Charles Bronson Film Festival Hard Times (1975)

When the Italians refer to you as "The Ugly One" and the French call you "The Holy Monster", you know you are not going to be cast as the romantic lead very often. Charles Bronson had a face that looked like a catchers mitt that was left out in the sun for a long time. His skin was tough, his mouth was small and his eyes narrow. As he got older the features deepened and gave him real character. Still he managed to be an effective love interest in several films with his wife actress Jill Ireland. In fact, she appears in four of the five films we are covering for this little festival. The romance was almost always a secondary part of the main story and that is the only slightly different with this movie.

This was the first movie directed by Walter Hill. He had screenplay credits for a number of films before he began directing, including the neo noir "Hickey and Boggs" and the Steve McQueen/Ali Macgraw thriller, "The Getaway". He would later go on to direct "The Warriors", "48 Hours" and "Streets of Fire" which was recently featured as the Movie of the Month on the Lambcast. This was a project that seemed destined to bring these two together. I read an interview with the great Strother Martin, where he complained a bit about how the movie was cut. Both his part and James Coburn's parts were trimmed by several sequences and he felt that the movie seemed like a program filler rather than something special. I don't know if the studio interfered, but Hill was one of the writers and as director he called the shots. In retrospect the movie is a excellent example of spare story telling and interesting characters. The side plots might have been worthy, but the focus always needed to be on Bronson's Chaney.

The title says it all, it's the depression, jobs are hard to come by and everyone is looking to make a buck. Bronson drops into town, a beautifully shot New Orleans, off a freight train with nothing more than six bucks in his pocket. It's been commented on in the notes on the DVD and on the IMDB page that Bronson has barely 500 words of dialogue in the film. If you watch the first five minutes you will know why. He simply does not need more. The character is laconic because he has little interest in other people or events. He is a loner and can indicate a lot of emotions with that punching bag face. Just watch the way he works the toothpick in his mouth while sitting at the counter of the diner. It moves along with his level of attention to different subjects.I've seen plenty of actors use props like cigarettes or food to make a point, Charlie just needs the tiny stick. In the bare-knuckled fights, the opponents usually are the ones with the big talk, Chaney let's his fists do the talking. There are two scenes where other characters come right out and ask if that's all he has to say about a subject, he doesn't even give them a one word answer.

Another reason that it is a good thing that Bronson has few lines is that Coburn has so many. His character is nick named "Speed" and it sounds like that is based on his conversation skills. "Speed" is the loser character of the piece. He is a small time operator who dreams of the big time but almost always blows it on bad choices, especially saying a few words too many. His collaboration with Chaney would seem to be a nice symmetrical match. This is the third film the two stars made together, they previously appeared in "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Great Escape" together. Coburn had moved to the front ranks of film stardom but was slipping a but by this time, Bronson was peaking. This was their last film together.

Strother Martin probably had a bit more right to be irked with some of the trims. There are no scenes in the film where he is doing the work that he is contracted for. Everything he does is in assessing Chaney before a fight, not treating cuts or bruises. In spite of that, he steals the movie in every scene he is in. His dialogue is the best in the script. He plays an opium addict, with a poetic streak a mile wide.
Chaney: Two years doesn't make a doctor.
Poe: Well, in my third year of studies a small black cloud appeared on campus; I left under it.
        Some are born to fail, others have it thrust upon them.

At the final fight, when Chaney has been manipulated  into fighting, Martin picks up a wrench and throws it through the second story window of an office to announce that they are ready to begin.

Actor Robert Tessier specialized in playing menacing tough guys on TV and in the movies in the 70s and 80s. He was an early example of a bald head being used as a symbol of intimidation in the movies. He was a dangerous convict in "The Longest Yard", a tough guardian angel in "The Deep" and he was the villain with his voice dubbed in "Breakheart Pass". He is Chaney's first real test as a fighter and their fight is one of the big action pieces of the film. It is shown from above, and then the crowds are shown at an angle looking up. It is a clever way to add to the staged fisticuffs that are going on in an abandoned factory. His role gives Bronson another chance to show how small acting touches can be so effective. Tessier smiles manically a couple of time during the fight, he even tries to intimidate with a backhanded compliment. Bronson remains mostly impassive, with only the mildest of smiles when he gets the upper hand. The absence of open emotion is the stronger personality in these scenes.

Another actor who works well as cast is Bruce Glover, maybe better known as the father of Crispin Glover these days. His face and voice convey a sadistic streak as the enforcer for a loan shark that "Speed" turns to for a bankroll.  His Mr. Wint in the James Bond film, "Diamonds are Forever" would be the closest character I have seen him play with this type of vigor.

Just as Bronson cuts off conversation with two other characters after they ask if that's all he has to say, he also initiates conversation with both of them the same way. He simply helps himself to a seat at their dining table. His come on to her in the diner is quiet and non-threatening. It is a little unusual for a guy who is supposed to be taking charge, but it is his confidence not his bluster that gets them connected. This is another great contrast with "Speed" who has to try to get in the last word every time and ends up looking like a fool.
There is a scene where he tries to impose a financial arrangement on Chaney but gets put in his place pretty quickly by Chaney simply standing up to leave. Another example in the script of less is more. "Speed " is all easy charm and smiles but it can't get him what he wants, Chaney is coiled silent tension, but even when he strikes it is in a non-flamboyant manner.

On top of the great script and the interesting characters in the movie, the film benefits from it's look. Depression era New Orleans must have been a bit of catnip to film makers. Bourbon Street has a classic look and many of the older buildings have not changed since the era. Steve McQueen starred in "The Cincinnati Kid" a poker movie set in the same period and the landmarks and factories sell the authenticity of the film. I watched it on a Twilight Time Blu Ray disc and the transfer is stunning. The opening scene where Bronson just jumps off of an arriving train looks beautiful and the rest of the movie follows.

If you are unfamiliar with Charles Bronson, and want to see the kind of actor he could be, outside of the vigilante films he ended up being ghettoized in, than "Hard Times" is a great place to start. The characters make the movie and the acting elevates it. It may not be my favorite Bronson film, but it is my favorite Bronson performance.

The Charles Bronson Film Festival: Breakheart Pass

In the 1970s, the Western still appeared on the big screen but with much less frequency than it did at one time. The Duke made his last film in the same year this film came out. We also got Clint Eastwood in "The Outlaw Josey Wales" this year. The Charles Bronson film however might be the most unconventional Western Story in theaters this year; it is a amalgamation of 60's action sensibilities and Agatha Christie, set on a train in the old west. There are murders that are never solved and people pretending to be things they are not. In the middle of all of this is our featured star for this festival, kicking butts and taking names.

Alistair MacLean is a name synonymous with action films of the 60's. He authored World War II action novels and contemporary spy thrillers. Among his best know works are "The Guns of Navarone", "Where Eagles Dare" and "Ice Station Zebra" . This book was a western but is contains many of the same elements of his other stories, for instance there is a spy element to the movie, and a series of false identities and it climaxes with a dramatic action sequence. The movie is definitely a product of it's time. The pacing of the mystery is slow and deliberate and we get to know the plot only a little bit at a time. This is very different from today's thrillers which must contain some sort of action every five minutes or else someone will call it boring. Anyway a group of people are on a train, traveling to a remote military base for a variety of reasons. Bronson plays John Deakin, a wanted thief and killer, who has been caught by a U.S. Marshall and brought onto the train to transport him to justice. The train is supposed to be delivering medical supplies to the stricken fort, but things are not as they seem as the passengers and crew of the train are being murdered.

The movie is filled with actors from the period that were personal favorites of mine. The recently passed David Huddleston (most of you would know him as the title character of "The Big Lebowski") is a Doctor on a mercy mission. Richard Crenna, (best known as Rambo's commander) is the territorial governor and Bronson's wife, Jill Ireland, is his romantic partner. The Major in charge of the troops on the train is played by one of my all time favorites, Ed Lauter.  In the last half of the movie, he essentially becomes the co-star with Bronson. Although he is often cast a a military figure, I do think he was a little odd in the role, he seems like such a contemporary actor. I'm not sure why it was necessary but Robert Tessier, who was so ominous as a tough gut in "The Longest Yard" has all of his lines dubbed.

This is the Charles Bronson Festival, so lets talk about Bronson and his character. To start the film, he plays a bit ineffectual, as a ruse to get where he needs to be. This is where he needs the acting skills he has because Charles Bronson never seems ineffectual, he is always a man of action with a degree of certainty around him. As the story moves forward he does get a chance to deliver a few humorous lines, most of them to his rel life spouse Jill Ireland. As the mystery begins to unfold, he is more and more front and center to the action and the number of lines he has is reduced. There is an Agatha Christie style reveal at the climax that is reminiscent of so many drawing room mysteries.  It is never clear why the Marshall played by Ben Johnson gives him the run of the train once the killings begin, but there might be a dialogue scene that got cut for time somewhere.

This is not Bronson's best Western, that would be "Once Upon a Time in the West" from 1968. This is however very typical of the Bronson Westerns of the 70s, most of them had a high concept twist to them and there were comedic elements that he could handle which did not require any slapstick. This was the second film in a row, after "Breakout" that he made with veteran TV Director Tom Gries. It is an efficient story told simply and without affectation, in other words, it is right where Charles Bronson lived.

The Charles Bronson Film Festival: Breakout (1975)

In between "Death Wish" the most influential starring vehicle of Bronson's career, and "Hard Times", the most accomplished performance in his career, came this movie, an exploitation picture based on a real event but sold as a fictional story [something that never happens these days]. The premise of "Breakout" is simple. Robert Duvall is an unjustly imprisoned American in Mexico. His detention has been arranged for by the company he worked for because he has information that would be damaging to them. His wife is trying to arrange an escape from the prison and she hires Bronson's character to carry it out.

Nick Colton is a somewhat shady bush pilot who is willing to run afoul of the law if necessary. Unlike the TV promo you see above, in the film, his price is not $250,000, it's actually $1200 at first. Bronson plays Nick as an almost comic character; he is full of bravado, bullshit and big ideas.  At first he doesn't realize what he got himself into and the initial attempt at escape fails. The second attempt involves Randy Quaid in drag, and you know that's not going to get it done. Finally he latches onto the idea that the film is based on, he will land a helicopter in the prison yard and lift the prisoner directly out of the fortress. Of course, he is not really a helicopter pilot and there are plenty of other complications.

Originally, the film was cast with Kris Kristofferson in the role but Bronson stepped in when he left the project. Robert Duvall was a successful actor but he was not yet the movie star he would become. Between 1972 and 1975 he made ten films that were not "the Godfather" including pulp material like "The Killer Elite", "The Outfit" and this film. As the imprisoned executive, slowly losing touch with himself and becoming physically weaker as each day passes, Duvall turns in a competent performance with one really memorable scene. When he attempts to bribe his way out of the prison, the ruse that is being used is that he will occupy the wooden casket of a fellow prisoner who had died. The captain of the prison knows this is happening and basically tortures the man by pretending to bury the casket while Duvall is in it.

After this plot fails, he basically turns the planning of an escape over to his wife. Unfortunately, someone she is close to leaks information to the company and subsequently each escape is thwarted. She does however need to communicate with her husband to keep him abreast of the plans she is making and that forces her to participate in the conjugal visitations the Mexican prison system allows. She is humiliated by the guards who search her and she discovers that her husband is slowly going mad. This puts even great pressure on her plans to succeed. Bronson's real life wife Jill Ireland plays Duvall's wife in this picture. In spite of the fact that she loves her husband, she has a slightly flirtatious relationship with Nick, he is clearly attracted to her but never makes any move.

The other female cast member is Sheree North. She was a ubiquitous presence on TV and the movies in the 1970s, usually playing a blousey woman caught up in some criminal activity.

She ends up as a distraction to the guards at the prison during the helicopter landing. She comes on to her old boyfriend Nick after she and her husband agree to participate in the plan for a fee. It is a typically sexist role from the 70s that adds little to the plot but does allow a little cheesecake to be pushed into the movie and to make the star a part of that sequence.

The flying scenes in the movie are nicely shot and there is one clever setup that has a convertible Cadillac, a Piper prop plane and a helicopter, all leaving the airfield at the same time moving off in different directions. They then come back together and travel in a single shot to a rendezvous point in Mexico.  It may be the one artistic moment in the film, most of the movie is gritty and straight forward in the way it is told.

For years my memory failed me and I believed that the money shot of the movie was a helicopter eviscerating one of the bad guys.  I was completely wrong, it was not a helicopter and Bronson was not flying it, rather the bad guy gets killed by a large prop plane as he is about to shoot Duvall and Bronson. It was a very effectively staged shot and I'm not sure why I remembered it as a helicopter moment except that the helicopter is a key player in the film and maybe I just talked myself into it. If you are interested in seeing that shot, it is in the clip below.



As a Bronson film this is a little different. Charlie is avuncular rather than sullen, he is ineffectual at times rather than a model of competence, and his action scenes don't involve him in gun-play and only minor fisticuffs. While "Jaws" is often given credit for the start of blanket releasing, this picture used the same strategy of widely available prints and substantial advertising. A month before the shark movie made it a standard practice for big time Hollywood fare, "Breakout" make back it's budget and returned a profit on opening weekend .

Hell or High Water

It may be a little early for Awards forecasting, but my dopler has been keen a couple of times in the last five or six years so I might as well take a shot with this film. I see at least two strong acting contenders and a screenplay nomination that will depend on what opens between now and the end of the year. This is easily the most Award worthy film I've seen this year so far and I am giving it my highest recommendation. If is manages to get to a theater in your neck of the woods, you should go and see it. It is not perfect in plotting but the dialogue is fantastic and the spine of the story is compelling and relevant.

We don't exactly know why, but two brothers are on a mission to rob a series of bank branches that belong to a local institution in Texas. The robberies are planned and there is a definite element of thinking to the strategy, but in execution, the robbers appear to be less than sharp.  The Texas Rangers become involved and a wily soon to be retired investigator has his own theories about how to flush the criminals out. That's as much of the plot as I'm willing to give up because there are some surprises along the way that you will not want to have spoiled for you. The context of hard times and the stubborn independent streak of West Texas make the film feel fresh in a dozen different places. There is much humor in the film but some of it will seem politically incorrect and might irritate SJW. There is a sense that things are not as they should be and that is partially due to race and class. In the end we are going to be conflicted because both sides in the conflict have given us something to root for.

There are three parallel relationships that keep our interest in the film, let's take them one at a time. First the two brothers in the movie could not be more dissimilar.  Chris Pine plays Toby Howard, the younger, very handsome brother who has always been a straight arrow, if not always a success. His older brother Tanner is a wild child, disowned by his mother, convicted by the state of various crimes, and probably guilty of patricide. Ben Foster has been an actor in the periphery of stardom for more than a decade. His Charlie Prince in the remake of " 3:10 to Yuma"  was a flashy part but not big enough to score with critics groups. This part should change that. Tanner is a truculent loser with a sense of self that is humorous at times and frightening in other moments. The two brothers bicker, reminisce, and joke with one another like brothers might. They have not always been close but they understand each other really well. Pine is excellent but his role is the less flashy of the two, and Tanner has some of the best one liners in the film. Both my daughter and I laughed hard at his umbrage when his brother tries to substitute Mr. Pibb for Dr. Pepper. He may not be the smart one, but he is the spark plug that makes this story compelling.

The second relationship that is important to our appreciation of the film is the partnership between the two Texas Rangers on the trail of the pair. Gil Birmingham is Alberto Parker, a Native American in the most cowboy job a guy can have. His partner is old timer Marcus Hamilton, a laid back Jeff Bridges. Marcus goes by instinct and cleverness. Alberto is the more traditional Ranger who sees tweekers  behind most of the crimes they investigate. It seems that these two are friends most of the time but the jabs they give one another are sometimes done without the sarcastic smile that would indicate that the speaker does not really mean what they are saying. Screenwriter Taylor Sheridan has a ear for what is real and what is tense.Their conversations range all over the place but are deepest when looking at the changing roles of different groups in Texas. Both of them know when they have been put in their place by a local waitress with definite ideas of what it is they should be ordering to eat. The importance of this relationship is what sets up the last of the three major pairings in the film.

Toby and Marcus are the third side of this triangle of male relationships. Bridges is using his gruff mumbling voice in this film, a lot like he did in the dud "R.I.P.D." from a few years ago. In that film the character was overdone but in this film the quirks are perfectly balanced with the thoughtfulness of the character. The gravel in the voice is less affectation and more earned. The climax of the film will surprise some people but not fans of 1970s films. The unfulfilled confrontation between the two smart guys in the film is some of the best character dialogue you will hear in movies these days. Bridges and Foster are exterior performances which is why they will get deserving notice but that should not overshadow Pine who becomes a better actor each time he is in a film. His work in this final scene will prove that to anyone willing to watch.

There were times in the film when I was reminded of watching one of those car chase films from the seventies. Not the cartoon ones in "Smokey and the Bandit" but the existential films like "Vanishing Point" or even "Dirty Larry, Crazy Mary".  The characters success or failure in the chase was not just a visceral thrill but a moment of significance to the story. The cat and mouse game being played in this film is for big stakes, and we can empathize with each side since they both take significant losses. Also like a 70s film, the scenes develop and build they don't simply start with a climax and show that. There is purpose behind all of the things that happen in the film. Having made the choice they did, the two brothers story plays out as it must, a tragedy and a double edged success. Bridges stands as the looming figure in the lives of the two brothers, and his quiet, ominous demeanor, is one of the great pleasures of this film.

They don't make Westerns much anymore and the old saying is they "don't make them like they used to". Well "Hell or High Water" is both a Western and made like they used to make them. It is thoughtful, violent, clever and performed at a level that will please audiences substantially. I could hear today's crowd react several times to moments in the film. They do so because they become invested in the characters. That sort of character driven story is hard to come by in the fast paced action films of the day. This movie will provide the opportunity to follow a story, care about all of the main players, and sit in suspense as we wait for the final moments. You will be hearing about this one again. Make sure you are ready to talk about it by seeing it.

Thelma and Louise 25th Anniversay Screening

At some point before this movie opened, I saw a trailer and both Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis were in a convertible with guns in their hands. At that point, without knowing anything further, I was in. The movie turned out to be a landmark Ridley Scott film that created a media sensation that kept people talking most of the summer. It was nominated for six Academy Awards (though not Best Picture) including nods for the two stars and the director. The end of the film was iconic and much parodied and it still packs a punch today. Although it is a road picture, it also subverts a lot of the traditions of such film stories.

I understand how it is seen as a feminist picture. The subject of how men relate to women in contrast to the way women relate to each other is explored in several interesting ways. Thelma's husband Darreyl, played by an excellent Christopher McDonald, is a possessive  but disengaged spouse. He sees only what his wife can do for him or how she effects the way he will be seen. Harlan and J.D. are both exploiters of women. One might be less violent and more polite than the other, but his perception of them is the same, they are target rich environments. Jimmy, a breakout role for Michael Madsen, and Detective Slocum, the surprisingly sympathetic Harvey Keitel , both want to help the women in their crisis but have difficulty understanding why they are being shut out in very different ways. [The next year they would be antagonists Mr. White and Mr. Blonde].

Sarandon is the older more mature of the two friends, and she is the one who is most wounded at the start but we never see it. Louise is a walking functioning example of PTSD. As we get hints about events in her past, her motivations and perceptions become more understandable to us. Legal or not, her actions that start the two off as fugitives would be applauded by most in the audience. Thelma is a tougher specimen to examine. She is all contradictions. She starts off timid, then becomes liberated, and then near catatonic. She says it best towards the end of the movie:

Thelma: "But, umm, I don't know, you know, something's, like, crossed over in me and I can't go back, I mean I just couldn't live."

At some point the empowerment of the two women overwhelms their sense of proportion. The patterns that preceded their adventures become paths they can't avoid. Louise is blinded by her past and Thelma is resentful of it. When people complain about the end of the film, they need to keep that in mind.  Thelma starts her rebellion and freedom from Darryl by simply not asking his permission. Like a teenager, she overdose the vices, drinking to excess, smoking, unencumbered sex and finally robbery. She is acting out against the father figures she sees in her life, especially the unpleasant spouse she has been trapped with. Louise runs because she has been conditioned to do so. She runs from the man who loves her, from the sympathetic police officer that wants to keep her from being killed and mostly she runs from her own past.

There is a star making turn by Brad Pitt in the film. If ever there was an example of lightning striking a career, this is it. He is all charm and hot looks and that is what blinds Thelma to his faults. Louise was suspicious from the beginning but she is that way with nearly everyone. Both women share the lead in making decisions at different points in the film. It's not important which one made which bad choice, what is important is that they are not going to let any man choose for them. That is the subversive message of the film. I am probably blinded by not being a woman, so some of their choices seem plain stupid to me, but that did not mean I was not entertained or fascinated by these women. Twenty-five years ago, I said to my wife when the film was over, "That was a hell of a movie". It's still true.

Bond In Motion

So a few weeks ago, I visited Great Britain for the first time. We were meeting a cruise and had only a day and a half in London to do some sightseeing. When looking on-line to find places to visit, my wife came across the page for the London Film Museum. Their current exhibit is a collection of vehicles on loan from EON Productions, that have been used in the making of James Bond films for the past fifty three years. This was easy, count me in.

 The museum was at one time known as the British Museum of Transportation, so when we directed the cab driver to the location we wanted, that's the way he referred to it. From the plaque above you can see it has in fact been re-christened.













The exterior is really just a storefront size space, you could easily miss it if you were not looking for the attraction, although like most tourist based locations, there is a barker out front occasionally, passing out flyers and encouraging pedestrians to enter.

We did not need the encouragement we had already purchased our tickets weeks before on-line. Actually arriving though got me all revved up again.As we entered the premises there is a large description on the wall of what the exhibit consists of.

The Upper mezzanine had a series of storyboards and a couple of props from early Bond Films, that's where we started our visit after a ride in a small elevator.

We tried to look more like tourists but without putting on an Aloha shirt and a straw hat, I don't think we could do a better job. 

When we arrived on the lower level, the Vehicle displays began. In the interest of brevity, I will limit the photos to one per film, but believe me, I an loaded for bear on this trip.

Goldfinger's Yellow Rolls Royce.

The Rolls used in "A View to a Kill", it was actually Cubby Broccoli's personal car that he lent to the production.

Dolores gives some perspective to the mini jet featured in the opening of "Octopussy".

For an invisible car, it was pretty easy to see this Aston martin from "Die Another Day".

Tracy's Thunderbird from "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".

The speedboat from "Live and Let Die".

The Lotus that doubles as a submarine in "The Spy Who Loved Me". 

The DB5 from Goldfinger and Skyfall.

The AMC spinning Hornet from
"The Man with the Golden Gun".

The amazing reversible Mustang from "Diamonds are Forever".

An Aston Martin with skis, from "The Living Daylights"

And this is SPECTRE's Rolls Royce, that delivers Bond and Madeline to Blofeld. 

There are many more images to share, I'm working on a video to post, but for now, eat your hearts out all you Bond fans who can't make it to London. Maybe it will tour and then you can geek out like I did.

Lambcast Movie of the Month: Streets of Fire Hosting

I am the Host for this Movie of the Month Podcast for the LAMB. Take a listen and enjoy.

Pete's Dragon (2016)

The other night, we decided to watch the 1977 Disney film of "Pete's Dragon". My kids watched it a lot when they were young and it seemed like a good thing to do in getting up for the remake that opened this weekend. As I watched it, I remembered how painful it was to experience back when the kids were four or five. It is looong. The songs are not memorable at all, and the actors either ham it up excessively or they are stiff as a board. Whatever the new film was going to bring us had to be better than this misbegotten piece of nostalgia that I hope never to have to sleep through, I mean watch, again.

Happily I can report that I was correct, this new version is a substantial improvement and will be an excellent family film for kids over the age of seven or eight. The one major reservation I have is that the film begins with a family vaction that goes dramatically wrong. It is traumatizing and the little guys might be scared and have nightmares about what happens. It is a scene that is done in the gentlest of ways but it is still tough to take when you are with your family. Once the opening five minutes is passed, the rest of the movie is a delight with some poignant moments of sadness but nothing that the kids won't have seen in a dozen other stories.

In a way, this is a different version of "The Jungle Book", with an orphan being raised by a wild anima but ultimately needing to be returned to a human society.  The animal in question does not really talk or sing but that does not mean that it does not emote. "Elliot" was a cartoon in the musical version and he was not always a creature that you could identify with. Ever since CGI has been used in movie special effects, Dragons have been a subject. From Dragonheart, to Reign of Fire, up through The Hobbit Films and Game of Thrones, these animals have been used as characters . Most of the time they are terrifying, sometimes they have voices but always they have been dangerous and scaly. The film makers here have managed to make a dragon lovable without stripping him of his dignity. Anyone who has owned a dog will see familiar expressions and behaviors expressed by Elliot. This is a story about a boy and his dog, who happens to be a dragon. The closest I've seen to this style dragon in the past is "the Luck Dragon" from "The Neverending Story". Elliot is furry and the face is expressive, I also liked the addition of his body colors changing in response to a particular touch.

Bryce Dallas Howard makes back to back appearances in consecutive years in movies featuring large animals run amuck. Unlike "Jurassic World", she is unlikely to get eaten, but her costar is a CGI invention. Robert Redford is in this film in a peripheral way, but as usual he is a welcome presence. I did not know that Wes Bentley and Karl Urban were in the film so that was a nice surprise. Young Oakes Fergley, who plays "Pete" is a good find for the part of a young child living in the wilderness who becomes a fish out of water in suburban/human surroundings. He is still very young so it is hard to say what his potential is but he is already a better actor than the child cast in the 1977 film.

There will not be any great twists in the story, it does feel in fact very much like an older Disney film when it comes to the plot. What makes it better than those creaky films like "Blackbeard's Ghost" or "The Love Bug" is the quality of the production and the actors involved. Everyone treats the story here seriously and the events that happen only stretch credibility a little bit at the climax. The last twenty minutes feels right out of a dozen other films even though the plot is different and the characters are not the same either. If you are a sentimental adult who can suspend their cynicism  for an hour and a half, or if you have kids and you want them to see a quality family picture, than "Pete's Dragon" should do the trick, and you won't have to get an annoying Helen Reddy song out of your head afterwards.

TCM Animal House

So here we are six years after I last posted about this film. "National Lampoon's Animal House" really does qualify as a classic film, in spite of how rude, irreverent and sometimes crass it can be. There were other wild comedies of the seventies but "Animal House" introduced the off the wall sensibilities of John Landis, The National Lampoon Staff that included Harold Ramis, and of course John Belushi. All you "Ghostbusters" fans out there, if there was no "Animal House" there would have been no "Ghostbusters".

The cast of this film is also amazing when you look back on it. It was Kevin Bacon's first movie, Tim Matheson moved to the Big screen from TV roles, Tom Hulce is launched onto the movie going public and Karen Allen is just three years away from Raiders. The story I have heard is that Donald Sutherland turned down a piece of the backend in favor of s straight paycheck, and if he had taken a piece of the action he'd have made a hell of a lot more from the small part he played.

This is my daughter Amanda's favorite comedy, primarily because it embodied the Spirit of Troy Trojan Marching Band's attitude about how to enjoy college life. My memories of it are incredibly positive but it is not just a nostalgia trip to see it. The movie still kills in the laughter department. Belushi was not a silent star but more than half his role consisted of his physical comedy rather than dialogue. The movie is eminently quotable, and because it was set before it's time in the first place, it has aged very well.

Here is the Band doing the Theme from Animal House [by the way, written by pop singer Steven Bishop, who appears as the guitar playing Romeo at the Toga party]

 


Somewhere, Amanda is in there, this was her last year playing for the Spirit of Troy before she graduated.

The Film Screens again this coming Wednesday, Now Take that Pledge pin off your uniform, drop and give me twenty, and go see this on the big screen.

Florence Foster Jenkins

A few months ago on a podcast that I listen to, one of the guests had a rant about some of the crappy films she saw on the horizon. Chief among them was this Meryl Streep starring vehicle. Based only on the trailer the podcast guest dismissed it as Oscar bait not worthy of even thinking about. Now I have never been put off by the fact that someone has an opinion, but it seemed a bit harsh at the time, even though the film did not strike me as something I felt I must see. I understand the sentiment, after all it does look like it is this years entry in the Streep slot for an Academy Award. The movie does come from director Steven Frears who has often been associated with some highbrow films that look like they are seeking attention, the thing is though, they usually deserve the attention. This film is no exception.

Had I listened to the advise of this blogger/critic I might have skipped over this film, as it is, that would have been a mistake. This movie has a lot going for it, especially the heart of the story which is very well told and entertaining as heck. Let's start with the elephant in the room, the star. We know that Meryl Streep can sing. "Ricki and the Flash", "Into the Woods" and "Mama Mia" have established that. So in a sense this film is the real acting challenge because Florence Foster Jenkins apparently could not sing. Streep is very convincing as the music lover with flat pitch and sight blinded by desire. It appears that much of the story here is true although substantially adapted to make a comedic-drama work on film. Maybe some of you will be familiar with the story of Mrs. Miller, an amateur singer who had success as a novelty recording artist in the 1960s. "Florence Foster Jenkins was her progenitor.

The real strength of the film however in in the performance of Hugh Grant, who reportedly came out of semi-retirement to work with Streep. As Jenkins husband St Clair Bayfield, he is his usual foppish English type but with a great deal of heart and wherewithal . At one point in the story it appears he is a cad, but as the film unwinds we learn that love is not always the thing that we define it as. Notorious for mugging on camera, Grant is more realistic in his facial expressions and more tender in his vocalizations than you have probably seen before. I have always been a fan of his but not necessarily because his acting was excellent but because he was well cast and charming. Today he impressed me as a thespian and I'm sorry to say that a film like this will generate more critical attention for the leading lady than for the gentleman.

Simon Helberg, from "The Big Bang Theory" is much more the traditional comic relief. As Cosmé McMoon, her pianist accompanist, he gets several chances to visualize the absurdity of what is passing for music. His performance is much quieter than you will see in the television series and there is more substance to it. One of the things that this movie does is imbue it's characters with real heart and Helberg has several scenes where his performance adds immeasurably to our acceptance of what is happening. Actress Nina Arianda is not a person I was familiar with, but she puts a lot of gusto in her role as Agnes Stark. She is a character that you might quickly dislike, but in the end she becomes a interesting champion for the music lovers that turn a deaf ear to our tone deaf heroine.

Maybe one of the reasons the film works for me is the setting. NYC in the period of WWII is maybe the most romantic time I can think of in American History. The modern aesthetic of clothes, architecture, music and culture are seemingly so perfectly balanced at this point. Any time perion that we ourselves have not lived through can be made to seem romantic, and the taxicabs, concert halls and dining rooms of hotels all look great in the set design of this movie. I know that Liverpool stood in for the streets of New York in several scenes, and that might seem odd except that Liverpool has sustained the look of that time period whereas NY has moved on, so in the end it works quite well.
Another reason I find the story compelling may be an addition made by screenwriter Nicholas Martin. In the film, one of the things that motivates Florence Foster Jenkins is her sympathy for American Servicemen during the war. As the character quotes Beethoven at one point  "Wrong notes are of little consequence, but to play without passion is inexcusable", Florence Foster Jenkins represents the kind of passion, for music and in the one case in the film, the military, that makes Beethoven's reported words real.

I am surprised as anyone at how much I enjoyed this film. I know I never had any hipster cred to lose anyway, but I suppose now my application for official hipster status will be automatically rejected in the future. I thought this was a sentimental and warm story, told with a great deal of humor and excellent performances from the leads. The movie looks grand and the director moves it along quite well without necessarily showing off. I'm glad to say that I "passionately" endorse this film, regardless of what my expectations might have been.

Suicide Squad

I'm not a comics guy as I'm sure I've said a couple of times before. My guess is that the number of people like me, those who will see a comic based movie without knowing the whole cannon, outnumber the people who can tell you that the eye-shadow on the Joker is inconsistent with the history established in volume 274 of the Dark Knight Series 3 featuring the four fingered Joker variation (or some such detail).  In other words, I'm not so invested in the characters that I can't handle change. There was a lot of talk when this film was being produced about whether it could meet the fans expectations. Other than Harley Quinn and the Joker, I've never heard of any of these characters, so maybe my opinion will be discounted by some because I am not invested. As the summer season came on, the buzz was that "Suicide Squad" would be the film to make the comic book fans happy. When the first reviews started coming in, there was a stampede of disappointment and negative word of mouth started to set in. From many of the critics, you would think this film was a bomb. The box office so far has to be comforting to the film makers in spite of the poor notices. But, from the view of this outsider, the film is largely successful in what it is attempting, and suffers from the same problem that all big action films do, a weak antagonist makes a weaker story.

We are fortunate that we do not have to wade through a series of stand alone films to be set up in this universe. The first half hour or so of the movie, inventories the characters, highlights their quirks, and establishes personality for them very effectively. These small vignettes are probably the most effective sequences in the movie. I will say that it was a bit of a give away that one member of the team is introduced when they are put together and there was no B Roll on their character in the first section. So guess which character will be sacrificed to show that the secret government agency in charge means business. There has also been talk that Jared Leto's Joker has been significantly excised from the film, that seems to be a lot of hot air. The Joker Character figures in one of the background stories, participates in a parallel story, and is part of the coda of the film. It is true he is not on the team, but that does not mean that his presence is insignificant.  Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn will certainly be the breakout character in the film and she can expect to explode in the business over the next few years. Miss Robbie is extremely watchable and carries off her part here with great panache.

Let's discuss a couple of weaknesses of the film. It turns out that the Big Bad the group has to face is created by the attempt to create the group in the first place. All of the characters are given such menacing  back stories that the quickness with which the authorities try to establish a working team seems unrealistic ( as if anything in this didn't already). There are a couple of actions that have to be done by the team that seem unnecessary, including the rescue of an unidentified figure at ground zero of the main fracas. It also makes no sense that the plan of action being followed involves a simple explosive device, when the secondary antagonist seems to be impervious to other weapons. Also, the idea that it could take out a member of the team also seems inconsistent with what has been established earlier. In other films, the duo of Jai Courtney and Joel Kinnaman would threaten to but me to sleep. Both of these guys have been charisma free in other films, but this time around they get a chance to shine a little and Courtney especially makes a favorable impression.

The main villain seems a bit of a stretch, but in the D.C. Universe they are working at creating, maybe it is plausible. The representation however is so horror film fetish bound that it looks ridiculous. At the climax of the film, the bad guy is basically doing the most stupid voodoo dancing and arm waving this side of the 1976 remake of King Kong.  The problem that happens when you give a character powers to make them a worthy opponent is that you also have to find a flaw that gives the heroes (sic) a chance. Things did not come together well in this regard and the confrontation feels like a giant CGI smackdown without much credibility.

The soundtrack is packed with music from the last fifty years so there will be plenty that audiences can relate to, although sometimes the choices seem a little hokey. The color palate of the film is neon without becoming overly cliched and tiresome. There is also a lot more humor in this film than the two films that preceded it in the MCU queue. There are some very clear tie ins to this years Batman v. Superman and Bruce Wayne has a couple of scenes that tie it together even more. Viola Davis is a stone cold hard ass as Amanda Waller, the covert intelligence officer responsible for the team.  There is a point where Will Smith's Deadshot asks facetiously, "and we're supposed to be the bad guys?", it is Waller's character that he is referring to. So I'm down with the characters and the performances for the most part. I also think the movie looks very solid. Where they lost me was in creating an obstacle for the team to overcome. It feels a bit too overheated. It may not be the widespread opinion, but I think this film is fine and it accomplishes what is needed, a set of premises for the film and an outrageous team being put together in a reasonable manner. Now all Ben Afflect has to do as Batman, is repeat the process, only recruit the Justice League members with a bit more elegance. Ignore the bad word, it's a solid film with some flaws but also a lot going for it.

Lights Out

Sometimes you see a trailer that works and you convinced beyond your better judgment that the film being advertised will live up to the 130 seconds you just watched.  Lights Out could have been one of those experiences,  if only it had sustained the opening segment of the movie. As happens all to often with horror films, once you get past introducing the premise,  the screenwriter hasn't figured out where to go.

This is a ghost story with an good concept to begin with. The spook can only be seen in the dark  and bright lights are exactly the kind of protection that every frightened kid imagines them to be. The real nightmare of the story however is the notion that mental illness has taken hold of the person you are dependent on and love, but there is nothing you can do about it.  A young boy and his older half sister, who has moved out because of these reasons, must try to cope with a system designed by legal experts rather than mental health professionals. If this had been a bigger part of the story,  the idea could be sustained.  This is a scare flick so suspense comes from jump cuts and creepy sounds rather than the mental horror of coping with a sick loved one.

The set up is fine as I said. An early spirit attack puts the boy in the awkward position of having to question his mom's sanity.  He turns to the estranged sister but her hands are somewhat tied by the legal system.  They try to get past those hurdles but the boogeyman interrupts. Drama turns into mechanical fear of the dark and what sudden thing we will see. When explanations are proffered,  the story starts to lose credibility and the answers make no sense anyway.  It turns into a game of hide and seek  with the spirit, and someone turns the lights off.

Surprisingly with a female lead,  and a theme strongly dependant on Mom, the most appealing characters are the two guys. The young brother gets our sympathy and he is the one with the most sense in the film. A casual boyfriend,  who thinks that the relationship is more than that,  is given a more appealing character than our heroine.  The mother is creepy at the right times,  but the background provided to explain the haunting is so thin, it doesn't really work. Mom got the short stick on character. Our lead, Teresa Palmer, does really try to deal with the situation as a real person might, but because her character is supposed to be rebellious and an isolate, it is sometimes hard to believe the things she is asked to do on behalf of the family she left.

The secret to the haunting is convoluted, preposterous, and not well explained. The discovery of the truth requires some pretty fantastic luck to start with. The more that it gets talked about though, the less sense it makes. The resolution to the plot depends on a psychic twist that is not well set up and is completely un-examined but it is the end of the story and no additional stinger is added to get a last minute jump. I did like the fact that it ends like a real story and not a horror film trope.

Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

Dinesh D'Souza is a provocateur for conservatives in much the same way Michael Moore is for liberals (or progressives). He is also becoming quite the entertainer along with his sometimes polemical political point of view. This is his third film in four years, and while it does include the usual talking heads and edited footage of public news footage, he has inserted a number of things into this film that make it more cinematic than strictly propaganda piece. As a result, it seems his documentaries have been financially successful if not politically so [President Obama was Re-Elected despite a big splash from D'Souza's first film "2016: Obama's America".

I personally am dismayed by the choices we are offered by the major parties this November. Donald Trump is a reprehensible huckster who has no knowledge of how government works and has the rhetorical skills of a nine year old on the playground. If someone is willing to make a movie exploring this point of view, I am willing to see it and offer my thoughts on it. Right now, the shoe is on the other foot. Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be our next President, gets shellacked by D'Souza in this film, and it will leave a mark, regardless of her margin of victory. The level of perfidy is unmatched by any American political figure since Aaron Burr, and that includes Tricky Dick Nixon. The voters will probably elect her but it looks like no one trusts her, she has some of the highest unfavorability numbers of modern polling. Maybe that will make some of D'Souza's more outlandish arguments easier to swallow. The self destructive choice we have before us will be more difficult when anyone see's this film, it is for partisans, but it also has some solid documentation to go with it.

All arguments are based on choice. The argument this film makes involve which interpretation of events you choose to believe. The contrast between the two parties, from an historical perspective, is largely accurate. The twist comes in how the reversal of roles was achieved. The film maker has forceful opinions about that. One of the things that he does effectively is bring in side stories and events that illustrate the position he is taking. The story of Ida B. Wells is a good example, it carries his theme on historical facts but it is dramatized in a very interesting recreation of history. The segments with Andrew Jackson leering at his female slaves and coldly ordering fierce punishments is a bit cheesy. Many of those sequences however are written directly from the words of the people involved, so it makes the point feel more real.

The start of the movie features a couple of things that show that this is an entertainment. A piano playing character singing a political screed ala Garrison Keillor is a tip-off that it is OK for us to laugh occasionally. The graphics in the titles convey humor and look very professional, so the quality of the film is unlikely to be challenged on cinematic competence [I'm sure most of the criticism will be political]. Just as Michael Moore inserts himself into the films he makes, D'Souza is a character in his movies. Here, he actually has a pretty good story hook to go with the points he is making. Having been convicted of violating campaign finance laws, he is punished in a manner that seems from his perspective, disproportionate to his offense. He uses the time he spends doing community service and sleeping in a correctional facility each night, as a framing structure for his premise that the political forces of the Democratic Party are the equivalent to a street gang.  

The goal of the movie is clearly to focus attention on the flaws that the writer/director sees in the Democratic party and their standard bearer this year. Most of the material is not particularly new but it is put together in a very effective way that could be persuasive to those who do not already have an opinion about the former Secretary of State. Her political opponents will cheer at the directness with which some of the claims are made and the use of first person testimony and tapes of Hillary's voice in regard to a rape case she handled years ago is damning.  The four part strategy of a criminal con plot, outlined by one of his fellow inmates, is most strongly demonstrated in the one point that says "deny, deny, deny". There are several examples of Hillary denying things that are later shown to be fundamentally true, but for which she continues to refuse responsibility for. Other segments require inferences that do not have the same degree of certainty to them. The viewers will be forced to accept his point, research the argument or ignore it entirely. You can see that if the first two are more likely results, D'Souza will consider his job accomplished. 

If Donald Trump had any real political instinct, or sense of what works when it comes to campaigning, you'd think he would plagiarize the script of this movie and not the words of FLOTUS. There are at least three sections near the end of the film that would make strong campaign ads and might move voters away from her, although it probably will not drive them to him. I rarely hear him make an argument, I only hear claims and insults from his campaign. You might not like or agree with D'Souza [and I know many of my friends on line who read these posts won't], but at least he is making an argument. 

The outcome of the election will depend on a policy choice you make; who should I vote for? This film supports the proposition that some one other than Hillary Clinton or any Democrat should be your choice. I can't say that the film will tip people in that direction for sure, but the secondary issues of fact and value are likely to be influential and that is at the heart of the movie. Let's face it, critics of Clinton will go to have their beliefs validated, and supporters of Clinton will stay away the movie to  avoid some cognitive dissonance. Here is the math:

 +

=

Star Trek Beyond

I will tell you up front, I'm a Trekker. I'm not the type to do cosplay or read every variation of the stories, official or unofficial, but I've been watching Star Trek since 1966 and I'm a fan of the show and much of the philosophy. I know that J.J. Abrams got a lot of s*** from fans because he emphasized the action more than the cerebral, although in the context of a two hour movie, I think that criticism is hollow, especially for Star Trek Into Darkness. I also thought the first film from 2009 was the best film of that year. There, I said it and you now can filter this post as you think fit. Star Trek Beyond is a major let down for me. I found it lacking in depth, confusing to follow, full of plot holes and guilty of all of the criticisms that people have made about the previous two films (minus the lens flare).

As I was traveling a couple of weeks ago, the electronic poster boards were big and ubiquitous in the London area for this film. I hated that I had to wait until we got home, almost a week and a half after it opened to see it. After seeing it however, I'm satisfied to be commenting on it a day later than my usual posts would go up because there is not much here to get excited about. I'd hoped that the influence of comedy writer and actor Simon Pegg would be enough to make the film feel more humanistic and emphasize the comradeship of the crew more. My guess is that the bits that were funny, he is responsible for, but the overall structure, plot and characters are the result of multiple hands and it is a mess. As usual, no spoilers here, but what the hell did the villain need with the macguffin when his weapons systems and technology are so easily able to defeat Star Fleet  vessels as demonstrated early in the film? The backstory and transformation of the character Krall makes almost no sense. There is a seed of an idea for a philosophical discussion of the need for conflict, but it basically goes nowhere except to become cliches in the mouths of both our heroes and the villain.

When the ship met it's end in Star Trek III, I was moved. When it has subsequently been destroyed or damaged  so substantially that they just rebuild it and move on to the next episode, there is a loss of engagement with the audience. This is one of the things that has been missing from the rebooted series, a sense of loyalty to the craft and the crew. Except for the main figures, everyone else is an extra that hardly bears mentioning much less mourning, they might as well all be wearing red shirts at the start of the story. Speaking of secondary characters, there is an explanation of the lead villain in the story, but the data on all of the other bad guys is not clear at all. A couple of them actually have names and it is not clear if they were with their leader when transformed or if they came from later groups or if they are indigenous and represent the pure form of the species. This film is in such a rush to get to the next action sequence that they don't bother with basic explanations and the ones that they do come up with are the techno gibberish that often fills the dialog of a Trek film, only now it is delivered at warp speed.

There are a few things that work pretty well in the film. I think the relationship between Spock and Kirk continues to develop and I liked that Bones and Spock end up spending time together. Karl Urban has been a great Dr. McCoy and he has all the best lines and comic moments in the film. The character of Jaylah is potentially a good add to the character mix but her dialog is often so "you Tarzan, me Jane" that the character mostly has to be appreciated for the action scenes. Since they have come up, let's talk about the action, it is a special effects and editing nightmare. It is often so dark you can't see what is happening, and the constant movement of the set, while interesting, renders perspective meaningless. It is very difficult to tell what is blowing up and what is causing it to do so. Sometimes you can't even say who is in the scene. The sequences are edited frantically, as is the style these days, which means there is almost no development of tension in any of those sequences. Everything is spectacle and narrative goes out the window. There is a long sequence with a motorcycle that was awkward and the effects shoots are not as well paired up with the live action as they need to be to sell it. This was at least one place where the quality of the visuals was not up to snuff. On the other hand, there are some solid mixes of make up and CGI effects to make some of the alien creatures seem real. I must say however that it sometimes feels like an extended version of the Cantina sequence from Star Wars.

So on the plus side you have some good visuals, and a few funny lines from Dr. McCoy and once in a while from someone else. On the negative side, you have a confusing story, a lack of character development (being gay and having a kid does not count if they are only props and not integrated into the story), plot holes that should make for some great YouTube parodies in the next few years. The movie also feels small, despite the size of the base they are ultimately trying to protect. There is no big issue except the bad guy wants to destroy things. Once again the old adage proves true, "You are only as good as the villain", and in this case, Idris Elba can't compensate for a poorly written antagonist. Look, it's still Trek and you should see it, but it is closer to "Nemesis" or "The Final Frontier" than I think anybody wants to admit.  

Ghostbusters 2016

OK, it's finally here and people can speak about it from an informed point of view rather than a knee-jerk reaction from internet trolls. I loved the original "Ghostbusters", and I had no problem with the idea of a reboot featuring women in the leads. The cast looked promising but I will say I am unfamiliar with the work of Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, but as alums of SNL they could be great or complete busts. The idea of putting together four funny women as a new crew of Supernatural fighters should work. The hate this movie generated however was amazing. The trailer has three times as many dislikes as likes and I've heard it is the most disliked video ever on YouTube. Many people are locked and loaded to hate this film, but I was not one of them.

As it turns out the haters are closer to the truth than are the naively optimistic. It is not something to hate but it is not very good. It seems strange with the talent and money spent putting it together that the film misfires so much. Most of the ways the movie fails have little to do with the cast or the concept but everything to do with the script and the tone. There are good things in the movie but they are passing elements rather than things that grow from the characters or the situations. The most laughs I had were in the end titles and it seems like they were just tossing in material they did not think would work in the film but for me was the stuff that worked the best.

Maybe the biggest problem is that no one will ever be able to reproduce the odd, karmic attitude and timing of Bill Murray in the original. This movie tries very hard to make the characters funny but it just feels flat almost in every scene. The opening sequence, which has none of the featured performers in it, is the best moment of the film. When the titles came up I was excited that the movie was getting started on the right foot. Kristen Wiig is a character so unsure of herself that she denies authorship of a book. Murray on the other hand was so self assured that every time something did not go as planned, you were amused by his reaction. Wiig's Erin Gilbert expects to be mocked and that just does not work for the movie. Melissa McCarthy on the other hand is mostly just progressively loud. When given the chance she can be great. She carried last year's "Spy" on her back very effectively. This performance feels more like one of those numerous comedies of hers that I have avoided in the last few years[Tammy, The Boss, Identity Theft].

In the plot of the movie, political forces get involved and it comes out of no where and it makes absolutely no sense.  Andy Garcia as the Mayor tries to thank and deny the Ghostbusters simultaneously. His annoying assistant seems to pop up every so often to divert the plot from the original point and basically for no reason at all. One of the reasons stuff worked in the original film was it was played in a somewhat serious vein. The Mayors office was interested in election year politics and the EPA guy was a bureaucratic weeny drunk on his own power. Every character the Ghostbusters interact with in this film are unrealistic and unconvincing. From the Department chair who thinks Princeton is not a prestigious enough school to get a recommendation from, to the Dean of the other institution who uses the middle finger as his primary form of communication and the Mayor who is so indifferent, nothing feels real. There are segments that feel cut and pasted into the story, there never is any drive behind the story as it develops. In spite of all the frenetic energy being put into this, I thought it was pretty lifeless.

When the original theme music is used in the film, you can almost convince yourself that there is something worthwhile happening on the screen. When you hear the theme from Fall Out Boy, you will want to cry because it mangles all that was fun in the Ray Parker Jr. original.   There are call backs and cameos throughout the movie. Keep your eyes open for familiar faces, except for Rick Moranis and Harold Ramis (RIP), everyone shows up for a bit and they are fun. It's just not enough to justify seeing the movie.