MovieChat Forums > Mine Games (2023) Discussion > the scene with the 2 michaels broke the ...

the scene with the 2 michaels broke the movie

posted 11 years ago by qazzie3
23 replies | jump to latest

Obviously there were some plotholes along the way, still I thought this was an okay movie. the scene with the 2 Michaels got me really confused though.

Theres one shaking Michael with his meds and another more agressive Michael. so judging from the end of the movie we saw, the more agressive Michael has to be Michael#2 (agressiveMichael). Now the other one has to be Michael#1(MedsMichael).

What I do not get is how they turned out completely different. #1 is obviously scared and on meds (still he burns them), while #2 is much more agressive and selfconfident. He also seems to warn Michael#3 (when the third loop starts at the end of the movie) in the same way as #1 warned #2 (because #3 reacts the same as way as #2)

#1 didnt have that warning, because he was the first of the loop. So he never had anyone tell him that his friends are going to betray him, lock him up and "have no intention of letting him out alive". So why did he react the same way (as the movie played out exactly as the first loop) as Michael#2, who got this warning and got conspicous?

Either I just don't get it, or this movie makes no sense whatsoever, because the first loop could never play out as the second loop in the movie did. Though it had to play out the same way, since we see the same characters with their identical clothings in the mine and the guy with the girl running up the street.

So what was the 2 Michael scene about? Telling us that its all *beep* because the guy was delusional and is just sitting at the bonfire like an ass?

[–] mark_abare 11 years ago

Because there was no loop. It was all in Micheal's head.

This entire scenario of a loop is in Micheal's head. He killed his friends when he went off his meds.

If anything, the "loop" is "evil" Micheal taking over "good" Micheal. It was his psychotic break.

That's why it's called "mine games" & not "loop games". :)

That's how I see it...

[–] qazzie3 11 years ago

Well I don't see why they would include the very last scene then. They clearly show the girl (that got hit by the car) running up to another group and therfore effectively breaking the loop by warning them.

also the whole snake biting its own tail bit and lore-parts would be useless, if it was not about a loop..

[–] mark_abare 11 years ago

I still believe it was all in his head.

[–] gustavo-975-108866 8 years ago

the last scene dude.

[–] Thrill_KillZ 11 years ago

My theory was & still is that the entire film was Michael's delusions.

But qazzie3 is correct, the final scene doesn't fit into the delusion theory and imo was extremely dumb/useless. All it did was irritate me, why they felt the need to add that onto the last seconds is beyond me.

That final scene was kind of an insult to the viewer's intelligence & only served to confuse people more than most of them already were.

[–] qazzie3 11 years ago

I agree that it actually could be just delusions. Just like including the last seconds and snake biting its own tail story makes "kind of" sense with the loop theory, the michael stopping taking his meds and the bonfire-parts make sense with "its all just in his head".

seems like they had 2 completely different writers. one wanted to go with the loop, the other with the delusional thing. they mixed both of them together and it stopped making sense alltogether.

[–] mark_abare 11 years ago

Ever think that maybe the girl running to the truck at the end was also in Micheal's head?

He knows he is going to kill her too.

[–] Thrill_KillZ 11 years ago

You know I was thinking about that bit & I was gonna go back and see exactly where Michael was when that happened, like if he was nearby, he did mention that he was in charge of filling the gas tank. So that may very well be.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cadeduelg 10 years ago

Actually killing his girlfriend was legitimately an accident. For whatever that is worth...

[–] gustavo-975-108866 8 years ago

i dont think so. that michael didnt know about the loop, is a new clean michael.

[–] dancenog 11 years ago

Spot on. There was no loop. The scene where the evil one burns his meds is just his conscious developing another person to justify events. The whole snake storyline symbolising birth/death/rebirth bit - instead of symbolising a loop symbolises the mind breaking down and creating personalities who dominate and extinguish other personalities and create more extreme ones.
That with the title, Mine Games, refers to a character who suffers from mental issues and without his medication reaches the point of no return and his mind starts to break down and splinter

[–] super16g 10 years ago

Thete is a loop. How do you explain them seeing their own bodies without Michael being there and the clairvoyant girl?

[–] BlackDog123 10 years ago

Thank you. Michael is not the only one who sees the writing in the mine. Michael is not there when things happen to the other characters. That note in the "cabin" (um, 2 story, 3,000 square foot hose =/= "camping" lol) could not have been left in the first place (with the specific names of only some of the group - the movie even calls attention to this). The two guys see their bodies, and the body of their other male friend, go back to the cabin, and have a full discussion about it. One of them interacts with future Claire. Rose also has visions of them dying/dead. We see future Michael in the background of another scene, when he couldn't possibly be there (Rose and ... Lex? in the mine, while Michael is with the rest of the group). We see this as the audience, not through the eyes of Michael (or another character). At the end, the girl runs towards the van and pounds on the window, which didn't happen the first time (obviously). Michael would not have been able to unlock that room in the mine without the key given to him by himself (how would he have had it?).

This was not going on in Michael's head. His mental illness makes him a convenient scapegoat, because apparently your first inclination is to kill everyone, including your girlfriend, when something supernatural happens (separate issue, I know).

I genuinely don't understand why anyone would think this was just a delusion - we're supposed to think that in the beginning (Michael thinks it too, not trusting what happened when his future self gave him the key), but then all is revealed.

They're coming to get you, Barbara!

[–] super16g 10 years ago

Thanks for giving a more in depth reply. I have seen the "all in their head" phenomena on a couple of movie boards and don't understand why some people get so entrenched in this. It was right for like one movie maybe that I can't remember and so glaringly wrong for dozens of others.

[–] BlackDog123 10 years ago

I feel you. I reeallllllly hate the "it's all in your head because you're psychotic!!!" trope. 99% of the time it's really poorly done, predictable, and a "hand of God" type of plot device/cop out. On a personal level, I despise the image it portrays of Schizophrenia or Bipolar I Disorder (and Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka Multiple Personality Disorder - OMG) - that these people are always murderously out of control and not to be trusted. Obviously having a mental health disorder affects behavior, but, that aside, it does NOT make someone an a**hole. There are jerks and murderers with and without mental illness. Okay, rant over:)

One movie that did it well, I thought, was Identity. I don't know why, but I really liked that one! And I tolerate Haute Tension because I think it is a well-made film, but the twist is so sloppy it drags the rest of it down.

They're coming to get you, Barbara!

[–] super16g 10 years ago

#1 did have the warning. It is a time paradox. He was outside gassing up the generator when the aggressive Michael showed up. We see this the first time through when there is an odd edit/cut while he is out there and when he is visibly shaken when he comes back inside and his girlfriend questions him and tells him he is bleeding and he lies about what happened.

There will be no multiple Michaels or stacks of bodies in the mine or woods. They start over again and everybody has a chance to break the cycle once they realize what is going on - which the girlfriend finally did. But always only 2 of each.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tiger01 10 years ago

I agree with the OP's basic premise though that the "2 Michaels" scene (well, 3 I suppose if you include the one back at the cabin just starting the loop again) soured me on the whole thing. My whole problem with it is that it confuses the audience because we aren't in on the "rules" of the loop. Certain things disappear and must be replaced or rewritten (the red crayon/chalk, the van, the bloody message on the rock, the writing on the wall in the lockbox room) whereas the bodies seemingly stay. But if the bodies do stay, then why would Michael need to retrieve the "second" trio of corpses for the men and arrange them in the same room? There could be a discrete timing issue here where I could possibly buy the reset was coming and Michael had to "beat the clock", so to speak, once he understood what was happening. Having the multiple Michaels at the campfire though debunks this idea unless, of course, it was supposed to be allegorical or something in regards to a psychotic break.

This also kinda raises the issue as to Michael's motivation for wanting things to repeat in the fashion that they had. I know he is supposed to be a paranoid schizo but turning him into a violent slasher (ie: sexy RV couple) just seemed a little silly. Perhaps it might have been a little more clever for the writers to have made the Michael character, struggling with his paranoia and illness, be the one who breaks the loop and saves the characters, maybe even in a tragic way sort of like the original "The Butterfly Effect" did.

But you do make a great point about the time paradox. I'm not really sure where I come down on this though as I have only seem the movie once (late last night). The OP makes another great point about the very first iteration being drastically different from the events we saw otherwise, as you say, it is a paradox. How can there be people in the road to cause the initial accident or a "past" Michael to warn "present" Michael about the danger if it is the first time? Another thing to wonder about is Michael's nightmares. Were they actual premonitions or just paranoid dreams that he turned into a self-fulfilling situation?

Anyway, I did enjoy the ride, but I agree with the others in that I think there were either too many writers/ideas involved (or maybe rewrites) or perhaps they tried to "reverse engineer" the script as a poster said in another thread. It felt like they weren't sure which way there wanted to go with the film; they tried to pull off a "in his head/sci-fi time loop" debate yet just executed it in an amateurish fashion. It is a shame because the potential was definitely there!

[–] nonsensewords 10 years ago

Yeah, as I was watching this I was REALLY hoping that the cycle would be broken when Michael sees his crazy self at the generator and thinks "Whoa, seems like I'm hallucinating, guess I'd better start taking my medication again." Although that would have made the movie feel like just a really long PSA for the pharmaceutical industry, ha.

[–] qazzie3 10 years ago

#1 did have the warning. It is a time paradox.

That is not entirely true and I dont believe that this is the case. There is a similar movie out there called "Timecrimes", which also revolves around loops. Things there play out the way they do (and set the loop in motion) because the protagonist is send back in time, which is what starts the events of the movie as we see it - and creates a time paradox.

This is not the case here though. It had to start at one point, and since there is no timetravel involved, it cant be another Michael, because in the very first set there would only be 1 Michael in existence - after the things this Michael did, a loop is created and kept on, because of the things future/present Michael(s) do.

[–] lord_kobel 10 years ago

Why do you think there was no time travel involved? The whole film is about time travel...

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]