I have just watched the film and i am still none the wiser of what the hell was really going on to be honest.
I know people will probably say i am thick, but it was just a bit deep for me.
I watched triangle about 4 times as i really found it hard to understand, I did understand most of it, but this one was really weird.
Just wondering if people could just explain the story a bit better to me
This movie was so badly done. It was about a kind of time loop they were all trapped in. When they get to the cabin, they had already been there and died. And it just kept repeating. Nothing was explained, most of the movie seemed boring. They tried to tie it all together at the end, but the movie was so badly written and edited that it didn't work. I didn't feel we got any real explanation for why it was happening in the first place. And adding to the confusion was one character had mental illness to begin with and the other one had taken a druggy mushroom. The cast wasn't the problem. I liked the actors. The script sucked.
shareI agree. They tried their best to do a Triangle/Time Crimes movie, but ultimately failed. If you're going to tackle a subject that has been done before (and done very well I might add), I think you should at least add your own twist to it. But this movie was just a subpar fabrication.
shareThis movie sucked because the writers basically wrote the story backwards, kind of like reverse-engineering something, but they weren't clever about it.
They had the conclusion (everyone would die, Mike would go crazy paranoid and kill them, they'd be stuck in a time loop), and then wrote the earlier scenes to fit the ending, which is why some things made absolutely no sense -- like Michael putting the crayon in the drawer, or that abominable actress who played Rose giving her play-by-play prophetic account of what was going to happen.
Example: The writers needed the characters to find their own corpses, to establish that some freaky time loop thing was going on. But then they had to come up with a reason why all three corpses would be found in one place and neatly draped in the same room -- so they had Michael inexplicably pick each body up and drag it through a long tunnel system.
Obviously spoilers here throughout.
I think it gets a much worse rap than is deserved. There are definitely one issues with it, both in terms of plotting and in terms of technicalities. But, overall, the high-level story does tie together neatly after it has been laid out (see my synopsis contribution with the back-references).
The basic story is fairly straightforward: for whatever reason anything alive in this area at a particular time (when the Aurora appears would be my guess, but that might not necessarily be the moment) get shoved back in time by 24 hours. If you are alive another 24 hours later still, you get shoved back in time again, etc.
At the first instance of this important to the story our group of characters hasn't arrived in the area yet, but we assume the events of our story are almost exactly playing out with a previous group. The following morning they arrive in the gas station (note that the bodies have been found in the RV at this point) and head off towards a cabin (which may or may not be the house at which they end up). Along the way they see Guy from the previous group in the middle of the road, run into Lyla from the previous group, then keep driving until the busted radiator stops them.
Problems that people have with too many Claires in the room are not really spelled out but don't seem like problems - ex, Claire from the previous group heft the room then the door got opened again. The door was wide open when Claire got shoved in there by Michael, so clearly she could have left. Given that what grabbed Rose's leg was later described as "the girl in the mine" (inexplicably) I'm guessing that was supposed to be Claire from two groups back, meaning Claire is surviving at least two iterations. Maybe Claire goes crazy running around and hiding in the mines, and they never did explain where the Oroboris drawing came from but a cracked Claire running around the mines would explain it as well as some of the other unexplained noises in the mines ... unknown, but not hard to imagine how the Claire story works out.
Also some people don't understand the concept of a time loop at all, leading to complaints about Lyla getting to the fourth group's (the second one after the one we followed) van and thus breaking the loop meaning that none of the rest would happen meaning that she isn't there to stop the fourth group, etc. These complaints stem from not having a firm grasp on multiverse theory; each time anyone comes "back" the multiverse forks the destination universe, so Lyla #2 stopping Lyla #4 from participating in the loop has nothing to do with Lyla #1 or Lyla #2 or Lyla #3 getting into that time anomaly (but, hopefully, means there would be no Lyla #5 fork).
Were some of Michael's actions a little too contrived? Yes. They needed to provide some motivation for him tidying things up, for instance - I mean, if he is invested in the loop repeating, maybe he just wants things put back the way he came across them? I don't know, and that's a storytelling problem.
The whole Rose psychic storyline seemed utterly superfluous, confusing to the plot, and should have been dropped. That would have given a lot of narrative time to better fleshing out the main storyline so that it could make more sense to more people.
The acting by the Rose character also seemed to have some issues. Her accent that came and went, sometimes mumbled line delivery, etc. But, make her something other than the token psychic chic and I would be able to overlook the acting/direction issues.
All said, however, this isn't a poorly conceived movie. If you like time travel type of movies, I think you can do much worse than this one.
@tdibble-1 -totally agree.
sharethe thing that popped up in my head after watching, and rewinding a bit...
the writers seemed to (attempt to anyway) loosely tie it all together at the end, and provide an explanation for everything that took place.. EXCEPT who on earth scratched rose's leg? it couldnt of been the first claire, because she was still cowering in the corner of the locked room with no blanket or anything covering her. after rewatching that specific scene several times, i feel like it is the only thing that was not covered. that, and the poisoned tea. but i can just chalk that up to michael(why not) -even though it was completely a throwaway and not mentioned whatsoever afterwards..
as far as the reset is concerned, i.e. how the bridge magically fixed itself and the original bodies disappeared, i guess i can chalk that up to the mysterious aurora borealis, BUT they completely sh*t the bed there by having two claires in the same room.
i agree with the previous posts, as there were probably just too many cooks in the kitchen, and while i didnt really have a problem with the acting, the script was just not that great. i have seen worse, of course, but i have definitely seen better. the whole tip-toeing around scifi or supernatural or psychosis thing just ended up messy, at best. they should of just made an executive decision, as to whether they wanted to go one way or the other....or the other. convoluted mashup of previous superior movies = 5/10. generous, because the budget was probably quite low, and it seemed like the actors tried
it couldnt of been <<snipped>>they should of just<<snipped>>
[deleted]
What's most important to realize, JakeFlair, is you are not the arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not on the Internet.
If you don't care for my post, bully for you. And if you truly love grammar, this "of" garbage should raise your hackles.
Otherwise, you are just pissing in the wind. Likewise, if you think I'm a jerk from such a minor post (that was correct - even if you didn't appreciate it), then I've accomplished something positive.
Because why would I care what a petty arse like you would think? LOL
If you were the dude I was criticizing, I can almost understand you responding. But instead you're just someone butting your nose in where it doesn't belong. Also, a characteristic that makes me not care what or how you think.
---
Into every life a little coffee must spill.
I disagree. You aren't the Internet grammar teacher. I don't like it when someone corrects me because it's not their place to. If you have a English lit degree then by all means. But more than likely you don't seeing as it's just a pet peeve of yours. One day you might just correct someone and you won't like what they have to say to you in response. It is annoying having someone correct your grammar like your some 5 year old in school. Those days are over for most of us
sharewell ok but i dnt like when such peeps say it wrong ok?????
shareThere's lots of things I don't like on the Internet, maugrim81. I didn't think I was particularly mean or nasty toward the poster about it.
There's plenty of garbage on the Internet to get your ire up about. This isn't one of them. Perspective.
---
Into every life a little coffee must spill.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Now, you're a hypocrite. You have no moral superiority to decide what other people on the internet have the right to get their ire up about. Regardless of whether you have the capacity to understand, you may not think you were nasty about it, but your post was just as rude as mine was to you. However, you think that you have a right to be a jerk about it and no one else does.
Let me explain it to you, since you obviously have no idea what a double standard is.
Bad grammar is something on the internet that you don't like, so you correct it and you maintain that you are in the right to do this. People correcting bad grammar on the internet is something I don't like, but you maintain I don't have a right to point that out.
If you don't want people criticizing you on the internet, don't criticize others. This all started because you felt it was your business to correct deadaim's grammar for no other reason than bad grammar being your pet peeve. What I did to you was exactly the same thing you did, but somehow me doing it was wrong.
The perspective here is simple: you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. You think you can go around acting like an jerk correcting others but throwing a tantrum when you get corrected. Then rather than refute a single thing, you decide to throw a tantrum and call people 'nobodies' simply because they don't agree with you.
You are not better than any single person here or in the world. You certainly are no smarter than anyone here, so stop acting like a jerk and treat people the way you want to be treated. It's called decency, try to learn it.
Wow, 2 deleted posts for this? So the last 2 versions weren't as good as this masterpiece above? ROFL
We see that Jake has no idea what's important. But he is the arbiter of "too stupid". smh
---
Into every life a little coffee must spill.
You have no moral superiority to decide what other people on the internet have the right to...
Bad grammar is something on the internet that...
People correcting bad grammar on the internet is...
If you don't want people criticizing you on the internet...
Um, how about saying thank you for the corrections? I mean, you do look like a school drop-out when you make those kinds of grammar mistakes. So, take the free lesson and do better next time. That's how I live. One doesn't need to be an English lit. major to know how to write and spell correctly.
shareUm, how about saying thank you for the corrections? I mean, you do look like a school drop-out when you make those kinds of grammar mistakes. So, take the free lesson and do better next time. That's how I live
One doesn't need to be an English lit. major to know how to write and spell correctly.
That's not the point. The point is that the grammar corrections lent absolutely nothing to the discussion.
The fact is, even though I love grammar...
The problem is not with the person making the mistake, but with someone who feels it is their job...
...when it is not, to become an english teacher.
You should not use "you" in this instance. It would be grammatically correct He/She/One looks like a school dropout when he/she/one makes those kind of grammar mistakes.
but instead you're just someone butting your nose in where it doesn't belong.
Consensus = a few nobodies? Good one, harvey-cc. Made me chuckle...
---
Into every life a little coffee must spill.
Consensus = a few nobodies? Good one, harvey-cc. Made me chuckle...
Where are you getting that I can't take it? I am taking and watching it. And realizing we've got a LOT of bored MFers on IMDb.
Look at how quick you responded to me. I case my rest, er rest my case. ;-)
Anyway, there is no "issue to address". Again, you're the arbiter of issues, too? LOL bigtime
---
Into every life a little coffee must spill.
See, instead of address the issue...
Besides that, dumbass, the very fact that you respond to the criticism shows that you do care.
Your childish response does nothing but confirm everything I said. A person makes a couple of grammar mistakes, and without making any comment on the movie itself, you feel it's your place to correct their grammar.
What's most important to realize, JakeFlair, is you are not the arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not on the Internet.
but instead you're just someone butting your nose in where it doesn't belong.
I wasn't going to point this out the first time because I wasn't trying to be a picky jerk, but if you want to correct someone's grammar, maybe you shouldn't begin your post with "Yingos!" I hate to break it to you, but there's no such word in the English language. And while it is completely fine for people to use made up words or words from another language, IT'S NOT WHEN YOU ARE CORRECTING SOMEONE'S ENGLISH GRAMMAR!
What's most important to realize, JakeFlair, is you are not the arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not on the Internet.
Good point. In fact it's kind of the point JakeFlair was making. Ironic no?
Holy *beep* did this thread get derailed! Can we get the hell back on topic, folks?
"Dick Laurent is dead."
No your just being a jerk for no reason
shareI've seen people be far more "jerk-ish" in their responses to bad grammar. This one was relatively polite.
The way I see it, the illiterate poster has no teacher, mentor, or friend who has given them honest feedback about how their lack of writing skills negatively impacts their ability to be persuasive or compelling in their writing. Sometimes it takes a stranger on the internet.
The person who is correcting them rightly states that the poster looks otherwise intelligent. If anyone wishes to be taken seriously online or in life, they have to be able to speak and write as if they had SOME sort of education.
It may sting to be told these things, but I'll bet the poster in question uses the correct form from here on out. Really, everybody wins.
Movies are IQ tests. The IMDB boards are each person's opportunity to broadcast their score.
I don't know what realm of etiquette you live in, but
Nowhere on God's green earth is couldn't of or should of proper grammar.
The way I see it, the illiterate poster has no teacher, mentor, or friend who has given them honest feedback about how their lack of writing skills negatively impacts their ability to be persuasive or compelling in their writing. Sometimes it takes a stranger on the internet.
The way I see it, the illiterate poster has no teacher, mentor, or friend who has given them honest feedback about how their lack of writing skills negatively impacts their ability to be persuasive or compelling in their writing.
It may sting to be told these things, but I'll bet the poster in question uses the correct form from here on out
The person who is correcting them rightly states that the poster looks otherwise intelligent. If anyone wishes to be taken seriously online or in life, theyhave to be able to speak and write as if they had SOME sort of education.
It may sting to be told these things, but I'll bet the poster in question uses the correct form from here on out. Really, everybody wins.
@Foxbarking - Granted I'm late in reading these comments/debate and really it's of no consequence, but I've been reading through your responses and HAD to put on record how insanely awesome your responses are. This extreme command of the English language and grammar is totally under appreciated but what I find most surprising is the lack of recognition for the level of superb eloquence in each response ...BRAVO.
I know it is not the intention, but you have slayed. I wanted express clear adoration for your articulation -memory, archive and cache of this dialog on IMDb's server backups
"Anyone" is singular and "they" is plural. Wow, you make that mistake a whole lot.
Get over yourself because you're not that special.
I know that you want to look like you got some sort of an education...
After some thought, it seems they realized at some point, they couldn't reconcile the acts with each other. The story had too many or not enough red herrings and slasher movie tropes. None of that would be a problem if they actually decided what was really going on. I know what they were going for but they should have studied Space/Time theories and physics. If they had done it Rashamon style they could have added a true sense of mystery. What I mean is, if each character had 10 minutes devoted to their pov it could have filled in a lot of plot holes. Basically the whole second and third act. Seriously, not knowing who scratched Rose is the scariest thing about this movie. Was she poisoned or tripping? Was she a medium or tripping? Why did Michael kill everyone again? How did Rose die? Why did they spend time going to a mine instead of going to the gas station and get help? It was a long walk, but kind of necessary. How did the note remain in and out of the loop at the same time? Why kill the R.V. couple? What happens to Micheal each loop? There is no evidence that anything was different this loop, how did Lyla live? What was with the body the police found? One cut of the film had it that the couple were found. What. The. Hell. Happened. To. The. Bloody. Print. the final guy made on the window? They all heard it but there was no blood. Yet rose was the only one who saw the print.....before it happened. Lyla being alive makes the final guy out to be incompetent. If Lyla could walk miles in the dark after being hit by a car, what killed her in previous loops? Why did she act like she was dying? She was obviously good enough to keep going. At what point do you realize your at the wrong house? Biggest of all questions that needs to be asked again, why did they explore a condemned mine?
After throwing a machete through a guys chest, "Stick around!"- Dutch (Predator)
Yea it's not you(op), it's the film and the plenty of mistakes/errors in the script. If it comes down to a Q&A with the director, it's my guess he would HAVE to go the route of "the entire "loop" was in fact all the paranoid delusions of the film's schizophrenic character Michael not taking his meds" which serves to fill in all of the holes with one giant landslide of B.S. nice & sloppy.
That's the only thing I can apply in order to make total sense of what takes place in the film. At the end we're shown the crazy dude Michael sitting at a fire making/instructing a copy of himself to burn his all of his medication(giving me the delusion theory), but then at the very end they show us the scene of the girl running to the van all bloody which is just dumb & out of place in that theory.
It seems there was one too many cooks in the kitchen,
Writing credits
(in alphabetical order)
Robert Cross story
Michele Davis-Gray writer
Richard Gray story
Richard Gray writer
Ross McQueen story
Ross McQueen writer
The script got out from under them at some point so they added the delusion bit?
I'm open to any other ideas on how to tie this up other then "it's up to the viewer's interpretations" as it was a very entertaining film which kept my mind constantly working, which is much more than I could say for the usual horror films I watch every day, even if it didn't add up in the end.
Thank you for breaking the grammar cycle in this thread.
http://twitter.com/AManAndAMouse/
So did they finally get to break the cycle in the end when Lyla managed to get the attention of herself?
share[deleted]
Michael killed them. He was schizophrenic and didn't take his pills. What they saw, was actually going on in Micheal's head.
Why do you think he had his alter ego, the "good" Michael burn the pills? His evil alter ego gained control when he didn't take his meds.
Yea good to see another person in agreeance with me, it's not the reveal I was hoping for
at all, but it is the only logical solution to the film.
I actually went & rewatched the first 15 minutes and I noticed that Michael had stopped taking his meds some time before he even left for the road trip, giving his psychosis & delusions plenty of time to take hold of him.
[deleted]
I think thats the explanation we r meant to come up with. Michael with his illness not taking the meds and killing the group. As it loops and loops he is descending more and more into insanity.
The breaking the cycle at the end? Maybe its Michaels brain trying one last ditched attempt to regain some element of control? I dont know - maybe its just thrown in there for endings sake. The whole mushrooms thing/psychic medium thing was there as potential red herrings. The Title of the film eludes to (obviously) Mind Games and I think the whole mental illness is a bit too obvious - so in that train of logic maybe It is not what we think?
[deleted]
Thanks guys for explaining, seems like i am not the only one then who had problems with it haahaaaa, Oh well i tried watching it again but i have to admit i really did not like it, was so muddled. I do not think the makers of the film knew what they were doing in the end.
shareI really dont understand all the negative critic that film received! It is like Time Crimes, yes but a looot better. Time Crimes really didn'T had an explanation for why the dude...well, I dont want to digress into another movie to much.
Sooo, back to this one. This had absolutly nothing to do with an after-life stuff or something like that. It wasn't even a Triangle-Film (which btw. had more errors than real conclusions...)
It was a simply, but great told time-travel story. The one thing which is kinda weird, is that we dont see the group time travel (and they dont seem to notice it as well), but the Aurora Borealis showed that the place seemed to be a weird one (since Aurora Borealis should not happen there), like the Oregon-Vortex or other "Mystery Places" that are rumored, that timey-whimeys are happening there.
I also cant really tell to which point they traveled, since the Borealis seemed to occur a little to soon, the second time it occured (or that was the point where they actually traveled, so that the Borealis was like a beacon, happening the night after they died as well as the day before the died and creating the wormhole or what ever it was, that put them in the past).
Another thing that was a little problematic was the key. An object that cicled through time long enough will eventually derelict, whereby the circle would end BUT a paradox would occur.
So, tecnically, the circle CAN NOT be broken, unless a paradox occurs and time-space it self collapses and that would not be a good thing to happen.
So I mention it again: this is NOT (I repeat: NOT) a story about a time-loop, but about a causality loop (look it up on Wikipedia if you like).
So, the only real problem I have with the movie is the ending, where the one girl is showing up where she should not show up, ruining the cicle which would lead to a paradox (as mentioned before). But I can ignore those 3 seconds of ending that should not be there, because this is a real good time travel movie where nearly all loose end are brought together!
But I was wondering why the Micheal was doubled at the end. Probably just a delusion (another time version of himself would not make sense) since "one Michael" is forcing the other one to destroy his meds.
If it really was an illusion, that should have been showed more clear for the audience. What do you think it was?
EDIT: Ok, ok! So a really weird idea came into my head: so what if the 3 surviors (Micheal, Clair and Micheals wife) time-traveled AGAIN? So that the two Clairs in the mine would be Claire 2 and Claire 3! Claire 3 (the one on the ground) was in a bad condition (could not walk, had a sore throat or a rough voice) and her clothing was already grey, like she spend some days in there. Maybe she was killed by Claire 2.
Claire 3 could have beend the one who scratched the medium girl (forgot her name). Dont really know why she put a rag above her, but maybe she went crazy.
And the 2 Micheals would be Micheal 2 and 3. The 3rd Micheal would have just basically sat around and did nothing, except forcing Micheal 2 into bringing the meds into the woods, making a campfire and burning them.
And the Micheals wife Nr. 3 was the one that went back to stop the cicle [(what is the most stupid and unlogic thing in the movie, but is still a good proof for my theory, since she survived the car accident; because one could still hear her breath als she watched how the Borealis vanished, I would assume she survived it somehow)].
I admit it's a somehow wacky idea (since they did not mentioned explicitly what the "3rd versions" of the 3 survivors did, but since only those 3 people where the ones that we saw with ther lively "doppelganger" (except for Micheals wife, but she was at least the only one traveled back farther then the night they came into the house) I think, my theorie could be correct.
Oh at that point I think it is time to apologise for may possibly not so understandable english or grammatical errors, but english is not my mothers tounge, but I did my best to express myself.
Yea...no. You seem to have forgotten a pretty important part of your time traveling loop...that being...THEY'RE DEAD. If they're time traveling and just forgetting then them being corpses would sort of put a kink in that whole theory now wouldn't it? Or are they resurrecting and THEN traveling back in time to start it all over again? And if so how would they ever encounter their own corpses?
It's either a time loop or it's all happening inside of Michael's head due to his mental condition. Your theory doesn't make any sense.
Uhm...I said the 3 SURVIVORS. I was not talking about the people who died.
shareThat makes no sense because there aren't any survivors in the loop, they all die except for Michael.
And regardless if you're saying only the 3 "survivors" time traveled...then how did the 3 who did see their own corpses see them? Did their corpses time travel backwards?
Your theory is wrong. It's either all in Michael's head or it's a repeating cycle where a new group of the same people repeat the same events over and over until someone breaks it.
Only the future versions of them are dead. The ones that traveled back in time and are in the mine, while their "one day earlier-verions" are in the house. I dont see the problem here...
shareYou thought this movie was better then timecrimes and triangle? for real?
They lock their friend up in an abandoned mine where there is some loud monster predator sound. No, wait... They lock their psychotic friend up in an abandoned mine at night together with some demon noises in a dark freaking room with 0 windows or even a matras or chair. Who in the world does this? His girlfriend was okay with this.. really?
They know there is 100% something wrong with this same mine. Yet instead of just going home/trying to fix car/trying to see if they can find another house in the vicinity or a phone line or w/e. Instead of all this, they keep going back into the mine. And back into the mine, and back into the mine. By the 3rd or 4th time how could I not be rooting for them to die horribly?
They write the same note they found at the same house. Same handwriting. Same person wrote it. I dont know about you, but I recognise my handwriting when I see it.
Micheal (think his name was) is completely psycho I guess and decides to go on a killing spree. Okay. Tbh cant blame him, but its a little extreme no? Did the own tail eating demon made him crazier while he was in that dark room? I dunno, maybe.
Micheal wants to continue the time loop/causility loop whatever. Why??? Wtf is his motivation for this. He's enjoying killing his mates? I guess he is.
etc etc etc etc etc
I enjoyed the movie cus I like scary movies but it really was not that good. You can like it ofcourse but finding it better then triangle and timecrimes. Im surprised.
I thought it was better as Triangle, for sure. I think Triangle was a piece of crap.
Ok it may not be better than Timecrimes. Timecrimes is still the best time-travel movie. Timecrimes and "The house at the end of time" (I dont know if this is the title in english. It is from Bolivia or something.
Basically, the whole sequence of events was one gigantic cycle. Most of what see in the first half of the movie is what's going to happen, we just don't know that until the end.
1. The "hitchhiker" in the road
2. The note in the house
3. The knock on the window
4. The writing on the tree
5. The hole in the bridge
6. The blood on the car
7. The bodies in the mine
These are all things that were set in the future, but the friends experienced them because the whole movie was just part of a cycle.
1. The hole in the bridge ~ That was from where Lex fell through whilst chasing Michael and died
2. The bodies in the mine ~ These were the bodies Michael had stashed away after killing his friends
3. The note in the house ~ That was the note Lyla and Guy left their friends before leaving, to let them know that they'd gone to find help and for them to stay in the house
4. The "hitchhiker" in the road ~ That was Guy trying to find help when he and Lyla fled the house
5. The blood on the car ~ That was from hitting Lyla after she and Guy had left the house to try and find help
6. The knock on the window ~ That was Guy after Lyla had been run over and he'd ran back to warn his friends in hopes of "breaking the cycle". He'd knocked on the window to try and get their attention, but got his throat slit by Michael.
7. The writing on the tree ~ That was the writing Guy had written on the tree with his blood in hopes that his friends would read it and "break the cycle"
By the time Guy and Lyla had gone in search of help, the cycle had started yet again, and that's what we were seeing. At the end of the movie, the cycle has started for a 4th time and the friends are at a gas station when another version of Lyla comes stumbling towards their car, covered in blood. We can presume that after being ran over, she carried on going to find her friends from the very start of the cycle to warn them.
Sorry if that's not explained very well! It's kind of confusing...
So what triggered it all? Why the time loop? (You dont go for the Schizophrenic deal & that it was all in his head then?)
shareThat's the one thing I'm not sure about! The whole thing wouldn't have happened if the bodies hadn't been there in the first place or schizophrenic guy's "other version" hadn't have made him paranoid by warning him about his friends turning against him... Who knows!
shareThe Aurora Borelias like thing in the beginning, or something in the mine about the snake eating its own tail. There is something in that area that causes that to happen.
shareWho scratched Rose? What exactly made this cycle different is never explained. Also, there should be more bodies. How did the bloody hand print disappear? Why kill a random couple? (the ones in the R.V.) Why didn't Lyla go to the gas station in previous loops? How can it be broken? They exist in the same space at different times yet are the same people. What does that mean? There are now two Lyla's and who knows how many Michael's. What happens to all the Micheal's? There is no magic reset, so the math is literally impossible. I don't know if the writers realized that to break the cycle you destroy the world. It's an anamoly that the universe can't correct. Imagine that doesn't happen, how does the world deal with such a strange story. Two of the same woman or man that are not twins or clones would confuse that world more than it does the audience of this one. Also, at the beginning the police have found evidence of the previous loop. It could be a red herring but that would raise a lot more questions. There are a few cuts of this film. The last scene breaks an already fragile premise.
After throwing a machete through a guys chest, "Stick around!"- Dutch (Predator)