - but still. If I get it correctly, the idea was that the aliens sort of morph into the animals they encounter on their way up through the ocean; which makes great sense when they come across sharkoidesque - but slightly less when they look like a gorilla (and Loig adds: shame they didn't first meet Abella Danger taking a skinny dip wha ha ha ha!).

Butseriously. “Pacific Rift” is great craic. If you are tired of the usual intricate plots, chin scratching demonstrations of subtle psychology, elegant allusions, thought provoking metaphors and protestations of faith in their audience intelligence Hollywood is reputed for, you may want to grant it an idle eye. I mean, it's not as if that lot continually bombarded you with 2+ hour long stupefying assaults on your senses where most of the budget went to special effects and/or marketing is it? ...Is it?

So there.

“Pacific Rift” rocks.

“Pacific Rift” slays.

“Pacific Rift” makes for a refreshing change. All together now: Hur hur grunt! Enkulator systems are go! Engage decibeluppers maximum warp! This could be our very last chance if we are to be allowed another sequel! So go for it and let's kill the motherf(rest of the message edited to keep the certificate 12 rating)

England is Mine Review

“England is Mine”. No, not a Nigel Farage quote but the Mozz 0.1 biopic (as in: Mozz 1 -the Smiths year; Mozz 2 –the solo years; Mozz 3 –the Jim Davidson / Brigitte Bardot / Julie Burchill / John Lydon years). Exclusively devoted to the Sage of the Underpass and Troubadour of Princess Street's formative years, the movie strokes its chin, stares at its typewriter for 33% of screen-time, and decides it's time the tale were told.

Let's just start with the voices. Methought the imitation (of Mozz's mannerisms, pitch, pronunciation etc.) was spot on, plus it always is a pleasure to hear Manc and Irish accents (Morrissey Senior and Seniorette). Funnily enough, the main actor (remind me to go and check his name on imdb) turned out to be Scottish, which means he probably underwent some serious vocal training – fair play to your man! (Talking of which, it has come to my recent attention that Russian commander / American anti-bootlegger / British superspy / undetermined art thief Sean Connery is in fact Scottish. Who knew??)

A sensitive, troubled and highly introspective child, Young Steven lurches through the vulgar provin-shial seventies in search of... he doesn't quite know exactly. An avid letter-writer with typewriter in situ, Young Stephen bemoans the uselessness of existence in a miserabilist tone that may just appeal to fans of artists like The Smith, Lou Reed, Kafka, Nirvana, Joy Division or Jackie Collins. Maybe not Joan Collins on reflection. Periodically contemplating waterfalls (which were probably not of the inner-city canal), Young Stephen is given to making grandiose verbose morose announcements voice-over stylee before repairing to the shelter of his bedroom where he loses himself in the devil's music (as well as rock 'n roll).

“England Belongs to Me” is a good movie, no question about that. An hagiography it is not, what with the makers making sure not to go for the kind of the-world-against-me yous-will-all-be-sorry-when-I'm-gone I-didn't-ask-to-be-born-did-I you-ruined-everything nobody-understands-me why-is-it-always-my-turn-to-put-the-bins-out I-swear- I-have-no-idea-how-this-magazine-got-here manicheism usually found in teenage rebels diaries (-Reader's voice: Er...).

“It is a truth generally acknowledged that nobody likes a smart arse.”

In fact, the film-makers display an interesting ambivalence about their subject. All things considered, they don't particularly flatter their case subject. Truth be told, they dress a pretty nonplussed portrait of Our Lord of Teenage Boddingtons Addled Angst, showing him as a morbid, self-pitying, selfish, confused and ultimately not particularly pleasant romantic prone to definitive adolescent statements that make a mockery of the concept of empathy. (Habitual readers of Loig Allix are probably bracing themselves at this point for the punch-line.)

Indeed, they show him at his most self-obsessed, pretty much incapable of empathy let alone benevolence towards anyone outside his immediate sphere of reference (ie his ma, sister, and “Linder” -and even so...). Our boy may be suffering – but he sure doesn't make it any easier for anyone else and for what it's worth, the movie could have easily been titled “My Struggle”.

Right-so.

Moving on.

But don't get your hopes up, the story is not all fun and games you know. The movie is worth considering for different reasons. Amongst its notable achievements (I have already mentioned the accents), the movie makes a fairly decent job of harking back to them times where queueing outside rock venue (the Apollo, in this case) or stepping inside discos or house parties was a “thing” (-Take that, mobilephone generation, snarls angry old man reviewer).

The soundtrack is also excellent. It doesn't feature any Smiths song.

Moving on, part two.

Butseriously. The film shows some subtlety, precisely of the kind The Son and the Heir used to pepper his kitchen-sink chronicles with, when he was able to seemingly produce at will thrilling two-minute-thirty maelstroms of existential misgivings stormers (such were the days and every new release -every three months, on average- was nothing short of an event). The director/screenwriter clearly cares for his main character, and yet doesn't absolve him (of the crime of moany petulance). He remains faithful to his source material, and yet brings up themes that easily outgrow the Lancasterian confines of Manchester, UK:

“England is Mine” basically talks about anyone (boy, girl or otherwise) who has ever felt out of place, misunderstood, confused, alienated, lonely; it reaches out to anyone who has ever pined for some maddeningly as-yet-undefined other sphere of existence; it recognises all those who are harbouring inchoate-yet-vital artistic aspirations that frustratingly never fit with the current context. I mean, go to “La Dolce Vita”; go back to “You Know Yourself 2.0”; go back to Nina Simone, Francis Bacon, Miles Davis, Rimbaud, Henry Darger, Sinead, Ian Curtis, Billie Holiday, Cantona, Van Gogh, Blake, Jimmy Baldwin, Larkin, Daniel Johnston, Amy Winehouse, Kurt, Balotelli, Antonin Artaud, etc, etc. (It may be worth noting that, right up to that disaster when what happened happened, Dear Old Oscar had had a pretty successful life –see “Author, Author” by David Lodge (or was it “The Master” by Colm Toibin?).

Another strong point of the movie resides in its (mandatory?) private joke slash references to future Smiths songs, like when our hero gets beaten up during the last night of the fair (geddit?????), gets pestered for a snog under the iron brige (idem), meets his mate Linder at the cemetry (sic, idem redux) where they engage in literary quotes upmanship (idem redux bis) and so on. I must admit to a quick chuckle or two here. ...Which in fairness makes perfect sense. When you think about it, the future writer would have drawn inspiration from real life events (such as the Moors murders) and his personal experience (but then again, let's not stir up the “death of the author” structuralist beast here...).

Andanotherthing.

Cast your mind back to early Smiths records, and you may just note a certain lack of interest in menial employment from the Mozzfather, a subject the movie devotes a lot of time to. Amusingly, Our Boy worked at the unemployment office ...like Ian Curtis. (In his autobiography, Mozz even claimed that Ian Curtis, who was somewhat of a neighbour, knew him and used to sollicit his advice on putative rock stardom.) Alas, Young Stephen does not take to the office life and is shown drifting from one job to the next -which got me started on two trains of thought.

First, I thought that the movie was pretty decent with regards to his office manager. (Hear me out here.) All things considered, the film does not make his superior into a caricatural jobsworth. I mean, put yourself in your man's shoes. Say you have to manage this uninterested workshy introvert well up himself given to truancy and sullen silence. ...How would you go about handling the situation? Huh?

Second, this begs the question: How exactly did our Stephen Patrick manage to get the money for his cassettes, concert tickets, bus travels andwhatnot? (As for his books, the film makes it clear that he availed himself of library facilities. Good man yourself.) That detail bugged me a bit – especially with regards to his typewriter (I won't spoil a relevant scene near the end): surely that must have cost a few bobs, no...?

Anyway.

At the same time, I also had the strangest feeling watching this movie...

It was almost as if it took great pains not to address a certain subject (yikes), it kind of continually hinted at some mysterious underlying theme that would forever remain never to be mentioned, I couldn't quite point out what... As if these scenes where teenage boys visit each other's bedrooms where they play their mothers' favourites, this story where the protagonist keeps rejecting the advances of a perfectly fine young lady (ie with TITS), these visions of Oscar Wilde books, the choice of a song for the Moz / Billy Duffy fleeting combo, Johnny Marr's ear piercing, as if all of these touches were somehow be significant... Huh. Pop psychologists will probably have a field day exercising their clever minds about it. Like I said, for lack of any clarification, I can't be more specific.

(Reader's voice: What d'you mean...? Your man doesn't like footy??)

I did like the bit about his hair-style though (yet another nail in the coffin of Mozz's autobiography, which did not even make any mention of it). I also loved -even though it was pretty easy to suss- the ending (insert learned “dramatic irony” and “a posteriori” espressions here), which made a refreshing change from (watch out, incoming personal grudge of mine) the disastrously-judged last scene of “Control” (see other writings of mine on this subject, probably “Suddenly – Pivotal Moments in Movies”, available at Am*z*n). I thought it worked perfectly well, a seamless conclusion to the preceding scenes. Being the charitable kind, I won't spoil it for you, but let's just say that the actor impersonating John Peel needs to work on his eye widening.

To conclude, you will have noticed that, in the course of this review, I did not indulge in that gimmick of slipping in easily recognisable quotes from songs. What trite poppycock, friend! What tedious bollix! We shall leave these cheap jibes to Internet forum posters (eg. N.E. article in The Independent or The Gaduriaan for the last twenty years) - that is not funny anymore.

And -Lo!- Johnny of Maher went and knocked on His door and He was home

And the Lord saw that it was good, yea, and said let them go on their merry way

For He had found His vessel for His bloody awful poetry

The rest is His story, as told by your man with thanks to Billy Duffy.

Amen.