driffma Reviews

I Am Legend (2007)

Falls apart in the final act

[7/10 · 15 January 2008]

I am Legend Review By MaxD

There are only two types of movie reviews that lend themselves to being easily written. Those types are either the very good, or the very bad. I'm not sure if that is an axiomatic but it really ought to be. Writers or readers of movie reviews will either already know this or have deeply suspected it. Harder to write are films that exist somewhere in the middle of that distribution of quality, the almost good or the almost bad. Quite unmysteriously the worse the film the easier the review. I am Legend is closer to good than bad. In fact until an unfortunate, unexpected, and sadly unjustified turn of narrative in the final act I had been about to add it to my list of good science fiction movies of which there has always been a paucity. I am Legend differs markedly from other screen versions of Richard Matheson's story but manages to be just as flawed as those other treatments (Vincent Price's equally passable Last man on Earth and Charlton Heston's dreck Omega Man). That the film has succeeded is more a testament to what is good about it rather than what is not. And its first two acts are engaging. In fact the first two thirds are a testament to the great actor that is the heart of the film. The dog that pals around with him is quite a capable thespian too. It is these two leads that make the film watchable, emotionally moving, and tense. It is the film's final act which turns the once magnificent edifice into a shaky façade that crumbles under the weight of questions any thoughtful viewer will inevitably be forced to ask. Before that terrible turn the film is worth watching for everything that it does right. I am Legend tells the story of the end of the world from the perspective of Lt Col. Dr. Robert Neville, military virologist who even after the end has come and gone continues to work on the cure for what ails it. A disease, the unintentional by product of a miracle drug, has decimated humanity. The pathology of the disease is some strange cross between zombiesm and vampirism. Affected humans seem much less bright and have a zombie's inelegant fashion sense (one may wonder that any clothing would last three years with the kind of wear these creatures put on it) but they like to eat more than brains and become positively beastly at the smell of blood. They also sunburn easily. This is all fine and good. It is a monster movie after all, and done quite well. Where the film really succeeds though is in its vision of a world without us. What would happen if humanity were to suddenly vanish? It is a question the film answers in its stark vistas of an empty Manhattan. Empty streets dominate a city that is rather rapidly being reclaimed by forests and marshes (the island was itself home to numerous rivers and that history still bedevils the city that now stands on the island). White-tail deer roam the car choked streets, birds other than House Sparrow's and Rock Doves flit and sing. It isn't a wasteland unless you are the only human survivor left in the city, and, gregarious primate that you are, crave human contact and interaction. This is all terribly compelling. It is an exercise in good choices. Will Smith's portrayal of one human's descent into the madness of loneliness is wonderful. Neville's experience is hard to describe as miserable, but it seems deeply unfulfilling at the same time. Were it not for the dog and Neville's deer hunts it would be a decidedly joyless exercise in survival. Neville talks to mannequins at a video store that he has obviously arranged, and he seems genuinely to have forgotten this fact. Were they people he once knew? It is a question that is never answered, nor is any answer needed. (Some morons in front of me in theater thought this was the comic relief and not an utterly sad statement on the man's mental state.) There are scenes in which Smith essays terror better than any actor I've seen in years, perhaps ever. His frustration at being unable to find a cure is seen clearly as an extension of his loneliness. Underneath all this is the important work of composer James Newton Howard who is fast becoming my favorite screen composer. A lesser composer would have scored everything. Howard wisely held back. Most of the film lacks a score. It was an excellent choice. It adds to the stark experience of Neville's life. Music is often used to heighten a viewer's emotion. What is often forgotten is that music also consists of the silence between the notes. Someone, I can't remember who, has said this silence it the most important part of all great music. Howard has learned this lesson well. The film doesn't begin to fall apart until its similarity to a better film, Signs becomes utterly apparent. It is the final act and involves two other people. It isn't that is poorly acted. It isn't that the action is un-engaging. On both counts it's really quite good. But there is, I think, an unjustified turn in the narrative. I won't reveal what that is. I'm no spoiler. I will ask a couple of questions though. Why does the author of the universe tend to speak in such obscure language? Why all the codes and easily missed clues? Why do so many people have to die for the completion of said being's designs and games? It seems inelegant and inefficient not to mention capricious, perhaps malicious and certainly stupid. Why didn't the writer of this script pay more attention to Neville's math in the key argument?

Deception (2001)

Wow, I can't believe this movie is on IMDb

[5/10 · 9 April 2007]

A friend of mine scored this film. It was hometown so as a reviewer its hard to be hard on it. But it really wasn't all that great. Part of it I am sure lies in the fact that none of these people had ever made a movie before. It really shows. There are a lot of deep close ups and a bit too much blinking by Beth. Blinking in extreme close up is a no-no as it distracts the viewer.

There is a lot to admire. It took stylistic chances, opting for little or no dialogue. Sometimes this emotive storytelling backfires as the facial expressions used by the actors seem to come out of melodrama they are so over the top. It observes the short story form and never tries to tell us too much, certainly welcome.

Bad or good, or just mediocre the film was a good effort by a small town troop of artists. It tried very hard to please.

The Challenge (1982)

Not great, but worth watching

[9/10 · 3 April 2007]

As samurai epics go this one certainly plums all the typical Japanese stereotypes. There is the obsession with honor, there are still samurai running about in Japan, they just wear business suits now instead of hakama and kimonos. Oh and corporate take overs are more reminiscent of a battle between feudal lords than the modern corporate buy out. Hostile takeover indeed.

This isn't really a great movie. It may be good. I was in the right mental state to enjoy it I think. What makes this movie a really interesting study to watch is Scott Glenn, and Toshiro Mifune. They are the core that holds this movie together. Glenn is excellent as a down on his luck boxer, and Mifune is equally good playing an anachronistic samurai warrior. This movie would have crumbled under the weight of its pretensions had these two fine actors not been involved. They made even the absurd bits in this film believable.

If you watch the credits you will see that Steven Seagal was one of the martial arts consultants for the movie. And I must say his touch is welcome here. Everyone looks very proficient. It is lamentable that Seagal would later go on to boast that he knew 10 times more about Japanese sword fighting than Mifune, but whatever, the films action holds up well.

Tears of the Sun (2003)

A great action movie..

[9/10 · 28 May 2003]

`Men, we are about to step into some serious s***.' - Lt A.K. Waters.

Bruce Willis plays Navy SEAL Lt. A.K. Waters in Antoine Fuqua's Tears of the Sun. This is a gritty movie about a SEAL mission to evacuate foreign nationals from a country fast spiraling out of control. Waters and his team are ordered to go to a Catholic mission and retrieve Dr. Lena Hendricks (Monica Bellucci) and, if they wish to come, two nuns and a priest. When the SEALs arrive at the mission they find it overrun with victims of the recently erupted civil war. During which ethnic hatreds that had only existed beneath the surface before the fighting began emerge in the form of full-blown ethnic cleansings. None of this matters a bit to Waters or the rest of his team. That leaving the refuges behind will mean their almost certain deaths is peripheral to their objective of removing the foreign nationals. Of course the good doctor does not see things that way will no t leave without her refugees. She and the Lt. make compromise. Only able-bodied people and their children can come. The doctor quickly agrees and with all haste prepares for a long and weary road. The compromise was not entirely honest on the part of the Lt., and he only makes it to get the `packages' as they are called, moving. At some point though Lt. Waters has a change of heart and thus while he and his team are en route to the relative safety of the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman he gives the order to turn the choppers around. So the Navy SEALs turn around and decide to guide the refuges (minus some kids and some old, and unfit ones that get put on the choppers) to Cameroon.

I have not given anything away, mind you. The film's trailer revealed as much. So you can probably guess that the rest of the film will be about the heroes (here I mean the refugees and the SEALs) escape to Cameroon and further that the film might simply degenerate into a relatively mindless, popcorn action film. But this it does not do. Under Fuqua's direction the film remains much more somber, much more reserved. That is not to say that there is not violence. There is and a lot of it. The violence though is not there to distract the viewer from the content of the film. Rather, it grounds the film in reality.

Bruce Willis is the perfect actor for this movie. Never before has there been a performer who can convey so much with out a single word. He looks and acts very much the part of the long time Navy SEAL. There is a perfect weariness to his performance. Everyone in the film gives convincing performances. These guys had me convinced they were all Special Forces guys (Interestingly one of them was. Actor Charles Ingram was a Force Recon Marine.). They move like they have always had a CAR-15 or a SAW strapped to their bodies and that the only thing they would ever wear would be black face paint and jungle camouflage. And they are not the only performances worth noting. Monica Bellucci gives a fine performance as the humanitarian doctor, and Fuqua's desire for realism lead him to fly Nigerians into Hawaii (where the movie was filmed) to play the parts of the refugees and the perpetrators of the coup. Put it all together and you have quite a compelling film.

The film has its flaws of course. But it keeps them to a bare minimum. There is some hokey dialogue at the end that will drive you batty. I think. And there is an embrace at the end that I certainly could have done without. These are minor quibbles though. This movie gets a 9.

Holes (2003)

What was Disney thinking? It made a great movie.

[10/10 · 28 May 2003]

Holes is a fable about the past and the way it affects the present lives of at least three people. One of them I will name, the other two are mysteries and will remain so. Holes is a story about Stanley Yelnats IV. He is unlucky in life. Unlucky in fact characterizes the fates of most of the Yelnats men and has been since exploits of Stanley IV's `no good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather.' Those particular exploits cursed the family's men to many an ill-fated turn. It is during just such a turn that we meet Stanley IV. He has been accused, falsely, of stealing a pair of baseball shoes, freshly donated to a homeless shelter auction, by a famous baseball player. He is given the option of jail, or he can go to a character building camp. `I've never been to camp before,' says Stanley. With that the Judge enthusiastically sends him off to Camp Green Lake.

Camp Green Lake is an odd place, with an odd philosophy, `If you take a bad boy, make him dig a hole every day in the hot sun, it will turn him into a good boy.' We learn this little pearl of wisdom from Mr. Sir (John Voight) one of the camp's `counselors.' We get the impression right away that he is a dangerous man. He at least wears his attitude honestly; he doesn't think he is nice. The camp's guidance councilor, Mr. Pendanski (Tim Blake Nelson) is a different matter entirely. He acts the part of the caring sensitive counselor, but he quick, quicker than anyone else in authority to unleash the most cruel verbal barbs at his charges. The Warden has a decided capacity for meanness, but other than that she is a mystery. These three rule Camp Green Lake, a place that has no lake. It is just a dry dusty desert filled with holes, five feet deep and five feet wide. Its local fauna, seem only to be the vultures, and dangerous poisonous yellow-spotted lizards. Green Lake seems is, in many ways, a haunted place.

Holes works in spite of the strange setting, and the strange story, because it understands people. Specifically because it is honest in the way it deals with the inmates of Camp Green Lake. The movie captures the way boys interact with one another perfectly. It captures the way boys can bully each other, they way they can win admiration, the way they fight with one another, and the way boys ally themselves along the age line. It is this well nuanced core that makes everything else in the film believable. What is also refreshing about this film the good nature of its main character. He does not believe in a family curse, he is not bitter about the infamous exploits of his `no good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather.' In fact he loves hearing the story. Stanley IV is not bitter about the past, and determined not let it affect him in the way it has affected his father and grandfather. There is at times a lot of sadness in the film, but not a lot wallowing angsty silliness. And that is refreshing.

Holes is an intelligent, insightful and witty family movie. It entertains, and not in any cheap way. It is not a comedy, though it has its laughs. It dares to be compelling, where many family movies tend to play it safe and conventional. As such it transcends the family movie genera and simply becomes a good film that everyone can enjoy. I give it a 10.

Identity (2003)

It lost me in the last act

[9/10 · 28 May 2003]

Identity begins with the stranding of ten people at an out of the way motel on a dark and stormy night. The phones at the motel are out and the roads are washed out. The guests at this motel are, a family on vacation, a limo driver and his famous actress charge, a prostitute leaving Las Vegas, a couple just married, a federal marshal with a convicted serial killer in tow, and the clerk at the desk. Did I mention that it is a dark and stormy night. Well Constant Reader, you probably already realize that this is a sure prescription for disaster. Soon after the guests are settled in, they start getting killed off, one, by one. The first hour of this movie follows the formula adopted by many a slasher/mystery. We suspect along with the characters that one of the stranded guests is committing the murders. We have two investigators on this case, the limo driver Ed (John Cusack) and the Federal Marshall Rhodes (Ray Liotta). Considerable tension mounts among the guests as they all begin to suspect each other. And while it is all stuff we have seen before it is entirely compelling because it is so well done. The fodder in most thrillers is typically uninteresting and when the killer does visit them we care not a whit. In this film though all of the characters are extremely well drawn. This is essential as this film basically starts out as an exercise in genre filmmaking. These characters are intelligently written, they don't seem typical, in any way of the mystery/thriller genre. We get a sense of the lives they have lived before they all come together in an out of the way motel in a driving storm. While we don't see or hear much about those lives we get a hint of what they have been like before the moment we meet them in the film.

I liked everything about this first hour and twenty minutes or so. No let me make a stronger statement. I loved the first hour and twenty minutes of this movie. I especially liked the limo driver Ed. John Cusack's limo driver is something out of a 1940's hard-boiled crime drama, not Sam Spade, but closer to Philip Marlow. He is a nice guy, who has seen much, and most of what he has seen has not been good. He is a limo driver, but he hasn't always been one. I think you will guess what he did before the chauffer gig long before it gets revealed, and if you don't you will say oh, of course. And what is neat is every one is good in this film, every part is good. There isn't a throw away role in the film. For me that is the damnable misery of it.

In this day and age you cannot make an eerie mystery without a major twist or two. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I like surprises, I bet you do too, and there is a big surprise in Identity. I can't tell you what it is of course. I can tell you that I absolutely hated it. That the twist is well done is not in dispute. Is it interesting? That is something you will have to decide for yourself. For me it ruined everything I had come to think about the characters. The climax becomes just a matter of tying up loose ends. I no longer cared how it ended, who lived or who died, with the big twist all that stuff just ceased to matter.

I walked out disappointed. But I can't say the movie is bad at all. It is well crafted, and engaging. And it may be engaging to you Constant Reader, even after the twist. In a genre that is typically filled with mindless trash, Identity makes an effort to be an engaging thriller, it doesn't do it with cheap thrills or lots of special effects. It depends instead on thoughtful direction, engaging script, and excellent acting and a lot of rain. I give the movie a 9

The Core (2003)

Straight to the core of awful

[4/10 · 28 May 2003]

The Core.

Constant Reader, I must make a confession. It may damage my credibility with you, but I hope not. I liked this movie. There it is. I said it. Some of you will no doubt use this confession as the final proof that I have absolutely no taste in movies. Some of you may find yourselves saying something like the following: `Why is he seeing crap like The Core when far better films, The Hours for instance, are at the local multiplex? This just shows that he knows nothing, not one goddamn thing, about film!' Maybe you are right. And if my hushed confession concerning The Core helps you to drop one more bit of reading from an already overstuffed schedule, great, good for you.

The Core, I must say, is not what anyone might mistake for good film. It has an incredible amount going against it. For starters, the premise, well..it kind of sucks. The core of the earth has stopped spinning, but lets give it that. This is a disaster movie after all and something had to happen. The dialogue is sometimes as bad as the tagline that was on the movie's poster: The earth has a deadline. I am not kidding that is what it said. Go look at the poster if you don't believe me. The science is awful, no real surprise there eh? (Geologists may walk away happy, mildly anyway. The movie gets a few basics right. The earth is not flat, or hollow, and does not wobble erratically on its axis to the chagrin of lost advanced civilizations. The earth has a core, and mantle and crust. It has a magnetic field. Hooray for Geology! The rest of the sciences have absolutely nothing what so ever to be happy about.) The film is also peopled with all the usual character types that you find in disaster films. There is the cocky pilot (or firefighter or climber or whatever), the wise captain, the heroic scientist who discovers the Problem, his colleagues, and the eccentric (there maybe two of these in this film). So yeah, it has problems. However these points are problems only if you go in expecting something like a good, original film. And if you go into The Core expecting that, you deserve every miserable minute of the film you are able to endure.

Now most disaster films are crap. No question about it. Deep impact? Volcano? Utter crap. But the good ones play like some sci-fi flick out the late 40s and 50s. They are high on energy, and excitement, and they work the clichés well, not so high other things. In the ones that work the actors are obviously having fun, giving the characters their full attention and skill.

The Core is a tongue in cheek disaster film. It never takes itself too seriously (and with this material that is a good thing). While the disaster film is often not too concerned, even remotely, with say, the laws of physics, it does seem to hold sacred two truths about humans. The two holy truths in disaster films, good and bad, are: ingenuity and sacrifice. Disaster films are fascinated with the way we often can pull off the impossible, even when time is short and the stakes are quite high. The other truth, involves that willingness, almost thoughtless, to sacrifice oneself to save lives.

Director Jon Amiel has pulled together an amazing cast for what amounts to a big-budget B movie. There is in fact not a bad actor in the bunch. Hillary Swank, Aaron Eckhart, Delroy Lindo, Tchecky Kayro, and Stanley Tucci, have all been great films. In this film they bring a lot of energy, and enthusiasm to their parts, and are fun to watch. I got the feeling that everyone involved kind of knew they were making a big B movie. I hope that is the case. But even if it is not the result is still the same. The special effects are pretty good, and the script deliciously bad. So no it is not a great film, not even a good film. If however you are willing to check your brain at the door, it is a fun movie to watch. And sometimes that is better than enduring `great' cinema. Honesty requires that I give the film a 4/10. That is a pleasant and enjoyable 4.

Dreamcatcher (2003)

noble failures

[7/10 · 28 May 2003]

Dreamcatcher, based on the novel by Stephen King, is a film that threatens to lose the viewer in its first 25 minutes. However, if one makes it past that deadly mark (and I almost did not) there is quite a passable thriller with much to entertain, and of its failures much to admire. Well, it is possible to admire its failures if you are a Stephen King fan anyway. If not then..more about that later.

Dreamcatcher, directed by Lawrence Kasdan, is about four troubled friends who get together every year at a cabin in the northern woods of Maine. They grew up together in Derry, ME (King fans will recognize the town) and they share a troubling secret. Enough about that. Their yearly meeting takes a turn for the worst when they stumble upon a confused hunter in the woods. Soon our heroes find themselves quarantined, told to stay in their cabin (and wished the best of luck by the military in surviving the next 48 hours). Needless to say those 48 hours do not go smoothly. About the plot that is all I am going to say.

Should you see this movie? I really don't know. If you are a King fan then I would say yes. If not then, I say you takes' yo' chances. Having said that there is so much that this film does right. The actors are all convincing. In fact I think Morgan Freeman and Jason Lee were born to be in Stephen King movies. They seem to me to have walked right out of a Stephen King novel. The director Kasdan also co-wrote the screenplay and he has succeeded admirably in capturing King dialogue. When the film finally finds its pace it becomes a truly taut and involving horror picture. The effects are good. And the film obeys a crucial rule of all good horror/sci-fi pictures: Anyone can die at anytime. That is, I think, crucial especially after we in the audience have grown to like the characters. We are always more involved in movies like this when we have doubts about who is, and who is not going to make it. And there are some scenes in the movie some gruesome, some not, that are perfect King. Those who read King and see the movie will know them. Those of you who do not read King, watch closely the bathroom scene, and just about any scene of dialogue involving Morgan Freeman. It is pure King.

But I said this movie is flawed as well. And indeed it is. The first twenty-five minutes is far too disjointed. We meet our heroes but we have no context. We catch them in little moments, neat to be sure, but it all fails to grab you. `Why are we seeing this?' I asked. It is almost stream of consciousness filmmaking, and it almost takes you out of the film. I am sure it worked in the book. In a book an author has the luxury of time to establish a bit of mystery. Kasdan takes a bit too long to connect the early introductions to our heroes. There is other material that Kasdan chose to bring to the screen that I will not describe. See the film for yourself and decide if it works or not. I simply admire him for trying to do it. In King books there are often characters or places that really compel. The mind fills in the details, in essence the reader makes the material work. Sometimes in King's world there are cynical talking typewriters (Misery), slight of hand tricks that become white magic (Needful Things), and giant cosmic turtles that barfed up our universe (It). These things are compelling in prose. But they may not work so well on the big screen. Kasdan tries to bring everything King to the screen, and sometimes he fails, but these are noble failures.

Stephen King films exist on a continuum. On the one end there is the crap, Maximum Overdrive, Sleepwalkers. On the other end there is the great, Stand by Me, Shawshank Redemption, Misery. Dreamcatcher sits somewhere, uneasily, in between. On my 10 point scale, this gets a 6.

The Hunted (2003)

Predictable fun

[8/10 · 28 May 2003]

Prior to The Hunted, its director William Friedkin had made 3 films of note and all of those decades ago. They are, The French Connection 1971, The Exorcist 1973, and To Live and Die in L.A. The Hunted may not be quite as good as these films, but it is an exciting bit of fun.

The Hunted, stars Tommy Lee Jones as L. T. Bonham and Benicio Del Toro as Aaron Hallam, special forces fellow gone mad. There are other characters of course, but this is a story about a chase. And that chase essentially involves only these two men. L.T. Bonham is an expert tracker, and all around woodsman. He is also skilled with a knife. These survival and evasion skills are something that the U.S. military prizes so Bonham is a contractor. He teaches Special Forces personnel how to survive and evade capture, and how to track. Am I forgetting anything? Oh yeah. He also teaches his students how to kill and to fight with a knife. Enter Aaron Hallam, his most prized and gifted pupil. Hallam is good at what he does, but his time in various war zones has left his faculties somewhat addled. So now he is AWOL and instead of killing military targets he has set his sights on Oregon's deer hunting population. You see where all of this is going don't you? Of course you do. It's SHOWDOWN time.

This film is not about unpredictability. No, we know exactly where this is headed. This film is about the ride. It is about how we get from the premise, which we have all seen before, to the finale, which we have also all seen before. So this is a chase film, and as such it really rather like a roller coaster. Roller coasters all do the same thing. They sling you around really fast and at odd angles. And that is what a chase film does. What we admire about such films is the way they twist and make new the premise while at the same time sticking to basically the same theme.

With The Hunted, Friedkin sets his film, his chase, mostly in the woods, not the city streets. The chase is on foot. The skills used by the opponents are older. They are the woodsman's ways. And their weapons are not guns but hands (and feet and knees and elbows and foreheads) and knives. This is not fantasy like the Matrix or any Jet Li film. Friedkin tries to root his confrontations in reality. So in this film when two people get into a fight with knives both participants get cut to bloody hell.

I liked this movie. But I am a martial artist who has trained extensively with knives and such. I also love to be in the woods. One could argue then that this film had little to do to win me over. That may be true. The Hunted gets an 8.

Phone Booth (2002)

This is an excellent thriller

[10/10 · 28 May 2003]

Joel Schumacher directed Phone Booth, but don't let that scare you away. It is true he has made some truly awful films. Batman and Robin, Dying Young, 8mm,and Bad Company are just a few that spring to mind. But occasionally he forgets his track record of pure drivel and makes excellent movies. This is the director after all who gave us such fun fare as, Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down, and the compelling Tigerland. In between his attempts at excellence, and his successful forays into brain-dead filmmaking sits much that is mediocre.

Phone Booth, is one Schumacher can happily add to his not crap efforts. I think this is very nearly a perfect thriller. I say nearly because the antagonist is, maybe, just a bit too perfect. That is a minor complaint though. Moreover Kiefer Sutherland's performance makes the complaint one all too easy to ignore.

Phone Booth tells the unhappy story of Stuart `Stu' Shepherd, an unlikable, cynical, small time publicist with big time ambition. His chief skill as a publicist is his ability to lie. It also seems to be his chief skill in most other areas of his life. As the film opens we see him working his gift to everybody, his assistant, his clients and to various magazine personnel. The sad thing is that he is really good at his job. And we in the audience think it is pretty cool the way he wheels and deals to achieve his ends. Every day at lunch he goes to a specific phone booth, on a specific corner, in New York City. He has a cell phone, but he needs this booth. From this booth he calls a woman with whom he is quite taken. That is why he calls from the booth, to avoid any dangerous questions his wife might have about certain recurring phone numbers on his cell. As he is leaving the booth, the phone begins to ring. He does what many of us would do and picks it up. What happens after that I will not say. I worry I have revealed too much as it is.

Phone Booth is a slick movie with a lot of substance. Its script is all wit and anger. This is an angry movie. It is critical and observant and I hope some of the laughter it generates is uneasy. That rifle is pointing at the viewer as much as it is pointing at Colin Farrell's lying cynic. But the movie succeeds in doing what I thought would be impossible. It keeps the tension up. Maybe that is not so impressive. There are a lot of tense, thrilling movies out there. But how many of those movies take place in a phone booth?

If the script is good, then a movie like this hinges on the talent of its actors. Colin Farrell is up to the challenge. He plays Stu Shepherd perfectly. This is a complex character, not exactly good and not exactly bad (pay close attention to his rationale for even being in the phone booth). Fear is the big thing we need to see in a performance like this. Big old believable fear. And Farrell delivers. The other big performance has to come from `the caller'. `The Caller' is just a voice on a phone. Kiefer Sutherland has the perfect voice, the perfect delivery. We never see him but because of his skill we don't need to. We know what he looks like. We can hear everything in his voice.

The supporting cast pushes this film over the top. While their parts are certainly much smaller, Forest Whitaker, Richard T. Jones, Radha Mitchell, and Katie Holmes give performances that help ground the experience in reality. My verdict, this one's a 10. Go forth and enjoy!

Predator (1987)

Good Work Mac!

[9/10 · 28 May 2003]

'You know bro' whoever did this to you is gonna' comeback, and when he does I'm gonna' cut yo' name into him. I'm gonna' cut yo' name into him.'

If you find yourself struggling to find a good sci-fi action pick this weekend on your weekly trip to Dave's Video or wherever the hell it is you rent your movies from, allow me to make a suggestion. Why don't you try renting an Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1987 classic, Predator. I mean you cannot go wrong with that.

This is a movie I watch maybe once or twice a year. It has a few signature '80s action movie touches. There are the one-liners, all pretty good and every body seems to shoot from the hip. Also there seems to be a lot posing oil handy, which is a good thing I suppose as our team of skilled commandos just can't seem to keep their shirts on. Director John McTiernan wanted us to know, to have absolutely no doubt, that our heroes were absolutely, 100% badass. Well trust you me, we get the bloody picture. The films '80isms are not excessive though, and on the whole a little bit charming.

Predator is a sci-fi flick that starts out as if it were going to be nothing more than a standard action film. (I must admit there is a neat little scene in the beginning that lets you know that it won't be) It begins with the arrival of a crack rescue team at a tropical U.S. military installation in dark bodied Hueys. The team is lead by a man we will know only as Dutch (Arnold Schwarzenenegger). The arrival of the rescue team is truly great film-making. The scene essentially establishes the intrinsic toughness of our heroes and their cohesiveness as a team of shooters. They arrive on the island and man they walk like the own it. They don't talk. They move like a highly coordinated unit, speech is unnecessary for men such as these, they know what they are supposed to do, they almost know each others thoughts. These guys have been together for years. And we the viewer understand all of this from just few quite scenes and remarkably good acting. It's all in the blocking of the shots and the carriage of the actors and it is all perfect.

The teams mission: save three U.S. diplomats whose chopper has been shot down. Dutch thinks to ask why this Cabinet Minister's chopper was traveling on the wrong side of the border. 'They got off course.' Says Gen Phillips. The diplomats also seem to be carrying information mighty sensitive to the CIA, because Dutch and his team are going 'in country' under the authority of a guy named Dillon (Carl Weathers). He is an old friend of Dutch's but our hero is a bit uneasy about having his authority pulled out from under him. Dutch even delivers the most famous of 80's action hero lines, well a variation of it anyway. The line typically goes something like this, 'I always work alone.' In Predator the line is, 'My team works alone.'

This is all standard action movie stuff. Well done to be sure but still material we have all seen before. What is great about this stuff though is how well done it is. The movie was filmed some where in South America, and it looks like they are moving through a real jungle. This is jungle with a capital J. They are not on a soundstage and that adds a lot to the movie. It is also during this material that we see that there may be more in store for them than just guerrillas. I won't say what they find, but it is unsettling. The other thing that is established during this material is the way the team is really one unit. Everyone is important. During the rescue operation for instance, while we see them dismantling their opposition the camera doesn't just follow Arnold around, but it kind of keeps a running tab on all members of the team. My only real problem with these scenes is the way everyone is always shooting from their hips all the time. I mean it is okay for Blain (Jesse Ventura) he is carrying a big gatling gun, but everyone else? Come on! Just a minor complaint.

The rescue doesn't go as planned, and instead of affecting the rescue (the 'diplomats' are dead), they pick up a prisoner, Anna (Elpidia Carrillo), and have to hike twelve miles to their extraction point. It is at this point that things begin to go terribly wrong for our heroes. The team's skill at killing has attracted the attention of different kind of hunter. And one by one he begins to pick them off, until finally there is just the Predator, and Dutch. Moreover it is a Dutch with out many of his modern weapons. He has his knife, a couple of rounds from is grenade launcher, but no launcher, and his wits. This is classic stuff.

The showdown between the Predator and Dutch is quite a pay off. It is a tense game of cat and mouse, with the roles of hunter and hunted changing more than once. Predator is maybe not a great action-sci-fi movie, but it certainly is one of the most fun. Rent it and enjoy.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Jesus Christ! What total crap.

[4/10 · 22 May 2003]

I must say the sequel to the Matrix is one of the worst movies I have seen this year. The first film left this series absolutely no where to go. The first film ends with Neo discovering his Superman-like abilities. So unless the writing is very creative and villians as badass as the hero, you will have a boring ass movie. There is no tension in any action scene involving Neo. He is indestructable, unphaseable and over all emotionally uninteresting. Why do any of the Matrix programs even bother to fight him? The uninteresting little dramas involving Neo aside, the film is still crap because there is nothing interesting to say or do. The movie tries to disguise the fact that it has nothing to do with a lot of action. I mean a lot of action. Did I mention there is a lot of action in this movie. Well there is so much action in M2 that it makes the film boring. Can you imagine that? Much of the action is pointless as are many of the f/x shots. It is really quite shocking that the Wachoski bros, who did so well in the first matrix, missed the boat so badly. They have forgotten if they ever knew, that fight scenes and special effects are only important if they move the story along, if they actually add to the story. In M2 they just act as filler, disguising the fact there is really nothing at all to the Matrix. What a disappointment.

On Deadly Ground (1994)

Garbage is what Stevie does best.

[3/10 · 2 April 2003]

I own this wretched film. And it really amuses me to no end. It is

so far from good it is hard to imagine, how it even made it to the

big screen. One of the charms of the film though is that Stevo, seems to have

been given (why the hell?) complete creative control. It is because

of this that we get an overdose of all the little Seagalisms that

make his film so bad. That means he has given us an extra bad

movie. Those Seagalisms are, other characters constantly saying

what a bad ass he is, Seagal waxing philosophically about life,

the environment and class, woefully bad dialogue, and his

characters name. Forrest Taft? Ha, it is better than Jon Cold I

guess, and lets not forget his horrible taste in clothes. Let's not

forget that it here in on deadly ground that he first began to hide his

gut with bad looking coats, while folding his arms in a most

untough way across his stomach. On Deadly Ground is horrible. But if you like the intrinsic

goofyness that Seagal, unobstructed by a good editor, can bring to

the movies then this is for you. If not all I can do is quote the film

itself and say, "What does it take to change the essence of a

man?"

The Ring (2002)

At least I saw it at the cheap second run place.

[1/10 · 16 February 2003]

Movie Review for The Ring By MaxD

Roger Ebert said of the movie Pearl Harbor, that is was 'a two hour movie crammed into three.' I mention that only because Gore Verbinski, director of The Ring, performs a trick of time manipulation similar in scope and power. He manages to make two hours seem like four. Essentially he has crafted a test of human mental endurance: How long can a mind be subjected to the insanely boring?

The Ring tells the tail of a cursed videotape that kills who ever watches it precisely seven days post viewing. Whoever watches the tape gets a phone call right after the tape ends. A whispery voice, says 'Seven days.' (It is interesting that every one who gets this call knows that it means they have only seven days to live. No one ever thinks to ask, 'Seven Days what? Who is this?). Our heroes are a divorced single-mother of a withdrawnchild-professional-journalist-torn between her career and motherhood-type, a withdrawn child who draws weird pictures and is mildly psychic, and the slacker-video expert ex-husband. The journalist is put on the case by a grieving sister confused by the mysterious circumstances of her daughter's death. 'You ask questions its what you do.' Says the grieving sister to the journalist. Great. From there on we know that at the very least the journalist and the withdrawn boy-who draws eerie premonitory pictures will see the tape. That much does not shock us. What is shocking is the fact that no one takes the news, 'seven days', too hard. We might expect this from the journalist, she is used to working with deadlines, but what about the kid? Or how about the slacker ex-husband? In fact no one really gets too worked up about it at all.

The Ring begins much the same way Scream, a superior movie to be sure, did, with one minor variation. Instead of one young teenage girl alone in a big house out in the middle of nowhere, there are two. Actually there are other variations in this scene. For instance, Verbinski opted to substitute snappy dialogue with the utterly banal. He also managed to remove any tension or malice from the opening scene or any scene. We, the audience, are never scared, we are never made to jump, and we never, ever care.

What is on the cursed tape? It is supposed be like someone's nightmare. However it is full of images that are not as menacing, disturbing or scary as they could be. I will not bore you with the details I wish the film had not bored me with them. Actually I will bore you with one detail. Embedded in the images are the all clues an enterprising journalist with a mildly psychic son, and a video expert ex-husband need to unravel the motives, and origin of the malevolent force behind the tape. The son however is no help at all. While he is obviously in contact with the malevolent force, and could provide some valuable information to the other heroes, he is a cliché.

He is the disturbed boy who voices his deeper revelations through cryptic drawings. This means that to the rest of the cast he will only speak in sentence fragments, nods and grunts while trying hard to look mysterious and somewhat beyond.

The mistake Gore Verbinski makes, well the most important one anyway, was to think he had a film more important than he really did. At the heart of this film is a Friday night teen horror flick. He misses this and instead tries to make a film that is deeper, and more mysterious. He cannot do this because he is, after all, working the script he was given. The result is a ponderous film, that tries to beat into you, with clichéd shot after clichéd shot (the film uses every cinematic convention in the horror filmmaker's arsenal), that it is a film with depth and originality. On top of that he steals from truly engaging suspense/horror films: Psycho, Halloween, The Exorcist, Scream, The Sixth Sense. I am sure I am missing others, but I hope you will not fault me their omission. After all, about 20 minutes before the film was to roll the blessed credits, I had pulled out my cell phone and began playing brick attack.

Daredevil (2003)

What a fun film

[8/10 · 16 February 2003]

Movie Review: Daredevil By MaxD

There has been a great deal of doubt and second-guessing where the movie Daredevil is concerned. 'Ben Affleck as Daredevil?' People were incredulous to be sure. There were doubts about Michel Clarke Duncan playing the large and dangerous Kingpin. I am not sure why exactly. Affleck is a capable actor, as is Duncan, and they do fine here.

For those of you who do not know the story of Daredevil the following details might be important. Ben Affleck plays Matt Murdock, a man blinded by toxic waste as a child. The accident, while robbing him of sight enhanced his remaining senses, touch, smell, hearing, taste and gave him a kind of radar sense. I will not dwell on the details that lead him to become a superhero, see the movie for the back-story. By day Matt Murdock is a lawyer, and by night he is the superhero known as Daredevil.

The approach the movie takes to this second tier Marvel comic book character is an interesting one. Daredevil is essentially a normal human being, perhaps a bit too agile, and maybe to strong, but leaving that aside, he is not superhuman. His medicine cabinet is full of painkillers of various potencies and we see him chew on percosets as if they were candy, as he stares blindly into a mirror. He feels pain and seems to live with it. Lots of it. It is a sad thing to see.

A comic book movie needs more than just a super-hero, it needs colorful supporting characters, a love interest, and a super-villains. Maybe two super-villains. This movie has all of that. Murdock quickly meets the girl of his dreams, a dangerous woman named Elektra Natchios, played by Jennifer Garner. He has plucky sidekick lawyer friend Franklin 'Foggy' Nelson (John Farvereau), and is befriended by the witty newspaper man Ben Urich (Joe Pantoliano). Michael Clarke Duncan is an incredible presence as Kingpin/Wilson Fisk. He exudes genuine menace in every scene, whether he is entertaining guests or taking care of his 'business.' He is calm, cold and ruthless. He looks just like a man who could kill you with one punch. That is not a bad attribute to have if you are the sole boss of New York's extensive underground. His chief enforcer is Bullseye, played by Colin Farrell as a highly-strung psychopath with a peculiar talent. Bullseye, as you might guess given the name, can throw anything with deadly almost un-erring accuracy. They are all a lot of fun to watch.

How does this film stack up to other comic book films? It is no Spider-man, arguably the greatest comic book film ever made. But it is a solid film. It isn't afraid to dwell on the characters, to let them talk, no one over acts and it is also quite witty. I would say that it is closer to X-Men, or the Blade movies as comic book films go. I do a 1-10 scale, and this gets and 8, solid but not quite great. Well as Stan Lee used to say, and maybe still does, Excelsior!

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

Greatness soured......

[10/10 · 23 December 2002]

I have just seen the Two Towers, so I thought I should come and give this movie a ten while it is still in me to give it one. Star Wars, A new hope, was once great. It should still be a great movie. But it is not. As I watch and read the Lord of the Rings, I realize that George Lucas has been a lucky hack. He has borrowed (I am being nice here) from other great works (RIngs being only the most obvious example), Dune, Kurosawa's works and on and on. The original release of Star Wars was absolutely perfect. Everything that hit the cutting room floor needed to be there. Han should have shot first. Not Greedo. Tatooine does not need giant dinosaurian creatures that no desert ecosystem could support. It does not need goofy little robots flying to and fro for absolutely no other reason than the fact that Lucas owns ILM. Special effects that do not further the story simply distract.

George Lucas proves that he does not know what was good about his films by the fact that he thought he needed to "fix" them. The things that he contributed to the movies was the basic story shell. Better writers than he are responsible for making hi stories utterly enjoyable. And better directors than he are responsible for making "Lucas" films watchable (as his new films aptly demonstrate). What I find most annoying about this is that I can not now go and purchase the original theatrical release of Star Wars, Empire or Jedi. Now I am stuck with the version's Lucas deems worthy.

Worse yet, the beautiful mythology that so inspired me as a kid is now being stamped out by the silly thoughtless prequels. The idea of them was awesome. The story of Anakin's rise and fall. It is the execution that has failed fans. We knew enough about the story ourselves and that, I think, was the magic. We knew enough, the rest was, appropriately, shrouded in mystery. Anakin was tragic because he was good, and kind and Obi Wan' s dear friend.

The Anakin presented in Clones is whiney, selfish brat, utterly unlikable, and un-approachable. This Anakin can go nowhere but to the dark side. At any rate, these were once great movies.

The Incredible Hulk (1977 TV Movie)

Whoa....This seemed so great when I was a kid.

[4/10 · 14 November 2002]

I am now 28 and a bit saddened by this movie. It is so dated. The science is sooooo bad. The dialogue is not much better. And wow, who edited this movie. The only reason why I give it a 4 is because the premise is not bad, and Lou Ferrigno is a lot of fun in the return of the Hulk movies, except that awful "Death of the Incredible Hulk" Movie. That is worse than Superman 4 the quest for crap.

Ghost Ship (2002)

Wow did I just spend 5.50 on that?

[11 November 2002]

THis is such an odd movie and so bad that I wonder if it was not intentional. This movie takes place in the Bering Sea mind you yet the waters look warm, tropical and inviting. So much so that our heroes never even make a passing comment on how cold the water they are in (at times) is. No screams of agony as they hit those oh so frigid waters. They are never that unhealthy pale white of hypothermia victims. They never even have blueish lips after exposure to sub-zero temps! But that is not really amazing. What is amazing is how many different movies this has been cobbled together from. If you are watching, you will see, Poltergiest, The Omen, The Shinning, Titanic, Event Horizon (it is infact event horizon at sea!), The Haunting, and probably many more that I missed. A horror film starts off on the wrong foot when the audience starts identifing the other films from which it is stealing, and who is not going to make in the first five minutes. If quality is not what you are looking for though, this film provides plenty of heckling room.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

A better tagline might have read, "The quest for crap."

[1/10 · 13 May 2002]

This is singularly the worst superhero movie ever made. What were they thinking. The special effects were awful, the dialog was awful, the villain was super awful. Gene Hackman wanted nothing to do with #3 why did he think he ought to don the Luthor duds in this garbage. My only advice is miss this movie. Rent Captain America, whoops that was garbage as well. How about going out and seeing Spider-man dozens of times. I am going to go see it right now.

Red River (1948)

A brilliant film but....

[10/10 · 18 March 2002]

Red River is a truly classic western. Classic. And the acting, I think, holds up even by today's standards. The problem of the film though, is that is lacks the courage to finish. The audience sees, rather clearly, the only real way in which the tale can end. I imagine Hawks saw that too. But why end it so horribly, so non-challantly, as if all that has happened before didn't. The ending feels like a great many studio execs put a stop to what was going to be a great movie. The ending the audience feels coming would probably have been a bit daring, but at least it would have fit. The ending we get belongs in a western comedy. But my dislike of the ending doesn't dampen at all my love for all that happens before it.

We Were Soldiers (2002)

A really good, but not quite great film about the vietnam conflict

[9/10 · 2 March 2002]

We were soldiers once....and young. That is the title of the book from which this well made film was adapted. Mel Gibson and Sam Elliot are excellent, as is the whole cast, and the battle is intense, horrifying and appropriately unpleasant (war after all isn't fun). I can not however give it a 10. The handling, or maybe mishandling of the women at home makes me hesitant. There seems a falsness to their scenes for the most part. Not all of it, but most of the women and their interactions with one another all seem forced. It is no fault of the actresses, who seem to take the material they have been given just about as far as it can go. Like I said though, not all of the women's scenes feel strained (watch closely the second letter delivery which is nicely acted and remarkably touching).

The movie does not let one view the action at too great a distance. This is no John Wayne war movie, all heroics and patriotism without much reflection on the conflict being portrayed. This movie isn't about flagwaving, which is shocking considering Randall Wallace, the films writer and director, also wrote the worthless and pathetic Pearl Harbor. There is however alot to be said for good direction. And Wallace here demonstrates some more discretion with cheesy manipulative tactics than the director of Pearl Harbor demonstrated. It is there, mostly in some questionable shot composition, but still present. Note to all future film-makers making war pictures, placing key actors in scenes with conspicuously placed U.S. flaggs almost always seems contrived. What is really interesting about this vietnam war film is that it almost completely sidesteps politics. We see that politics are going to play a role in landing Lt. Col. Moore (the Gibson character)and his men in a really tight spot. Moore knows this is going to cost lives, maybe even his own but he is a soldier, he will do his best to achieve his objective and reduce the loss of life of his men. Also in leaving the politics out of it and also showing both sides of fight we realize, as we watch, that both sides really aren't that different, that ultimately the men on either side are fighting for the same reason. The viewer also notices that all of the combatants, except for Gibson and Elliot, are young, barely one over thirty. And I think for americans that is such a key difference from WWII and the Vietnam conflict. Young, young men went to fight in Vietnam. It is a fact that even the main character, Moore, finds hard to get over. "I look at the men and all I see are my boys." The film can't dwell on the disillusionment that grew as the conflict lengthened, however it shows how the seeds were planted. The movie's thesis is that a soldier doesn't fight for country, for ideas, for abstracts, but that the soldier fights for the man next to them, for thier platoon, their family. It is the same message as that in Black Hawk Down, and I think the same message that you might find the film Platoon. I don't know if that is completely true but movies like Black Hawk and We were soldiers certainly make one understand why that motivation is so integral to the soldier.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Pearl Harbor the music video by Michael Bay

[1/10 · 7 January 2002]

It is fashionable to say, when critiqueing this movie, the attack on Pearl Harbor is great, but the rest of the movie is just awful. I want to state plainly and for what ever record there maybe that it is not the case. In fact it is all awful, every excruciatingly painful minute. I will briefly only comment on the attack as other awful aspects have been covered by other reviewers (Roger Ebert's wonderful line, "Pearl Harbor is a two hour movie crammed into three." should give one an idea about the rest of the film). In fact I will talk only about one scene in the battle. It is designed (this ugly scene) to drive us to tears, but all it should do is offend, offend and offend! The scene depicts several sailors treading water (we are looking at them from under wonderfully tinted soft sea green), the sailors are fighting valiantly to stay afloat. Behind them under the water, is an American flagg. And underneath the entire scene is one of the most annoying soundtracks ever created. In less than 5 seconds director Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckhimer have taken one of the most tragic events in U.S. history and turned it into a music video. And a boring, predictible, and unispired one at that.

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999)

Interesting, yet very flawed

[7/10 · 7 January 2002]

Luc Besson's film about the life of the relatively recently sainted Joan of Arc is remarkably muddled. It is never seems to know what it wants to say about it's heroine. That isn't necessarily bad if it is intended but in this film it doesn't work. Visually, of course, it is beautiful, but Luc Besson can do that in his sleep. It is the muddled content that I have a problem with. We are given no real window into the mind of Joan, and the manner in which we experience her religious revelations doesn't really allow us to question them in the way many of the other characters do. It could be argued that in certain key sequences Besson does encourage us to doubt her visions or at least her interpretation. So I will leave that aside. And maybe I am also hung up on the films lack of perspective on Joan herself. It never takes a clear stance on what it thinks of her. Great hero? Or maybe flawed angry woman (whose main goal is revenge) who so wants to drive the English out of France she will find the signs from God to do it. I think this latter vision is the one we are intended to adopt. The only really inspired portion of the film (the talk between Joan and God) leads us to this postition. I wonder if the whole idea for the film didn't start with this scene between Joan and God (who is played wonderfully by Dustin Hoffman, critical, somewhat cruel, witty (a trait not often allowed by screenwriters), maybe caring in the way of parents). I wonder if the film might not have played better as a 45 or 30 minute short film revolving around the key scenes with God and Joan. I have one other complaint, and this one may seem petty. Why not go with the French language for a film about french history instead of English with french accents?

Seven Samurai (1954)

Brilliant composition plus brilliant acting = brilliant flawless movie!

[10/10 · 31 August 2001]

It is hard to know exactly where to begin when talking about a film of such utter quality. What must be said at the start is that "The Seven Samurai" is flawless. It's characters are brought to life by some of the finest and most committed acting I have ever seen. It is a compelling story of courage, duty, honor, respect and change.

I could echo Roger Ebert's commentary, in which he noted that Kurosawa's film set the standard for the modern action film. It was he notes the first film to assemble a team of hardened men to undertake a mission. But I say read Eberts review if you want to get his take.

I have watched the film several times and what is truly amazing about "The Seven Samurai" is the way in which Kurosawa choses to tell his tale, which is, I think, truly innovative and subtle.

Growing up on action fare as we have "Seven Samurai" should really hold no magic for us. We have the formula (in many forms) before. Countless times. However it is not old to us and magic it carries. I make the case (now anyway) that this comes largely from Kurosawa's knack, his amazing gift, for photographic composition. Most filmmakers today in the action genre have some flare for flashy cinematography. We get sharp angles, dramatic poses (most favorably lighted), and fast cuts. I guess this is to involve us in the high emotion of the situation. But Kurosawa has patience and while I think he gave the blocking of his shots, and their composition a great deal of thought, it comes across as if he did not. His camera moves as though it were simply following the characters through the story. The camera work in "Seven" is so much more subtle and so much more compelling than almost any action fare today. His camera allows, we the viewer, to be, at various times, all of the major characters in the film.

Toshiro Mifune's emotional explosion at his "fellow" Samurai is probably the most obvious example of this. He gets up and at first appears to agree with the Samurai sentiment that killing all of the villagers is a good idea, but when he turns and his anger is directed at them the scene and our place in it change. We are no longer passive viewers watching heated exchange between two factions. The angry Toshiro is yelling at us, looking down at us. For we are looking up at him as his fellow samurai would see him. By the end of his out burst he angrily leaves the room but before he goes he turns slightly to look at us, but we don't see his face, for now we are looking (in one of the great shots of the film) at his feet. The Samurai are ashamed and so are we because we identified with them at first and Kurosawa had the guts to show us that we are wrong to do so.

I could go on, and on about his film, but I leave you with this, watch it.

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

So wonderfully bad

[1/10 · 26 August 2001]

I have given this film the rather low rating of one. Which of course means that it is truly an awful film. Having said that though, I will say that I whole heartedly recommend it. It is in no way mediocre. It is spectacular in its descent into awfulness. It can never tell if it wants to be camp or a serious thriller. As such it gives us scenes in where the story is taken far to seriously, and other scenes that have taken a clue from such recent fair as Scream. I don't know what the hell the makers of this film were thinking but they managed to produce a horrible film that is absolutely fun to watch. So pop up some popcorn, sit back with some witty friends and then pop in this movie. It will provide a good bit of amusement.