MovieMusings Reviews

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Thumbs down

[5/10 · 26 May 2009]

I usually don't write "in reaction" to seeing a movie, however, on a number of levels, I've come to some clarity on how I feel about Terminator Salvation.

First (and this really helped me to be okay with my hesitation to embrace this film), I left the theater asking myself "what do I think of this movie, how do I feel?" and it dawned on me that having to ask is the problem - with previous Terminator movies (yes, even T3), it wasn't hard to decide, based on feeling alone, yeah or nay. The Terminator was just a whole lot of fun in a way previous sci-fi movies hadn't been able to achieve; T2 was a breathtaking statement with remarkably poignant scenes, while at the same time delivering special effects and action that changed things fundamentally; T3 was, for me, provocative, and the more I thought about it, the more I grasped some remarkable things. In all three, how I felt was clear, and I enjoyed them.

Which brings me to my next issue with Terminator Salvation: it fails the "KISS test" ("Keep It Simple, Stupid").

A good comparative to this is with the Star Wars prequel trilogy. The original trilogy was not only groundbreaking, not only an epic saga, but it was simple enough for a kid to get. The prequel trilogy was so complicated it takes real thought for me to figure out all the new characters and plots and conflicts; it became a mess, exactly the opposite of what it originally was.

By the time I arrived at the end of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, I got the idea, and even chuckled to myself. I said "the franchise is complete, we've come full circle. You can't stop the war, we knew that, the terminators came back because they were losing the war."

But we knew enough - John Conner would lead a resistance, the machines would calculate that they were losing and hatch this crazy plot, going back in time, in a ditch effort to eliminate the source of their demise, the mother of John Conner. But, John Conner would not be killed in the past, our present, so that time would remain in an endless loop where machines neither won out or were prevented from existing at all. And such would be the conundrum of a movie based on the non-entity of time travel.

So, at the end of T3, I had no need for a sequel. While I wanted "more terminator", I had a sense of peaceful resolution that "the story", such as it was, had been told.

Then I heard a T4 was in the making, and I was really excited. "Ok," I thought, "so we're going to go into the future and see the world from which Arnold and Robert Patrick came, somewhat as it appeared from Reese's telling in T1." We had visions of humans scraping to get by, HKs in the black skies and dog-fearing terminators infiltrating human dwellings, eyes like laser sights piercing the squalor...

I thought that we had a simple story to stick to.

Terminator Salvation was anything but. A new main character we knew nothing about, and which was used questionably to advance on the simple story that had somehow manages to engage us for 3 previous films.

Characters who demonstrate no development at all. Very little in the way of endearing emotive connections, no intimacies or anything remotely smacking of the human compassion and conditions for which humans were supposed to be fighting anyway, save for one scene where a woman says she feels a man's warmth, only to find out...well, although I warned there'd be spoilers, when you see it you'll appreciate how odd it was that this be the place and the characters to provide emotion, where in previous it was between Sarah and Reese and Sarah and John and John and the Terminator and Sarah and the Terminator, you know, the main characters.

From what I gathered in that article, the original script wasn't much better.

It seems that, any way you slice it, the original simple story was of such perfection that there was no place to go; which is supported by the fact that both the original script and this dog's breakfast of a re-write both fail monumentally.

Terminator has had such an impact, and set the bar so high, it really was unreasonable to expect that level could be maintained.

The Number 23 (2007)

not as bas as critics suggest

[7/10 · 10 January 2009]

SPOILER ALERT - Only read this review after you have seen the movie. In my opinion, you would not be wasting your time in seeing it, but if you do, reading this review will help confirm that, contrary to what so many others might argue.

Jim Carrey continues to infuse his work with a hint of religious or moral message - this movie ending with a Bible quote may have triggered sub-conscious rejection by all those who out and out hate on this movie, which does have a pleasant ending.

The ending, by the way, has the protagonist saying something to the effect that "this may not be the ending you want, but it's the way it should be," as they protagonist did "the right thing" at his own cost.

The movie isn't really about the number 23, although on the surface everyone wants to make it out as such. That's the problem - it's disappointing if the issue is supposed to be about the numerology, weak as it may be.

This is a film about a disturbed fellow who killed someone, hid the body, framed an innocent man who went to prison for the murder; wrote a confession which one of the psychiatrists who dealt with his treatment took possession of and rewrote as a novel. That novel manages to end up in the protagonist's hands, and as he reads he can't help but recognize parallels in his own life that begin to awaken the repressed memories he had of his real life before the attempted suicide.

The madness in which he wrote the book; the re-write that obscured some of the real connections, and his own psyche are the reasons the protagonist had to go through the process the movie follows.

Ultimately, upon remembering everything that happened, what he did, etc., his decision to "make things right" by admitting to the crime, freeing the wrongfully convicted, and being sentenced to serve time for his crime, all on the basis that as a father who wants to send a clear message to his son about justice, this was the right thing to do, is satisfying.

The meandering path the movie followed to get to that point may not have been perfect, and the somewhat preachy tone of the narrative followed by the imposing Biblical quote from Numbers 32:23, "your sins will find you out," may rightly have left a bad taste in some viewers mouths.

But, the resolution that a crime that had not been properly solved was now clear and a person who owns up to his guilt and anticipates a life of clarity after facing his consequences with the full support of his family appeals to one's inner sense of rightness and goodness and honesty and justice.

Perhaps we've become so jaded and cynical in the current state of affairs in our world today that such purity can't be taken at face value.

I would suggest, however, that the manner in which the protagonist's mental condition was presented is a tad curious. Could someone go through such a change of condition over time, from a confused young man from a home with a father who commits suicide who kills his girlfriend in a jealous rage, buries her, frames an innocent to take the fall, writes a convoluted confession infused with pseudo-numerological rantings and then jumps to his intended death to a psychiatric hospital for therapy who leaves the institution "cured" even though he has no recollection of what happened? What life could he possibly have? He settles down in a job which he keeps, has a beautiful wife, a cool teen kid for a son, and mental and emotional stability with no relapses, no recurring nightmares that seem oddly real, no nothing until the book shows up through "providential" circumstances? Are we really to believe the dog saw him bury the woman, understood this to be wrong, and showed up at the restaurant knowing the protagonist would be along and would allow the dog to lead him to the grave, which triggered no recollection in his mind at the time? And, why would his wife remove the bones of the girl? If she knew nothing of his past, she'd have no motive to "protect him" from anything, since she would not have assumed the bones had any connection to him.

There are not a few questions that pull at the over-all execution of the story in film. A perfect movie this is not.

But I've seen plenty stupider movies get much better reviews than this one, and that seems odd to me. A movie with a moral message needs to be given the benefit of the doubt, in my opinion, because too much time is spent on senseless entertainment that often must pander to the lowest sensibilities (toilet humor, sex, violence for the sake of it) and leaves nothing to inspire any sense of higher ideal. This movie attempts to do so. Maybe poorly, but the attempt itself is worthwhile.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

A study in redemption

[9/10 · 2 January 2006]

Warning - mild spoilers.

For Tarantino, this seems to be an idea he is contemplating (thorugh various analogies and story lines in various of his movies).

Those who are easily distracted will miss it. Although violence is a hallmark of Tarantino films, that's not what it's all about. In this one, 6 people are entwined in a collision course with redpemption. Some will be changed, some will not. The two primary characters who develop are Jules and Ringo. They are surrounded by a number of characters who do not display any real development, yet themselves experience situations they are drawned into and emerge on the other side having been redeemed.

Redemption is the final aim of the entire Godfather series, which many consider to be among the greatest movies of all time. And, another, Shawshank REDEMPTION, again explores this theme. And hey, isn't that what "Return of the Jedi" was all about? Clearly, the idea is deep-rooted and forms the basis for a good storyline.

Tarantino's process is masterful, artistic, challenging.

Double Indemnity (1944)

Timeless Classic

[9/10 · 4 July 2004]

This film is great fun. Sxity years later, it's as taut and engaging and beautiful as any contemporary story.

It simmers, it sizzles, the tension between Neff and Dietrichson is positively palpable. But, as the tension between Neff and Dietrichson fizzles, the tension between Neff and Keyes heats up.

It's as pure a sample of classic film noir as there is, and it does it with unparalleled style.

This is what movie-making is all about. It's not a labrynth of characters and trick endings and gimmicks. In fact, the movie starts with our tragic hero admitting he's the who whodunit...what are we left with?

The story of how and why he dunit, of how he was intoxicated and bewitched, yet came to his senses, not soon enough to save him legally, but at least to come to terms with his own failure.

The Bone Collector (1999)

some great, some bad, some ugly

[21 June 2004]

I wasn't going to bother writing a review of this film until I saw some of the reviews already posted, and was then compelled to set the record straight. One disclaimer - I am commenting on the movie, not the book. Those who've read the book all seem agreed that the Lincoln Rhymes character is great, the stories are great, and most of the problems with this movie, for them, appear to stem from the fact that this movie strays from the book in significant respects.

Some people are comfortable writing a review even though they obviously didn't pay any attention to the film, leaving their comments misleading at best and downright ridiculous in some instances.

THE GREAT: As a forensics expert, Rhymes is brilliant. He did NOT immediately interpret the clues in all instances, and needed plenty of help from his trusted and trusting assistants, all of whom have worked with him, read his works, and know the guy is good. It's a well-functioning community where all respect each other's roles on the team. Watch Ed O'Neil's character Sellito to see this in the clearest action.

The development between Rhymes and Donaghy is half-baked, the book will no doubt supercede what they cooked up on screen. In fact, the development of Donaghy herself is half-baked, although Jolie does a great job of showing internal conflict that evolves into a new sense of self-discovery and purpose, which reflects the change we are made to understand also happens for Rhymes.

The manner in which Rhymes and his team collect and then analyse the clues is pretty nifty, seems close to authenticity. After all his years on the job as well as his academic merit, the subjective skill of interpreting the clues becomes abstract, so that he CAN make those jumps - see Se7en as another example. And, as in real cases so often, once your science gets you into the ballpark, it's often a stroke of luck that breaks it open. Nothing I could see difficult to accept here.

The relationship between Rhymes and his nurse Thelma (ably conveyed by the beautiful Queen Latifah) is excellent. She is strong, devoted, loving, and thank merciful heavens she doesn't end up a jealous murderous madwoman as Donaghy and Rhymes clearly connect. No no, Thelma is genuine, and their relationship is pure. I'd say more, but that would spoil it.

THE BAD Rooker plays the political cop boss guy, such a tired cliche. Rhymes is well-read, widely written, proven, he travels and lectures all over the world, and some city cop is lording over him, as though they are not all on the same team. So tired, so trite. Not compelling at all.

THE UGLY The "bad guy" and his development in this film absolutely stinks. His modus operandi is so absurd it's beyond insulting. Don't want to spoil anything, so if you want, email me and we can talk about it.

A FINAL CONSIDERATION...(MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS) Not sure it's fair to say there is a high degree of similiarity between this film and Se7en, but there are a few very strong connections.

1. Both main cops (Washington/Freeman) are leaving the force in about a week, for different reasons.

2. Both main cops are extremely insightful. Washington for his academic intellect, Freeman for his experience on the force.

3. They both take on a a protege, so to speak, and interpret clues left by a killer who is planning to "come out" at the appointed time

4. both follow a false trail left by the killer based on false finger prints.

5, 6, 7...there are other parallels, but I don't want to spoil it.

All in all, a decent film.

The Ant and the Aardvark (1969–1972)

fond memories of a great cartoon

[29 April 2004]

Whether Saturday morning cartoons or the 4:30 pm showing after school back in the 70s, the Pink Panther Show was great, and The Ant and the Aardvark were a great part of it.

The ant was cool, always just a step ahead of the aardvark. They both would talk to the camera with humour and witticisms. The voice of the aardvark, with his attitude, was among the best in cartoon history.

Somehow, these great cartoons have got to be archived, if only they could be retailed in a collector's series or something, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be ready to buy in an instant.

They sure don't make cartoons like they used to.

The Muppet Movie (1979)

Timeless Fun for the Whole Family

[25 December 2003]

The mature one-liners come with machine-gun rapidity right from the start.

Man in boat: I'm lost. Kermit: Have you tried Hare Krishna?

Kermit: That's pretty dangerous to be building a road in the middle of the street. If frogs couldn't hop, I'd be 'gone with the Schwynne."

Fozzie: The dancing girls are off tonight. Kermit: The crowd is getting ugly. Fozzie: You think the crowd is ugly...you should see the dancing girls.

Fozzie: I don't know how to thank you. Kermit: I don't know why to thank you.

The visuals are a real treat for the kids - will we ever forget seeing the muppets with real legs? Kermit riding his bike, Fozzie dancing...

Perhaps the screenplay can't compete with the modern use of computers (Shrek, Monsters Inc., Ice Age, Finding Nemo are sumptuous visual feasts); but the charm and timing of the Muppet Movie hearkens to a simpler time that warms the heart.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

subtle genius

[7 July 2003]

The response to this film would be warmer had it not been for the monumentally substantial act of Terminator 2 (hereinafter referred to as T2) that it had to follow. The campy fun of The Terminator (T1) was absent in T2, which took a dramatically dark tone. It was longer, more philosophical, probed many intellectual themes and generally changed the way action films are done, by offering more than just shoot-em-up and car chases.

Anyway, I LOVED T3. It brought back a little of the campy fun of T1 while offering a stingingly direct approach to some issues that were dealt with in a more indirect artful way in T2.

WARNING - THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW - SEE the film and then come back for the rest of this review.

By the end of T2, we really thought that "it was over," that they had taken action to change the future.

Here in T3, the T-800 tells an incredulous John Connor "it can't be stopped, it is inevitable." We, the audience, join John in not believing, and hope they are able to stop SkyNet's assumption of control... at the end of the film, the screenplay really is genius, as we join John and Kate Brewster in the numbing realization that, indeed, no matter what they do, judgment day cannot be averted.

It's really a funny slap in the face for us sitting in our seats watching this film. Although time travel is currently understood to be at least inaccessible to us at this time, (if not altogether impossible), we all missed something very simply - way back in T1, we saw that the world had been overrun by the machines, and they were losing to the resistance, so they sent a terminator back to kill the mother of the leader. Clearly, judgment day had happened, and the resistance did form, fight, and turn the tide. So, everything in T2 still couldn't avert judgment day...we already knew in T1 that, somehow, despite Sarah Connor's efforts with help from the T-800, the resistance would still have to fight in a post-apocalyptic period to overcome the HKs and T-800 infantry...yet we still wanted to believe the "real story" was about averting it.

Now we're seeing that the "real story" will take us beyond judgment day, to the brink of the end of humanity, when a resistance force will be lead by Neo...oops...John Connor (yes, we all see the similarity in themes between these two films...!)

In T3, Arnold's acting in the character of the T-800 is really amazing. He tells John (and the audience in so doing) that he is NOT the same "personality" as the T-800 in T2, that they roll off the assembly line (setting up a T4 with MULTIPLE ARNOLDS!!!!)...this T-800 did show some "memory" (zero casualties, keys in sun visor), but that's only because the chip was somehow either retrieved or a copy was not destroyed when they blew up Cyberdine, I missed it specifically).

Whatever, this T-800 must relate to John differently than it did in T1 or T2...and Arnold did bring across a sense of distance, very abruptly offsetting the intimacy shared between John and "his terminator" in T2 -- far from a bad acting job, this is sheer acting brilliance, in my opinion!!

When Cameron did T1, he may not have realized the franchise he'd stumbled into...T2 was so much more than just a sequel, so much more than just an action movie...and also not the shortest film ever made.

T3 was quite short, and ends with a cliff-hanging "stay tuned" not seen since Star Wars, Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back - it's OBVIOUS this installment was just a necessary bridge towards the next installment, beyond judgment day. I suspect Cameron may get back into T4...but even if he doesn't, Mastow did well in trying to carry this franchise forward with a nod to its heritage (like bringing back Earl Boen's Dr. Silberman character - the way that scene was shot shows clearly Mastow knew his audience, I joined the folks in the theatre laughing at merely the recognition of his voice, before his face was finally shown on camera - perfect!)

BRING ON T4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

X2 (2003)

the franchise is growing

[4 May 2003]

There used to be a time when the word "sequel" was anathema, but these days we've come to expect the sequel to be better. While a few sequels of late have been throwbacks to that previous era when they were poor, the recent trend has been that the sequels are better, and such is definitely the case here with X-men 2.

If you actually read Marvel comics and know "the X-Men" story/characters, you'd enjoy some of the nifty things that were tossed into this movie (may be considered SPOILERS by some, but check out LebowskiT1000 comments, especially his PS notes...)

This movie was pretty good. My personal incling is that Xavier is a tad naive and foolish, because his students seem far too docile when he could have quite the army at his disposal (for example, -- again, possible spoiler -- Iceman really only made one contribution to their struggle throughout the entire movie, hardly a "superhero" but perhaps they were somewhat influenced by the fragile "becoming" concept they developed with Spider-man).

Anyway, the story is good, the action is good, and it has been released at a good time (before Matrix Reloaded and Terminator 3, which are far darker, less feel-good movies but will land with a more resounding thud in the action/tension category).

One interesting note - Derrick Dunn ([e-mail]) mentioned that this movie has become his favourite sequel, replacing Blade 2 as his favourite comic book sequel. I find this interesting...and here's why...

For those who loved The Matrix, watch Blade 1 which was released before it, and you'll see very clearly that some of our most beloved and copied "Matrix scenes" (the fashion, the bend-backwards-to-avoid-bullets, etc) were in fact ripped from Blade 1, yet it gets no credit for it...??

So, as my wife and I walked out of the theatre after watching X-Men 2, I commented that the plot followed the Blade 2 concept of the good guys and bad guys having to mistrustingly join together to fight a more lethal common enemy that threatens them both. Again, Blade 2 continues to be a key influence/trendsetter on major action flicks, and chances are that, again, X-Men 2 may be remembered for it while Blade 2 is forgotten...why? I dunno, but I see a pattern here.

(for those who haven't seen them, trust me, Blade 1 and 2 are about the best most-underrated comic book action films ever made - in fact, I didn't read a lot of either series, but the screenplay in Blade is absolutely sumptuous, you can see clearly it is a comic-turned-live, it's so well-done).

In closing, yes, X-Men 2 was fun, some heavy characters had short scenes (Colossus was awesome, and is BEGGING for more screen time!), but overall it was a real blast.

X-Men 3 should be a real blast, can't wait!

Panic Room (2002)

ummm...nah

[18 April 2003]

Looking over Fincher's products to-date, I'd say I'm a fan. I liked Alien3 for what it was, and it was very ambitious of him at that early stage to take on such a heavy franchise, and go in somewhat a different direction.

I liked Se7en. I didn't like it at first, but have grown to really appreciate it, having begun to understand a little more about the character Somerset as somewhat of a modern-day Joe Friday (I realized it was deliberate when I saw his office # is Joe Friday's badge number).

I liked the Game.

So, when Panic Room came out, I expected I'd like it too. Au contraire.

Sorry folks, but there were far too many times my wife and I had to say out loud "that's so dumb." Granted, I don't know how sharp I'd be under such stress, but have you ever noticed how "people" in movies live as though they've never watched a movie in their lives? We all sit in a theatre and say "you know how in movies this happens? Don't do this" but people in movies seem to have never seen a movie, so they don't know NOT to do it.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD Among the many things that totally destroyed the credibility hence the tension in the film is the scene where the husband shows up. First of all, the man with the plan thinks he can just say "sorry things didn't work out fellas, I'm outta here" and literally just walk out the front door. Obviously, he doesn't understand the psychology of crime.

But, as the remaining two are arguing, the husband is standing at the door...he claims his wife's call "scared the sh-- out of him" and he did call the cops...but as scared as he claims to have been, he certainly didn't do the smart thing and wait for the cops (who, for so many to show up at the end, seem to take a long time in getting there). Anyway, if he really was scared, why not show him peaking from a corner of the doorway? Naturally, he'd see all the blood right where he was standing, surely he'd be bright enough to understand that something is going down, stay in the shadows, call the cops again on his cell phone and say "hey man, lotsa blood, get here quick" but no - he's got to stand straight up in the middle of the door frame, asking nay begging for what was coming to him.

Damn stupid.

And, for the record, I expect that Jodie Foster is a tad petite to really haul around a sledge hammer, but if adrenaline has given her that "lift-car-off-daughter" strength, then a guy who gets hit with said sledge hammer, AND then falls headlong down a storey who has already had his hand crushed by a steel door that's 4 inches thick, just doesn't get up and physically beat up anyone. Sorry. Stupid.

Can anyone tell me why Raoul was even there? And, why the gun? Whitaker's character had all the brains of the operation, and no one was supposed to even be there, so two guys could easily have walked in (as they did) and taken care of business.

Back to the psychology of crime for a moment. From the first demonstration of what kind of guy Raoul was, my thought was "they oughtta shoot him, he's out of control." SPOILERS HERE - truth be told, Whitaker ultimately did have to shoot him. Crime psych says when planning an operation, you calculate the odds of certain things happening and decide before they happen what your course of action would be. This helps you by providing both a clearer rational mind not bent by the stress of being in the situation PLUS the advantage of having the opportunity to procure resources to support any possible decisions you had planned that you might have to make. You want as few variables as possible, constants are what you want to work with. Whitaker should have stuck with his first reaction to people in the place by indeed walking out.

Anyway, an out-of-control teammate threatens your chances of success, so they must be removed from the situation. Bottom line, had Whitaker removed Raoul earlier, they'd probably have gotten away with it. As it stands, Whitaker was on his way to freedom and a morality attack brought him back inside, where he finally dealt with Raoul, but at what cost to him? Eliminate variables when you are in control, not when things are out of control. Unfortunately, Whitaker wasn't prepared and hadn't made a prior decision based on reason on how to handle such a variable.

And as for Junior, again, crime demands commitment. There is no "walking out the front door" once it's on.

I'm no crook, but I've watched a few movies and read a few newspapers in my time. Clearly, the writers of this movie wanted us to watch a story of some bumbling grown-up Home Alone goofs make enough mistakes to buttress at least the public service announcement "so remember kids, crime does not pay" when in reality, a few simple rule observances could have made them $22 million dollars richer.

If there's ANY redeeming quality, it's that, as films today are becoming so perfect, so dependent upon a priori knowledge and plots so twisted that the "truth is stranger than fiction" saying is almost disproved, it's a tad refreshing that there are still idiots out there that make mistakes and aren't nine-lived cat slick art thieves and special agents who never die. (see Hackman, Lindo and DeVito in Heist for an interesting balance of both bumbling and plan execution excellence).

The Matrix (1999)

not original, but intriguing no less

[8/10 · 23 March 2003]

I commented previously, but had to add that this movie isn't all that original. Humans have been targets for annihilation/cultivation by all kinds of thingies (Body Snatchers, Terminator, etc...). Matrix takes a fresh angle, but it's not altogether purely original.

MINI SPOILERS AHEAD - Further, in terms of action and style, go and rent Blade and see for yourself that Matrix downright copies almost too much of the Blade screenplay, including and especially the big scene where they enter the building to rescue Morpheus (the black leather overcoats, the glasses, the gun play, etc...) And, let's not forget the most famous and copied Matrix thing - Neo's bullet-dodging moves are just frames spliced right out of the scene in Blade when Blade shoots at Frost and he dodges the bullets, in slow mo', leaning backwards...

I'm at a loss for explaining how Matrix got sooo much media coverage for these scenes and Blade got absolutely nothing...but if you watch Blade and then watch Matrix you'll probably also shake your head and wonder...

It'll be interesting to see if Matrix Reloaded is as good a sequel as Blade II was.

Dragnet (2003–2004)

gotta love Ed O'Neill

[3 February 2003]

When I heard that Ed O'Neill was doing Joe Friday, I couldn't wait to see what he'd bring to the role, and I gotta tell ya, I loved the premiere.

After we watched Ed O'Neill on Married...with Children, the longest running sitcom in US history, it was interesting to see him back on tv in a new role. After burning the image of Al Bundy into our minds for so many seasons, I wondered whether he'd be forever type-cast (as, say, John Ritter's caricature Jack Tripper, or Michael J. Fox's Alex Keaton/Mike Flaherty).

But Ed O'Neill is an actor's actor, and we see clearly that he's immersed himself in the role, respecting the character of Friday, rather than schticking it up by exuding Bundyism. No, he's restrained, refined, and committed to being true to the role.

If you didn't dig the gumshoe style of Dragnet, you might or might not appreciate it anew with O'Neill. If you did, you'll probably agree with me that he hits the nail on the head.

It'll be interesting to see how they develop the supporting characters. Dragnet could have a decent run if there is enough dynamic between Friday and the rest of his crew. As I think about it now, I kinda see that Joe Friday character coming through in Morgan Freeman's Det. Somerset (Se7en, and what do you know? Somerset's office # in Se7en is 714, which just so happens to be Joe Friday's badge number) -- straight ahead, unglamorous, a committed cop, a good cop, who doesn't enjoy what he does, but takes satisfaction in doing the job well, doing his homework, being prepared for the odd break and catching some bad guys.

Looking foward to more...

Soul Food (1997)

Soul Food gave me indigestion

[26 January 2003]

This movie tries too hard to have a message, but I think it uses the laziest tools, and poorly develops any real connection to the characters.

Granted, there are a few redeeming elements (VERY FEW) that at least offer us something in the way of decent depiction.

My wife loves this film, but she admits it is perhaps more because she can relate to coming from a big family with a big mama at the centre of it.

It's hard to comment on the acting because I think the script was so poor the actors didn't have a chance to do much with it. There was plenty of missed opportunities to develop characters and drama with a proper scene here or there, but they skimmed by providing us with info via narration. Movies with narration CAN work, but only if done right, and NEVER at the expense of proper dialogue and development.

-- SPOILERS AHEAD -- YOU"VE BEEN WARNED -- (go to end of Spoiler section for my summary)

For example, by the time mama dies, we haven't had a real chance to feel for her. And, when Lem goes to jail again, why don't we see Bird visit him?

--- END OF SPOILERS, read on.. ---

There are too many scenes missing that SHOULD have been there in order to establish some emotional connection with the characters - and, in a movie without token action, suspense, horror or comedic tones, the

only play left is to establish emotional connection. If emotional connection is your bread and butter, do it right. Soul Food didn't get it done.

For example, if you've seen Full Metal Jacket, many will say the movie is split in too distinct movements. There is some narration, but the movie takes its time and leads us to the brink of the end of the first movement, patiently using scenes and dialogue that capture the emotions that will come into play, by which time we fully are connected to the development of character and pain - it can be done.

For a similar look at black families trying to deal with each other, try Kingdom Come - it was MUCH more believable, much more touching, and didn't take itself seriously at all, which lent a refreshing non-preachy tone. The part of the reverend was also played much better, it was

funnier when it had to be, and more touching where it had to be, and the matriarch was a lot less perfect and real than the one in Soul Food.

Two Can Play That Game (2001)

silly fun

[5/10 · 5 January 2003]

There are just wayyy too many cliches to take this movie seriously, but if you're up for a few laughs, you could do worse than to watch this romp.

This film may perhaps be Anthony Anderson's coming-out movie, because he not just steals the show, he dominates! After playing the bumbling type in both Kingdom Come and Romeo Must Die, here in TCPTG he is the driving force. (Granted, I haven't seen every film he's done, so he might have had other parts that demonstrated his talent; but note that after this movie he did Barbershop and appears lined up to appear in no less than 4 movies in 2003).

And, a tip of the hat to Mo'Nique Imes-Jackson, she's a riot too.

I must admit, I think the significance of The Cosby Show, depicting upwardly-mobile urban black professionals, has played itself out so that we don't need to forcefeed images of rich black people (in this vein, the homey feel of Eddie Murphy's The Klumps as well as his unfortunately discontinued The PJs was ironically refreshing - I wish I could digress fully and explore this thought; if you want to follow up, email me).

Anyway, there are some golden moments in this movie. The first-person narrative was almost irritating at the beginning, but if you can endure the first 10 minutes of it, it is developed nicely into a decent tool to set up some of the coming laughs.

As a romantic comedy, I remember how much I enjoyed The Money Pit; my wife can't see what I see in that film. But, as an 80s comedy, it was both silly yet touching. And then there was the more mature Other People's Money, which had enough business tension that it was almost not a comedy, except for Danny DeVito. In other words, there are many ways in which to approach "the romantic comedy," and as such, there's plenty of room for TCPTG, if you are willing to give it the same slack you might give any other romantic comedy (Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail, etc., etc.,).

You know, it sorta sounds like I'm apologizing for this film. In a way, I am, because the elements of it that the average person will notice and have difficult with are the same elements the average person is blind towards in other movies.

Bottom line, for light-hearted fun, you won't be wasting your money to rent it.

Kingdom Come (2001)

worthwhile

[5 January 2003]

In watching this film, I at first wanted to choke on the stereotypical black depictions - the patient quiet matriarch with the belligerent husband; the dysfunctional family with all kinds of problems; the early 20s male with no ambition; the single mothers struggling to make something of their kids without the connections to move them along; the alcohol-related problems; the young people playing adults before they're really ready, pumping out babies etc., etc.

Then, I saw through it, and really appreciated an unglamorous "real" family with real-life problems (those issues do exist, whether they are taken on by or inflicted upon people). Whoopie Goldberg plays the straight character this time, while everyone around her is crazy. Her first-born kind of keys in on this quiet strength and reluctantly has to stand up despite his own issues and attempt to bring some semblance of order to the proceedings.

MattyMatt4ever's review can provide plenty more insight into why this film works. I can't go so far as to say it's must-see material, but if you are reading these reviews because you were thinking of watching it, then I'd say the negative reviews may mislead you more than the positive reviews - no movie is for everyone, but this film is, in my opinion, much better than the negative reviews might suggest. I quite enjoyed and appreciated it, and would never feel I wasted my money in renting it, or my time in watching it.

The Quick and the Dead (1995)

not bad, not great

[27 December 2002]

******** MINOR SPOILERS ********

The similarities between this movie and another Sharon Stone film, "the Specialist, are a little irritating. A woman has haunting memories of the demise of her father, and avenging her father's death is her life's mission. To "get to" the bad guy who was responsible, she'll need help from perhaps the only person with the skills to contend with the bad guy, who himself has a connection with the bad guy, but is reluctant due to skeletons in his own closet.

Anyway, as a western, The Quick and the Dead has some good points and bad points. We've come a long way from the spaghetti westerns of the 50s. There is a new sense of authenticity in today's depictions, showing another side to the veneer of the western town. Focus is no longer on the sweeping vistas and panoramic camera work glorifying the rugged west as a prize worth winning, to be won; they tend these days to zoom in on the internal social conflicts in a west that has been won, and external enemies (natives, Mexicans) have basically been vanquished, and the new enemies are from within, the corrupt white man himself.

We get a good look at how "easy" life seems to have been back then, a time when becoming the local sherriff is simply a matter of being the last one standing whom the people might trust to be fair and level; no years in a law enforcement program at the local community college back then! Or, physically building your own saloon, and taking a fee off each gambling table - permit? What's a permit? Zoning by-laws? Never heard of them! Or, if you have a beef with a neighbour, you don't bother hiring an expensive lawyer, or hoping small claims court might see your side of things, you just squared off at high noon, and in a fair fight, be the quickest gun. No speeding tickets, no traffic on the way to work...

On the other hand, the gun play in this film is a tad unrealistic - sorry, but six-irons back in those days just weren't that accurate, not by a long shot. In terms of the shoot-outs, the tension of knowing when to draw was poorly replaced by an agreed-upon draw time of exactly the stroke of 12 on the town clock. Yes, this highlighted the necessity of being the quickest to get a shot off, but...

Tombstone was a much better western, in terms of the gun play and general gun culture of these times. And, the shoot-out tension was very high, with the focus on who can react to the other's move quicker; so many times in Tombstone the tension is so thick you could hardly see through it, the itchy trigger fingers, the eye-to-eye stare-downs...

The issue of women in the old west...well, I suppose it's expected that feminism must spin such yarns, but I don't know how realistic it could have been for a woman to end up a feared gunslinger back then. I suppose if there were such a remarkable woman or two, some legend would have survived to this day.

All in all, if you want to see Sharon Stone exact her revenge with the help of a reluctant hero, see The Specialist! If you want to enjoy another chapter in the book of Gene Hackman's career, go ahead and watch this, as he dominates the screen as the bad guy who runs the town.

Tombstone (1993)

very good western

[27 December 2002]

I don't know much about what is "truth or fiction" where the real story of Wyatt Earp is concerned, but, as a western, this film is absolutely splendid.

There is a real feel for the west of the time, a time when the battle with the natives is no longer an issue, but the juxtaposition of white and Mexican cultures comes more towards the fore (how many people know that "Mexico" once included everything from Mexico to Utah?!). It has a feel for the way in which law was managed in these alienated towns, long before information technology and central intelligence could unite national law enforcement, and "the law" in any given town was simply the local sheriff, who didn't spend 2 or 3 years in a law enforcement program at the local community college, he just walked into the local sheriff's office and said "I wanna work with you" and when he was the last man standing whom the people trusted, he'd be sworn in.

In this story, Wyatt Earp comes riding into town, and installs himself as a protector, able to negotiate a fee for keeping rif-raf out of a local establishment, simple as that. It was mighty easy back in those days to just saddle up your horse, go somewhere else and start all over. No real estate agents, no hiring moving companies, no sending change of address cards to all your creditors, no having to prove employment or demonstrate good credit in order to get a new place, no having to come up with "first and last," no reference checks... no hassles with the phone company to change your service, no worries about "no vacancy" or high mortgage interest rates...no decision about whether to live "closer to downtown with more crime but access to amenities or out in the suburbs with bigger lots but a longer commute to work"...never having to fight for a tight parking spot...instead of having to buy a new car, you just owned some horses that could have babies...

The gun culture and gun play is remarkable. Folks would walk into an establishment and check their guns the way we today check our coats. Itchy trigger fingers abounded, and a man watched his adversary's eyes for the slightest hint as to whether this was going to be the showdown, right here, right now, or whether they'd walk away to square off another day. When they did finally square off, the townsfolk treated "another dead body in the middle of town" almost matter-of-factly. A shout-out was almost like the only real family entertainment. Folks didn't hide between shuttered windows, they lined the streets for a front-row seat!

As I mentioned in my comments on "The Quick and the Dead," Tombstone is a much more authentic movie (of course, that's a matter of conjecture, since I wasn't "there" living in Colorado in 1830 :-) but guns just weren't that accurate. Also, Tombstone is a lot "darker" - after all, they didn't have overhead lights the way we do today, after sundown it was bloody dark! I also found it rained a little too much in The Quick and the Dead, and it seemed to rain quite a bit in Tombstone as well (forgive me, but when I think of the west, I think of arid desert conditions where rain just doesn't happen a whole lot - although I'm no meteorologist and perhaps both movies were filmed during the rainy season...??)

Both movies also had a good view of medicine back then. If you got shot, chances are you were either done for, or you'd have some ugly scars. Doctors couldn't do a whole lot more than pour whiskey on the wound and into your mouth, while they either tried to remove bullets without anesthesia or stood over your abdominal wounds and just shook their head "nope, he ain't gonna make it." (and, in The Quick and the Dead, the presence of the undertaker was an interesting note, grim with his black hat!)

Anyway, there are some bad guys running the town, and "the people" beg the Earp brothers, with some help from their old friend quick-gun Doc Holliday, to restore some law and order in this town. In this story, Kurt Russell is the reluctant Wyatt who is dragged into conflict with the bad guys due to his brothers giving in to put badges on their chest; this leads to the showdown, and a final reckoning of who will run things in Tombstone.

If you want the true story of Wyatt Earp, do some surfing, there are plenty of websites offering their versions of who he was, good or bad. If you want to see a good story of how life was in the west, see Tombstone!

Bob Patterson (2001)

Good idea, but major disappointment

[24 December 2002]

The premise for this show was perfect for our times. Spoofing the "self-improvement motivational guru" phenomena could have run at least a second season if it'd been done right, until we as a society had moved on to something else.

However, writers hit and miss (nobody's perfect) and the final product here was a definite miss.

It'd have been nice to see Bob Paterson actually do a seminar or speak at a corporate sales meeting or weight-loss clinic or MLM gathering...it'd have been nice to hear how they spoof the blurb. The promotional work for this sitcom was heading in this better direction ("the only thing standing between you and your dreams is you...and your dreams").

It'd have been nice to see this Bob Paterson as a character with an air of invincibility, one who can't hear how silly he is, while he takes his work far too seriously. It'd have been nice to see him running his business successfully, but we the audience sit back and see the humor in the guru industry as a whole. It'd have been nice to see fresh intelligent insightful humor that didn't insult the audience's intelligence, rather than a bunch of bumblers standing around waiting for the setup to drop their tired cookie-cutter one-liners. With a legacy of such mature sitcomes as Seinfeld and Frazier (mature for their subtle plots, subtle body language, subtle dialogue that is funny without telling jokes or one-liners), Bob Paterson was poised to connect with a mature audience ready to laugh at good material.

Alas, all we got was a self-doubting, insecure high school student in an adult's body, a transplanted George Costanza, and poor cliched attempts at set-up one-liners that were just not funny.

It's too bad, it coulda, woulda, shoulda been great, but it wasn't, not at all.

John Q (2002)

worth overlooking the crap

[22 December 2002]

Yes, there are some really cheesy canned conversations that seem like public service announcements or political campaign speech fodder, some really poor dialogue that makes you wonder what was really original about this film at all...and so many cliches and stereotypes thrown at you to actually forget you're watching a movie.

If you are looking, you'll find plenty of crap that almost demands we trash this film as a miss... ...but then, there is a decent story somewhere in here. A father bumbles out of control into a situation wherein he is over his head technically, but makes decisions that seem to prove to us that he is about as pure as he can be, willing even to sacrifice himself rather than actually hurt anyone.

Another movie where there really are no bad guys (hmmm, didn't Denzel also lead in Crimson Tide where a tight situation reveals that there really are no bad buys?), just people who approach a situation based on their own backgrounds and insights into what factors may or may not be most important.

There are some really redeeming lines though - in all the foolishness, there are some real gems that made me want to say "hey, for all its shortcomings, those lines are right on the money."

At the end of the day, I enjoyed it, especially Denzel's acting. Although cast into stereotypical rather dimensionless roles, I'll always love Robert Duval and James Woods, and Ray Liotta even spoke his cheesy cop-with-political-issues-clouding-his-judgment lines seethed them only as he could. Hechte spewed her lines so that you really didn't want to understand her "predicament."

Too bad this film seems so clearly a political vehicle, had it been free to truly explore an issue, it might have been better done.

Novocaine (2001)

Steve Martin plays it straight and I like it

[22 December 2002]

Let's get something clear real quick - this is NOT a comedy. Don't try to watch it as a comedy, don't try to laugh at things that are not supposed to be funny, and don't complain if you didn't laugh a lot.

Now, I like to see an actor take a chance and do something out of his/her comfort zone. I like to see an actor expand his/her range, explore other genres, flex their actual acting muscles once in a while. And, I like to see an actor want to do a script that might not score them points either in the box office or with critics, so long as they feel they can bring something to a role. (Tom Hanks is the best example of this; Michael Keaton is close behind, and even Bruce Willis falls into this category, in my humble opinion).

That said, this film is fairly good. A pretty tame dentist is drawn into a downward-spiralling vortex of sex, drugs and murder. He is clearly over his head as his world crumbles down around him, and he doesn't suddenly become an action hero at all.

This movie has some classic femme fatale elements, it also captures some film noir ideas - the first-person narrative, the slippery-slope downwards, the protagonist who just can't stop himself from falling under the spell of the vamp who's bad news from the word "go"...

It's not Double Indemnity or Sunset Blvd, but hey, for what it is, it was somewhat engaging.

Novocaine (2001)

Steve Martin plays it straight and I like it

[22 December 2002]

Let's get something clear real quick - this is NOT a comedy. Don't try to watch it as a comedy, don't try to laugh at things that are not supposed to be funny, and don't complain if you didn't laugh a lot.

Now, I like to see an actor take a chance and do something out of his/her comfort zone. I like to see an actor expand his/her range, explore other genres, flex their actual acting muscles once in a while. And, I like to see an actor want to do a script that might not score them points either in the box office or with critics, so long as they feel they can bring something to a role. (Tom Hanks is the best example of this; Michael Keaton is close behind, and even Bruce Willis falls into this category, in my humble opinion).

That said, this film is fairly good. A pretty tame dentist is drawn into a downward-spiralling vortex of sex, drugs and murder. He is clearly over his head as his world crumbles down around him, and he doesn't suddenly become an action hero at all.

This movie has some classic femme fatale elements but does not pursue that vehicle to the common extreme. However, it also captures some film noir ideas - the first-person narrative, the slippery-slope downwards, the protagonist who just can't stop himself from falling under the spell of the vamp who's bad news from the word "go"...

It's not Double Indemnity or Sunset Blvd, but hey, for what it is, it was somewhat engaging.

Never Say Never Again (1983)

fun for me

[14 December 2002]

I can appreciate that this is, for purists, a "non-canonical" Bond movie. I can appreciate that it seemed almost blasphemous given it was released by Warner Bros. the same year an "official" Bond movie, Octopussy with Roger Moore, was released. I can even appreciate that, as a remake of Thunderball which itself wasn't among the greater Bond movies, there's not a whole lot new in this film.

However, I enjoyed it! Perhaps my tastes are non-purist (I thought For Your Eyes Only was stupid, silly, even ridiculous).

I found Connery charming, suave, with that coyness that, to me, sets the mold for all time.

Bond comes out from being told he's going to a "fat farm" to cleanse his body of impurities is cute. Lovestruck Moneypenny asks if he's got a new assignment and he says "yes Moneypenny, I must eliminate all free radicals." She says "Oh...do be careful." Funny stuff.

I find that the dance scene where he tells Domino "Your brother is dead...keep dancing" was just classic. The villain's interaction with Bond was tense, as Bond had to draw his dark side out in the open with a kiss to his girlfriend's lips.

The movie has style. When he returns to his place to find a body, the architecture, his attire, the way he moved through the house and detected the perpetrator was still on the premises, it was absolute fashion eye-candy. And, from this "easy like Sunday morning" feel, James jumps on his motorcycle to give chase...

Funny, but given that, by 1983 we'd seen Star Wars, Close Encounters, Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark, I still found the motorcycle chase scen exciting! And, is Fatima Blush's demise among the best in film-making history?!

I could go on, but then I might spoil it.

Anyway, perhaps one day I'll bother to see Thunderball, but as it stands, if you can watch Never Say Never Again divorced from all the political issues surrounding its production/release, you might enjoy it for what it is.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Superlatively masterful

[9/10 · 14 December 2002]

Darth Vader may indeed be the greatest "bad guy" in all movie history. This part of the story is his chapter, his finest hour. Everthing goes his way. If you're a betting man, lay your money on the Dark Lord of the Sith.

Anyway, this film has a darkness, a heaviness, a cloud over it. The Empire indeed does strike back, and in a big way. We begin to appreciate that the nice neat story in Star Wars ain't over by a long shot.

In that final showdown between Luke and Vader, the music and action is moving beyond words. Vader's voice, booming and ominous, tells Luke "You underestimate the power of the dark side."

The showdown between Luke and Darth Vader climaxes in what might be the most shocking one-liner of all time when Darth asks Luke "Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father," Luke replies "You killed him," and Vader says "no Luke, I...am your father. Search within yourself, you know it to be true. Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son."

My goodness! Has ANY movie EVER left you hanging on for the sequel you knew had to come?!

I'm also a little confused by reviewers who criticize the contributions of Yoda. 'The Force' is what this entire story is all about. When all the movies are finally produced, take a week and watch them all, one each night, with the last two shown back to back on a Saturday night or Sunday. From the first episode to the last, it's always been about the force, and the balance in the galaxy.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

getting there.

[24 July 2002]

For the Star Wars fan, this movie is a little better an effort than what appears to have gone into Phantom Menace, but it still isn't landing with the solidity of any of the "first three" (which are the last 3, because...oh, nevermind, if you don't understand, little else will make sense from here on out).

1st of all, I did very much appreciate seeing "Obi-Wan" in his relationship as master to young Annakin. I already can appreciate his own arrogance and the reason why he might have become a recluse after "losing" Annakin to the dark side.

One real problem for me is that these prequels (Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones) technically happened "before" Episode IV A New Hope, Episode V The Empire Strikes Back, and Ep. VI Return of the Jedi. Yet, the technology we're seeing in these prequel films is more advanced than anything we saw in Episodes 4-6. (R2-D2 has jet propulsion legs? C'mon!) That just seems like a lack of production integrity. To compete with the special effects glitz of today's films, Lucas has himself given in to the dark side, thinking that the story of Star Wars requires increasing amounts of cheesy FX. Perhaps what he should do is redo Episodes 4-6 so that we can see what he apparently really wanted to present before he had the technology to do it.

Now, another thing that ticks me off is that, in Episodes 4-6 you really did feel like you were in "a galaxy far far away," where there were little connections to "our way of life." They didn't swear, etc... Starting in Phantom Menace, however, a very disturbing reflection of our reality has presented itself, and by the time we see Attack of the Clones, it's disgusting. Me and the wife were sitting there saying "oh, that's an ancient Greco-Roman setting there, and here's a little Asian thing happening here, and...I mean, sheesh.

It has dawned on us that Lucas is not only completing the story for the fans he won back in nineteen hundred and seventy seven, but he's trying to win new fans, with FX and cheesy action scenes. The entire first real chase scene after the attempted assassination by intelligent millipedes from hell was totally gratuitous eye-candy that had nothing to do with real story.

Speaking of story, I do appreciate that love, passion, has always been a part of Star Wars (in Ep 4, we kinda wanted to see Luke and Leia hook up, but by Empire Strikes Back we could dig that it'd be Han Solo who "gits the girl" while Luke is destined for greater things). But, honestly, this so-called romantic story was poorly done. Lucas should have hired a romance-writing consultant, cause it just ain't his bag.

Who is Dooku? He's not in Episode 1, yet he's now so powerful? Stupid.

Finally, I am curious. (minor spoilers following). There is now just one more segment to present - episode 3. At the end of episode 2, Attack of the Clones, there is no Vader yet. Annakin is still a Jedi, albeit a married one. Now, at the beginning of Episode 4, Darth Vader chases down Leia Organa, a 20-something senator, but not before she's dispatched the two droids to Tatooine to look for the hiding Kenobie...at the end of episode 2, Leia and Luke aren't even conceived yet. All in the upcoming Episode 3, we are supposed to see Annakin become Vader, take his place at the right hand of the Emperor Palpatine (who is never seen in Episode 4), and Luke and Leia are supposed to be born and grow up?

That'll be interesting to see.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

postured as having answers, but failed miserably

[24 March 2002]

There is an issue with this film I've not read in the reviews already posted.

First let me tick off in point form some issues I had that you can read more about in the reviews of others.

• too soft to be serious science fiction/thought - too many holes and inconsistencies to be serious science fiction/thought - gets rather dark and moody to be purely a family feel-good story - dialogue too dummied down to be serious science fiction/thought - "as close to a real boy as possible?" C'mon, gimme a break, this kid couldn't even eat, and had no social grace whatsoever - the whole "play god" thing was way to poorly developed to be seriously contemplated...which brings me to my main frustration...

Which brings me to the real issue in this film. 2001/2010 gave me a somewhat more satisfying suggestion at how our existence resolves. This film leaves me empty, asking "is that it? Is that what we're about?"

While 2001/2010 did not concede to a Judeo/Christian Bible explanation for who we are, why we're here and where we're going, its alternative

suggestion seems plausible, seemingly as "right" as any alternative could be. Response from people who've seen these movies (especially 2001) come away saying it gave them a new sense of spirituality and inner peace). Moreover, the manner in which 2001 went about suggesting this resolution did not take cheap shots to slap religion in the face.

AI takes cheap shots, in the most immature of ways. Religion in this movie is trashed altogether. That within itself isn't the highest crime. What's even lower than the cheap shots is what is suggested as the alternative explanation - an explanation as dry and scientifically apologetic as could be. Resurrection is a matter of DNA sampling a la Jurassic Park. Sheesh. Spielberg sucks all the mystery out of existence and postures as though pure science can answer the sublime questions of life. This is the most dishonest insult. 2001 never even tried to explain "how" Dave (note even using the same name to identify the two "beings" - David in 2001 goes from human to beyond and David in AI goes from machine to human, somewhat, with the crying and the sleeping, and the love) became that newborn space child. It never tried to explain how that giant thing throughout history interacted to take earthly thought and human development to the "next level" - it admits that, currently, we just don't know. And the movie ends (even through 2010) never trying to explain how; it just presented the facts (the way existence actually has) and presses us to accept the facts and make whatever meaning we can.

AI is pompous, displaying no humility before the awesome grandeur of existence and its mysteries. That would have been ok if AI aspired to offer something tangible to defend its stance as having the answers.

It failed - and miserably, too.