great plot twists
didn't find out what does u.n.c.l.e mean tholoading replies
It's (almost literally) spelled out at the very beginning of the ending credits. Watch the video carefully.
tell me please how the hell do you or anyone stream this. .or watch it tell me please I'm green rookie [email protected]
loading replies
I hope you've enjoyed the boost in spam email that comes from posting your address on the public Internet like that. :)
Awful, unfunny, sexist nonsense. Poorly drawn stereotypes inhabit a world of dark farce. Overtones of rape, incest, and anti-feminism abound. Just do yourself a favour and watch something else. The only thing this movie gets any points for is the entertaining character of the female psychiatrist, but by the end of the film, her character has fallen apart, as even she joins Ted's harem, until he gets too frisky and tries to rape her. I hated this movie, and I bet you will, too.
loading replies
Whoa, I didn't know Trakt supported inline spoiler markup.
Shout by -A
Mockingjay Part 2's biggest mistake is being completely faithful to the book, considering that it is the worst one of the trilogy. They had the chance to make the story better but chose to stick to what they had. Being the final chapter of the story, it has emotional bits, but miserably (and unfortunately) fails to sell them, rushing the scenes which we were supposed to remember the most. However, its political and action turmoils are its best parts and were beautifully developed. After all, piecing the four movies together, it remains a good story.
loading replies
In fairness, I'd bet that Suzanne Collins had creative power over the screenplay and vetoed any rewrite of the ending (or would have), even though the ending is super cringe-y. Just cutting the time skip into the future would have made it better. And an open ending might have been just what the series needed, considering that there's the potential for a fifth film, according to Jon Feltheimer (Lionsgate CEO). But we're stuck with this.
Shout by -A
Mockingjay Part 2's biggest mistake is being completely faithful to the book, considering that it is the worst one of the trilogy. They had the chance to make the story better but chose to stick to what they had. Being the final chapter of the story, it has emotional bits, but miserably (and unfortunately) fails to sell them, rushing the scenes which we were supposed to remember the most. However, its political and action turmoils are its best parts and were beautifully developed. After all, piecing the four movies together, it remains a good story.
loading replies
@aag Amazon X-ray showed the possibility of a fifth movie during the credits, but I also remember it being in the news back in February. It could be either a sequel or a prequel…but I'm with you that a prequel would be better. One of the other things that bothers me about the whole Hunger Games series is the limited perspective. I know it's pretty common in YA stories, but we practically never see anything that Katniss isn't there for, because she's the protagonist. Doing a prequel set before Katniss was born would force the use of other characters' perspectives!
Mockingjay Part 2's biggest mistake is being completely faithful to the book, considering that it is the worst one of the trilogy. They had the chance to make the story better but chose to stick to what they had. Being the final chapter of the story, it has emotional bits, but miserably (and unfortunately) fails to sell them, rushing the scenes which we were supposed to remember the most.
— @aag's review (https://trakt.tv/comments/62697, and we need proper internal link markup on Trakt!)Seriously. The big dramatic moments are unbelievably rushed—there's no time to dig into them. There's too much focus on bad CGI and not enough on characters. Basically every character is 2D at best, except maybe Katniss and Peeta. But that's also due to sticking true to the book. None of the characters in the books were particularly well fleshed out, either, as I recall (from reading them 3 ½ years ago).
I also found the story very predictable. Obviously there's some amount of subconscious influence from having read the books, but it's also just absolutely clear when the big surprises/twists are going to happen, and what they'll be. They end up not being surprising at all. (Not to belabor the point, but the book had this problem too.)
My other big issue—which applies to the whole series—is that we barely see anything that happens away from Katniss. I know it's quite common in YA novels to present a limited first-person perspective from the protagonist's point of view, but in a big political saga like this I feel like that severely limits the storytelling.
loading replies
@aag "romance bullsh*t" is right. YA novel or not, that was much too heavily emphasized. (Now that you fixed it I can edit the brackets out of my quote :D)
Extraordinary story told in a very extraordinary way. Dave Patel and Nicole Kidman outstanding. The music beautiful. I love it
loading replies
@thekinkykid Dave Patel? Is that Dev's identical twin? :P
I got about 25 minutes in and, though I was enjoying myself, had to stop. As yet I have not found any source for this documentary that includes subtitles for the non-English portions of the audio. There are several interviews and archival clips with dialogue in foreign languages, and I feel it would be unfair to myself and to the film to watch it without understanding these parts.
So, for now, I'll keep this on my watchlist knowing that as soon as I find complete subtitles, I will finish it.
loading replies
@adamk Both would be great, to guarantee that I can get a copy and so I can see where they originated.
You can email them to <your_username>@<my_username>.me, and thanks so much!
I got about 25 minutes in and, though I was enjoying myself, had to stop. As yet I have not found any source for this documentary that includes subtitles for the non-English portions of the audio. There are several interviews and archival clips with dialogue in foreign languages, and I feel it would be unfair to myself and to the film to watch it without understanding these parts.
So, for now, I'll keep this on my watchlist knowing that as soon as I find complete subtitles, I will finish it.
loading replies
@adamk I got the subtitles you sent, and watched the rest of the film with them. I didn't notice any subtitles for the foreign-language parts, though.
I got about 25 minutes in and, though I was enjoying myself, had to stop. As yet I have not found any source for this documentary that includes subtitles for the non-English portions of the audio. There are several interviews and archival clips with dialogue in foreign languages, and I feel it would be unfair to myself and to the film to watch it without understanding these parts.
So, for now, I'll keep this on my watchlist knowing that as soon as I find complete subtitles, I will finish it.
loading replies
@adamk Interesting… To be fair, I started where I left off (~26m into the film), rather than going back and starting over. Maybe they just didn't bother with any of the foreign dialogue toward the end? There was a long stretch in the middle with no non-English speech, and the bits at the end were Iranian television captures, not interviews.
Part of me wishes I could jump and bounce off things like that.... then again... looks kinda dangerous
loading replies
@danio-1972 "You know this is dangerous stuff. You get hurt if you don't know what you're doing."
The movie might be showing its age, or maybe I'm showing mine. The structure just felt off. The pacing was much too slow until the last quarter. There's something grating about Maverick's character—there's supposed to be, but I couldn't really find anything to like about him. And of course the romance is entirely unnecessary, but that's been a Hollywood problem since long before this movie (and still is).
loading replies
@mr-sackamano Or maybe you do…
All the moral complexity and historical sensitivity of a Disney sequel.
At least Judi Dench is brilliant. As usual.
loading replies
@luckynumber78 And to think that last week, my mom wanted to go see a movie and tried to talk me into this one…
Kimi no Na wa.
Kimi no Na wa es excelente en lo que quiere conseguir aunque se pone algunos obstáculos voluntariamente en el camino.
Esta película hace muchas cosas bien. Una de ellas es el poder comprimir en 30 minutos toda la trama sobre Cambio de Cuerpos y de esos 30 minutos en los primeros 15 concretamente hay algo muy interesante al momento de pasar de la zona rural a la cuidad. Antes de pasar a la cuidad la protagonista dice "Quiero ser un chico guapo de Tokio en mi siguiente vida", de primeras no puede significar nada y hasta pude llegar a sonar extraño e incoherente si se analiza un poco, pero bueno el objetivo en este caso es lo que se consigue cuando la protagonista dice eso. Esa frase consigue que el espectador espere que la protagonista amanezca en el cuerpo de un hombre o que ocurra algo alrededor de el cuerpo del hombre, y así cuando pasamos a la siguiente escena el espectador puede asimilar de una manera mucho mas rápida lo que esta ocurriendo en pantalla. En este caso que la "mente" de la protagonista esta en el cuerpo de un hombre y así no esperar a que se planteé como tal esto. Esta forma tan sutil de presentarlo lo vuelve mas natural y por ende mas sorprendente.
Los "Viajes en el tiempo" en esta película están bien expuestos, aunque si se les analiza se pueden llegar encontrar fallos, el objetivo primordial que es hacer un guion en el que la primera vez que el espectador vea la película no se encuentre con ningún fallo y con ello no se vea perjudicada la inmersión se consigue de muy buena manera.
A lo que me refiero conque la película se pone obstáculos al intentar hacer un buen guion fuera de los "Viajes en el Tiempo", es en que varias situaciones son incoherentes porque se les da muy poco o nulo desarrollo. Una de estas situaciones puede ser cuando le cortan la falda a la compañera del protagonista, esa situación es tan incoherente porque no hay una razón por la cual el cliente quisiera cortarle la falda mas allá de hacerlo por deseo propio, lo cual no tiene sentido en un guion. Los guionistas hacen esto varias veces a lo largo de la película, este tipo de situaciones realmente no tienen ningún tipo de justificación y por lo tanto son errores graves por lo sencillos que son de arreglar sin afectar a la trama.
Independientemente de todos los errores, es una película tremendamente hermosa que logra contar una trama de cierta manera compleja de una muy buena forma.
loading replies
@diego-b FYI, Trakt comment rules state "English only". If you can append an English translation of your review, that would be amazing :)
[9.3/10] At first blush, Baby Driver writer-director Edgar Wright and fellow director Wes Anderson don’t seem like a natural pairing. Wright’s films, like Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead tend to be overtly comedic, include a good quotient of action, and bring an adventure-focused quality to the proceedings. Anderson’s, by contrast, tend to be quieter, more droll pictures, that are certainly funny and have their share of exciting moments, but which find their form in the more reserved, music box sensibilities of Anderson’s oeuvre.
And yet, Wright and Anderson’s films have something very much in common. They both create films where it seems like the world was built to fit their characters, rather than more typical films where the main personalities find themselves struggling in a world that’s indifferent to them or even more commonly, which doesn’t fit them at all. Whether it’s Anderson’s elegant dioramas or Wright’s “everything’s foreshadowing” rube goldberg machines, the environments of these films bend to our heroes, not the other way around, resulting in some wonderfully well-choreographed cinema.
Baby Driver is the apotheosis of this tack, brought to bear in the form of car chases, gunfights, and the best jukebox soundtrack this side of the galaxy (and any attendant guardians). Indeed, Marvel Studios’ Guardians is a nice reference point, as both films not only feature countless rockin’ tunes, but also center on roguish but decent young men, holding onto to the last holy artifacts of their mother, finding solace in music and falling in with a rough crowd before deciding to stand for something more. It’s kismet that star Ansel Elgort, who plays the lead (appropriately named “Baby’), is signed on to be the past and future Han Solo in the latest standalone Star Wars flick, a character who’s very much in the DNA of Guardians’ Peter “Star-Lord” Quill.
Independent of any comic book counterparts, however, Baby Driver doesn’t offer much in terms of an original premise. Baby is a badass driver and a decent kid, mixed up with some bad folks, tentative about the prospect of blood and his hands, wanting to start a new life with his lady love. There are a lot of tropes in the film: the quiet but effective young naif, the loose cannon gangster, the slimy mastermind, the ingenue who represents a beacon of hope, the inevitable moral dilemma.
But what the film lacks in originality in its setup, it more than makes up for in performance, texture, and execution. Baby Driver has a murderer’s row of performers who chew up and spit out Wright’s script and make what could otherwise be stock character come alive and compensate for any dearth of depth with the sheer vividness of their presence.
Kevin Spacey looks alive for the first time in ages, bringing a blasé menace as the organizer of each heist. Jamie Foxx is at his extroverted best, rolling through pointed monologues and bringing a lived-in flavor of crazy. Lily James has enough homespun, wanderlust charm to balance out her underwritten part. Elgort is necessarily more reserved, but equally endearing and a fine fulcrum for the movie. And Jon Hamm brings his Mad Men practiced-gentility in a fashion that makes him seem like that much monstrous when the scales fall.
But while the performances carry the film in its quieter moments, what sets Baby Driver apart is sequence after superlative sequence of breathtaking kinetic cinema. Not content to simply toss in explosive but empty action to keep the heart-pumping, Wright, cinematographer Bill Pope, and editor Paul Machliss create these elegantly constructed set pieces of gorgeous synchronous stunts, twists, and turns, the hum right along with the music, just like the protagonist.That works whether Baby is blowing the doors off the film’s opening with a series of death-defying terms perfectly sequenced to his backing track. It works when the young man finds himself embroiled in a firefight where surprise shots and returned fire blast back and forth in time with the beat. It works in chases on foot as the rhythmic thump of the tune of the moment matches the energy of pursuers and pursued alike. Even when Baby goes to get coffee, the world moves with him; from the graffiti on the walls to the buskers on the street everything goes where he goes.
In the same way, the film doesn’t so much present action scenes as it does ballets of chrome and octane. Baby Driver oozes with style and tempo, knowing how to hold the audience’s attention through great escapes that and close scrapes that keep topping one another, and quieter scenes where the tension comes from sweet interactions juxtaposed with combustive elements, leading the viewer to wonder which will win the day.
It’s also a near perfectly-paced movie. Like a perfect mixtape, Wright knows when to kick things into gear and when to slow things down to let the audience catch its breath before putting his foot on the gas once more. While the film starts to feel a bit overextended at the very end, with the villain creeping into unkillable slasher territory, for the vast majority of its runtime it holds your attention from moment to moment and scene to scene expertly. In that, Wright matches the talents of his protagonist, directing and maneuvering this complex machine like it were a rough-and-tumble ballerina, full of slick thrills and inimitable grace.
He achieves this with a movie, a setting, and a lead character, that each move like clockwork in sync with one another. While Baby Driver is neither as quiet or twee as Wes Anderson’s work, it brings with it the film’s own sense of longing and melancholy beneath an intricately constructed world. Every scene is a dance, every moment a confluence of sound and imagery and movement, whether in the pulse-pounding races against cops or robbers, or gauzy imaginings of another life that might be. In Baby Driver, Wright has built his most elegant, intricate toy, and it’s a treat and a pleasure to see him play on the screen once again.
loading replies
@andrewbloom This should have more likes. Why doesn't it have more likes?!
Some of the drifts, stunts, gunfights, etc. are a little too much (-1 ) and the soundtrack is mostly shitty (- a second *) IMHO. Man, think about how great this flick would be with solid rock&roll tracks instead of those mainly annoying bepedy-bop rap and pop sh*!
loading replies
@drnkmnky If you want a literal * you have to use \* so it won't be turned into italics. :)
Good, good movie. Ben Foster is great...almost as great as Thomasin. Great actors the both of them. This was a small story told with so much emotion. It might look boring and is only rated PG, but it's solid. Check it out.
loading replies
It might look boring and is only rated PG, but it's solid.
I'm sitting here trying to figure out when a PG rating became synonymous with "uninteresting"…
Good, good movie. Ben Foster is great...almost as great as Thomasin. Great actors the both of them. This was a small story told with so much emotion. It might look boring and is only rated PG, but it's solid. Check it out.
loading replies
@kurtmoney That's how I read the tone. Maybe that's not how you meant it, but it came across that way. Personally, I don't think a film's rating has anything to do with the quality and would never even think to mention it in a review. MPAA ratings are just a tool some people choose to use when deciding what movies their kids should be allowed to see, after all. They're meaningless otherwise.
If what you meant was, "It might look boring, but it's solid and is only rated PG," then that completely changes things and invalidates my original interpretation. As written, there's an association between "look[s] boring" and "only rated PG" that jumped out at me when reading your initial comment, that's all.
For the life of me, I can't figure out who provided the "Voice" (that's all the script says) for the lock to which the Ankh is the key. It sounds so familiar, but none of the cast list jumped out at me. Searching "who played the voice in logan's run" isn't exactly going to return useful results. So… If anyone knows the name of the actor, I'd love to find out! It's making me a little nuts.
As usual, I'm going to nitpick first, then get into the bigger picture. (How this became my review format, I don't know, but it works.) There are many things worth nitpicking, actually. The visual effects in this film were surprisingly underwhelming, considering it came out only a year before Star Wars (1977). Lots of small details seemed off, and the film's IMDB listing has a pretty fat "Goofs" page. But only these struck me enough to write them down while watching.
The Carousel ritual has a couple of oddities. The performers' wires are clearly visible, as are the attachment points on their costumes. (Allegedly, director Michael Anderson is rather emphatic in saying that no wires are visible in the DVD commentary. I do not have this commentary available, so I have to trust IMDB. They really are very obvious.) And, it looks like one of the flying participants is pregnant. I don't see that referenced anywhere in trivia sources I consulted, and perhaps my eyes deceived me as I watched the film, but it really does appear so.
It was awfully convenient that Logan forgot he had an Ankh of his own, so Jessica's could be fumbled into the water for Francis to find later. (Smells like contrived writing, born of having no better ideas on how to get Francis outside with them.)
The grates Logan and Jessica remove inside the seawater intake system seem awfully easy to dislodge. I wonder just how they've managed to stay put for so many years. With 6 generations (roughly) of 30 years, that puts the construction of the power facility about two centuries in the past. Pretty impressive, since no one is allowed outside the city. How do they maintain outside equipment, anyway?
I know I've already mentioned the visual effects, in the nitpick section above, but it bears repeating: The effects in Logan's Run were underwhelming even after taking into account the age of the film. From obvious matte paintings and miniatures to just straight-up bad double-exposure work, I found myself really struggling to ignore the technical side of the movie to focus on its story.
Broadly, the story is a good one. It's perhaps an overdone trope these days—a post-apocalyptic, dystopian society with arbitrary rules that one person finally feels must change—but I must imagine this kind of story was slightly rarer 40 years ago. And even now, it hasn't really gotten old seeing a future human civilization rediscover what it means to be human.
The single largest omission from the screenplay, I thought, was world-building. We almost learn more about what life is like for the old man, outside the city dome, than what it's like inside. There's a vague sense of how hedonistic life in the city can be. Jessica appears as Logan channel-surfs "the circuit", seemingly a way for city residents to offer themselves up for sex. Francis appears with two "screamers" (oh yeah, that's subtle) for a party shortly after. There is, of course, the "Love Shop" scene—shorter than originally intended, but probably as long as was necessary. But most of the "regular people" we see are swimming, shopping, working out… I have no clear sense of what people in the domed city actually do all day.
It's implied that children are raised by machine, perhaps. It seems parents do not exist. The city residents might even be sterile by design (perhaps a surgical procedure performed shortly after birth). They can have orgies every day and not worry about birth control. Conception of children may be regulated by the city computer, just as is the "termination" of those who have reached Lastday.
For all the statement it makes, having such a world, it still feels like an empty premise. The city computer, which seems to have an obsession with tracking down Sanctuary, has a distressingly small role in the story. Logan's "surrogates" have a bigger part than the computer does, practically. (And those visual effects were… weird.)
I guess what I really wanted was "more villain". Also a better ending (because the city exploding after Logan's report fries the computer made no sense to me). But it's not a bad film. It's enjoyable, even thought-provoking. Just not as much as I expected.
loading replies
@abstractals Yup, that's easy to find (listed in the film credits, IMDB, etc. with an easy role name). The lock, though, is a male voice, and tricky to pin down.
exeptional film i really love it!!! :)
loading replies
@jennyswagly Loved it, but gave it the worst possible rating (1/10)? Makes sense to me…
First off, from a technical perspective, this is a masterpiece. Everything that is shot in a ship looks phenomenal. The moon landing itself is breathtaking. See this in IMAX if possible. That being said, everything outside a ship is just ok. The acting is good overall but I’m not sure if it Oscar worthy. Claire Foy really gives the best performance. It feels a little too long. They used shaky cam a little too much. It makes sense on the ship scenes but it felt overused on the ground drama. It might be my least favorite Chazelle movie but this is still a great movie.
loading replies
@nmahoney416 Camera shake: my number one complaint about this film, hands down. Haven't seen such excessive camera shake since the last Bourne film I watched (can't remember which; I found those kind of forgettable).
The movie might be showing its age, or maybe I'm showing mine. The structure just felt off. The pacing was much too slow until the last quarter. There's something grating about Maverick's character—there's supposed to be, but I couldn't really find anything to like about him. And of course the romance is entirely unnecessary, but that's been a Hollywood problem since long before this movie (and still is).
loading replies
@pipeinformatico Calm down, Shouty. Women can relate to plenty of things that aren't "romance".
World Premiere Review:
Not as good as the original, but totally worth going to see in the theaters. I don't think I've laughed this much at a Pixar film since the the first one. This one didn't seem to have as much "heart" as the original as this felt almost like a revival for this particular franchise than an actual sequel. Fun for adults and kids. Baby steals the show.
loading replies
@flirtilad At the time the comment you replied to was left? The movie was only in theaters. But Trakt isn't a site for watching movies; it's a site for tracking what you watch, and maybe leaving comments/reviews about that content. There are plenty of places to watch this stuff. Trakt even links to them, if available.
How are they able to wear earrings?
loading replies
@kmlkmljkl The problem with that theory is, as soon as the earring is removed, the earlobe should close up immediately. But obviously the real (out-of-universe) reason is probably that no one thought about it. Either that, or the superhealing ability is "smart" and knows the difference between an intentional "injury" (if a piercing can be considered an injury) and something that requires healing. :person_shrugging::male_sign:
Loved it!
Excellent dialogues and Bgm,good action.Could not even take my eyes of the screen.Only dissapointment is that it's not gory or violent.But does not affect the enjoymentloading replies
it's not gory or violent
Did we watch the same film…?
Could not take it seriously with the robots' abilities that don't even exist in the year in which this was set, let alone the slew of appliances with "PAL Chip installed" that could do completely ridiculous things. Not one of these devices should have been able to pose a threat, unless they were intentionally manufactured with features that would never apply to any intended use of the product.*
I can ignore little details that are embellished or ignored for the purpose of telling a better story, but when the entire premise of a film set in the present rests on impossible and unrealistic technology? Pass.
Even better, no one thought of just… finding another PAL retail store when the mall's router was destroyed with the upload at 98% complete? This film's entire spectacle rests on its characters' poor decision-making and lack of forethought—including the defective robots that join the gang and tell them about the solution.
I'll admit that the story is a bit heartwarming, but it's nothing new. It's also trying too hard regarding commentary on the influence of technology in today's world. Several lines of dialogue are extremely heavy-handed, as if the writers expect the audience to understand nothing and need to have the "moral" of the story handed to them.
Ugh. I wanted to love it. At least I can steal some playlist entries from the soundtrack.
* — See: Furbies that spit plasma beams, laptops that could close on your hands and crush them, refrigerators that walk… I could go on and on about that mall scene.
loading replies
ITT: "Someone didn't like this movie as much as I did, and therefore they are WRONG."
This movie is just a shortened down version of season 1. There won't be anything new that you haven't already seen. I guess it would be good for quickly summarizing season 1 before starting season 2.
loading replies
In 2024, with season 3 of the series starting, a refresher is exactly what I'm using this and the season 2 summary movie for. That's pretty much the best use for them, getting reacquainted with a franchise in less time than it would take to re-watch the whole thing.
