kellym40 film review

Feel good feeling about ‘The Patriot’

Rating 3.5/5

While the film may not be historically accurate, it was a good source of fun, summer entertainment when it was released in June 2000. Set in the backdrop of the Revolutionary War, The Patriot offers some good stuff that makes for an enjoyable summer film – action, developed characters, impeccable acting, strong dialogue, and so on – something that is typically not seen in a Roland Emmerich summer blockbuster.

Robert Rodat penned the script for Emmerich to direct. It doesn’t seem the filmmakers were much on making a historically accurate film, as they were to make a Hollywood film based on history. Taking events and battles from the actual war, Rodat places characters (based on actual historical figures) within that world making their existence seem more real, adding the Hollywood touch of a simple hero pitted against a seemingly unbeatable villain.

The Patriot stars Mel Gibson as Benjamin Martin (a character based on several actual characters from the War – Francis Marion, Elijah Clarke, Daniel Morgan, Andrew Pickens, and Thomas Sumter), a religious family man trying to put the ugliness of war behind him. He is a widower who has seven children he protects dearly. When the villain, British Col. William Tavington (Jason Isaacs), who is based on Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton, arrives with his British soldiers on Martin’s property, kills one of his youngest sons, arrests Martin’s eldest son Gabriel (Heath Ledger) and takes him away, and burns Martin’s house down, this pushes Martin to the one thing he wanted to avoid – going into war himself. He pursues Tavington, with two of his other sons, to free Gabriel. With militia style tactics, Martin succeeds in freeing Gabriel and he is thrust into the war to take vengeance upon Tavington. Martin then helps organize a militia, and with the help from his friend Col. Harry Burwell (Chris Cooper), puts forth strategies to stop Tavington and the British. After a series of incidents where the American militia bests British soldiers, Gen. Cornwallis (Tom Wilkinson) develops a hatred for these “peasants and farmers” and wants Martin gone too.

Gibson gives an effective, emotional performance, as does Ledger. He was a bright newcomer at the time of the film’s release at 21 years old. Just nearly eight years later, he passed away. He is gone, but not forgotten.

Isaacs plays Tavington straight faced and with conviction. He is virtually emotionless, always with a smirk and evil in his eyes. Wilkinson portrays Cornwallis as somewhat pompous and arrogant, which seems to be Hollywood’s take on the character. This creates another character to dislike and of course root for the hero to win.

Well-choreographed fight and battle scenes, great acting with developed characters, wonderful cinematography, and a musical score to punch the dramatic narrative through the film. It makes for a more satisfactory film than the usual bang, bang, big explosions, and heavy use of special effects.

kellym40 film review

20 years later, ‘Independence Day: Resurgence’ fails to surge

Rating 2/5

Earlier this summer, a sequel hit theaters supposedly 20 years in the making. Independence Day: Resurgence appeared, on the surface, to be a near carbon copy of the 1996 original with a few new characters and plot points. Roland Emmerich, the “master” of disaster films, took the script from writers Nicolas Wright and James A. Woods (and others) and made a two hour, sci-fi, special effects extravaganza – and not in a good way.

I think I liked this film better when it was just called Independence Day. Of course, that’s not saying much. This time around, some returning cast members play out their characters in much of the same fashion as the original. Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, and Judd Hirsch return as David Levinson, ex-President Whitmore, and Julius Levinson, respectively. Another returning character Dr. Brakish Okun (Brent Spiner) received a few laughs from his minor part, but overall it wasn’t noteworthy. Newcomers Maika Monroe, Jessie T. Usher and Liam Hemsworth offer up decent performances as the former president’s daughter Patricia Whitmore, Dylan Hiller (the son of Will Smith’s deceased character, and Jake Morrison (a hotshot pilot), respectively.

The problem with this film is that there are similarities with the events in the first film. The dialogue is one of those problems. While it may suit your average summer popcorn flick, it does little to tell a new engaging story to capture audiences. I suppose that is why Emmerich relies on special effects and CGI. I would say if his intention was to deliver a film with a heavy dose of special effects, explosions, and spaceship battles – with very little substance otherwise – then I would say a job well done. But shouldn’t there be more than that? I read in an article, shortly after this film was released, that Emmerich had a problem with the superhero movies these days. He claimed they “stole” his “ideas” and uses of world destruction in those films. Really? I wasn’t aware you could claim property on the concept of world destruction. Besides, the Marvel films do it so much better than Emmerich,because he doesn’t seem to bother about things like plot, story, and character in his disaster films.

There appears to be a notion that the bigger something is, the better it is. That is not the case in everything. It is certainly not the case with Roland Emmerich. It seems when he makes these big blockbusters, these disaster films, he fails on telling a story with substance and depends greatly on special effects, explosions, and anything else he can find to go boom as in films like 2012 (2009), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), and 1998’s failed Godzilla. However, in films like The Patriot (2000) and White House Down (2013), Emmerich does bring substance and story to the screen. Those films are few and far between from Emmerich. And he has stated he wants to make a third Independence Day film. Only time will tell if that will happen. If it does, it just better not be another 20 years.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Special effects prevalent in ‘Independence Day’

Rating 2.5/5

Every summer there is at least one “blockbuster” filled with action, special effects, explosions, and the quintessential disaster dialogue while everyone is running and screaming to and from the camera. This film pretty much fits the bill. Roland Emmerich directed Independence Day, who also co-wrote the script with Dean Devlin, and he brought us a typical special effect heavy film designed to entertain audiences. This film was entertaining but it did rely on special effects to awe audiences, which were mostly effective but not overly impressive. Most of the dialogue is trite and designed to stir emotions in the scene and for us (the audience).

The characters appear to be “copies” of other alien invasion disaster films of the 1950’s. We are introduced to Captain Steven Hiller (Will Smith), David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum), Julius Levinson (Judd Hirsch), and President Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman). At the beginning, the alien crafts come and hover over various cities all over the world – and wait. What are they waiting for? They are waiting for the exact moment for a coordinated attack, because apparently the aliens use the same time we do. When the time comes, the invasion begins, the main characters, and an assortment of supporting characters, discuss the necessary actions to take against their unwanted guests.

The President, David and his dad Julius, and a few others are taken to Area 51 (the famous secret area where the government is supposedly harboring aliens and alien spacecrafts. This secret lab is run by Dr. Brakish Okun (Brent Spiner), probably the most comical character in the film. Here David gets the idea on how to destroy the alien ships by using one of the ships the government has “captured.”

During the attack, the White House (of course) and the Empire State Building are destroyed. If the aliens can wipe out buildings in a flash, then why don’t they attack everything with their mighty force at once? Well, if they did that there obviously wouldn’t be a movie. It’s kind of like watching a film with a fight scene involving martial arts. The hero will take out several opponents one by one as the others dance around in a threatening manner. The action moves around quickly in Independence Day without giving much time for the characters to fully react to what is going on around them. The Air Force launches their fighter jets for their attack in hopes of destroying the alien visitors, only to be engaged by them in aerial dogfights reminiscent of the old war movies.

Emmerich planned this film around the special effects, while negating other important elements like character development and story. Independence Day is one of those movies designed for summer fun. I suppose it was somewhat entertaining on that level.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Action takes a flight in ‘Non-Stop’

Rating 3/5

What makes a good action film is of course action. Then of course there are also those other pesky elements such as story, character, dialogue, and so on. If you put all those elements together and fine-tune them, you can have a good film. Non-Stop may not be your typical thrill a minute, action story, but somehow, on some level it delivers.

Once we get through the ordinary introduction of characters, we board the flight in which the action will take place for most of the film. Liam Neeson plays air marshall Bill Marks who is aboard a transatlantic flight and soon discovers a terrorist plot unfold. He receives a text message asking Bill to persuade the airline to wire $150 million to a bank account. And if he is unable to do so in the next 20 minutes, someone on the plane will die. He believes it is one of the passengers, but as he tries to unravel the plot of this mysterious terrorist, he more and more becomes a suspect by the other passengers due to his erratic behavior.

Bill is probably the most complex character on the plane. He still suffers from a personal tragedy, he’s tired and suffers from alcoholism. But on the surface, he seems tough, determined and headstrong. The other supporting actors were decent, but they didn’t seem to have much depth to their character. And that’s not necessarily their fault. The material provided by writers John W. Richardson and Christopher Roach didn’t provide the characters a rich background. However, this did work to some advantage for the story. Since Bill is unsure who the terrorist is, he suspects one of the passengers. So the other characters have a mystery surrounding them, which keeps Bill (and the audience) guessing. Julianne Moore plays Jen Summers, one of the passengers who befriends Bill while boarding the plane. Corey Stoll is New York cop Austin Reilly, Scoot McNairy is a tech geek named Tom Bowen, Michelle Dockery is flight attendant Nancy, Lupita Nyong’o is another flight attendant Gwen, Anson Mount is Bill’s fellow marshall Jack Hammond.

Jaume Collet-Serra (House of Wax, Orphan, Unknown, and this summer’s The Shallows) directed the film and made it his own. It may not have the making of an elaborate masterpiece of action, thrills and suspense, but it does provide a well-paced film with enough moments of character and story to keep me in. The film runs one hour and 46 minutes and was released February 28, 2014.

kellym40 film review

On the hunt with ‘Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter’

Rating 2/5

Taking another spin on history is plausible I suppose, if it is done right. It’s like updating Shakespeare to contemporary times. If it’s done right, it can be a wonderful production. But not updating the language or incorrectly updating the language can be disastrous. In 2012, a film came along, based upon a book by Seth Grahame-Smith, who also penned the screenplay for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. He took some historical facts and placed the undead around those facts. It made Lincoln look like some sort of 19th century superhero.

In the film, the story begins when, as a young boy, Abraham Lincoln witnesses his mother’s murder by a vampire. This of course instills a slight fear and a tremendous hatred towards the bloodsuckers. Along the way, in his young adulthood, Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) befriends Henry Sturges (Dominic Cooper) who is a hunter himself. He takes on Lincoln as an apprentice to learn the ways of killing vampires. So, that’s the basic plot. Oh yes, also along the way he befriends Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie) who then joins Lincoln at times to battle the blood thirsty creatures, and of course his future wife, Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).

Timur Bekmambetov took Grahame-Smith’s script and stylized the action using effects used in The Matrix. I suppose it is visually appealing. But that is only one element. The film would have the audience believe the North was losing because the South was being overrun by vampires, who were also soldiers, and that Mary Todd Lincoln was bitten by a vampire, became ill, and ultimately resulted in her death. The climax results in a bit of a lengthy sequence involving a train, explosions, and killing vampires. It might make for a visually stunning action sequence, but somehow just looks out of place for the moment and characters. If follows the sentiment that Bekmambetov and Grahame-Smith treated the title character as some sort of action-adventurer or superhero.

Grahame-Smith also wrote a short novel – Pride and Prejudice and Zombies – which also became a film earlier this year. He may have been attempting to capitalize on the huge following that occurred brought on by the Twilight series and The Walking Dead. I suppose the mash up of vampires in the 19th century and young Abraham Lincoln might be considered a fantastic idea. But it all just becomes fantasy. And I suppose that might be what the filmmakers were attempting to do here. Play out some sort of fantasy with The Matrix-type special effects and action having little to do with what history books taught us. It might make for a fun, summer escape, popcorn flick, but just seems to become a far-fetched piece of fiction.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Take an octane-driven ride in ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’

Rating 4/5

George Miller’s ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is an example of movie making at its finest. I was pleasantly surprised, because I wasn’t sure how this film would be. At first, I thought it was going to be just another one of Hollywood’s remakes. As I looked into it more, I realized it was a continuing story of Max Rockatansky, a role first performed by Mel Gibson in 1979. The sequel came out in 1981 and a third film was released in 1985. Thirty years later, Miller brings the character back, with the role going to Tom Hardy.

Hardy brings a slightly more rugged look to the character than that of his predecessor, Gibson. But also with it, Hardy brings a lot of energy to the character. He would almost have to after being tied up and tossed around here and there through a lot of the film. Even though he is the title character, he does not carry the film alone. The other performances cannot be left out because this was an ensemble movie. Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Josh Helman, Nathan Jones, Zoe Kravitz, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley round out some of the major players and each single actor exerted the energy to bring the characters to life.

Miller, along with Brendan McCarthy and Nick Lathouris, wrote the script and provided the right amount of action and thrills to keep the film moving for its two hour run time. Miller created the perfect look of a post-apocalyptic world with the scenery, costume, and great cinematography. The film took away six Oscars in film editing, costume design, makeup and hairstyling, sound mixing, sound editing, and production design. All of these elements did not disappoint. The film was quick paced but did allow for the occasional character dialogue for character and story development, but did not slow down for very long to continue the action of the long chase in overhauled, armored vehicles. The film was basically one long chase, complete with explosions and edge-of-your-seat thrills, with a few stops along the way. The film really didn’t let up until the final scene.

Miller came back 30 years since Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was released with another high-energy action adventure in the Mad Max series. And it looks like Miller isn’t done as he is already planning a fifth installment to the series.

 

 

kellym40 film review

‘Forsaken’ brings story of redemption and salvation to screen

Rating 3.5/5

There comes a time when a film comes along that appears to be quiet but still finds a way to entertain and enlighten. 2015’s Forsaken, starring real life father and son Donald and Kiefer Sutherland, is one such film. In brings great cinematography and a story of redemption and salvation to the screen. 

The story, set in 1872 Wyoming, revolves around John Henry Clayton (Kiefer Sutherland), a former gunslinger and participant in the Civil War, who comes home 10 years later and attempts to reconnect with his father, the Reverend Clayton (Donald Sutherland), and make amends with his life. Upon returning home, he encounters his former girlfriend, Mary-Alice (Demi Moore), who has apparently moved on herself and has married another, and also tries to move on from their past. Additionally, John Henry learns that a corrupt businessman, James McCurdy (Brian Cox) is buying nearby properties in order to help usher in the railroad. Michael Wincott plays Dave Turner, a hired gun of McCurdy’s. Turner acts as John Henry’s friend at first, but has the sinister underlying motive of helping McCurdy and obtaining his money. You can view the trailer below:

Forsaken

We learn, through the course of the film, John Henry has given up his guns because of an incident involving a shooting. In a touching scene, he breaks down and cries as he tells his father the story. As things progress, John Henry can no longer maintain his new lifestyle of starting fresh and helping his father as McCurdy continues his relentless pursuit of land. John Henry is forced to take up his guns once again to rid the town of McCurdy and his cronies once and for all.

Director Jon Cassar (24) and writer Brad Mirman bring the characters to life through simple but effective dialogue, great direction and beautiful cinematography. On the surface, the story is somewhat simplistic but the action does move along quite nicely and comes in around 90 minutes. It is an effective story of redemption. The performances provide enough energy and substance to bring the characters to life without going over the top or being too humdrum to lose interest. It is a spiritual, quiet, and intimate film. There is not a lot of action per say, but the film does provide enough story and character moments to keep the film’s storyline going.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Marvel expands its universe with ‘Captain America: Civil War’

Rating 4/5

Marvel released the third installment in the Captain America series as part of the ever-expanding Marvel universe earlier this year. Although the title was Captain America: Civil War, it did feel somewhat more like an Avengers film, and others have agreed with that sentiment. I believe it was a great story to bring to this third Captain America because I believe it did center more on Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and his childhood friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan). However, the overall story and plot involves every superhero and their ultimate actions and consequences, but I do believe at the heart of it was the relationship between Rogers and Barnes.

Your favorite Avengers are back: Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), War Machine (Don Cheadle), Vision (Paul Bettany), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), and newcomers Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland).

The performances were as good as any previous Marvel film and even the newcomers performed well in their respective roles. Fans have waited for the appearance of Spider-Man ever since the announcement that Marvel had finally acquired the character from Sony. What I’ve heard and people I’ve talked to say that was one of the highlights of the film. There has been discussion I’m sure as to why Spidey didn’t get a solo film before his appearance in this adventure. All I can say is, “Come on, it’s Spidey.” I mean do we really need another origin film for Spider-Man at this point? With Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man in 2002 and the recent reboot in 2012 with Marc Webb directing The Amazing Spider-Man, I believe fans, and audiences alike, are familiar with the web-head. Now that the character is in the famed Marvel Cinematic Universe, much anticipation awaits for the release of the first solo film, Homecoming – set to be coming July 2017. Some may have considered Spider-Man’s appearance a bit rushed and a poor storyline to add him into the mix, but I disagree. As mentioned, we have already seen two different origin films within the past several years and there was a mention of Spider-Man in Marvel’s Ant-Man. The set up here in Civil War was Tony’s dialogue about the need to see him. So I believe the character is adequately introduced into the Marvel world. The one exception I have (and I may not be alone in this) is casting Marisa Tomei as Aunt May. Not that I have anything against Tomei (she is a wonderful actress), it just seems to be an unusual casting choice on some level (of course the same might be said as casting Sally Field in the role in Marc Webb’s reboot).

But anyhoo.

Back to Cap and the gang. The trailer pointed out a showdown between the heroes with each taking sides – some with Cap and some with Iron Man. The “feud” comes about as the government attempts to intervene and provide an oversight committee, a sort of accountability, for the heroes. Iron Man thinks it’s a good idea and Cap doesn’t. Therefore, you have each taking sides resulting in an ultimate superhero smack down. And that sequence was as compelling as the other fight scenes in The Avengers, but this time it was hero on hero.

What works for me in this film is how directors Anthony and Joe Russo weaved all of the characters, story and visual elements into a cohesive, entertaining film while developing character and story arcs. It was a bit lengthy, coming in at nearly two and a half hours, but there were plenty of action sequences, fights, and character moments that kept me in the film. All of the elements (costume, lighting, cinematography, visual effects, sound) come together in this film to bring these wonderful Marvel characters to life in a fun, entertaining way.

 

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

A brooding look for ‘Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice’

Rating 2/5

About a couple of months before audience’s reveled in Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War, DC finally put forth their first multi-hero effort in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Writers Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer penned this script with Zack Snyder directing. His most recent directorial outing was 2013’s Man of Steel. Other directing credits include 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch. Snyder has a dark, brooding style that, most of the time, leaves me feeling uneasy and gloomy while watching his films. Many of Tim Burton’s films have a dark overtone, but are still somewhat more enjoyable than this. The script is a lengthy one as the film runs just over two and half hours. There is a lot packed in the film and overall it just seemed cumbersome.

Batman/Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) thinks Superman/Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) is a danger to the world and he must be stopped. Superman thinks Batman is a dangerous vigilante and must be stopped. Then the film spends half the time setting up the big, climactic battle between the two caped heroes that seems to cause more destruction than really solves anything. Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) comes in and ultimately wants to pit these two together and create Doomsday from the corpse of General Zod to put an end to the heroes. It also introduces and poorly sets up Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) who comes in towards the middle of their battle and helps them defeat Doomsday. It seems DC was in a rush to try to introduce this character into their cinematic universe that they didn’t really develop the character enough to really do much of anything. They could have left the character out and most of that storyline and the film still would not be that different. Now Wonder Woman’s solo film is set to be released next June and a trailer has just been released at the San Diego Comic Con this weekend. You can view that trailer below:

Wonder Woman

They introduced this character now and then go back and release a film, which looks sort of like an origin film, and then put her back into Justice League to be out in theaters later next year in November. There was a trailer for that film shown at SDCC this weekend as well. You can view the trailer below:

Justice League

Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) were teased at the end of Batman v. Superman and will be in Justice League next year. Then those characters, as with the aforementioned Wonder Woman, are going to get their solo films. It appears DC is sort of going backwards from Marvel. Putting these characters together and then giving them their own films doesn’t appear to be the greatest decision. But I may be wrong.

When it was announced that Affleck was cast as the new Bruce Wayne/Batman, there was uproarious upheaval in the decision. There seemed to be mixed reviews about Affleck’s portrayal of the character. There were seemingly positive reviews but there were those that didn’t like the choice. It appeared to be mediocre at best. His Batman dominated more when he was fighting, although his use of firearms was a bit much. It was too aggressive for my understanding of the character.

Amy Adams brings the same low-key performance to Lois Lane in this film as she did in Man of Steel. She had moments of strength and independence but there just didn’t seem there was enough of those moments. Jeremy Irons is a great actor, but here again, it was somewhat of another dull performance of the Alfred character. Perhaps the overall dark, brooding tone had something to do with the performances. I’m not sure. But they just didn’t have that punch to the characters to hold my interest. It was almost like viewing a live theatrical performance where the actors have low energy and the play just seems to drag. I believe the same could be said here.

However, Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor was different. I wasn’t sure about his casting either at the start. Of course, I wasn’t sure about Heath Ledger cast as the Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, but he was brilliant. Overall, I did like the way the Luthor was portrayed. It was completely different from Gene Hackman’s version and also the Kevin Spacey portrayal in Superman Returns. Eisenberg played him with some high energy and more psychotic (for lack of a better word).

It felt like they crammed too much in this film. As I mentioned earlier, Wonder Woman’s character and storyline could have been left out and teased the way Aquaman, the Flash and Cyborg were and the film wouldn’t have suffered any (or at least anymore than it did). The storyline where Luthor creates Doomsday seemed like an unnecessary one and just added to “create” more excitement and spectacle. That whole sequence could have probably been cut and the battle between Superman and Batman could have ended differently or with the same outcome and moved on from there. I still question how it ended. But maybe those scenes were left in there to give it more spectacle and something for the fans. The film had some merit, just not enough to keep it interesting.

kellym40 film review

‘The Purge’ should be illegal

Rating 1/5

Every so often there are films that one wonders just how they got made. The Purge is one of those films. Some people must see something and therefore the production begins. Someone must have seen something in this film to bring it to light. James DeMonaco penned the script as well as took on the directing duties. Some of his writing credits include some television as well as the 1996 comedy Jack starring the late Robin Williams, The Negotiator, Assault on Precinct 13, and his latest credits include the two sequels this film spawned – The Purge: Anarchy and the recently released The Purge: Election Year. He also directed the other two films in this series.

DeMonaco’s idea here is in the future someone thought it would be a bright idea to allow a 12-hour period where all violent crime is legal. The result of this “Purge” is low crime, low unemployment, and a civil, peaceful society. This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but somehow it presents a contrived, idiotic thought. This occurs because this Purge happens just once a year. This silly notion that one night of “rioting” will keep people at bay for a year just to do it all over again is simplistic thinking as if the Purge creates some kind of catharsis to last them a whole year. The film is set in 2022, which at the time of its release (2013) was just nine years away. Given the state of this country’s current status with all the shootings and violence, it’s hard to imagine the events of this film occurring. It’s a nice thought, but seemingly far-fetched.

The film stars Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey, who play James and Mary Sandin, a wealthy couple who live in a gated community with a high tech security system in their home. James works for a company that sells these systems and virtually everyone in the local community owns one. James and Mary have two teenage children Charlie (Max Burkholder) and Zoey (Adelaide Kane). In order for the film to progress, DeMonaco’s script enables the neighbors to resent James for his wealthy living from the profits of these security systems and the Purge allows them to take vengeance upon the Sandin family.

The performances were nothing extraordinary. The actors were decent with what they had to work with from the apparently generic horror film type characters DeMonaco created. There didn’t seem to be enough suspense or thrills to keep me in this film and really care for these characters. I suppose there was enough revenue this film collected in order to produce two sequels now in this series (which I probably will review sometime down the line), but for now I’m left with this trite piece of work.