The Spectacular Now

The Spectacular Now

A hard-partying high school senior's philosophy on life changes when he meets the not-so-typical "nice girl."

What starts as an unlikely romance becomes a sharp-eyed, straight-up snapshot of the heady confusion and haunting passion of youth - one that doesn't look for tidy truths. This is the tale of Sutter Keely, a high school senior and effortless charmer, and of how he unexpectedly falls in love with "the good girl" Aimee Finecky. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

The Spectacular Now torrent reviews

Pippa P (fr) wrote: LOVE IT, love it, love it. I first watched this's movie yesterday and then I rewatched it this morning and I'm about to watch it again. Shame there's no sequel.

Farah R (gb) wrote: What it lacks in action, it makes up for in suspense. Mockingbird is overall displeasing but not a complete waste of time.

Robert H (nl) wrote: Weird and unnerving are a couple words which accurately describe the experience that is watching this film. What the film means is anyone's guess, and nothing is really spelled out or explained. This actually is a good thing, though, because the viewer can take away from it what they want. The story is about a vagrant named Borgman who insinuates himself into this affluent family's home and slowly makes life a living hell for them. The overall tone of the film is one of unease, mystery and black humor, peppered with a shock every now and then. There are several scenes which may stick with you long after finishing it, and there are a few that are still with me now. Comparing this to anything else is futile, except that if you like weird, disturbing movies (like I do), then you will probably love this. From a quality standpoint, everything is well-shot and all of the actors, including the children, give good performances as far as I can tell (Dutch isn't a language I speak). The tone of the film is also set very well by the score, which is off-kilter and dissonant. Since it is best to go into this film with as little information as possible, I'll end here. Suffice it to say, if you're brave enough to give this a try, you might end up liking it like I did.

Sean P (kr) wrote: *SPOILERISH* This movie looks, sounds and feels like it was made in front of a live audience. The flashback style scenes deserve praise. This is a unique piece of film. The character Lo was definitely frightening, as was his friend in the uniform. Great makeup job! I thought the dialogue and character interaction was well thought out. The ending was sad and unexpected.

Leena L (nl) wrote: All the critics say this is ... not even worth of a review. I like it. I like Pierce in linen pants, Salma's low hanging necklace and especially I like the house on the beach. Well worthy of the second viewing.

Jeff G (it) wrote: great movie! The critics didn't like it because it wasn't a sappy, overly dramatic love story. Great characters, fun story and excellent settings & effects.

Jordan C (it) wrote: You can tell that some scenes were taken from Pretty Woman. Still, it's a good story.

Isaac R (br) wrote: Cinematography 10/10Plot originality 10/10CGI 10/10Overall, the best movie I've seen about a leprechaun falling in love with a space princess and murdering multiple people as well as mutating a cyborg into a scorpion spider.

Edith N (fr) wrote: The Dangers of Small-Town Living I don't actually know if it's true that teen pregnancy rates are higher in small rural towns. It's kind of a general assumption. Teen pregnancy is higher, and drinking rates are higher, and everyone just knows that to be true. What you hear a lot is that there's nothing else to do there. And indeed I've lived in a small town, and I knew a lot of people who got pregnant, drunk, or both more often than they should because that was what there was to do. There is always the possibility of experiencing the outdoors, something people of my own upbringing had to check the smog level on first. I would, however, say it's true that the social divides are stronger, simply because you don't have to go as far to cross them. There are people back home who live within a very few miles of the ocean and have still never seen it, so they certainly haven't gone as far as Beverly Hills. But in the sticks, everything is much closer. Shade (Fairuza Balk) and Trudi (Ione Skye) are from the wrong side of the tracks in a small New Mexico town. Their mother, Nora (Brooke Adams), is a waitress. Trudi sleeps around and ditches school. And Shade goes to the Spanish-language cinema and watches the movies of Elvia Rivero (Nina Belanger). Shade subscribes to the kind of magical thinking that says that, if you just fix one thing, everything will be better. If she finds Nora a boyfriend, so she inadvertently tries to hook Nora up with Raymond (Chris Mulkey), the married loser she'd just dumped. If she finds her father (James Brolin), who turns out to be another loser with a girlfriend. If she hooks up with Darius (Donovan Leitch). Meanwhile, Trudi has fallen in love with Dank (Robert Knepper), an English rock hunter who seems ready to rescue her from her life and then disappears like all the others, leaving her pregnant. Which is pretty much what everyone expected of her anyway. It's a little odd to see this movie cast the way it is. Yes, this was years before [i]The Craft[/i] gave Fairuza Balk the nickname "Scary Nosering Girl" in my circle of friends, and in many ways, she's closer to Dorothy from [i]Return to Oz[/i] here. But she looks more like the girl from [i]The Craft[/i], which was at any rate closer chronologically. And practically the only thing I've seen Ione Skye in was [i]Say Anything . . .[/i] as quintessential Good Girl Diane Court. Late in the movie, it's said that the sisters don't look anything alike, which is only mostly true, but they are both so ingrained in my head from other roles that I assumed Fairuza Balk would be playing the Bad Girl. However, at four years younger than Ione Skye, she was perfectly suited to play the innocent younger sister in this particular instance, and it's my fault that I had trouble with it, not hers. And it's certainly true that Trudi is not necessarily bad so much as she is desperate to be loved by someone. She's just not fussy who. In 1992, did women still "go away somewhere" to have their babies? The implication I got was that the baby was going into a completely closed adoption, and I'm pretty sure those were rare by 1992. It's true that Trudi desperately wanted a way out of town, and having her baby away from prying eyes was certainly a decent enough excuse to do that, but I'm not sure how it would work with the family's finances. It almost felt as though they just needed her to disappear offstage for a while, and "having her baby" was as good an excuse as any other. Especially because they needed to make her hurt and disappointment as miserable as possible to contrast with Shade's optimism. I'm impressed that Trudi went the adoption route, because that's seldom shown as an option in movies, but it almost feels as though she did it because it both pissed off her mom and didn't leave her forced to actually take care of the baby. If her mom had voted adoption, she may well have had an abortion. We have here another entry in the Misleading Poster division. It's true that both Ione Skye and Fairuza Balk are beautiful women, and it's true that they were even better looking in 1992 than they are today. (Fairuza Balk in particular had this sweetness that she had lost in just a few years, and by [i]American History X[/i], it was gone entirely.) It's true that the poster shows the small town, the warm light of New Mexico, and so forth. But I don't think Fairuza Balk ever dresses like that through the entire movie, and if she does, it's not around Ione Skye. There is a physical closeness between the women on the poster that implies an emotional closeness we never see in the movie. Oh, Shade longs for it, but Trudi doesn't want anything to do with anyone from her past. Still, it still gives you a more accurate view of the movie than just learning the title. I can't figure out what the title has to do with anything at all.

Erik W (fr) wrote: Was it really that bad? I didn't think so. Of course I have no idea how historically accurate it is but that didn't stop me from liking this film. If anything, the dialogue wasn't anything special but I liked the film because of it's visual splendors. The cinematography and set designs made this film worth seeing for me. Of course I can see how this film may have caused a stir back in 1959 with the Egyptian orgy scene, but it's nothing compared to some movies today.

Shasta J (kr) wrote: oh my gosh. two of my favorite actors! tilda and tom! hotness alert!

Jeff P (ag) wrote: This movie let's us know what treachery is all about!!!