There’s no reason to go on and on about All You Need is Kill (I don’t answer to my Focus Group name). It’s good, you saw it. It takes an idea and permutates it into every possible form it could think of. There’s a strong possibility it has thirty seven acts. I will see it again and count them, which is not hyperbole. I find it depressing, but not surprising that mass audiences in general ignored it, so much so that I can’t even be bothered to have a theory about it.

So let’s instead talk about what AYNIK doesn’t do, or does do if leaving something out is something that you do, which is make a choice out of something that we know the hero can’t choose anyway. Not do that. There’s a point where our hero having fought, died, and etc., just gets tired. Unlike any other movie, there’s no scene of an idiotic non-choice that he has to make, about whether or not it’s good be depressed, and how hard it is to be a hero and so on. Instead, we have the combination of several things: the nice little walkabout/desertion Mr. Cruise takes to London, seeing Ms. Blunt’s lifeless body over and over again, and, God forbid, an actual sense of weariness conveyed by an actor. Any other film made in the last ten years would have had the classic ‘I can’t go on/nevermind now I will’ scene. This is because they are huge fans of Sam Beckett collected works, and not because they are fucking incompetent and lazy fucking writers. AYNIK film relies – entirely – on the mood it has created, and the trust that the audience will be able to simply read into it.

Ah. There’s my theory.

I just realized why I had such trouble finding this – I had obscured the title of the ticket at the top. How jejune.

Editor’s note (17 April 2016): I have returned, some months later, and extremely correct about this film, which has had an understandable second life on video. Re: the thirty-seven acts, I’m right, but lazy, but let’s talk about act structure here why not? The theory goes that you got three acts, basically set-up, fall, redemption. The character is put through a worn series of situations and then the situations stop.

But if we define an act on what might be called a turn, that we’re going one way, and then another, this starts to get extremely confusing, which may have been the initial idea: to hide how writing works. Probably from the authors who invented it themselves.

Modern films are from this perspective, shorts. They have three acts and a lot of talking/CGI. If it’s good talking, we (read I) don’t mind and we sit back. No doubt I could conjure a theory where a joke is an act, but it’s really just something to keep us distracted.

This is fine by me, if it does. But wouldn’t be nice to have a whole buncha other stuff going on? Talking about AYNIK, the format of dying over and over again leads to exactly this. Going over notes from watch n°1 and watch n°3, nearly every time he dies forms an act, or at the very least a bit.

Another admirable trait, at the end of this article, but at the beginning of the film, is the way in which we get the exposition out of the way. The aliens come, they have a big battle, and we’re introduced to Ms. Blunt’s and Mr. Cruise’s character in a matter of a minute. The fact that they don’t explain why they’re called Mimics is hey kids, with the new blog, you’re reading my thoughts – get out my head – imaginary people who read this! Anyway, note not to you, this could be re-ordered as per the film. Better, but you’re an idiot. Not you, me! But also you.