upinthesky-53426

It's very bad in every aspect: acting (except for Bilginer the rest is a disaster, Yasemin Kay Allen should try her chance in another career), plot (it's not convincing and too weak), dialogues, the pace of the events (events develop too fast, while you try to understand what happened and who is who they start to talk about another thing and person. I mean why the hustle!), people especially Turkish detectives behave weirdly, specificially towards the guest detective.

At least directors could decide where English language should be spoken and where not! In the second episode Lokman speaks in English to an all-Turkish audience:). I left watching it after second episode!

The film has a simple story: today's working woman (it would be more accurate to say career woman) torn between her child and her job, and what she feels and experiences in this process. I won't comment on the content or quality of the film (about which I'm not too sure either), but I don't think career-oriented, feminist-minded, woke women will like it very much.

Secondly, I found the selection of Kübra Kip as the lead actress for the role of Asli very successful. I watched her for the first time, I even learned her name after watching the film. But while watching it, I thought clearly that she might be a Capricorn because of the negative energy and auro she spreads throughout the film. When the career-oriented character of the Capricorn is taken into consideration, I said to myself that I wouldn't be surprised if it was so and if the director made this choice on purpose. I checked the next day and, yes, our leading lady was a Capricorn born on January 1st. Of course, I don't know if the director chose her on purpose.

I think the director of this crap should stop making films and start writing socialist revolutionary anthems instead! He would possibly be good at it!

For the last few decades, directors have focused on puzzling viewers, rathen than simply telling stories. This is one of them, a mix of Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde and Fight Club. I dont know you but personally I am fed up with these "it-was-all-a-dream", "things-happened-in-his-mind" or "not-he-but-his-alter-ego-did-these" type of productions. This is the last type but in this case there is one (wait was it two?) alter ego, plus mind-created personas of a dad, a mom and a young Elliot. Moreover Chinese Minister has also double identity. Is it not too much?! Apart from this downside (which constitutes 3/4 of the series), it is a fine and watchable one.

It's an overrated banality with very obvious atheist propaganda!

Not funny, sporadically over-sentimental, it does not make you believe that leading character really suffers and re-begins enjoying life in the last episode in Season 1. Gervais portrays almost all the other characters as flat, one-dimensional people on purpose just to make Tony stand out in the crowd as the most sophisticated, the wittiest and the funniest one (a cheap trick we did not fall for!).

The only God-believing character, Kath, is portrayed as the dumbest one and constantly despised and humiliated by Tony who together with the lady at the cemetery, two atheists, are shown as the most brilliant of the whole lot. Do the atheists like Gervais still think that asking God believers questions like "and who created God? " makes them a complete genius or something?! Bin these teenage-level atheism discourse and grow up mentally, if you ask me!

What I wrote for "The Fall" here on IMDB applies to Season 1 of this: It is a pretentious one like other BBC crime/detective shows, trying to stupefy, shock and thrill the viewer instead of being a convincing, realistic production. Dialogues are designed to make you say "Omg, these writers are so clever, they're genius just like the characters they created." Believe me this is a one man show! Luther sits there, looks at a few images of the suspect, thinks a little and with information so tiny, he understands everything: the suspect is a taxi driver, he is married, he is bla bla. On his own Luther solves almost everything except his anger! Screenplay is not convincing, there is no real character development, even murderers are not realistic! I do not think I will watch the Season 2, even though they cast a bait with a season finale with Luther in confusion saying "What now?". No thanks!

They killed the philosophy at the turn of the last century. Then they killed poetry saying no poem can be written after the WWII. Beaux-Arts murdered itself in the form of avant-garde. And now it is cinema that's being killed by one of its makers. Eveything put in place of God/religion (first victim) and consacrated/idolised by the Human has been killed one by one by the very same Human. What do you think is the next? I fear next up is probably Humanity itself.

"Thus punished God."

Apart from blatant misandry, this production has so many holes, idiocy and silliness that elaborating here on them would be further waste of time which I suffered by watching this! Yet the most annoying and irritating thing about it is the way it tries hard to be regarded as a deep, complex, philosophical show whilst it is maybe the one of the most shallow TV shows I've ever watched! Constant contempt and defamation of men, moving in slow motion, constant whispering and a "half-baked philosophy" does not make a great series! As is the case with most BBC shows, including Sherlock, it is extremely pretentious! Instead of pretending to be something you are not, watch Swedish-Danish crime shows carefully so maybe you can learn one thing or two!

I heard that this film was about a conspiracy about reducing the global population. Indeed, in the film some elite maniacs try to do so by giving away free sim cards with free data etc. to the world population that can be activated remotely so that they murder each other when the right time has come!

So I was fooled and watched this film that is too bad to be funny, let alone be a serious watch about a conspiracy!

1) Why is there such a platform/hole? If this is a penal institution, why can people enroll voluntarily? To get a diploma? What is a diploma? What's the use of it? Some users likened this to Snowpiercer. In Snowpiercer there is an explanation for the existence of the train. In this one, no explanation!

2) Is the girl on the bottom floor a hallucination, as some suggest? If no, what is the exact message delivered by sending her up? And if she is not a hallucination what does the scene where the chef reprimands the cook about the panna cotta having a hair on it mean?

3) If the girl is a hallucination, as some viewers argue, how can the same hallucination can be seen by two people, Goreng and Baharat? And if she was a hallucination and what was sent up to the floor zero was a panna cota, then it means that the message was not understood because the chef thought that it was not eaten because of a hair on it! But this is also a nonsense, because you cannot expect people who eat each other to worry about a hair when they are so hungry!

4) I have not come across such a comment anywhere but I think Goreng represents Don Quixote (the idealist) while Trimagasi represents Sancho Panza (the pragmatist), among other possible representations.

5) Just to convey a message that people are greedy, there will be no problem if everyone is happy with their share and does not take more than necessary, does the film need to be so disgusting?

I am not someone who watches TV series a lot. I just watched True Detective's first season in April 2020, which was released in 2014. It has been 6 years since, a lot must have been said about it ... I will only touch a few things that interest me more (at first watching).

In the Season 1, one of the things that attracted my attention most, and frankly the best thing I liked about the series was its fair approach to women and men. You know, in recent years, there has been hostility towards men (they call it misandry) being pumped in the cultural universe in general, and in movies and series in particular. Unfortunately, this approach, which is based on the idea that men dominate the system, women are oppressed, has evolved into "men are bad in essence" in recent years.

This series doesn't have this morbose approach, and perhaps the biggest reason for this is its success in character creation. Characters are not one-dimensional; complex beings who have their own mistakes, shortcomings, good and superior aspects, virtues; they often behave in a way that is expected from them, and unexpectedly at times, like all of us ... This is why the characters feel like so realistic, even like you would bump into one of them just around the corner.

Let's take Marty. Prima facie, he seems like a typical white American guy that loves his job and family and tries to enjoy his life. But is he? He has alcohol problem, he has difficulty in controlling his anger, he loves his family, but he doesn't spend much time with them, he abuses his position as police from time to time, and he cheats on his wife repeatedly. But do you hate the man who does all these things while watching the show? No! Because, you know, he is a good character in essence; he has ups and downs and virtues, as we all do. I couldn't pinpoint the reason in the series, but somehow there is a void in him who tries to fill that void with booze and womanizing. As Marty's somewhere says, Marty's wife Maggie is "a fine woman". But she is also not bestowed favour with positive discrimination by the producers, she is a multidimensional character with her flaws ... Maybe it's a small example but worth giving, she constantly tries to correct her husband with her words or facial expressions like a teacher when they are together at home or elsewhere. This may be one of the things that alienates her husband. But the real problem with Maggie surfaces when she brings herself to the brink of going to bed with a stranger at a bar for revenge and severing all ties with him who betrays her for the second time. Instead, she does but something much worse: she debauches her husband's colleague. You cannot justify your wrongdoings by others' wrongdoings. Since your spouse cheated on you, you cannot just go and betray him/her. Doing this will take you down to his/her level, at best, or even to a worse level as in Maggie's case. But she does it. TD does not victimize the female character and go for a banal emotional exploitation. Maggie is portrayed as a strong woman. This is what I mean when I say the characters in the series are multi-dimensional ones, when I say TD behaves justly in male-female issues.

By the way, the Maggie-Rust affair I mentioned is one of the things I don't find very convincing in the series ... Maggie acts with her desire for revenge and maybe her interest in Rust, which you feel vaguely. However, it was not very convincing that a man like Rust, who was trying to stay away from people in general, especially women, had a relationship with his friend's wife, even though they were at loggerheads with each other the time. The writer and director must have not been very comfortable about this scene anyway, so that Maggie and Rust instantly regret what they have done, one apologizes and the other kicks her out. Yet, sometimes I can't help thinking their regret was actually a result of disappointingly short sexual intercourse - ahahaha just kidding.

One criticism about the series, says producer / writer Nic Pizzolatto, argues that things are not given from the women's point of view. He gives a good answer to this: There are only two people's point of view in this series, events are told and interpreted from the viewpoints of two men, Rust and Marty. "Is the perspective of another male character being given in TD", he asks, "so that a criticism of the absence of women's perspective can be made." He is right!

Another scene that I do not find very convincing is the part where Marty overreacts and kills Ledoux upon seeing the two detained girls. Okay, the man has an anger control problem, he is reminded of his own daughters, but he is a man who has never used his weapon during his career ... But even these not-so-convincing scenes I have mentioned do not bother you so much, because they are not structured as shallow, superficial men. Aren't we all doing unexpected things from time to time?

In the last episode, the moment when Rust bursts into tears is maybe one of the most impressive scenes of the season. Throughout the whole season, a character who does not get emotional once, let alone cry, or even does not really smile once, faces perhaps the first time with the feeling of pain and emptiness created by the death of her daughter, and lets himself go. The last episode is not only where the tension created by events is discharged, but also it is where we witness catharsis of the sorrow and tension built up in Rust throughout the series. This is where you understand what makes Rust that way, what creates the void inside him.

Rust makes philosophy throughout the series, utters big words, questions what is considered normal in that society at that time. At the end of all that beautifully expressed word crowd, the point where he gets to is a another beauty: "It's just one story. The oldest. Light versus dark. (...) Once there was only dark. If you ask me, the light's winning."

This last bit, I think, cannot be interpreted solely as an abstract philosophical reflection. A clear link is being established between the darkness and the things that our heroes have been dealing with from the very beginning, satanism, the abuse and murder of children through satanic rituals. You know, the Satan is also known as the prince of the darkness. Our heroes lighten up us, whispering that the winner will be light/good, not Satan/evil.

When you reach to the end of a good novel, you wish it would never end so you could continue reading. The last episode makes you wish the same thing.

This episode has a low rating because every BM lover expects a twist, a mind-blowing, or mind-boggling end from it. This one has a rather flat plot instead. The reviewers miss the idea that this very flatness is the actual blow to your mind. This "dog" technology is actually exists now and it's being developed. In near future you will have no escape from this deadly robots no matter how hard you try. This episode intentionally makes this clear from beginning to end, hence the surpriseless plot. Just one question though: Would you risk your life in such a world just to lay your hands on a Teddy to give it as a present. It's not convincing!

If this is funny, then there is no such thing as funny. That would be a TV movie, at best; it is not even worth screening at the cinemas. I gave three stars just for the decent acting from Feyyaz Yigit and Dogu Demirkol.

Meh... I dont want to add anything, cos all is said by the negative criticism available here...

The crap starts with a wimpy woman killling a way stronger man with no apparent reason, as he only says he wants to write an anonymous letter to the victims's wife. An anonymous letter does not necessarily mean you'll get spotted and end up in jail.

So our protagonist starts a killing spree to keep her name clean - keeping your name clean by murdering 3 more people, last of them being a baby! (reviewer scoffs).

She fears that she could get caught beause of an anonymous letter telling about an accident, but expects to get away with all the murders in a (supposedly, or no, not supposedly beacuse they can read your brain, remember!) high-tech world.

Writers want us to buy the idea that the brain-reading technology is the only one in place to spot a murderer. If not, how can she kill 4 people so easily (without being spotted, without any hindrance) and expect to continue her life as usual?

There are many other holes in this episode, but not worth mentioning them, really!

"Metalhead" that has lowest rate on IMDB is way much better than this episode !