Mute (II) (2018) User Reviews

Muted indifference

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 23 April 2018]

'Mute had one of the best premises of any film from this early part of this year. One of the year's most unique and daring and of my recent film viewings and it was hard for me not want to see it or miss it with it being so heavily promoted. It also had a good cast on board as well as director Duncan Jones, responsible for two great films 'Source Code' and especially 'Moon', in a passion project.

It made me sad and somewhat angry that such a fabulous concept was pretty much wasted by very wanting execution. 'Mute' is not a bad film, or a terrible one, it is much better than the negative reputation it's got. It's just that it's not a good one either, with the concept it had, the cast and the director one cannot help feeling it should have been much more. Easily Jones's worst film ('Moon' being his best) and his only less than decent one. Saw 'Mute' some weeks back on Netflix, but have been behind with my reviewing and film watching and it took some time to gather my thoughts.

The best thing about 'Mute' is the production values. The film does look wonderful with some of the most beautiful and atmospheric visuals of the year thus far. The photography and production design are sheer beauty while technical aspects are just as eye catching and used wisely. The music is both hypnotic and haunting.

First half had some great moments in atmosphere, emotion and character interaction. The most interesting aspect narratively is the chemistry between Justin Theroux and Paul Rudd. The characters are the only fully rounded ones, especially Rudd's who serves the most point to the narrative and the chemistry is suitably nuanced.

Was not impressed by the cast generally, but Theroux and Rudd come off best, the only ones in fact, rising above the material. Both are great, Rudd gives his all in an against-type role but for me Theoux's intense and nuanced performance was even better.

Didn't care for the rest. The support struggle in underwritten, shallow and often pointless, while Alexander Skargaard, even for a character that's mute, is a stiff and lifeless lead. Couldn't get behind his subplot at all. If anybody wants an example of a truly great lead performance as a mute character, look to Sally Hawkins in 'The Shape of Water'.

Furthermore, while the first half was actually not perfect but with a good deal to like, the second half was a mess. How can such a unique concept be treated in such a derivative and far from creative way? The further 'Mute' progressed the duller, more muddled and more confusing the film got. If it tried to take on less story-wise and in themes had less characters, things would have been more intriguing and clearer. Character motivations are vague and introduced out of the blue, the themes and ideas are too often under-explored or muddled, tonally it's unfocused and too many elements go nowhere or take too long to get there.

Jones's direction has passion and ambition and there are good intentions here, he just didn't seem to know what to do with the concept or different elements. The pace does drag and the film did feel too long by about 20-25 minutes.

Overall, didn't love it. Didn't hate it. More like was indifferent towards it. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Slow Pacing and Weird Character Choices Handcuff Mute After a Promising Start

[CANpatbuck3664 · 6/10 · 24 February 2018]

We're starting to get more movies and TV focused on futuristic noir. Blade Runner 2049 and Altered Carbon have just come down the pike and Mute joins that crowd. They all share a similar style, exposed neon colours and a creepy and dirty city to play around in. Mute doesn't reinvent the wheel, but they change enough to show off an interesting style. I enjoyed Mute's cinematography and environments even though it shares this vision with movies like Blade Runner. This was needed too, when you're starting to drift from Leo and Bill's adventures, they bring in some new trick or piece of technology to move things along.

Despite the negative reviews, the one positive things I heard before turning Mute on was Paul Rudd's performance as Cactus Bill. I have to agree, Rudd actually makes for a compelling villain and this is a big departure from Ant-Man. His performance is noteworthy, and it was a good reminder what he's capable of. Alexander Skarsgård is fine as Leo, he's just not given a lot to work with. He's an underrated actor but he's kneecapped by his character. Seyneb Saleh is good in her part as Naadirah. She's sultry yet reserved and she performs as capably as she can. Justin Theroux is suitably slimy as Donald, he has a good interplay with Rudd and that again helps the movie along. I don't approve of what they do with his character, it just comes across as gross and then they never bring it up again.

Netflix is becoming a place for filmmakers to explore their dream projects. I approve of that and we as moviegoers need more unique stuff as many things are just becoming more and more formulaic. But this idea is a double-edged sword, while its good that we get unconventional content, the flip-side is that there is no one there to rein the creative team in when things go array. My biggest problem with Mute isn't that it was long, it was that the pacing of this movie can be compared to how fast a glacier floats. We have an interesting setting and mildly interesting characters, but the movie just aimlessly wanders like Leo when he's looking for Naadirah. Maybe it would have been a little cliche but this would have been so much better if they had made some minor edits to the story and made Mute take place over 1 night. We spend entire nights with Leo where he makes little to no progress and then we watch him wake up and try all over again. It's not like he makes a ton of gradual progress, the plot shifts on his very quick realizations so why couldn't this have been tightened down? I don't necessarily need a ton of action, but our main character is a blank slate other than knowing a little about his background, the movie needed something other than the acting and the cool environments to coast on.

I've already talked about how Mute's plot needed to be tightened up and have some added urgency but the other crime that this movie commits is that it loses any leftover goodwill with its unusual conclusion. A lot of things can be forgiven with a strong and exciting resolution and if you have the choice between starting strong and finishing strong, go with the strong finish. Instead of ramping up the stakes, the movie dives into becoming weirder and more contemplative. Characters make choices for no other reason than to propel the story, they aren't realistic, and you can tell that they're going to come back and bite them immediately. Mute needed to desperately pull a rabbit out of its hat to keep me interested over the long run time and while the film features a plot twist, it wasn't nearly enough, and the ending left me nonplussed and frustrated.

With the absolute beating this movie took from the critics, I thought I was in for a train wreck. But I was actually pretty impressed with this movie after the first 30 minutes. They assembled a good cast; the environment is fun to look at and they set up a decent mystery. It was only when I got past the first hour that the pacing, the weird character motivations and the meandering nature of the story started to get to me. I've enjoyed Duncan Jones' past work and I'm glad he got to make this. But Mute is far from must-see cinema, if you really like stuff like Blade Runner and are big into science fiction, this might be worth your time. Otherwise, Mute is another mixed bag from Netflix as they try to jump start making blockbuster entertainment.

Promising Storyline, Messy Screenplay, Uninteresting Character

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 25 February 2018]

In the near future, in Berlin, the Amish bartender Leo (Alexander Skarsgård) works in a bar with his beloved girlfriend Naadirah (Seyneb Saleh) and her gay friend Luba (Robert Sheehan). Leo is mute since he was a boy and had an accident in a lake. His mother, averse to technology, did not let Leo to be submitted to a corrective surgery since she believed God would heal him. Meanwhile, the American surgeons Cactus Bill (Paul Rudd) and Duck (Justin Theroux) work for the local gangsters. Cactus Bill has a daughter and dreams on returning to the United States, but he does not have documentation since he deserted the army. His hope is to get fake documents with the mobsters so that he can go back home. His partner Duck has documents but is a pedophile and likes to live in Berlin. When Naadirah vanishes without a trace, Leo seeks her out and goes to the underworld of Berlin, where his life entwines with Cactus Bill and Duck. Will he find his beloved Naadirah?

"Mute" is a disappointing film by the cult-director Duncan Jones. Despite the good acting and great music score and cinematography that recalls "Altered Carbon", the promising storyline fails mainly because of the messy screenplay and the uninteresting lead character. Most of the viewers certainly wants to like "Mute", but Leo does not help since it is an unattractive and annoying character. In the end credits, Duncan Jones dedicates this film to his father David "Bowie" Jones and to his beloved nanny Marion Skene, an incredible woman for caring for him as a toddler when his parents split. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Mudo" ("Mute")

Ambitious and evocative, but also pretentious and impenetrable.

[Troy_Campbell · 5/10 · 26 February 2018]

Netflix has been going all-in on original content over the last few years, but until recently that was primarily through long-form narrative shows (one story told over multiple episodes) and disposable Adam Sandler movies. The last six months has seen the streaming service giant make a big push into A-grade feature length work (Mudbound, Bright, Cloverfield Paradox, to name just a few), and this sprawling sci-fi is arguably their most intriguing prospect yet. With ambitious auteur Duncan Jones given free rein on what he has expressed as his passion project, having concocted the story with childhood friend and co-writer Michael Robert Johnson, there's zero chance of it being dull. And dull it most definitely isn't, the propulsive story-a man scours the grimy underbelly of a futuristic Berlin when his girlfriend goes missing-keeps the viewer on their toes whilst the gorgeous realisation of a Blade Runner-esque tech-future is a pure feast for thine eyes. But here's the catch: with a reluctance to explain almost anything about this world, or provide character motivation for anyone other than Alexander Skarsgård's silent bartender Leo, the plot can be complicated to the point of pretentious. There are a lot of little flourishes and subtle touches that colour this universe, although they would have meant so much more if the overall context was clearer. As it stands these unexplained moments become increasingly frustrating, threatening to derail the whole movie. His acting skills well and truly put to the test, Skarsgård is likable enough as the gentle giant on a mission; however, Paul Rudd is horribly miscast as a scumbag AWOL soldier, his persistent mean-spirited goading of others regularly veering into pantomime. There is clearly a lot of passion and ambition on display with Mute, but while for some it will be evocative and demanding, for others it will simply be pompous and impenetrable. For me it's somewhere in the middle with the scales tipping ever so slightly towards the latter.

Harsh reviews

[hannahpenney-48043 · 7/10 · 9 December 2019]

I think this is a film for people who enjoy actually watching films rather that picking apart themes, time periods and futuristic gadgets. Just sit back and enjoy it. It's a slow paced film but has some great side plots to keep you interested.

I think the low reviews are way too harsh.

too flawed to be enjoyable

[rayxearl · 4/10 · 23 February 2018]

This premise had a lot of potential. I wanted to like the movie, but was really disappointed in the end. It was unfocused, the worldbuilding felt inconsistent and the different parts didn't seem connected. A futuristic Berlin skyline, retro interiors, contemporary cars, and buildings didn't fit together in this context.

The acting by the three main protagonists was alright and had many good parts, but was hampered by a rather bad, uninteresting plot which included some dull dialogs. It sometimes just felt randomly diced together.

It wasn't a terrible movie, but it was just too flawed to be enjoyable.

Better than reviews talk about it

[iofeek-1 · 7/10 · 26 February 2018]

Not boring at all. If you read all those movies done is the past decade it is almost a rare gem, we enjoyed it until the end, new sci fi histories are rare to pace and this one is kind of good one. Congrats

Could Have Been Good Except it Makes Zero Sense

[leftbanker-1 · 4/10 · 23 February 2018]

It's like the writers thought it would be clever just to put together a bunch of random scenes of violence with only the vaguest idea of a plot. Amish? Boating Accident? Mute. Bartender? Underground surgery? I have one more question, your honor. Why? why was it in the future? This was just completely stupid from start to finish. The thing is, there was a lot of tension along the way which was squandered...because none of it made any sense! And it's two hours of not making sense.

C+ Movie bolstered by A+ Performances

[WHBower · 7/10 · 23 February 2018]

What would have otherwise been a 4/10 movie is elevated by the 10/10 performances of Skarsgård, Rudd, and Theroux - with Rudd, in particular, like you've never experienced him.

Once you've waded through rehashed cyberpunk dystopia (for too long a stretch), this trio of characters might reward you by film's end, and in high Greco-Shakespearean fashion.

Really disappointing

[grahambrot · 3/10 · 25 February 2018]

Bad screenplay. A storyline that leads to nowhere. Could not believe I was watching a movie from a director that made MOON and SOURCE CODE.

Great Story, not half bad

[lojohn-77131 · 8/10 · 26 February 2018]

When I saw the initial reviews, I immediately prepared for disappointment. Turns out, the movie was great. Easily 7 to 7.5 and maybe a narrow 8/10 for me. It is technically above average, 3/10 is plain ridiculous.

I have to say this film is more drama than thriller. And yes, it can use a bit of refinement on pacing, and does lack a bit of punch. However, it did tug on my heartstrings on certain spots, and showcased a range of complex relationships and emotions between the characters. It's great fun because in the end, its hard to tell who the villain is. I say this as a person who appreciates Drama and slow tempo Art films.

This film is not meant to be: 1) a blockbuster thriller 2) a hard Sci Fi that pushes philosophical questions

Rather, it is more of a drama / tragedy that effectively uses the Sci Fi backdrop to highlight the contrasting character of the protagonist Leo. Who is a sensitive soul and a man pure at heart who is unaffected by all the neon signs and the madness that surrounds him.

Better than average

[vonna-05624 · 7/10 · 29 January 2023]

If you are looking for an action movie, pass this one up. If you are interested in a suspenseful drama mystery that develops characters via story and slower moving story telling, then watch this. It was artfully done. The bad reviews are not telling. It is a moving story worth watching. I like the the futuristic sci fi setting with a mystery and suspense story and ending. Perhaps you will too. Time is taken to develop relationships and characters. My one criticism is the pacing. Yes it is slower than needs to be, but this does building in the suspense factor. The acting was superb. It was interesting to see actors we know in uncharacteristic roles.

Just because it's called "Mute" doesn't excuse it for having nothing to say.

[jonpage93 · 2/10 · 24 February 2018]

Since Moon entered my top five in 2009 (it's still there by the way), I've been eagerly waiting for Duncan Jones to make Mute, which acts as a companion piece instead of a direct sequel. I enjoyed Source Code, but I gave Warcraft a miss because it's a video game adaptation, and they've never been worth the price of admission.

As sublime as it is, it looks like Moon might have been a fluke. I had high hopes for Mute, but it's like Jones took a first-year student film script and somehow got millions of dollars to make it. It's a horrendously disjointed, bloated disaster whose plot would be boring in a normal setting, and is downright wasted in the world in which it's set.

Is this what it was like when The Phantom Menace was released?

Some of the things that are really wrong with this picture ...

[Thom-Peters · 2/10 · 10 March 2018]

The story of MUTE is not a science-fiction-, it is a Vietnam-story, informed by the M*A*S*H-franchise. If it were set in the early 1970s and in Thailand, many annoying details that are just wrong would fall right into place. This is where it belongs. The gratuitous SF-masquerade is only an inane gimmick, it turns the plot itself into a fish out of water. "Cactus Bill" and "Duck" (Paul Rudd & Justin Theroux), two US army surgeons who deserted from their military unit during a war in an Asian country, are even still dressed for the 1970s.

The CGI-look of Berlin in 2052, praised by an astounding amount of shills, is a complete rehash of ideas from the 1970s and 1980s, predominantly mimicking the vision of 2019 Los Angeles in "Blade Runner". Back then it was of course unique and amazing, but it was also far from being prophetic. The L.A. of today doesn't look like the one imagined in 1982 at all. On top of this MUTE's production designers still think that nothing says "future" better that neon signs ("Neon lights, shimmering neon lights", Kraftwerk, 1978) and nothing says "Berlin" better than graffiti scribblings. This is just lazy and tacky. While "Blade Runner" is still great, MUTE was born as and will always be kitsch. Some people will hate it, others will like it - "Kitsch is a beautiful word" (Barry Ryan, 1970). Whatever. The main reason for the praising of MUTE is a bunch of stale stereotypes, really.

40-year-old Leo (Alexander Skarsgard), who is mute since an accident in his childhood, hasn't learned yet to really cope with his handicap. Most of the time he looks awkward, gawky, insecure. In MUTE's 2052 it would only take minutes to give him back his voice. Author and director Duncan Jones' cop-out: Leo is a devout Amish - even though he is not living in an Amish community and is working as a bartender at a strip club. That's not how Amishness works, Mr. Jones.

Leo drives a Mercedes-Benz built in 1972. It still can't fly.

Leo's weapon of choice is a bedpost. At this point it should be clear to everyone that Mr. Jones is just joshing with his audience.

MUTE will make it in every top ten list about stupid decisions villains make when they are going to kill the hero.

The mise-en-scène is sluggish, the characters are as unappealing as the anachronistic story lines. This movie is a complete train wreck. Duncan Jones has dedicated it to his father, David Bowie. That's a sacrilege.

What is wrong with this picture? Everything.

Better enjoyed by a niche audience

[Jithindurden · 7/10 · 25 February 2018]

Paul Rudd was fantastic and even the amazing world building and the stunning visuals fall short in front of his performance. The plot was ok and the narrative was engaging but I think I kind of get why many won't like this. I think this would appeal to those who would like a mix of Refn and cyberpunk but both toned down.

Decent sci-fi murder mystery

[bettycjung · 23 February 2018]

2/23/18. Not too bad if you are into sci-fi movies. Shades of Bladerunner ambience made this a watchable film noirish murder mystery. Stellar cast lived up to their reputations.

A mess...

[dantehr · 3/10 · 8 November 2018]

Can't believe this is by the same guy who created Moon. I'm genuinely wondering if the script was written by primitive A.I. because the dialogue feels like sound bites taken from a back-catalogue of movie scripts. Also, what went wrong with the cinematography? It's like the exposure values are all over the place, the environment is competing for attention with the lighting on the characters, and the shots are poorly framed. How can this be the work of the guy who shot Moon?

Forget the 1 and other low scores!

[ladcrooks-26-192893 · 7/10 · 24 February 2018]

Check my other reviews if you think I am some other bull crap reviewer. Now i got that out the way!

No its not a blade runner! Not quite that time. Maybe not far off, so lets quit the comparisons. Crikey someone was complaining about this, and yet how many westerns are there? Do we say someone is copying a sheriff getting shot, a gunslinger in town .....? Bloody hell give this film a break!

It touched on the dark side where other films do not or rarely touch, this was the only part that bothered me, other than that, the character builds of the main baddies, meaning the doctors were brilliant.

I gave this a 7 - I liked it. Lot of other films out there get higher than they should because of jumped up reviews. You cannot blame IMDb, they are giving anyone the right to use this service. There not here to police reviews. Rotten tomatoes more and likely suffer the same!

Here is my way of deciding - look at your age group, myself 45 + so all the films that have explosions with a blink of an eye, every baddie does kung fu, everyone is racing driver .... well leave that for the kids

Is it still a "spoiler" if it's a horrible movie to begin with?

[johnwible · 2/10 · 28 February 2018]

To say this contains spoilers is to imply there's something worthy of spoiling.

Simply put, this movie never should have been made. Skarsgård performance is the only reason I give this any stars at all. He shows up and attempts to turn in a heartfelt believable performance for a horrible script set in an unnecessarily absurd place. The rest of the cast phone in performances for which they never should have been cast.

The setting is unnecessary (set in "sometime in the future" in Berlin). The set design is Blade Runner, except brighter and more cheesy. It also has no bearing over the story at all. And in fact raises questions that are never answered i.e. the two antagonists served together in the American military "in Fallujah" implying it's the somewhat near future, or the US went to war again in the future. They never explain when it's supposed to be, or why, or why there's American troops in Germany or anything. They just have this bright distracting backdrop that serves no purpose and has not bearing over the plot at all. Had it been set in modern America (or Germany) it would have been actually fine. An Amish mute would be a fish out of water in either. But they set it in the future, why? Because I guess Blade Runner was coming out this year. That and I'm thinking Paul Rudd wanted to dress like a pimp.

Then there's the plot. The only character who's actions/motivations make any sense at all is the main character, who has a singular purpose - to find his girlfriend who vanished. The rest of the characters are poorly written and poorly executed. In lieu of "depth" they give each of the antagonists not one, but two personality traits. Paul Rudd's character cares enough about his daughter to monitor her sugar intake, and he's a sociopathic surgeon for the mob who kills his daughter's mother "because you want to take her away from me" (which they never explain how or why). His partner in crime (played by Daniel Fathers) runs a clinic where he fits children with prosthetic limbs, oh and he's a pedophile who films them. And when the main character kills Rudd's character he proceeds to knock him out and fit him with a voice box before attempting to kill him. Why? Exactly.

This movie doesn't make any sense. I've never written a movie review before, this was just one of the worst I've seen in a long long time. And I needed to let the rage at having wasted my time out.

a fine film, better than the low reviews

[stephen-16185 · 7/10 · 30 July 2022]

This is a fine film. The low reviews are inexplicable. The screenplay is fine, the acting is excellent, the filming is great. I don't particularly like dystopian films and the sad ending means I will very rarely watch the film; this is just the second time in 4 years. Nevertheless they did a great job of it, a fine film.

too much going on, too many characters, too much story. not focused

[reaseltbim · 1/10 · 21 April 2018]

This movie is not bad, I dont think it is bad in any way, I dont think people understand the problem with this movie. the problem is not that it is bad, the problem is that there is too much going on and because there is so much going on you have a hard time connecting to any character and you have trouble concentrating on one story.

that was my problem anyway, one minute you are follwing the mute guy in his quest to find the woman and the next scene you are following Paul Rudd for no reason. it didn't make any sense at first, it felt disjointed and it felt like one story was taking over the other. When one of the stories became interesting you would jump to the other one without any connection, without any rhyme. It didnt feel like a movie but it felt like two episodes of a show being cut between each other. The characters do connect at the end but by then you lost all interest and you are too confused about whats going on. The other problem is that the sets jump too much from futuristic to regular. you would be in a Blade Runner like place at one point that looks totally futuristic and the next minute you are in someone's apparment that looks like it came from the 80s. at one point you are in a futuristic city street and the next second you are on a regular bridge that looks like a street of today. it just didnt make sense. (at one point i was wondering if the scenes in regular looking sets were Flashbacks or went meant to be scenes from the past because the change was too drastic)

I kinda wish we only followed one story, i wish half the movie was one story and the other half the second story. I wish the sets were more consistent.

Excellent

[jjcourtenay · 8/10 · 25 February 2018]

I was pretty surprised by the reviews, I thought it was a very well made movie even if it does take a lot of direction from movies like Blade Runner, but that's not a bad thing. Very dark but also a sensitive and moving film.

A visual masterpiece wasted by what seems was written by a 5th grader.

[Top_Dawg_Critic · 7/10 · 27 February 2018]

This is one of the most visually outstanding films I've seen in a while - especially being a non-Hollywood production.

The futuristic sets - even down to the detail, were amazing. It's a shame this film failed miserably with a screenplay that seemed written by a 5th grader. After ridiculous red herrings, pointless side-plots and inconsistent characters you just give up.

This film was way too long and needed to be cut down to a max of 90 mins and also needed proper editing. Directing and was decent and the acting and score were on point.

The best way to enjoy this film is muted (no pun intended) as a background screensaver whilst you are blasting your favorite playlist. It's eye candy and that's it.

A shame such an amazing production was dumbed down with so may plot issues from what felt like amateur writing.

A generous 7/10 mainly for the visuals. Had the writing been tighter, this could have easily been a 9/10.

What the....?

[The_Movie_King_75 · 3/10 · 24 February 2018]

This was a HUGE disappointment. One would expect a somewhat good movie on the grounds of who co wrote and directed this movie, Duncan Jones. Duncan Jones first movie, except from a short, was Moon. A great movie that won him a lot of awards, and every person with knowledge of movies would forever remember the name of Duncan Jones because of Moon. His second movie was Source Code, a good and well crafted movie. Warcraft was his third movie. A disappointing box office haul and mixed reviews for Warcraft. The planned sequel is on hold, indefinitely. I think all the previous movies has something special in them, and i enjoyed watching them. Moon is a very good movie, and definitely the best Duncan Jones has made. On the other side of the spectrum we find "Mute". This is the worst movie from Duncan Jones, by far. The story is a mess, and I just don't get it. It's an attempt on sci fi noir i believe. The only thing bright in this boring and messy movie is Paul Rudd, who steals every scene he is in. It wouldn't have been a Cinema movie, but straight to DVD if it wasn't for Netflix. If you have other options, i would stay away from this movie.

Totally Disappointed

[Ex3vd · 3/10 · 24 February 2018]

I've been waiting all 2017 for this movie with a picture of Paul Rudd with mustache expecting for a great movie, and I'm completely disappointed, everything in this movie is bad, the story, the script, the characters, the ambient, and the movie is extremely slow and tedious.

The history is weak and repeated, the woman dramatically says "You don't know who I am" and we have our movie, I'm tired of this poor resource about the mystery of the poor girl.

The script is weak, the characters are poorly written with silly and exaggerated dialogues, many useless scenes lengthen the film that supposed to have 1 hour and 10 minutes, the fact that the character is mute don't complement anything in the history of the film, and his motivations are too exaggerated for such events.

The Acting was supposed to save the movie but the characters are so poorly written that it even harms the acting, they sell the movie as the face of Paul Rudd but it's Alexander Skarsgård who is the protagonist here, and he don't do anything new, I've seen this character so many times and he is that hero character who will do everything to rescue the maiden, used in the most linear way possible. Paul Rudd and Justin Theroux (Leftovers) are great actors, but their characters who are the best in the movie are still very poor, especially the character of Justin Theroux who starts well and gets worse every second without stopping.

And neither the visual of the movie saves it, enough of this Blade Runner copying, they don't know how to do different as if the city was forced to be wet every day, there is no future other than the wet one, and guess what, just not even rained in that place. The big city is always night there is no morning in that place, and when they leave the city it's that as if the future had only arrived in one place in particular and in the rest of the world is banned to ride a flying car.