Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Guns, Girls, and Gambling Review

It was an interesting idea.  Take the popularity of the hip and cool London underground movies and put it in the context of Indian casinos.  You have a mix of quirky characters played by recognizable and fairly decent actors.  (Yes, I just called Christian Slater decent.  Face it.  He has some talent.)  Then, you call it Guns, Girls and Gambling and you should have at least a passable movie.  So, what happened?

I know that you should not judge a book by its cover or a movie by its poster or name.  But a movie like this called Guns, Girls and Gambling should probably have more than one gambling scene.  It should also have more than one girl that is important to the plot.  The Girl Next Door really wasn't that important.  So, had they changed the name, would it have been a decent movie?  No.

The biggest problem is that the movie is a cavalcade of one trick ponies.  The blonde has one schtick:  reciting poetry in a horrible effort to be like Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction.  Even Samuel L Jackson delivered it a bit awkwardly.  To have a someone who I'm pretty sure none of us can remember the name of deliver the same style of lines is a recipe for disaster.  If that was it, I could have forgiven it.  But it's basically 90 minutes of everyone correcting everyone else for their political incorrectness and one or two other jokes that are beaten into the ground.

Sure, there's some cool movie violence and the overall story isn't horrible.  But after 90 minutes of basically the same thing, you just get bored.  Don't see it.  Opt for something by Guy Ritchie instead.

Sunday, 24 March 2013

Ironclad Review

There's something about movies in a historical fashion that we all seem to find fascinating.  I think it's the romanticizing of a time where, in some ways life was simpler and in others it was much more complicated and difficult. I particularly like these movies when there is no focus on the fantasy or super natural.  Ironclad is based on the actual siege of Rochester in the 13th Century when King John was trying to reclaim his kingdom after signing the Magna Carta.  And while it has the basic story, it is very inaccurate in a lot of things that they really didn't need to change.  At this time, the Danes were not pagan.  Rochester was a significant city but they portray it as a remote outpost.  They even talk about its strategic importance.  If it was so important, it would have drawn a lot of people to it in search of a better life.  So to make it remote and small just contradicts what they were trying to do in the movie.  Altering a historical story for the big screen can be done well (see Gladiator for a good example).  But to sacrifice story integrity for dramatic effect is a bad mistake.

The battle scenes are realistic.  They are very bloody and graphic to the point of being a little too much.  But ever since Braveheart, the movie going masses have come to expect and demand such things in their war movies.  It's kind of sad because the films tend to rely on the gore rather than leave it to the imagination and interpretation of the audience.  I was surprised to see this in a British production because the British tend to downplay the sensational and let the audience think.  It's one reason why I tend to lean towards British cinema in the first place.

Some of the editing, cinematography, and basic story is a bit sloppy but overall, it's not too bad.  There is a tacked on love story brought in to try and appeal to human nature and it's done so quickly and half assed that it just wasn't necessary.  The writing is inconsistent with the time period though.  Many of Brian Cox's lines don't seem to fit with the rest of the cast but he does deliver them convincingly.  Paul Giamatti also does a good job portraying the sniveling little a-hole of a king.  Normally, a screaming tirade from such a character directed at his enemy comes off as cheesy and hard to watch.  But his hollering at Cox was done very convincingly.  It's not surprising because both of these men are very good actors.

If you like the medieval thing you may want to watch it.  The performances are decent.  And the sets, costumes, and fight choreography seem genuine.  If you are looking for a tight, historic movie with few holes, you may want to give it a pass.  My recommendation is to see it and judge for yourself because it isn't a total waste of time.

Saturday, 23 March 2013

Jack The Giant Slayer Review

I now know why this wasn't just called Jack and the Beanstalk. It's actually quite a bit more than the original fairy tale. And, if you're going to bastardize a beloved children's tale, you might as well do it right. And they did. I wasn't expecting much and it does start out fairly slow. But when it picks up, it takes off and doesn't let go. Once the beanstalk grows, the film moves fast, has some really good action and breaks some conventional adventure movie rules along the way (timing of obvious deaths, changes to a crisis, etc.) I like that they were willing to take those risks. I also like that they didn't try to make the movie seem too real. Part of that may be due to limitations in CGI technology. But some of it had to be an intentional effort to keep it a fairy tale. Ewan McGregor is the best example of this. His line delivery (tally ho) really exemplifies the "knight in shining armour" character that only exists in fairy tales.

I was a bit disappointed with some of the CGI. The beanstalks were good and the whole set of the different lands is created well. But the giants were created poorly. I know it would have taken a lot of money but, rather than trying to give each one such a unique look, they could have commoditized them a bit and left out things like the Don King hair on the one. There could have been a better balance between individualism and quality.

Overall, it's quite tight and has a really cool ending.  The battles and fights are engaging and mesmerizing. So see it. There's just a couple of questions I have though. Why is Fumm Irish? Was Flava Flav the inspiration for the giant's second head? And why was the medieval army general straight out of a WWI anti-Kaiser propaganda poster?  I guess we'll never know...

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Review

The only problem I have with this movie is that, through the whole thing, I had the score of the Simpsons' stage production of the Planet of the Apes running through my head.  But that's hardly the fault of the film makers so I can't count it against the movie.  But, let's face it.  Wouldn't that actually be a benefit to the movie?  (I actually have one other problem.  I've been to Muir Woods twice and there's no way it would be deserted at any time.  Just try finding a parking spot if you ever go.  But they had to clear it out for the cinematic effect.)

Overall, this movie is actually very good.  I was expecting much less.  But it's got a very solid and tightly wrapped story to it.  As a prequel to an entire franchise, it does have a completely expository tone to it.  The entire thing is an introduction.  I know I've complained about those types of movies in the past so I'll just say that if you're going to do a prequel, this is the way to do it.  Answer the questions about how things got to the way they were in the later movies but don't ask a bunch of new questions that will just lead to the two stories not lining up properly.  in other words, you need to stay true to any canon you created with a later movie.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes does it quite well.

The other thing that makes this good is the absolutely breathtaking special effects.  Caesar actually looks like an enlightened chimpanzee.  This is probably due to the fact that they used a human and made him a chimp rather than animating a chimp.  It brought a sense of realism that should have beaten Hugo for a visual effects Oscar.  Further to this, all of the green screening effects that they had to use were flawless.  Add in very good acting (and only one cheesy - but albeit obligatory - "damn dirty ape" line) all around and it makes for a very strong action/sci-fi movie.

See it.

Chinatown Review

This is one of those movies that was made in a time when Hollywood was just starting to move from overacting glamour to more gritty and realistic movies.  Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson are largely responsible for those style of movies being successful.  Both were tremendous actors back in the day.  They're still good but, as they get older and start embracing other genres, they are starting to become caricatures of themselves.  I'm not saying that they're washed up.  Far from it.  I'm just saying that, when they stick to roles like Nicholson played in Chinatown and De Niro did in Taxi Driver, they are at their best.

Nicholson really carries this movie.  It isn't a spectacular story by any means.  It's a basic crime movie where a guy is investigating one thing and uncovers a whole conspiracy and other shady details and winds up in over his head.  It's one of Hollywood's basic thriller plots.  There is not a whole lot surprise so it has to rely on some good acting and a quick pace to keep the audience interested.

It accomplishes this through a great performance by Nicholson.  He plays the wisecracking, "do it my own way" private detective quite well and shows a great range of emotions throughout.  You can tell that the other actors are trying to step up their game and keep up with his level.

The pace is also kept fairly quick.  There are a couple of times when I thought it was slowing down but that could be because I was watching it on a plane at around midnight.  I'm sure that if I watched this in an early evening, I would have thought it was moving very quickly.

See it.  It doesn't get as gritty and violent as some of today's thrillers.  But given that it's over 30 years old, it still stands up as a fairly decent crime thriller.

The Net Review

This movie is a perfect example of why you should watch any current technology based movie as soon as it comes out. Everything in it is so laughably out of date now that it is actually hard to watch. Having come out in the mid-90s, it did use the technology of the time and it was made for that audience. Because of that, I can respect what they were doing. The internet was so revolutionary and there was (and still is to an extent) a fear of what the new technology could do in the wrong hands. That's what they were trying to portray in The Net.

What I cannot respect is the absolutely terrible way they told the story.  This is supposed to be a thriller.  In a thriller, things have to happen.  A story has to take twists and turns and move at a quick pace.  None of that happens here.  In fact, when it was done, I thought, "nothing happened at all.". Sure, there was a plot (albeit a weak one). And things moved at a snail's pace.  But the level of intrigue is so low that it is easy to let your mind wander.  The good thing about that is that the story is so simple that if your mind wanders, you don't have a hard time picking up when you get back into it.  It's just that, when you do, it's still unbelievably boring.

Don't see it.

Gone In 60 Seconds Review

I'm a fan of the remake from 2000.  I know it isn't a great movie but it has a good car movie story and some decent comedic one liners.  It also has good car chase action and I'm a big fan of that.  So i finally decided to watch the original to see how close the remake was.  As it turns out, it isn't that far off.  The remake added a human element to appeal more to the masses.  but the basic mission is the same: these car thieves are given a list of high end cars that they have to steal.

Unlike the remake, there seems to be no consequences if they don't steal the cars in time.  They basically do it to just steal the cars.  There is the white whale of Eleanor and stealing that car seems to motivate the main character to some extent.  But other than that there is no real story or character development throughout the entire film.  At times, it even seems like just raw B-roll footage of guys stealing cars.  Because of that, there are times when it seems very realistic.  If it weren't for the wooden acting from some of the secondary and tertiary actors, you could almost think you were watching the news.

If you are looking for realism in that sense, this may be for you.  Also, if you are looking for some pretty decent car chase scenes, you may like it.  It seemed like (and may be the case) that about 1/3 of the entire movie is a big car chase at the end.  At times, it seemed to drag on a bit but, for the most part, it did keep me engaged thinking, "how is he going to get out of this?"  And that's one of the two main elements of a good car chase.  The other is to have a lot of speed, crashes, and changes in direction which it did too.  From a 2013 perspective, there wasn't a whole lot of innovation.  but this movie is from the mid-70s and, for it's time, I would think it was pretty innovative with the stunt driving and deterioration of the Mustang throughout the chase.

If you like car movies, this is a decent one that is boiled down to the basic element of pure cars.  So see it.  But give it a pass if you need any kind of character development and motivation.  if that is you thing, give the remake a try.

Friday, 22 March 2013

The Fantastic Four Review

When this movie came out, I thought that the effects were really good.  For the most part, they have stood the test of time.  The invisibility, flames, and human rock are all still very good.  However, the stretchy skin aspect of Reed Richards has not aged well.  This is supposed to be a super hero movie and whenever he does his thing, it comes off looking like something from The Mask.  It's more comical than anything and the leader of a super hero group should not be the comic relief.

Overall, the acting is as good as can be expected with the weak and quite lame and cheesy writing that has occured.  Chris Evans plays cocky quite well but was given absolutely moronic lines and the character suffered for it.  Jessica Alba is passable and Michael Chiklis delivers well for a character that is outside of his comfort zone.  He's at his best as a badass and Grimm is a more tenderhearted character with a rough exterior ( a cheesy allegory given e whole rock skin thing but that's the MO of Marvel).

The story is a good telling of the origins of the group but it is just that: only the origins.  The whole film is exposition and doesn't move on into a more self-contained story.  Building the whole thing for a sequel is a risky proposition.  Given at there is a sequel, I guess it paid off.  When I finally watch it, I'll review it too.

It moves fast and has a lot of good action sequences.  So for a comic book movie, it is good enough.  See it if you haven't already.

Sunday, 17 March 2013

V for Vendetta Review

In this movie, Natalie Portman is a lot like Sampson.  While she has her hair, this is actually a decent little thriller set in a dystopian society.  She plays an unsuspecting person who is accidentally caught up in one man's quest for vengeance against the evil, fascist regime that turned him into a monster and ruined so many lives.  There is also the policeman chasing him who starts uncovering evidence that the government he serves so faithfully may be responsible for atrocities.  It's a basic story but with the right writing and good acting, it could have been a good thriller with some very nice fight scenes.

Then, V shaves Evie's head and the entire movie goes completely off the rails.  V goes through this elaborate and completely useless facade to turn her into a less violent version of himself for his plan. Then, she's rendered almost irrelevant for the remainder of the movie right up until the end when she is conveniently needed for the final act of vengeance.  Evie should be a central character in this movie.  Instead, sometimes she's needed and sometimes she's swept to the background.  The relationship between her and V is so inconsistent that it hurts the story too much.

Finally, I will talk about the character of V.  I don't mind having a calm, sociopathic attitude to these anti-heroes in movies.  After all, they are people who have been messed up and are consumed with one goal.  But Hugo Weaving takes this one to a whole new level.  It's like there's no emotion in the character at all.  Even Bane had some passion in the Dark Knight Rises.  V is taken too far to the calm end and he becomes a boring character that you just don't care about.

There's some decent action and the cinematography is quite good.  The emotion brought into the viewer through the society being reminiscent of Nazi Germany is strong in parts.  And if they had stayed on the track they started on, this could have been fantastic.  But they veered off and ended up making a poor movie.  Don't see it.

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Paranorman Review

I had seen ads for this when it came out but it wasn't even really on my radar due to it being a kids' horror movie.  Then Karl said that there were a lot of jokes that I would find funny.  I trust Karl's judgement in movies and I thought I'd give it a shot.

As it turns out, Paranorman is a fun little movie with some pretty good laughs.  Most of the good stuff comes from Neil, the portly, happy go lucky sidekick.  He's a loveable kid who's cluelessness relieves any tension that builds up.  As for the rest of the characters, yes, there are some of the quirky aspects that allow them to be funny.  But the writers seemed to hold back on the goofiness a little.  Had they turned it up just a little, this could have gone from a "few chuckles" movie to downright hilarious.  But, considering its targeted straight at a slightly younger audience, anything further for humour could have been wasted.

Had this movie been made by Pixar, it would have had the multi-audience levels of story and humour that would have achieved some more laughs.  But Laika is known for a more linear and less light approach to their films.  I never saw Coraline (also made by Laika) but I can tell that it has a more fantastical yet rooted in reality approach to animated film than Pixar's approach of talking cars, toys, and cuddly monsters.  Both take people into another world and make them laugh.  But Pixar would not have had zombies' arms ripped off by villagers and Norman would have a lasting friendship with the witch as they faded off listening to a Randy Newman tune.  Instead, Laika decided to teach life lessons with a much more realistic (and albeit dark) message that ultimately made this a more satisfying movie.

There are some lingering questions left for the more discriminating movie goer.  But this is purely, pre-teen entertainment and loose ends can usually remain loose in that arena.  The laughs and melancholic but satisfying resolution make it worth your 90 minutes.  See it.

Monday, 11 March 2013

Oz, the Great and Powerful Review

I saw the teaser poster back in the day and knew that I needed to see this movie.  With today's CGI technology, the Oz franchise is something that should definitely be revived.  Yes, the original is a classic and will always be so.  But the books depict this absolutely fantastic world that was previously unfilmable.  Now we can do it right and I'm glad to see that Hollywood realizes this.

I also like that they did not start by just remaking the Wizard of Oz.  A badly needed background is being built.  For the most part, it is quite strong.  I do not know how close this is to the actual story in the books as I have not read all of them and those that I did were so long ago that I have forgotten.  But there is definitely a foreshadowing of future events and crises throughout this film.  Some may say that it is an obvious setup for a sequel.  To that, I say, "what's the problem?"  There are numerous Oz books and the whole world is much more than Dorothy and her entourage.  A multi-volume film franchise is just what it needs.

That being said, just how does the first installment rate as a movie?  With regards to the story, I already said that I thought it was decent.  I like how they explained the wizard's arrival in Oz and his character flaws which are never fully explained in the old movie.  There was also always an underlying tension with the witches that they do a decent job of explaining.  Oz purists may or may not like it but I think it should satisfy most average film goers who are familiar with the original film.

Visually, it is pretty stunning.  Most of the sets and costumes look a bit plastic but this is a magical land that is far different from our own.  I like the use of black and white and a 4:3 aspect ratio for the Kansas scenes.  But I did find that they seemed a bit plastic and surreal as well which took away from the transition to Oz.

Finally, I was quite disappointed in the acting.  None of the star-studded cast gave a decent performance.  Oddly enough, the best was Michelle Williams who I just have a hard time watching at the best of times.  It was almost as if they all tried to tie it into the same style as the original film.  But, back then, that was just how people acted on screen.  We don't need that now and the camp factor actually makes it more difficult to watch.  I was originally happy to see James Franco cast as the wizard.  He proved with 127 hours that he has some range.  But his performance here was pretty bad.  Because of the light-hearted nature of the film, there is more comedy to it and his goofy grins and delivery went too close to his stoner from Pineapple Express.  It just didn't fit this movie and he turned out to be the wrong choice.  I do have to give a nod to Zach Braff's voiceover work though.  The combination of his inflection and the CGI for the winged monkey were spot on.

Because of the strong story and great visuals, I can forgive the substandard acting.  It isn't great, but it is good.  See it.

Sunday, 10 March 2013

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review

After three very decent movies, we've come to expect a certain level of quality from the Indiana Jones franchise.  Yes, we have been willing to let reality get suspended a little bit in order for the mystical world that Indy gets himself wrapped up in to reveal itself.  In a way, these movies use terrifica action and adventure to remind us that there is more to our world than we can understand.

Why, then, does a movie that deals with inter-dimensional beings on earth in a search for knowledge in this franchise disappoint me so?  There's a few reasons.  First, the other three Indy movies kept the mystical portions of their stories within the confines of our own reality.  They dealt with the relationship between divine power and human interaction with that power.  Ultimately, they told us of the dangers of evil and how integrity and righteousness can overcome if we just believe and accept.  Crystal Skull had the same basic theme but failed in its delivery.  Rather than have a story where the humans encounter the divine, it becomes a human encounter with a superior alien race and it becomes just another run of the mill alien movie with cheesy undertones of our inferiority to them and government conspiracies.

Second, the villains are completely flat and useless in this film.  Right from a completely irrelevant opening sequence right through to the climax, you never really feel that Indy is in any danger.  Sure, there is the encounter at the warehouse and a fantastic car chase through the jungle.  But that's it.  There never seems to be a race against the Russians to find the city of gold.  And that brings us to the Russinas themselves.  I understand that, in the 50s, Communism was the absolutely evil threat that made everyone paranoid.  But the use of that in film does not age well.  Indy fought Nazis previously.  We will always see them as the embodiment of the worst that mankind can become.  Communism has largely been forgiven for its evils because of the peaceful fall of the system (save for a few almost laughable pockets many of whom seem to be embracing the economics of capitalism).  So to try and put them on the same level of Nazis is just ridiculous.

Finally, the writing is just plain bad.  They spent way too much time trying to get the 50s "daddy-o" vernacular down when they should have worked more on developing character and plot development.

The good in this movie would be the action.  It does move very quickly and, as I mentioned, the action sequences are quite well choreographed.  For the most part, the effects and visuals are good to look at.  Any wide, sweeping shots are well done.  But there is an inconsistency in the green screening that took away from the visual enjoyment.  Overall, it was just too hard to lose yourself in this one compared to the other three.

It's not a complete waste of time but it would be a complete waste of money to spend anything to watch it.  Don't see it.

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Stitches Review

When I saw that the funniest man on the planet (Ross Noble) was starring in a movie, I knew I had to watch it even though it is a slasher film.  As you may be aware, I am not a fan of the horror genre.  But my research showed that this was along the lines of comedy and horror and gore was more of a vehicle for telling jokes (sort of like Shaun of the Dead but with less allegory).  Ultimately, that's really what it boils down to.

It's got the basics of a typical slasher movie.  There's the group of teenagers, each with their own quirks and one-dimensional personality.  There's the evil killer that is enabled as a killer by either psychosis or supernatural means (in this case, it's the supernatural but there's a bit of psychosis there simply due to Noble's involvement).  There's the small setting that keeps everything within its own little package so you simply can't just outrun the clown or call for help (something that they never really address).

But they aren't trying to delve into some weird psychological study or make any allegories to the human condition or any other crap like that.  Stitches is just a slasher comedy; plain and simple.  For what it is, it is adequate.  I would have to say that the comedy is better than any slasher effects.  Most of the gore is a bit too shiny and looks plastic and fake.  Had it been a serious movie, that would be a huge failing.  But what they lack in consistent writing and effects, they make up for in humour.  The group of teenagers is well thought out and used to make their personalities continue the laughs. And that's a good thing because I was disappointed in the amount of screen time that Noble actually got.  When he is on screen, he is very funny.  But the movie focuses more on the group of kids and the buildup to Stitches' involvement.  So the fact that the kids were able to maintain my interest is good.

It's nothing that is going to set the world on fire.  And without Noble, I would never have seen it in the first place.  Overall, it isn't a waste of 90 minutes and can be quite funny.  It's worth it just for the tricycle scene.  See it but don't make it a huge priority.

Monday, 4 March 2013

The Great Train Robbery Review

The hallmark of a good heist movie is to keep it light.  After all, the protagonists in most of them are actually very bad people with bad intentions.  And the audience should be cheering for the heroes.  With a setting like Victorian England and two fine dramatic actors like Sean Connery and Donald Sutherland it would have been easy to turn this into a very heavy and intense heist movie.  I haven't read the book so I cannot speak to its tone.  But I was glad to see that Michael Crichton kept the tone light all the way through.  The flippant attitudes of Pierce and Agar make it a much more enjoyable film.  In this way, it really resembles Ocean's 11 without the large entourage of characters.

The Great Train Robbery follows the basic elements of a good heist movie.  There's the setup where the main character sees an opportunity for personal gain.  This is followed by recruiting some help and then moving into the preparation stage.  It is the preparation stage that is the most important in these films because it is more about how they cross their 't's and dot their lower case 'j's than it is about execution.  This story does an excellent job in laying out how they go about getting all four keys and dealing with the inevitable road bumps along the way.  It is during one of those road bumps that the movie takes a slightly darker turn that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the tone.  How they deal with Clean Willy is a deviation from the rest and it still kind of bothers me.  But, throughout the buildup to the heist there is a fine mix of tension and comic relief to make it very entertaining.

Finally, the heist itself is a bit anti-climactic in that there is really no crisis to be dealt with other than Connery hanging out on the edge of a train.  It's almost as if their planning was too thorough.  Other than Connery dealing with wave after wave of bridges on the top of the train, there's no real suspense.  But they don't dwell on it and the film actually wraps up quite quickly.

Overall, it's a well-paced, lighthearted heist with some decent performances.  See it.

Friday, 1 March 2013

Dorian Gray Review

By now I should know that it's usually a red flag when a movie starts out showing a scene that happens halfway through the timeline and then starts the story with "one year earlier."  It means that the first gripping part of the movie is so far from the beginning that, if they didn't hook you in with it from the start, you'd never make it through.  This is exactly what happened in Dorian Gray.

I have not read the novel but it is on my list.  So I don't know how true the film is to the Oscar Wilde story.  (Considering a good portion of the film takes place well after Wilde died, I'm pretty sure a lot of that was never in the novel.)  I do know that Dorian Gray is a cautionary tale about the soul and the consequences of your actions (at least I think it is).  And given the subject matter, it would have to be a fairly melancholic piece to begin with.  What the film makers did was take that dark story and make it even darker.  Gray is portrayed as a man really without a mind of his own.  He is easily influenced and of a very weak character.  This makes it hard to really have any vested interest in Gray at all.  Instead, I found myself more intrigued by the Basil and Harry characters that are Gray's influencers.  This is especially true of Harry because he's the driving force behind Gray's depravity.  He's also played by Colin Firth who is (in my mind) the King of Hollywood right now.

It's odd really because Gray seems to be so empty and one dimensional.  His only motivation is hedonism and to see how far he can take pleasure for his own satisfaction.  It makes sense in a way because all of the consequences of his actions are deflected to the painting in his attic leaving him, ultimately empty.  The big problem with this is that I feel it can work in a novel but that kind of character fails in a film.  Without blatant (and thus, poorly written) exposition in dialogue, it's difficult to get into the head of a character like that.  It can be explained with much more detail in the written word.  As a result, on film, Gray just becomes this zombie of a sex addict and a lot like the characters in Crash (the sexy car accident one.  Not the "everyone's a racist" one) and it becomes boring.

So, once you realize this, the only reason to sit through the whole thing is to see what the painting looks like.  This is another symptom of the film maker's inkling that they may not have a masterpiece because they purposely leave out any decent shot of the painting after it starts transforming.  You can call it mystery and suspense if you like but I just don't buy it.

All in all, it focuses too much on weird nudity and depravity and not enough on the underlying themes.  Don't see it.