Skip to main content

I'm going to open an X-file on this bran muffin.

The X-Files
11.2: This

(SPOILERS) Glen Morgan returns with a really good idea, certainly one with much more potential than his homelessness tract Home Again in Season 10, but seems to give up on its eerier implications, and worse has to bash it round the head to fit the season’s “arc”. Nevertheless, he’s on very comfortable ground with the Mulder-Scully dynamic in This, who get to spend almost the entire episode in each other’s company and might be on the best form here since the show came back, give or take a Darin.


Langly: Mulder, I need to know. Am I dead? If I am, they know that I know.

The idea of not only depositing humankind in a simulation but of us also being in one has a lot of currency lately, not least from science itself. David Icke’s very big on the subject, taking his cues from the Gnostics and The Matrix (or is it the other way round?), the former with their “bad copy” take on the antics of the Demiurge. While This doesn’t go as far as suggesting that we’re all in one not-so-great holographic simulation and that the physical universe isn’t remotely physical at all, it does curiously trace out a fleetingly similar – in typically sketchy X-Files fashion – envisaging of future events as the one Anjeliki Anagnostou-Kalogera presents in her Gnostic-influenced Can You Stand the Truth?, where she posits that the end of this simulation is nigh and that there are various plans afoot by the Archons to wrest humanity into a parallel universe when this one ends (that universe itself having only very finite time available, this attempt to stave off the inevitable end of everything that is not part of the “Hyper Cosmoi”). Why, she even brings in ETs, but as the old humanity from the future (or parallel universe).


Mulder: I was gone back then. Could Langly be alive?

In This, Barbara Hershey’s Erika Price (shoehorned into the final reel to create a causal link with the rest of the season, exactly as successfully as that sounds) announces that life on Earth is about to be crushed, that “The simulation is necessary for our evolution as a species”, and that the means to upload everyone, whether they like it or not, is currently feasible (via a cell phone; I’m sketchy on the efficacy of this, but okay), which will be the state of (most? The select few?) humans when the doomed planet is left behind (as part of space colonisation). It’s unclear quite how this fits in with the plan to wipe out most of humanity (if you can put seven billion in a simulation, the only thing stopping you is that you don’t want to), and in the Gnostic scheme of things, the more humans there are for the Archons to feed off, the better, so that analogy only runs so far.


Langly: It’s a work camp. We’re digital soldiers.

Of course, with The X-Files it’s wise never to get too hung up on the specifics; Langly tells Mulder and Scully that the Elite are using the minds of participants in the simulation to deliver the necessary science in order to leave the planet. Again, this is nebulous. Because they don’t have the tech they need already? I thought that was where the aliens came in?


Langly’s previously unmentioned girlfriend (as if Langly ever had a girlfriend) Karah Hamby (Sandra Holt) informs them that she and Langly theorised when signing up to the project that everything they were told about the simulation might not be true, and wondered, if they were placed in it when they died, “How would that life know it was a simulation?” For Langly, it’s pretty much as The Matrix told us regarding early failed simulations; it’s too perfect, a world where there’s no cancer, where he eats hot dogs and donuts all day, where The Ramones play every night and never fight, and the New England Patriots always lose (whatever the last one means): “I’m begging you, destroy it”. And that “They all hate it here” (the great minds, including Steve Jobs and Michael Crichton, the latter presumably writing hacky virtual pseudo-science airport fiction).


Kara: Maybe he saw Mulder in his dreams.
Mulder: Who hasn’t?

Morgan offers no fake-out realities with this scenario, though, one that seems entirely asking for them (if this had been an JJ Abrams series episode, it would have probably taken place from inside the simulation looking out), aside from a coda in which Langly reappears on his phone (“Mulder! They know what we know. Destroy the back-up”) and the psycho killer Russian shot dead earlier appears on the screen (and being The X-Files, does Mulder leave his friend languishing in favour of a new standalone episode next week? You bet). The lead in to this is rudimentary cobblers, with Mulder escaping Erika, meeting up with Scully and having a fight while she turns off the BIG machine (server).


Mulder: So the Russians who tried to kill us have had access to all our work.

Much of the rest of the material is faintly old hat. The private contractors aspect would have seemed much more topical a decade ago, Purlieu Services being an American contractor with Russian links (Russian links to the government because topical, right? Except that The X-Files is the last show that should be swallowing verbatim that what we’re told is fake news is fake news). Who put the X-Files on line, so know all about them (and deleted some of them).


Added to which, putting Skinner in duplicitous-seeming situations is plain lazy at this point in the run. His impromptu carpark speech, where everyone stops squabbling so he can deliver a spiel about how there are now seventeen US intel agencies, “All of them are in bed with one another while trying to exterminate each other, and that means each of us” at least gives Pileggi something to chew on, but it’s further evidence of this show’s unenviable old git syndrome.


Mulder: He’s dead because the world was so dangerous and complex then. Who’d have thought we’d look back with nostalgia and say that was a simpler time, Scully? Everything we feared has come to pass. How the hell did that happen?

The above is, of course, bunk. It’s the tired refrain of an older generation who should know better, since every older generation responds similarly. Getting agitated in the face of Trump only serves to make the current incarnation of The X-Files seem the more stranded, waving its arms about helplessly while dropping Snowden into conversation because he’s only about five years past being happening.


Mulder: Frohike look 57 to you the day he died?
Scully: Frohike looked 57 the day he was born.

What makes the more egregious aspects of this episode forgivable, however (the trail of clues in Arlington Cemetery is so much nonsense), is the banter between Mulder and Scully. First seen on the couch watching TV, it isn’t long before Duchovny’s doing Californication by way of Beavis and Butthead (“You said taint”) and waxing lyrical after a hard day wrestling bad guys (“Scully, you looked so adorable then. All curled up in a ball in a skanky bar with your fingers wrapped around the grip of our assassin’s Glock”). And he doesn’t get to hog all the good lines either:

Mulder: I’m going to open an X-file on this bran muffin. I’ve got to get to the bottom of why it tastes so freakin’ good.
Scully: I don’t care if it comes out of an alien’s butt. I’m going to eat the whole thing.


Morgan’s an infinitely preferable, more composed director than Carter, even though he has less experience. He should steer well clear of action sequences, however; the opening home invasion mistakes randomly cutting a scene to ribbons for a thrilling shootout. Mostly, though, This is welcome for getting the characters back on track, even as it needlessly rakes over old continuity in the process. Time was you could have a really great episode and really great character work, often from Morgan and Wong. I guess things were simpler then.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …