无尽

没时间读完的朋友，简单总结就是导演说了，结尾是happy ending，不是loop，兄弟俩逃出生天。

http://collider.com/the-endless-explained-interview/

‘The Endless’ Filmmakers on Their Trippy Mythology & Deciphering That Ending

This week, Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead‘s The Endless rolls out on Blu-ray and digital, which means that folks nationwide are going to be unravelling the headtrip horrors of the film’s unnerving, mysterious Lovecraftian mythology and looking for some answers.Earlier this month, I published the first part of my conversationwith the filmmaking duo, which spanned from the duo’s early ideas for expanding the universe they built in their first film, Resolution, to the experience of taking the finished versionThe Endless around the world. And now that the movie has hit more theaters, it seems like a good time to serve up the spoilery portion of the interview, which dives into what to make of the film’s mysterious mythology and ending.

If you need a refresher, The Endless follows Benson and Moorhead as Justin and Aaron (yes, they’re using their real names, but no, they’re no playing themselves), a pair of bickering brothers always at odds who return to the UFO death cult they escaped as kids in search of answers. Except when they get there, they don’t find a UFO death cult at all, but a happy and healthy, if admittedly weird and unsettling, commune of people living life on their own terms. They also find something more sinister lurking in the hillsides of the remote camp — an unseen, oppressive presence that communicates through voyeuristic photographs and video clips, trapping people in time-loop prisons where it manipulates and torments them into various horrific fates for its own amusement. A frontiersman trapped in a loop of mere seconds, a man who has to kill himself every few minutes to prevent a worse fate, and the local cult, who have it relatively easy by comparison — living out a decently long three-moon loop that ends with their “ascension,” aka being shredded into bloody bits. Yikes. At least they don’t have to worry about aging.

Image via Well Go USA

And of course, there’s the return of Mike (Peter Ciella) and Chris (Vinny Curran) from Resolution,who are trapped in the bitter week-long loop of forced sobriety and failing friendship detailed in the 2002 film. The unseen evil in The Endless is the same chilling cosmic threat we met in Resolution, and the films share more crossovers thanyou’d probably imagine on a first watch, so you’re looking for more answers on The Endless, a rewatch of Resolution is the perfect place to start. Or first watch if you caught The Endless first, which works just as well.

However, if you’re looking for an easy play-by-play explanation of what goes down in the film, you’re not going to get it from Benson and Moorhead, who insist everything you need to solve the puzzles of their unconventional cinematic universe can be found right there on screen. However, the duo was more than happy to dive into the ideation behind the film’s mythology and the mindset behind ending it the way they did, so check out the interview below for a discussion of the different ways their “monster” is revealed through the characters and settings in the film, the ideas that helped inspire the unseen menace, and why the ending is more about character payoff than answering specific questions.

I know you guys have said you have this whole mythology totally down from top to tail. Was that something that you had already achieved at the time ofResolutionor did that come later?

JUSTIN BENSON: It’s definitely expanded.

AARON MOORHEAD: The rules didn’t change.

BENSON: But like withResolutionthere were … In both of these movies, there have been massive documents of things that people never see. And it’s really cool because we’re pretty sure people feel these things in the movie. The things that are into that. But like in the case ofResolution, for example. The unseen antagonist ofResolution, which is the same unseen antagonist inThe Endless, obviously. Except inResolution, the point of view of the whole film is from the unseen antagonist. There was like a massive document that went into everything about that “monster” that went to our sound designer to help them design the sound of the whole film. So that existed duringResolutionand there are things in that document that ended up more conspicuous inThe Endlessthan expanded upon. That’s just like one example of one thing.

When it comes to how nailed down the mythology is… Whenthe camera pulls back on that canyon and you see all those bubbles, the time prisons, would you be able to look at that shot and say exactly what’s happening in each one of them?

Image via Well Go USA

MOORHEAD: I can tell you how long those loops are, when they reset, and all of that. That exact area, we know it pretty well. And that’s desert, so there’s a whole bunch of poor animals. It’s probably something like that, but I wouldn’t say that we have an entire map of the world and who’s in it. But it wouldn’t be hard to theorize. We definitely have enough. So it would be pretty easy to take a good gander. And then, the little sequence that — the music trimmings for the montage that follows Justin and Aaron walking past the big totem and it’s in the sort of monolith carved monster looking thing.

BENSON: The rusty dragon sculpture.

MOORHEAD: And the rusty dragon sculpture. So those would all be individual loops that have developed their own sub-cultures and have their own interpretation of what this unseen antagonist is. Depending on how they saw it, the state of mind they’re in, and their own personalities, and all of that. And that these things they’ve created are artistic representations of how they see the antagonist. Whether they’re going specifically through the loop you see in the distance, because they do walk off, that we don’t know. And luckily, we only shot in 4K so you can’t really punch in. [Laughs]

BENSON: And what’s funny is … it’s weird how important that sequence was to us because in the movie we basically, the oldest loop that you ever see is what, 1800 something? Some kind of frontiersman like in a tent, but we have a non-existent Easter Island type subculture that developed its own kind of mythology around it. Clearly. And of course, Native Americans with the totem pole. But even the monolith to us — which is kind of the big image of the film anyways — to us. it’s supposed to scare the hell out of you when you realize that’s what that is. When you realize that, that’s the antagonist of the film as seen by people that are so ancient they’re gone in America.

In a similar vein, along with those monoliths I loved the ways we see this presence interpreted through the eyes of the characters in the film, like Lizzie’s art and Hal’s equation. What was your process of creating all these different understandings of this one being?

MOORHEAD: I mean, that’s something that did start with Resolution but it’s so small. It’s so small. It’s like literally there’s a journal running during the credits sequence of Resolution. It’s a bunch of monster sketches, and that would have been what the French researchers in Resolution were seeing it as. So that goes way back. I don’t even remember anymore what the inspiration for that was. Besides the fact that, unless you can get Giger, the guy who did Alien, unless you have a designer on that level to build a monster … We’re just trying to figure out ways that we can present it visually when we need to at least hint at something and not just show nothing, always. And in this case, we get to show it through sketches, and through sculptures, and things like that.

Image via Well Go USA

In the case of Spring, we showed a monster because the premise alluded to nature as being our designer. And since we don’t have our own Giger, we come up with these, hopefully interesting, clever ways to show an otherworldly being or “monster” and it won’t be really uneventful.

I mean if you wanted to pour a glass of wine, on a dark night and think about it. There’s this idea of every civilization has developed an idea of a deity and a God. And their interpretation of it has trickled down into our religions today. Or died out. But in the same way, their visualizations of it have looked so wildly different. And a lot of the time there’s the idea that … There’s two ideas. One is, what if it’s the same thing? What if they’re all the same thing? Of course, unified religion theory, which is kind of an idea that we play with. But we’re merging it with the idea of, what if wasn’t God? What if it was just a monster? Or what if people with porphyria were seen as vampires? You know, that kind of an idea where it’s like, “Oh, there’s nothing metaphysical about it.” Obviously, our movie’s metaphysical. But what if it was a natural phenomenon that people just tried to interpret as a god. And that’s a lot of what we’re talking about with this; they saw it as God and it’s actually just this thing.

BENSON: And as you saying that, I just remembered where it comes from. It comes from … This is a deep cut. There’s a guy named John Keel, who’s the guy who wrote The Mothman Prophecies. The book is very different from the movie. It’s not a fictional narrative. It’s sort of a journalist’s account of what happened in an area over a period of time. He wrote a whole collection of other books. The one that I’ve read is Our Haunted Planet and what it’s basically about is this concept of ultra-terrestrials.

I’m not saying it is an ultra-terrestrial in this movie, but the idea is that throughout human history whenever human beings saw something and interpreted it as being like, “Oh, I saw something. That was an angel from the bible.” Or, “That was a demon.” Or, “That was an extraterrestrial being.” “That was the Men in Black.” “That was the Mothman.” Whatever. That it’s actually always the same thing. In his case, he was arguing that it was this thing called an ultraterrestrial. That just basically, something that had been here among us, always manipulating the situation and everyone just seeing it differently depending on their culture. So it’s vaguely where the idea comes from. If you could imagine, there are so many species that we haven’t yet cataloged in the Amazon. Things like that. Imagine if there’s like an enormous blind spot that we just completely missed; one really big thing. Again, that’s not what’s in The Endless but it’s that idea.

I do have one very specific question. Are we meant to interpret at the end where we see the image of two cars coming into a collision, that it has anything to do with the car crash that put them there in the first place?

MOORHEAD: No.That’s an interesting one where we realized that was an unintentional thing. About 10% percent of people, they’ll kind of have that question of like, “Do they?”

When I watch Resolution andThe Endless back to back, something I had not picked up the first time was, they seem almost opposite ending moments. Resolution ends on a feeling of helplessness and being trapped and The Endless is all about breaking free. Was that intentionally designed for those two endings to be on opposite ends of the emotional spectrum?

MOORHEAD: Oh, that’s funny. I’m going to give you a yes and no. I think afterSpring, we got addicted to optimistic endings. I think we realized that we are just optimistic people and saying like, “You’re fucked no matter what” is just not our feeling about the way that life is, or at least the message that we want to put out into the world. And also, frankly, it more comes down to the construct of The Endless where, if you’re talking in really broad terms about the movie. If you’re talking about the fact that it says, “Break out of your cycle or be doomed to repeat history forever.” It seems like we should be showing what it looks like to break out of your cycle. And like, “Does that help you?” I don’t think it’s a moral as much as it’s an exploration of it. Because there are people that do enjoy it inside their cycle. I mean, the cult at the end. And you don’t even feel bad for them. A little bit, but it’s more melancholy. It’s like, “Oh. They kind of enjoy it there.” But I think that it would have been untruthful for ourselves if we’d ended it as dark as Resolution had ended.

BENSON: Yeah. It just seemed like we know, yes there is a very literal answer to the movie. And the answers in the film…It may take a few viewings, but everything’s very literal and all the evidence, if you want to call it that, is there. In terms of, where’s the movie ending in the sense of the supernatural, and otherworldly, and the sci-fi aspects, and all that.

But the thing that’s definite, that’s there, that was the most important to us, was just that you’d see that there was a transformation in the interpersonal relationship between these two brothers. And that you’d see that transformation in just a really understated gesture. And that the emotional satisfaction should come from that. I think anything else beyond that, we do things stylistically to kind of like poke the mystery part of people’s brains a little bit. One example is that it’s a hard cut going out. Things like that where just like you sit there and you go, “Oh, wait. There’s another piece of the puzzle to figure out.” To think about longer. It’s things like that. But there’s definitely one answer to the sci-fi part of it.

MOORHEAD: Actually going back to your questions, I just remembered when you said, “People who have viewed the movie multiple times.” There’s something that’s an interesting thing we’ve realizes. Our movies kind of exist in what people have called a Lynchian sort of universe where just things are a little off and all of that. I hadn’t seen almost any Lynch when that comparison started, but what’s interesting is, all of the answers to the movie are, I promise you, they’re in the movie. They are there. It’s not a dream logic situation. We’re not being deliberately obtuse. We just want to tell a mystery that’s got a lot of depth to it. And we just don’t want to lay it all out on the table but they’re in there. If you think about it long enough and hard enough. And you know, you might have to take a couple of, not leaps of logic but leaps of faith that like, “Okay. That is what they meant.” Something like that. But our movies are meant to be, I guess literal. That might be the word for it. They are meant to be telling a full story.

//collider.com/the-endless-explained-interview/

一个很长的对于兄弟俩导演的采访。

导演说了很多，其中有两个事情给出了明确答复：

1. 结局是“乐观的”。

2. 最后兄弟俩驾车冲出loop的时候和镜面相撞，这件事和他们年幼时候遭遇的车祸不是一个事情。

那么影片最后的关于汽车没油了的对话，便可以理解为，车子确实快要没油了，只是因为汽车会给你一个冗余量而已（让你尽早加油）。而哥哥那句“You figured it out”只是为了表现哥哥再也不强求弟弟了。（这么多年来哥哥对弟弟都是非常强势的，影片中多次体现。）

所以其实结局是两重欢喜。第一重，他们逃离了循环；第二重，兄弟俩不再是命令和屈服的关系。尤其是第二点，导演也有在采访中暗示。

大家都想多了。但目前已有的影评中，确实有很多看似有道理的分析，但都被导演简单粗暴的定性答复否决了。这样看来这部电影其实逻辑性并不明确，你也可以说有bug。

哥哥（不需要吃饭也不需要喝水，车也不需要加油，估计电池也一直都没换新的吧）到底是个什么东西？是一种什么样的存在？结尾说弟弟figure it out，难道他早就figure it out了吗？他一直都知道自己在循环里吗，为了多活几年把弟弟带出去，但始终知道自己从未离开过循环？如果那个神秘强大的不可名状的东西想让兄弟俩在出现三个月亮之前走不出边界，永远陷入循环，没必要用照片提示弟弟去房车那里和哥哥会合吧，也许他俩一直就在循环中（给水这个情节发生了两次，兄弟俩刚会合的时候哥哥就把水给了弟弟，之后弟弟说渴，弟弟手上是没有水的，哥哥掏包，弟弟还问你干什么，哥哥又给了一次水）？未知在玩弄他俩？

有点不可思议，发现最终让我难以忘怀的电影都是恐怖片。上一部让我毛骨悚然叹为观止的恐怖片是《恐怖游轮》。它说的是：每个人的每一个选择——无论你有多少次机会，多么次挣扎，最终都会在每一个关键的时候犯同一种错误——最终万劫不复，指向同一个结局。

《恐怖游轮》中，支持女主走下去是对儿子的爱，导致走向循环的是自己血液中的烦躁和暴虐。《无尽》中支持两男主走下去的是对彼此的容忍和羁绊，最终能走出循环的是对彼此的尊重和释然。

评论区有人转发了导演的访谈，然后认为电影只有一个“乐观”结局，呵呵，未必吧。其实原文章中根本就没有这个意思，只是说导演更倾向于让大家理解这是一个 Happy Ending。大意是说他们只是讲了一个破有深度的神秘的故事，他们不会直白的把所有东西摆上台面。反正至少对兄弟而言，哥哥放下了控制欲，弟弟也勇敢的掌舵起了自己的方向盘，他们已经逃出了无尽的怪圈——这就够了。

同时，导演说，电影中已有导演想表达想布置的一切。所以对一部有科幻属性设置的电影，其他任何对电影结局有其他解读的观影者都是正常不过的事情。从商业角度上，其实这也是导演故意设置的开放式伎俩，可以在后继的故事中随时展开新的篇章。我觉得可以肯定的是，后面还会有第三部曲的，可能会讲怪圈中的人如何逃离（例如麦克和老婆如何相聚之类），但导演们还没想好如何讲好这个故事，总之我相信会有。如果我是导演，我就会有。WHY NOT?!

1、影片开始的录像带，是怪物寄的。兄弟两在重启前逃出了营地，怪物的目的是在重启前重新禁锢他们。怪物的嗜好就是喜欢观察别人的悲欢离合和挣扎冲突（导演说这点上观众和怪物很像哈哈）。

2、哥哥的人设是控制欲+说谎者，营地中的不明力量让他各种恐惧，更别说控制了，所以他会带着弟弟逃离。弟弟的人设是乐观+认死理，但十年来都活在被哥哥主宰的梦魇中。录影带让他意识到回营地可能是一个逃脱的机会，所以想回去寻找答案做个了结。

3、哥哥喜欢跑步，营地中所到之处处处透露着怪异，无不让他无力和不安。小到村民的眼神和动作，中到出没的毒蛇和虎豹，大到天上的闪烁和怪风。这些其实更像是怪物针对人性设置的异象，达到逐渐摧毁逐步控制的目的。有点像修炼小说中的心魔。包括两人玩射击，弟弟子弹没阻挡，哥哥子弹被挡住了。包括玩魔术时其实魔术师猜对了，但哥哥睁眼说瞎话，典型属于只相信自己想相信的人。

4、拔河的小游戏，佐证了其实弟弟是个更单纯更客观的人，顾及亲情，一直容忍着哥哥无厘头的控制权。从影片开头弟弟反对哥哥的刷爆信用卡固执说“我会搞定”，到路上开车哥哥蛮横不给弟弟掌舵，床上聊天粗鲁打断弟弟的话，到最后两人在车是否没油的话题上，终于肯定弟弟，说出“你来搞定”。同一句话，不同主语，一个轮回。

5、湖中捞起的影片暴露了哥哥的本质，从而成功离间了哥弟两。片中怪物的设计是无所不看无所不能的。片头兄弟在湖边喝酒聊天时天空明显的怪圈，可以理解为怪物无时不刻的监控。这也解释了哥哥在营地外招摇撞骗时照样被拍的录像。

6、两人在营地入口路边悼念母亲，这里的对称天空说明这里是营地轮回世界的边界。母亲的纪念碑在其中，所以画框历久常新。这里的翻译也是有问题的，弟弟说 Hold Up，是说画框居然这么耐抗。这是开始进入轮回世界的一个提示。最后两人冲出生天，说明怪物的控制更多是一种心理控制，感觉可能是类似于《万能钥匙》中只要你信了你就中招了的设定。车辆冲撞是一种幻想，如果怂了那就是输了。可以设想，换做哥哥开车，他是无论如何也不敢撞上去的。

7、营地的人们还是很好心的。虽说他们知道什么情况，但毕竟身在其中无法明言。哈尔指引弟弟去找哥哥，卡尔指引哥哥去找弟弟，还有安娜对弟弟挥手作别，最后全体复活后目送兄弟离开。不管如何，弟弟说的没错，至少他们曾经也是伐木累。哥哥在这个问题上各种造谣中伤，确实非常恶劣。可以说如果不是弟弟，哥哥要么困在里面这个怪圈，要么困在外面的怪圈。

8，前传《决案》我没找到资源看不了，所以戒毒两人组就只是觉得搞笑，暂时没有其他解读。不过这两个导演的下一部让人期待！小众而深刻！为什么我觉得可以有另一种解读，是因为最后天上的一弯新月：如果说两兄弟进入了一个全新的循环，是完全说得通的，只要把怪物的设定继续完善和加强就可以，再简单不过的事情。这种完全取决于导演的发挥。总之怪物的真面目，猜测极有可能会在下一部续作中揭晓。

9，最后几点感悟：无知是福；越控制越无力；我觉得不如你觉得。

——————————————————

一点疑问：为何卡尔上吊后，新的卡尔复活了，上吊的卡尔不会消失？这里真心百思不得其姐！！！

仅对结尾作两种推测：1、哥俩逃出循环。

哥哥：该加油了。弟弟：no,we are good。哥哥：油表空了。弟弟：一直都这样（指油表）

哥哥反问：一直都是空的?

弟弟：如果真的空了，就意味着油箱里一点油都没有。注意：此时镜头转向油表，此时播放时长为1:46:38

弟弟抬杠且认死理，油表不亮就是坏了。反正有油。

下一秒，也就是1:46:39 油表指示灯亮了。

当场打脸

然后镜头回到哥俩身上，弟弟的话说了一半，骤然而至。因为被打脸了。油表灯亮了，证明哥哥说的是对的，要加油了。

弟弟之前习惯了和哥哥针锋相对，或者说叛逆心理作祟，喜欢和哥哥抬杠。从开头到最后都有片段陈述弟弟的这种心理状态。加上刚开了没多远，弟弟以为哥哥找借口不让他开了。所以他说we are good。个人认为可以理解为“咱俩现在这样就挺好，我坐主驾驶你坐副驾驶”。包括最后推车时弟弟为啥非要开车，因为来营地的时候他要开，哥哥没同意。还是逆反心理，小孩子一样。

而开车也是种隐喻，往哪走当然主驾驶说了算。人生亦如此。之前弟弟埋怨哥哥，说不想走了，因为在城市里生活太糟糕，都是因为你在主导我们人生的前进方向诸如此类的话，哥俩吵架都有说。不再赘述。

回到电影,哥哥说：you figure it out。字幕是：你全都明白了。个人认为不太准确。包括其他影评也有提到这点。百度翻译有个例句很好：

意思为你来解决咯。结合哥哥当时的坐姿和语气，再通俗一点讲就是，好好，你说了算。

这个可以理解为哥哥在这种小事上的退让，和对弟弟的包容。为啥这么说，诸位不妨回到推车那会，哥哥说了一大串话，有一句说“从现在开始我们扯平了，你是我弟弟，我很爱你。“反正弟弟已经认识到确实要加油了，何必非在言语上占个上风呢？

综上所述，哥俩逃出循环。happy ending。而且营地留下的人脸上略显欣慰的笑容也可佐证。

2、哥俩没有逃出循环。

有人问说循环从哪开始，到哪结束。在我看来非常简单。

播放时长1:45:32.

即为开始，也为结束。

此为开始，哥俩以为逃出循环。回到城市可以继续平常的生活，但是十年的惨淡人生中（为啥惨淡稍后再讲），弟弟愈发对哥哥不满，想要回到营地过衣食无忧的生活。并反复观看片头收到的那一卷录像带，谁劝都不好使（特别是他哥）。不来不行，这日子过不下去了，要啥啥没有（片头可知，没钱没有朋友何况女朋友）哥哥无奈之下迁就弟弟，俩人一起回到营地，再次经历电影里发生的一切，并死于最后的撞击中。这里有几个地方需要细说：

为啥惨淡？逃是逃出去了，可能哥俩心态有点变化，哥哥不像以前那么独断专行，弟弟也不逆反了也不抬杠了。兄友弟恭，共同创造和谐新生活一起致富奔小康多好啊。这个想法是好的。

但是，江山易改本性难移，再联系电影情节，弟弟从小就是这个样子长大，这都二三十岁了还是很逆反。真能改过来吗？我看不好说。

其次，弟弟回去后，继续做保洁。孤枕难眠时看到月亮会不会想起那个姑娘（服装设计师）？会不会想起她口中传来的那股子“花朵”味（姑且认为是大麻），会不会卷根大麻怀念一下并沉浸在毒品的短暂快感中无法自拔？还是不好说。自古人心难断，诸位以为呢？

有人说，弟弟想来营地的原因就是因为当下的生活太糟糕。努力奋斗过上好日子不就行了？

那我们退一步讲，哥俩买彩票或者通过自己努力奋斗，发财了。朋友也有了对象也有了。那么人生得意之际，花天酒地夜夜笙歌也好，高朋满座杯觥交错也好。曲终人散的时候会不会想起那个只拉过一下手的姑娘？会不会想回营地，哪怕见一面都好？我看更不好说。反正哥俩混的好不好都无所谓，都得回来。

营地里的人欣慰的笑，也是以为他俩逃出了循环。

所以，哥俩逃不出循环，做再多也是白搭。

我话讲完，谁赞成？谁反对？

每个人都活在自己的轮回里，不管你是否意识到……

看到70分钟左右的时候，我暂停了，猜测剧情往下会怎么走。后面的克苏鲁神话对我来说有些不过瘾，我更愿意看到哥哥带着弟弟走出“邪教”团体，但是在弟弟的反抗下意识到，即使离开了集体生活，自己奋力逃出了一个围城，自我感觉获得的无限可能也只是另一种轮回，可是哥哥会让年轻的弟弟明白自己为什么离开集体生活的选择，因为自由给了你无限可能的同时，也要求你自己去做努力，去寻找并实现自我价值。哥哥愿意在这种自由状态下接受现实中投靠无门、难有立锥之地的困境中轮回，也不愿意交换不知道有何用的权利来换取有保障的生活，这是为人者的尊严，是我们精神独立，人格完全的操守。

愿我们有一个机会做出这样的选择。

每个人都有自己的轮回，或短或长。在自己的轮回里挑选自己应对轮回的姿态，尽量有尊严的活着。如果有机会跳出这个轮回，跳出去看一下，或许在这个过程中才会发现什么才是对自己最重要的事。建议一直困在公司格子间的同仁能够出离一下，审视自己生活的轮回，愿你感受到得不只有悲哀。

导演两人拍摄于2012年的处女作《决案》和2017年的《无尽》虽说是两部影片，但在其故事情节和人物角色上却有不少重叠之处，而主题更有意想不到的延续，因此作为同一部野心勃勃的作品来看也未尝不可。比起较为粗糙简陋的处女作，《无尽》则明显地在制作成本上有所增加，令两位导演的狂野想象力得以展露。《无尽》的剧情和人物与《决案》有延续和交叠的部分，尤其在其中的一个场景，讲述男主角误入循环时空，竟出现在《决案》里Mike和Chris的那个小木屋里，奇妙地将两部影片的脉络打通，还无意中引出对抗幕后黑手的终极方式……

无独有偶地，两部影片都是由一盘神秘录像带而引出故事，而且不约而同地在传统的电影类型里逐渐融入惊悚恐怖的氛围，处女作是伙伴电影，而《无尽》则是近年冒起的邪教类型片。故事讲述两兄弟回到十年前逃出的邪教组织，却发现这个邪教的真实信仰与之前不同，还意外发现一个更加阴险的秘密。这部无论在制作水准还是主题概念上都远超过处女作《决案》的粗陋和直白，出现一些玄妙的特效场面。而后半段惊现时空循环的科幻情节又透露出核心主题，日常生活的平庸本质本身就是一种“循环”，一旦陷入这种生活模式便难以脱身。这个主题似乎与前一部作品《爱在初春惊变时》存在着有趣的交集，只不过前者是关于生死的宏大命题，这部回到更为现实的生活方式，更容易获得共鸣。

这部依然存在跟《决案》类似的元电影结构，甚至不惜在最后高潮部分让幕后大神“现身”，不过，这部的重点似乎不仅仅是这个幕后操纵角色的怪物。剧本用惊艳的科幻情节将生活的本质分析得相当透彻，周而复始的行动和目标，不管时间长短，终将回到原点，这种环形时空的世界观远远比简陋的处女作要复杂和诱人得多。