A Good Year

Above all else, Russell Crowe will always be Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and a loyal servant to the TRUE emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Yes, Crowe's most memorable performance for me will always be from 2000's Gladiator. That said, he's one of my favorites across the board, and I'll watch him in just about anything. How about Crowe and a frequent collaborator stepping outside their comfort zone? I believe that 2006's A Good Year most definitely qualifies.

A highly successful investment broker in London, Max Skinner (Crowe) is the best at what he does. He's cutthroat and brutally efficient and is coming off one deal -- however shady -- that earned the firm millions and millions of dollars. It's not soon after though that Max receives news that his Uncle Henry (Albert Finney), who he hasn't seen in 10 years, has passed away. The problem? Henry left no will, leaving his French villa and vineyards up for grabs. As Henry's only known living resume, Max must handle the villa, deciding whether he wants to sell it (likely) or keep it (far less likely). Max heads off to France to wrap things up while some work issues are settled behind him, but it's been awhile. He spent his summers with Henry at the villa as a child and hasn't been back in years, much less thought about it too much. Now, it all comes flowing back at him in a wave. What to do? What to do?!?

'Year' pairs Crowe with director Ridley Scott who he worked with previously in Gladiator, a pairing that earned Crowe the Best Actor Oscar and Scott a Best Director nomination. They've also worked together on Body of Lies, American Gangster and Robin Hood so naturally they've got to mix in a quasi-romantic comedy for dudes about a male character having a mid-life awakening of sorts. That makes sense, right? Right?!? I didn't think so, but there was too much talent involved to pass it up. I had to at least give it a try.

Reviews seemed to be mixed here. Movie reviewers disliked to hated it. Everyone else? Liked it to loved it. I'm in the latter group! I very much enjoyed this change of pace story from Scott and Crowe. Sure, there are parts that make you think of like-minded movies with Julia Roberts or Diane Lane, but there's something oddly refreshing about a straightforward story about a male character that doesn't involve gunfire, explosions, nudity, a drug war and all sorts of pyrotechnics. 'Year' is fairly predictable when things really get going, but I immensely liked it. 

Crowe especially looks to be having a good time as Max Skinner, a Londoner transplanted to the French countryside where he finds a life that's a complete 180 from his own. Not playing the all-that-is-man warrior lead, Crowe has fun as the smarmy, condescending Skinner (or if I was less crude, an asshole) who thinks he's better than anyone and everyone around him. It is definitely a departure but a pro like Crowe handles it with ease. Obviously, it doesn't hurt that even when he's in full-on condescension mode that Crowe is an immensely likable character. Even when he's being a bit of a d-bag, there's still a charm on display. He gets a crack at some more comedic moments and some physical humor, committing to the part and truly having some fun with it. If he didn't, the movie would have sunk immediately.

Top to bottom, I liked the cast. Sure, at times things are drawn in pretty broad strokes, but you're enjoying things too much to question it or complain too much. Marion Cotillard is an excellent choice to play a French goddess, a beautiful, fiery woman named...Fanny Chenal. Abbie Cornish plays Christie, a young American woman who shows up at the villa with a surprise while Didier Bourdon plays Francis Duflot, the villa's vigneron who looks after the soil and the grape vines with Isabelle Candelier as his wife. I especially liked Tom Hollander as Charlie, one of Max's few friends who tolerates all his little eccentricities (some would say straight Meanness) and his real estate agent. Archie Panjabi has some fun as Gemma, Max's assistant who knows how to handle her crazy boss. The best supporting parts though are Albert Finney as Uncle Henry and Freddie Highmore as a much younger Max. In some quick, character-affirming scenes, we see Max growing up in his summer months under Henry's tutelage. Some very charming scenes, Finney and Highmore with a great chemistry.

And last but not least, the French countryside, maybe the most important character of all. Scott's film could be a travel guide for why to travel to France. This is a story that wants and needs you to move to France, to embrace the lifestyle and general outlook on life. The expansive villas, the tree-lined roads, the stone streets, the history, the look, the food and the wine, this is an incredibly beautiful movie. It ain't subtle either in portraying washed-out dreary London as opposed to homey, earthy, colorful France. If you absolutely hate the characters or the story, just sit back and take in all the Frenchness. You will definitely not be disappointed. A very pleasant surprise so don't listen to all those movie reviewers! Oh, wait...listen to me but not them! I really liked this one and hope you will too. If you can't find me, there's a good chance I moved to France.

A Good Year (2006): ***/****

The Martian

I'm gonna tweak an intro I like to use from time-to-time. I've used it before talking the ocean and huge bodies of water but am twisting it up a bit to outer space concerning a film in theaters that's raking in the dough and piling up positive reviews. Rightfully so as well. So what's scarier than outer space? How about being trapped in outer space millions of miles and months and potentially years away from rescue? Yeah. Pretty...freaking...scary. So goes 2015's The Martian.

It's two-plus weeks into a NASA mission on Mars when a horrific storm forces the six-man crew to abort ahead of schedule and head back to Earth. In the evacuation though, one member of the crew, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), is struck by a piece of flying debris and swept away. The Ares crew leaves before they too are lost, suspecting that Mark was killed in the accident...but he wasn't. With the crew having left Mars behind, Mark wakes up the next day, wounded, running out of oxygen and very much on his own. All he has is a habitat that isn't intended for long-term living and with stockpiles of supplies but only to a point. If he intends to survive, he's got some serious work to do. A potential rescue is at least four years away -- it takes awhile to get to Mars -- and that's only if he can somehow get in touch with NASA. If he can. First things first, Mark has to provide for himself with the food and water (even rationed) scheduled to run out long before any potential rescue arrives. The clock is ticking...

'Martian' is based off a best-selling novel by Andy Weir. I read it this past spring and I loved it. LOVED it. Mark Watney quickly climbed onto my list of all-time favorite characters. At different points reading Weir's novel, I felt physical ill I was so nervous, my eyes teared up with extreme worry about Mark's fate and what I took away most, I laughed out loud over and over again. It's one of the best books I've read in years, funny, emotional, smart and dramatic, all rolled into one. So how about the movie...

It's a gem. Director Ridley Scott is at the helm of an excellent, almost great movie. I don't have any huge flaws to call into question, but I can't call 'Martian' an all-timer. It's just really, really good from beginning to end. Scott has had a string of so-so to meh to not very good movies, but this is the veteran director at the top of his game. It can be daunting adapting any novel, but the effort here is spot-on. Filming was done in Wadi Rum in the Jordanian desert, giving the film a startling, far-off look to the "location" shooting on "Mars." I really liked composer Harry Gregson-Williams' score, unassuming and quiet that more than suits the action. We don't need aggressive, in-your-face music telling you how to feel. You need quiet, companion music that underplays the emotions and action.

When I read Matt Damon had been cast as Mark Watney, I was skeptical -- a little -- because the character is in his late 20's and though it suited Damon regardless of age, something didn't seem spot-on about the choice. Well, I'll admit when I was wrong. Mr. Jason Bourne himself was a perfect choice. Part of the appeal of the Watney character is his response to his isolation and potential death. We see him break down in a couple instances, but this is a man who takes every problem as it comes and attacks it head-on. He never gets too down no matter how hopeless or impossible it seems. It's one of Damon's best performances, showing off what a versatile talent he is. You're rooting for him from the start and that never lets up. Intelligent, funny, stubbornly persistent and quite sure he's going to survive no matter what's thrown at him, an excellent part for Matt Damon.

Damon's Watney is -- not so surprisingly -- on his own during his time on Mars. In other words, it's kind of a one-man show during those scenes. Here, Scott uses some cool style points. In the book, it was quite acceptable that Watney kept a diary of all his day-to-day activities. Short of narration playing over his actions throughout the entire run-time, that wouldn't work here. Instead, Watney films video diaries, keeping us updated on one fiasco or success or observation after another. Damon injects the character with the same energy and dark sense of humor and stubborn hope that Weir's novel presented. It's a straigthforward call on style, but it works. The days pass with a simple 'Sol 18' and so on appearing on-screen, a sound effect like a radar ping playing over it. Not aggressive in the style department, but it works in subtle, underplayed fashion.

Now of course, 'Martian' isn't a one-man show. The overall cast is excellent, Damon on Mars and the expansive rescue effort playing out back on Earth with the Ares crew also traveling back to Earth. Lots of potentially excellent parts and they don't disappoint. Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kristen Wiig, Sean Bean, Benedict Wong, Mackenzie Davis and Donald Glover lead the NASA rescue effort in a variety of roles. The "surviving" Ares crew includes Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan and Aksel Hennie. If that's not a cast powerful enough to melt your face, well, I don't know what is. There isn't a weak link, but I especially thought Daniels, Ejiofor, Bean, Wong, Chastain and Pena did especially good jobs bringing characters to life that could have been cardboard cutouts. What a cast!

It's hard not to watch Scott's 'Martian' and not think of countless other science fiction films. For every comparison you can make from similarly-themed movies like Gravity or Apollo 13, you get the sense that while familiar, Scott's film is carving out its own niche and heading out on its own. I thought Gravity was excellent as a visual medium -- a true experience of what being in space is like -- but I never felt emotionally connected with it. That isn't the case here. It's a spectacle movie, an astronaut wasting away on Mars while a rescue effort is mounted, but it connected far more with me emotionally. That's a credit to Weir's novel, the screenplay adaptation, Scott's directing and an amazingly talented cast. An all-around excellent film. And one more thought...

I liked -- maybe loved -- the humanity of 'Martian.' The trailer introduces the concept that often times when a man/woman, men/women are in trouble, people come to help, to rescue, to save. Racial and cultural differences are set aside, all in the hope of helping those that so desperately need it. It's a highly effective storytelling technique here as billions of dollars are spent to bring one man home. That's where this story is so effective emotionally. You're rooting for Mark, you like him, and you want him to survive. What drives him? He's stubborn and man, he does not want to die on Mars. Watney has some great narration late as a potential rescue effort draws nearer, a man doing a long list of firsts on a planet that is untouched by human hand (or feet). Very well-written, well-executed and well-delivered lines by Mr. Damon.

Reading Weir's novel, Mark Watney became one of my favorite literary characters, and Damon more than does him justice. A heck of a movie that succeeds on basically every level you could ask for. Highly recommended for a great sci-fi spectacle, a moving story with some very high highs and some very low lows with a ton of dark humor sprinkled in here and there. Go see it and read the book too!

The Martian (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Like the western, the historical epic has seemingly gone the way of the dodo bird. The genre was at its most popular in the 1950s and 1960s, turning out gigantic epics like The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Spartacus, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and that's just some of the biblical epics. About a year ago, I was naturally curious when I read that director Ridley Scott was at the helm of a new epic about Moses and the Hebrews' escape from Egypt. Reviews were mixed to negative, but it managed to make decent money in theaters. So where does 2014's Exodus: Gods and Kings fall? Let's see.

In ancient Egypt, a new pharaoh, Ramses II (Joel Edgerton), has been appointed after his father dies. The fiery new pharaoh has help at his side in the form of his stepbrother, Moses (Christian Bale). Many years before, an orphaned infant Moses was picked up in the Nile River and taken into the home and temple of the then pharaoh, Ramses' father. The Hebrew man grew up somewhat knowing his past, his blood, but he's moved on...until now. Seeing his stepbrother as a potential threat to his throne, Ramses exiles his brother. Moses survives though, starts a family in a far-off, isolated village and moves on. Years pass though and he continues to hear the plight of the Hebrew people working as slaves under Egyptian rule, still the cruel Ramses. There has long been rumors and teachings that someone will save the Hebrews, and that man may just be Moses himself. Can he realize it? Can he go back to Egypt and convince his brother to peacefully let the slaves go?

So basically everyone knows the story of Moses, of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, the plagues one after another, the parting of the Red Sea and the eventual 40 years of wandering in the desert. I read about it a ton as a kid growing up, at home and in school, and then I saw the 1956 epic The Ten Commandments, still shown on ABC every Easter. That's both a good and bad thing for Scott's epic. It's familiar...but it's familiar. I liked it but didn't love it. There's the necessary spectacle and scale you need in a biblical/historical epic and a solid cast, but there are equal part flaws and misses that handicap the movie's potential.

There seems to be a trend going on in history books, on history documentaries, miniseries, all of the above. I think it's a good trend, one I've enjoyed watching as it develops. It's pretty simple. Look at history with a questioning eye. Did the Exodus story happen just as the Old Testament said it did? No, probably not, and that's where Scott steps in. In the movie's strongest moments, he's able to blend that Old Testament story with a fresh eye, a clean look at the story. In a different sense (and a necessary one), he tries to distance himself from The Ten Commandments, many viewers most familiar connection to the story. What was Moses like? What was Ramses like? What was the world they lived in throughout ancient Egypt? It provides a fascinating jumping off point into a dark, dirty, violent and particularly nasty world that we thought we knew.

Christian Bale is one of my favorites. I thought he was the best thing going by far in American Hustle, his Batman movies are great, and if he's in a cast, I'm pretty likely to at least give the movie a chance. In a cast that features quite a cast but not much in the term of characters, Bale is the one to get out unscathed and represent himself quite well. His Moses is a three-dimensional person, a man struggling with what may be his destiny, his fate, the thing he's supposed to do with his life. Is it going to be easy? Not in the least, and that's what he's grappling with. When it comes right down to it, will he make that difficult decision? Bale isn't great, but he's pretty good in a cool leading role. Edgerton too is one of my favorites, a budding star looking for those great roles that will propel him into stardom, but this isn't it. The script does him no favors, an old school, power-hungry villain who comes across as more cliched than a real person. Too bad because Bale and Edgerton's scenes together are a high point. I just wish there was more of them.

The rest of the cast is given little to nothing to do. The names are impressive but any sense of character development was left by the wayside. Look for John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde, Andrew Tarbet and Ben Kingsley in smaller parts. Two solid smaller parts go to Ben Mendelsohn as a cruel district commander who couldn't care less about the slaves he rules over and young Isaac Andrews as Malak, a child who is God's human representation on Earth, communicating with Moses about what's to come. A scary, intense performance from a talented young actor. I especially liked Bale and Andrews together in their scenes, especially when Paul's Joshua looks on, not seeing Bale talk to anything at all. What he sees is a man seemingly talking to himself in the middle of the desert. Uh-oh, here we go with some faith-based questions again!

 Now if the focus isn't on character development, it's gotta be somewhere else, right? You would be correct. 'Exodus' embraces the moment in terms of scale and gigantic qualities you'd come to expect from a historical and Biblical epic. The plaques and plights an angry, violent Old Testament God sends down upon Ramses and Egypt are a sight to behold from the locusts, frogs, blood in the water, to the diseases, and most frighteningly, the killing of all the first born sons of Egyptians, these scenes are the movie at its best, strongest and most comfortable. But by far, the most exhilarating scene is the chase across the Red Sea, Moses and thousands of fleeing Hebrews pursued by Ramses and his chariot army as the receding sea charges back at them, the waves growing ever-higher. An incredible sequence, one of those great uses of computer-generated imagery. So in epic terms, this movie is a huge success and well worth seeking out.

I just wish there was more heart somewhere mixed in with the scale and spectacle. It's a pretty decent movie with some great moments. Still worth recommending -- especially to fans of biblical and historical epics -- but it's good. It could have been much more.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014): ** 1/2 /****

The Counselor

I have a love-hate relationship with author Cormac McCarthy. The highly respected author can flat out write, sometimes too well. His novels are very, VERY literary to the point I struggle to find a rhythm and even enjoy the stories. I'm a little late to the party, but McCarthy bypassed the novel and went right to the screenplay with his first such work, 2013's The Counselor. The reviews are mostly mixed to negative. Where did I fall?

A defense lawyer with a solid reputation but addressed only as 'Counselor' (Michael Fassbender) is joining the riskiest of business ventures against his better judgment. He has become involved with a business partner, Reiner (Javier Bardem), who he hopes to open a nightclub with but that's the far cleaner option. Dealing with some serious money issues, Counselor has gone in on a drug deal involving over 600 kilos of cocaine being transported, the end payday being potentially $20 million. The money is quite the incentive, but is the extreme risk even remotely worth it? The money is just too much to pass on even considering the risk, but even this talented, confident lawyer doesn't know what he's got into with the drug cartel involved. Bottom line is money, and anything that gets in the way is simply collateral damage.

I've read five McCarthy novels; No Country for Old Men, Blood Meridian, The Road, The Crossing and All the Pretty Horses. McCarthy is a bleak writer. These aren't stories of hope or faith or anything positive. They revolve around death, murder, and generally, a sense that the world is always nearing some sort of apocalypse, an end day. McCarthy is an extremely talented writer, no doubt about it. His books though, they can be difficult to get through because he is so talented. That bleakness, that readable difficulty, it is both positive and negative. I really have to be in the right frame of mind to read a McCarthy novel. If you finish it, you feel like you've truly accomplished something.

So how about McCarthy tackling a screenplay without the middle man of a published novel? That's 'Counselor.' The basic story of an outsider getting involved in a drug cartel is nothing new in films, TV and literature, but McCarthy does manage to put his own unique spin on it. There is NO hope in this world, only greed, death, betrayal and regret. 'Counselor' currently has a 34% rating at Rotten Tomatoes and a 5.4 at IMDB so it obviously didn't sit too well with viewers. I liked it -- as much as you're supposed to like a movie like this -- but my goodness, there are some amazingly obvious flaws. In its bleakness, it tries ridiculously hard in heavy-handed fashion to get that message across. We encounter one stilted, heavy conversation after another about death and life and evil and decent rights and horrific wrongs. In doses, these things work. But one after another? An already heavy, at times tedious story gets even heavier, even darker to the point it can be exhausting.

You know what I've forgotten by this fifth paragraph? 'Counselor' is directed by a talented director, Ridley Scott, who talented actors and actresses seemingly want to work with. Go figure. It's a great cast here, but the characters feel almost like cardboard cutouts. They're interesting because the cast goes for it -- sometimes too much -- but at no point does it feel like any of these people are real. Fassbender does an excellent job in the titular role, but that script, it pretentiously calls him 'Counselor' without ever giving him a real name. Yeah, heavy-handed literary devices! I was worried Bardem would ham it up too much as Reiner, but his part was fascinating just because of what drives the character, and that would be excess. Their scenes together are excellent as are Brad Pitt's scenes with Fassbender. Pitt plays Westray, the Counselor's middleman of sorts who continues to recommend his new partner bail and run before he's too deep into the deal.

Not that the fellas escape unscathed, but the female cast members are done no favor. Ripped straight out of a 1940s film noir and then injected with oozing sex and a general over the top quality, Cameron Diaz plays Malkina, Reiner's seemingly unhinged girlfriend. It's a scream watching Reiner's flashback about a sexual encounter they had in his car. Diaz commits, but the part feels overdone. Penelope Cruz on the other hand is the female goddess, there to represent beauty and love and all that good stuff. Her Laura character is the Counselor's girlfriend (and later fiance), mostly there as something that can be used against our intrepid lawyer should anything go wrong.

Without giving anything away in terms of character and some twists along the way, also look for Rosie Perez, Ruben Blades, Edgar Ramirez, Dean Norris, John Leguizamo, Toby Kebbell, Goran Visnjic, and Bruno Ganz in parts of varying importance and screentime.

It's the rare movie that doesn't have good and bad features. On top of its impeccable cast and time-transplanted film noir plot, 'Counselor' is dripping with tension, a feeling of foreboding and sense of doom, of something horrific to come. That's especially evident in a description of a horrific device used by the drug cartels to take out troublemakers. You hear about it early and then spend the rest of the film waiting to see it in horrifying action. This is one uncomfortable movie, and that's a good thing. Definitely a positive. That doom cloud hanging over the story though, it limits what the story can do. I never felt I had a read on the Counselor (the character). I would have liked some more exposition about the characters (all of them) and the set-up. No, not everything laid out on a silver platter, but a little something. As is the case at times when I've read McCarthy novels, it feels like he's trying to be the most literary person ever. That unfortunately is the feeling here.

Here we sit. Not a classic but not the complete dud so many made it out to be. Sometimes 'Counselor' gets too wrapped up in the sex and violence, but the guts of it is a disturbingly dark story that doesn't pull any punches. Know what you're getting into, but yikes, it is an interesting film experience for good and bad.

The Counselor (2013): ** 1/2 /**** 

Alien

Earlier this year, I saw and liked 2012's Prometheus a lot....if I was a little confused. From director Ridley Scott, it was a quasi-prequel to his 1979 sci-fi classic Alien. I'd never seen Alien in its entirety in one sitting, having seen pieces here and there. Well, apparently I wasn't the only one trying to catch up with the 1979 film. Netflix had it on 'Long Wait' for the last four months. I waited it out, finally catching up with it this weekend.

In the near future, the Nostromo, a deep space towing vessel, and its crew is returning to Earth with an immense shipment of ore mined on a far-off planet. The crew, including Captain Dallas (Tom Skerritt), Kane (John Hurt), the executive officer, and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), the warrant officer, are awakened from a deep slumber. The Nostromo's computer has sensed a message -- possibly an S.O.S., possibly a warning -- from a nearby planet. Following orders, the ship sets down on an Earth-like planetoid, but one of the search party brings something back aboard the ship. The crew debates what to do, but it's too late. The creature is free and loose. With improvised weaponry, the Nostromo's crew now finds itself fighting for survival.

This is a movie that is hard to review. Why's that? Well, for one, that's a compliment. Released in 1979, Alien has basically influenced every horror-science-fiction-thriller made in the 30-plus years since its release. Having seen Prometheus just a few months ago, it's obvious how similar the "new" movie was to the original. We're talking spot-on. So through no fault of its own, this 1979 original does feel -- for lack of a better word -- familiar. It doesn't take away from the quality, but some of the scares and twists are somewhat predictable. Still, it's a gem. Anything that influenced so many movies since is worth a recommendation.

Directing just his second feature film (and three years prior to another classic, Blade Runner), Scott does an admirable job here. There's nothing quite as scary as deep space for me. Who knows what kind of horrors are out there? Oh, and there's nowhere to run...not quickly at least. Scott's vision of the future is just that, very visual. The Nostromo is both well-lit and furnished, but in its depths is claustrophobic, dank, damp and hiding all sorts of fear. In other words, plenty of space for our Alien to hide in. The scares are slow-burns, long scenes with little movement or sound suddenly broken up by quick GOTCHA! bursts that will have you jumping (okay, I did). While it is scary, it's more importantly smart scary. Most of the scares from the unsettling mood; the quiet and foreboding. At its best, this is an underplayed scare fest.

The focus is on the scares and the Alien that starts to dispatch members of the crew. 'Alien' doesn't have time or room for anything else. We're introduced to the characters, but know nothing about them more than what their duties on-board are. It strips away everything superfluous and maintains that focus on the survival aspect. The crew -- fodder for the Alien -- include the always cool Tom Skerritt, the similarly cool John Hurt and Weaver. Also included are Yaphet Kotto as Parker, the engineer, Harry Dean Stanton as Brett, the assistant engineer, Ian Holm as Ash, the medical officer, and Veronica Cartwright as Lambert. There really isn't a weak performance in the bunch, Skerritt, Kotto and Holm especially standing out. The real standout though is a young Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley, the intelligent, reasonable-thinking heroine, a part that would help make her a star. A female star in an sci-fi movie was something new, and Weaver is a great lead.

Did I love this movie? No, but I liked it a lot. Seeing it in 1979, Alien would have no doubt had a different impact on me than it does now. It did influence countless movies since -- a credit to its power -- but viewing it now, it does affect the viewing. The surprises are solid, but they're not completely out of left field. If you're paying attention, you'll see them coming. On the other hand, it's still a gem 33 years later. A very pointed story with no dead weight anywhere in sight. Still well worth a watch.

Alien <---trailer (1979): ***/****

Gladiator (2000)

The age of the historical epic has long since past, the 1950s and 1960s full of three-hour movies with a cast of thousands, scale to spare and a window into a historical time long since past. It's hard to beat these movies in terms of pure entertainment quality, a time when Hollywood -- a pre CGI Hollywood -- was willing to drop a lot of money for that quality. Over 40 years later though, there was and still is a demand for movies like that, and when done right, they rank up there with the best of the past, especially 2000's Gladiator.

Having won a brutal victory for Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) in Germania, Roman general Maximus (Russell Crowe) is betrayed and left for dead for when Marcus' son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), forcibly takes the throne away from his aging father. Maximus races home to find his wife and son tortured, raped and murdered, but in the aftermath he is scooped up by a traveling caravan and as a slave is sold to Proximo (Oliver Reed), the owner of a gladiator school in Zucchabar. At first wanting nothing to do with this life, Maximus realizes that with each win in the gladiator ring, he takes one step closer to meeting Commodus again, and for the general-turned-slave-turned gladiator, all he wants is one more shots at meeting the Roman emperor who took his life away from him.

If the story has a little bit of a scatter-brained quality, I apologize. That's more on me trying to condense a 155-minute movie into a paragraph synopsis. Fans of 1960s epics will no doubt recognize some of the story; it borrows somewhat liberally from 1964's The Fall of the Roman Empire and does use some real-life historical basis for its story. Some historical inaccuracies aside, director Ridley Scott has an epic gem here. It has the feel and look of an epic, and sometimes that alone can be enough. Is the portrayal of ancient Rome spot-on in terms of accuracy? No, not especially, the screenplay taking some liberties there. But traveling from the gloomy battlefields of Germania to the far-off desert communities of the Roman provinces to the glory and majesty of Rome, Scott gets it right in spite of any historical inaccuracies.

A respected and at least somewhat well known actor who'd been working in Hollywood for years, Russell Crowe became a household name courtesy of this movie and his starring role. Crowe won the Best Actor Oscar for his part as Maximus, the betrayed Roman general who must avenge his family's murder at all costs. It's appropriate that Crowe was chosen for the part because he has the star-power quality of a Charlton Heston or John Wayne. As an actor, he belongs in big, expansive epics where that star power can shine through. A story of an obsessed man looking for revenge can be tricky, but Crowe makes Maximus likable which sounds easy but is essential to the movie's success. He is an ultra-capable commander, a brutally effective and skilled warrior, and a stout and ready leader of men. Great lead performance.

Without the huge A-list supporting cast, Gladiator is probably a little better for it. The cast -- big names or not -- does not disappoint, the depth of the cast making up for any lack of star power. Phoenix is uncomfortably evil as Commodus, the power-hungry but ultimately insane Roman emperor. He sneers and glares as he scoops up power, wanting nothing more than an incestuous love from sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen in a very strong supporting part). My favorite character is Reed's Proximo, a former gladiator granted his freedom and now an owner of a gladiator school. A cynic looking for the biggest payday, Proximo sees that potential in Maximus -- dubbed the Spaniard in the gladiatorial ring -- but also starts to see more than that, sees there's good and bad, right and wrong, more than just money. Reed unfortunately died before production wrapped, but it is a scene-stealing performance. The same goes for Harris as Marcus, an aging, dying emperor looking to right wrongs he's done and save Rome from itself.

Beyond those key supporting roles are several more, a little more in the background but just as important. This was my first introduction to Djimon Hounsou who plays Juba, an African slave turned gladiator. He bonds with Maximus, both men having been violently separated from their families. Ralf Moeller is also very good as Haken, a bear of a man and a Germanic gladiator who sides with Maximus and Juba. Derek Jacobi plays Gracchus, a strong-willed member of the Senate who hates what Commodus has done to Rome, with David Schofield and John Shrapnel as other Senators of varying loyalty. Tomas Arana plays Quintus, Maximus' former second in command, with Tommy Flanagan playing Cicero, Maximus' aide in camp. David Hemmings also has a brief but memorable part as Cassius, the Colosseum's announcer.

With the epic story moving all over the Roman Empire, one thing rises above all others as I rewatched Gladiator recently, and that's the scale and blood-splattered quality of the action sequences.  Oh, and there's plenty of them. In creating these sequences, Scott uses computer-generated images, but he never overdoes it. The opening battle in muddy Germania is a bloody, chaotic mess, the action then moving onto the equally bloody but beautifully photographed gladiatorial fights. The fights in the provinces are efficient and bloody, the scale more impressive once Maximus, Proximo and Co. reach Rome and the Colosseum. All of the action is aided by composer Hans Zimmer's score, everything you hope and want an epic musical score to be. Listen to a sample of a battle sequence music HERE. Action galore and on a gigantic scale, you should not be disappointed in that department.

The only thing I did come away somewhat disappointed on my recent viewing was the talky quality of the movie as Commodus takes power in Rome. Yes, they're necessary scenes to establish characters and motivation, but dialogue scenes of Rome, republic, the mob, and the Senate become a little tedious. Scott seems to know it too, never waiting too long to unleash another action sequence in our direction. That said, the last 45 minutes are nearly perfect, the pieces all falling into place for one final showdown. Epically dark and cynical as betrayals, backstabbing and murder rule the day, the last half-hour plus does not disappoint, helping make up for some of the slower portions building up to it.  An epic and a great one at that. They're getting rarer these days so enjoy them as much as you can.

Gladiator <---trailer (2000): ****/****

Prometheus

With moves like 1979's Alien and 1982's Blade Runner, director Ridley Scott created two of the most well-known, well-respected, and popular science fiction movies of the last 30-plus years, and seemingly was on the road to becoming a sci-fi master. To be fair, with those two movies alone, he is a sci-fi master. He hadn't returned to science fiction until the recent release, 2012's Prometheus, a prequel to Alien. Worth the wait? Flawed overall, but an epic success when it does work.

It is the year 2089 and two scientists, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), have made a series of discoveries -- cave paintings from different places and eras in human history -- that all have a common link. They all contain a drawing of some sort of being pointing to the same galactic location. Some two years later onboard the spaceship Prometheus, Shaw and Holloway are part of an expedition traveling to the darkest corners of the universe in search of what those paintings might mean. Is there intelligent life out there? Did they create us as a race? After the two-year journey, Prometheus arrives at the moon LV-223 to continue the investigation. They find evidence of another race but something else as well. What did this race create?

Some film directors just have credibility at the very mention of their name, and Ridley Scott is one of those few. When this movie is good, it is great. I didn't see it in 3-D, but the look of the movie is incredible, especially a mysterious opening sequence...but more on that later. The musical score is kept to a minimum, but when it's used, it makes quite an impression (kudos to composer Marc Streitenfeld). Like the most effective science fiction stories and movies, it succeeds because it makes you think, makes you question. What better place to do that than the far reaches of the universe? Anything could exist out there, friendly or aggressive. Were we put on Earth for a reason? Does faith mean anything? Do your beliefs truly mean something to you? When you're in a spot, how do you react? At its best, Scott's film explores some of these issues. Oh, he also does a fair job trying to scare the hell out of you as a viewer.

It's been years since I've seen the Alien movies, but as a prequel, it has a distinctly different feel. The visual is stunning here. Yes, it's a science fiction movie that degenerates into a creature feature (unfortunately), but it can also fairly and accurately be described as an artsy, minimalist take on mankind, space travel, the future and so much more. Basically the exact opposite of a summer blockbuster. It forces you to pay attention and think for yourself. It isn't always an easy movie to follow, but for the most part you're rewarded in the end. Nothing is ever really spelled out for you. That can be both rewarding and frustrating, especially in the finale. It is different though, and Scott tries for something more than the norm.

An effective, solid ensemble cast steps to the forefront for Scott's prequel, starting with Rapace and Holloway as the archeologists searching for answers. Charlize Theron is brutally cold and efficient as Vickers, the Weyland Corporation representative in charge of making sure the mission goes off according to plan. Her looks can deceive you, but she's cold and calculated. Idris Elba has another scene-stealing part as Janek, the Prometheus captain (with co-pilots Emun Elliott and Benedict Wong), an everyman but highly intelligent and able to piece things together for his job and mission. Guy Pearce in heavy make-up plays Weyland, the aging, decrepit CEO who finances the deep space mission. Sean Harris and Rafe Spall have smaller but just as important parts as Fifield and Millburn, two members of the investigating team, each with their own hopes on the mission. Also look for Patrick Wilson in a one-scene part, Shaw's father in a dream sequence.

The part that no doubt most moviegoers will remember though is David, an android created by the Weyland Corp. to blend in as a human, possessing everything but a soul. David is played to perfection by rising star Michael Fassbender in a part that could/should earn him an Oscar nod. The obvious comparison is to Hal in Space Odyssey, but that's limiting and not a completely fair comparison. This android has human mannerisms and touches -- he moves like a man, rides bikes, plays basketball, mimics Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia -- but there's also that one thing, that one little thing that prevents him from being a man. It's hard to put my finger on it, but Fassbender does an incredible job. His David is sympathetic, menacing, brilliant, intimidating and conniving. Because he can be programmed, it's can be difficult to get a read on his intentions, but whatever they may be, Fassbender is the star of Prometheus without a doubt.

Certain moments in Prometheus have stuck with me since seeing it and no doubt will stick with me in the days and weeks to come. The opening sequence is a jaw-dropper; a supremely muscle-bound, albino humanoid being left on a desolate, isolated landscape (a pre-civilization Earth?) as a spaceship takes off. He takes a potion that kills him, his body decomposing in seconds. Is it the creation of mankind? Who knows for sure? The arrival at LV-223 is equally impressive, the Prometheus attempting to find a landing zone as it travels through the atmosphere and the terrain below. Stunning visual sequences, both of them. Once the crew detects some variation on life, the visual turns to the dark and unsettling, the feeling of Doomsday looming in the air.

While I will readily recommend the movie overall, I can also say I came away slightly disappointed in the end. I don't need everything wrapped up nicely with a bow, and open-ended endings aren't a movie killer for me. But as is here, the ending left me unsatisfied. I wanted more.....of something. It doesn't have to be answers spelled out for me, but there's got to be something. Here, it just ends. On the whole, I'll heartily recommend it. Know there are flaws, but the positives ended up being particularly memorable for this moviegoer. Definitely give this one a try! Also check out the great teaser trailer below. The full-length trailer (watch HERE) is also above average as trailers go.

Prometheus <---trailer (2012): ***/****

Blade Runner

For years, I wanted to see Ridley Scott's 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner. Can you be intimidated by a movie though? I never sought it out because there always seemed to be a new version being released. Where was I supposed to start? Which one was the best one? Without reading up on it -- for fear of stumbling across some spoilers -- I dove in, renting the Director's Cut version. It was worth the wait.

It's 2019 in Los Angeles, a city vastly changed from the one we know. The Tyrell Corporation has created an incredibly human-like robot, called a replicant, that can almost pass as completely human. These replicants have caused problems though and are now outlawed on Earth, shipped to other planets where they work as slaves to create new colonies for mankind. Back on Earth, policemen called 'Blade Runners' work to make sure there are no replicants remaining, ready to execute anyone found. Among them is Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a burned out Blade Runner brought back to the job to find four replicants (led by Rutger Hauer) running free after murdering their human holders. Can Deckard bring them in?

Reading up on Blade Runner, I found there are a handful of different versions out there, changes made to each of them, some big, some small.  I'm not judging the others or the movie on a bigger level, just this version. I really liked it, but I didn't love it. Science fiction stories are great because they open up whole new avenues of unexplored worlds that can ask 'What if?' 'Blade' is a step above the rest because it is a great, unique visual and creative story, but there's also a message, a deeper meaning. That comes across best in Hauer's Roy Batty, leader of the replicants. What separates humans from these replicants? Are they really so different, or are we just trained to believe that?

What is remembered so fondly about Blade Runner is the world Ridley Scott creates. It was nominated for two Oscars for its visual look, somehow losing to Gandhi and ET. The visual appeal of the movie is hard to describe. This futuristic version of Los Angeles has that crowded claustrophobic feel of modern Tokyo, the shadowy and smoky feel of a 1940s film noir, and the people and crowds out of the Mos Eisley Cantina in Star Wars. It is a gorgeous film to look at, utilizing special effects that don't look dated now in 2011. You feel like you're part of this futuristic city as Deckard investigates the whereabouts of these four replicants. How often can you see such a well-made science fiction film noir? My list stops at 1.

Two stars jump out from Blade Runner as the most impressive, but really all the acting is spot on from small performances to the starring roles. Harrison Ford is the tortured cop -- a staple in film noir -- doing a job that he has begun to question. His stylish look; the long, knee-length jacket with collar turned up, the gunbelt at his waist, the close and cropped hair, just adds to the appeal of the character, almost a modern day gunslinger. Hauer too delivers an amazingly layered performance as Roy, the replicant who has begun to question his existence and his being. He goes from straight and easily read villain to a much deeper look into a character that hopefully will have you question your judgment of him.

Most of the rest of the performances are smaller, revolving around either Deckard or Roy. Sean Young plays Rachael, a high-end replicant who Deckard meets in his investigation. Like Roy, she begins to question everything she thought she knew. Edward James Olmos and M. Emmet Walsh play Gaff and Bryant, two other Blade Runners Deckard must work with in his case, Olmos especially making a sinister impression. The other fugitive replicants include Daryl Hannah in a nice supporting part with Brion James and Joanna Cassidy. William Sanderson, James Hong and Joe Turkel are some of the engineers/creators involved with the Tyrell Corporation. 

What I enjoyed most in Blade Runner was the last 25 minutes, bordering on the surreal at times but managing to ground itself in the end. A scene between Deckard and Roy is one of the more moving scenes I've ever come across, science fiction or not. Hauer is phenomenal in the scene, Ford doing a lot without saying a word. The ending too leaves it up to your own interpretation, not quite ambiguous but a bit of a cliffhanger. A good one though, not a 'You're kidding me! That's the end?!?' type endings. An all-around solid science fiction story, hopefully regardless of the version you see.

Blade Runner <---trailer (1982): *** 1/2 /****

Robin Hood

Some characters from historical literature have just had more of an impact than others, characters like Hawkeye in Last of the Mohicans, Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, King Arthur, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn just to name a few.  One that I started reading about when I was younger who still remains a favorite is Robin Hood. Countless books have been written about the legendary outlaw and even more film versions that include stars Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, and even a Disney animated version that I love.  Well, they can't all be winners, like 2010's Robin Hood.

A pairing of director Ridley Scott and star Russell Crowe with a great character like Robin Hood seemed like a no-brainer to me (Gladiator for anyone confused) even though I never got to see it in theaters. Going into this, I should say I'm a fan of the legend, the myth of Robin Hood. Like so many movies dealing with stories already known by audiences (Bond, Batman, Hulk), Scott goes with a reboot, telling the story of how everything we know about a character -- in this case Robin Hood -- came to be.  So basically, it's an unofficial prequel.  Bigger than that though, the title character is almost a throwaway addition.  This movie could have been any 12th Century archer fighting royalty.  I wanted to like this movie, and it just didn't happen.

After fighting for King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) in the Crusades for 10 years, archer Robin Longstride (Crowe) returns home to England with three of his closest friends and allies he's fought these many years with. Completing a mission he told someone he would honor, Robin rides to the town of Nottingham where he meets Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) and his daughter-in-law, Marion (Cate Blanchett). He agrees to say on with them, posing as Marion's dead husband so they can hold on to their land.  Bigger things are at work though as a treacherous Englishman, Godfrey (Mark Strong), is pitting new king John (Oscar Isaac) against his people while also arranging a surprise invasion from the French. Standing in their way is Robin himself, ready to defend England to the last.

I made the unfortunate decision of watching Scott's Director's Cut, clocking in at 156 minutes instead of the theatrical 141 minute-version.  Bad choice.  I'm all for historical epics in just about any form, any historical time period, but there's both too much going on here and not enough at the same time.  Maybe the best thing going for the movie is the cast, but there's too many worthy actors here so they're in and out of the story too much.  After the introduction of all the players and settings, basically an hour goes by before any conflict is even introduced.  Then when it is presented, it's another 30 minutes before SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENS.  Maybe I was expecting a different movie, but I was bored to tears and only stuck with it because I kept waiting for it to get better.  Insider tip? It doesn't.

With Scott directing and Crowe starring, Gladiator is one of my all-time favorites.  Reviews even identified this one as Gladiator with a bow and arrow.  Playing the title character (although he's only identified as Robin Hood once), Crowe makes this otherwise dull flick somewhat interesting.  The man is cut out to star in historical epics, and he makes Robin a believable leader, a man capable of convincing others to do something they never would have on their own.  Crowe also looks to do most of his own stunts -- fighting and horse riding -- so he gets points just for being cool.  As Marion, Blanchett is like a female equivalent of Crowe, an actress cut out for period pieces.  The two of them have some definite chemistry, but it gets lost in an endless series of scenes that go nowhere.

The name recognition alone for the supporting cast is great, but that's about all they get.  Over 80 now, von Sydow is still the man and just by being in the movie makes it better.  William Hurt looks like he stumbled into the wrong movie playing William of Marshal, a royal caught in the middle of a possible English civil war. Strong is a great villain, a man with NOT ONE redeeming quality, making it that much easier to hate him. Matthew Macfayden is the sheriff of Nottingham, relegated to background duty here. Huston makes the most of a quick appearance as the Lionheart. Robin's not so merry men include Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dale (singer Alan Doyle). I would have loved to see a movie more about Robin and his men in Sherwood Forest, but I guess I can add that to my list of complaints.

One thing that still surprised me about this movie was the PG-13 rating because without the R-rating, the action and violence seem pretty tame, almost boring.  I don't need decapitated heads or gushing blood, but it felt very whitewashed here.  Not that the action is top-drawer by any means, but it was certainly more watchable than just about anything else here.  Like the rest of the movie, it just didn't impress.  On scale alone, this movie gets some points but other than Crowe, Blanchett and an underused supporting cast, I've got to pass on this one.  A disappointing result, and a surprising one too.

Robin Hood <---trailer (2010): **/****      

American Gangster

Any star/director combo that turned out a movie as good as 2000's Gladiator basically gets a free pass from me. I'll pretty much watch anything that comes as a result of that duo, star Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott, working together again. It took a little while, but they did team up together in 2007's American Gangster, based on a true story as well. And as if those two weren't good enough, throw in Oscar-winner Denzel Washington into the mix.

With a Scott-produced and directed movie, it's obvious what you're going to get from the finished product. There's going to be an air of professionalism with the movie that some directors just can't produce. Great performances from the leads is almost a given, and probably most importantly of all, it'll be an entertaining movie, so much so you might not realize how real or authentic the story feels. American Gangster has all this (almost), but never reaches it's potential for whatever reason thanks to some rather leisurely storytelling. To be fair, I watched the extended DVD version which clocks in at 173 minutes opposed to the theatrical version's 154 minutes so keep that in mind as I complain.

It's 1969 in Harlem and Frank Lucas (Washington) is at a crossroads. His longtime boss/friend/father figure Bumpy Johnson -- basically the king of New York gangsters -- has died, and everyone else in NY thinks Frank's going to go with him. But Frank goes into business for himself, traveling to war-torn Vietnam to arrange a deal for a consistent supply of heroin into the U.S. which he names 'Blue Magic' for street sale. That's all Lucas needs as he takes off and the money starts rolling in, carrying him higher than even the Italian crime families. Then, there's Richie Roberts (Crowe), an honest detective infamous in the force for turning in $1 million dollars when he could have kept it for himself. Directed by supervisors, Roberts sets up a force to take down the heavy hitters in the drug industry, and sure enough, the evidence leads to a mystery man no one knows anything about, one Frank Lucas.

The story covers about seven years from Lucas' rise to his eventual conviction and jail time. It never feels rushed, and the proceedings are always pretty clear but Scott takes too much time setting things up. The first hour is downright boring and almost lost me. I realize he has to establish a background for the next two hours, but he takes a little too long. The second hour is a little better as things start moving along, but it's still not up to par with a typical Ridley Scott movie. The third hour saves the movie from being a complete bust as there's a sense of urgency, an excitement that was missing from the previous 120 or so minutes.

What surprised me most here was that Washington is not at his best. For me, Denzel is about as bankable a star as Hollywood has right now, and I'll watch him in just about anything -- maybe even read a phone book. But his Lucas is too subdued most of the time with a few quick outbursts of extreme violence, including maybe the movie's best scene because it shows the paradox Lucas has created. Like the 1972 classic The Godfather, Lucas wants to provide for his family and protect them as best he can, breaking the law be damned. He will do anything to keep them safe, including his wife Eva (Lymari Nadal) and loving mother (Ruby Dee in an Oscar-nominated supporting role).

In the same way I look at Washington, I look at Crowe. They're both actors, not movie stars. Crowe is the highpoint of Gangster as Richie Roberts, a cop trying to juggle his chaotic home life and divorced wife (an underused Carla Gugino) and the task force he's been assigned to take down the drug producers and suppliers. A New Zealand native, Crowe pulls off a pretty decent Jersey accent too in helping make Roberts the sympathetic cop. The story demands it, but a major problem is that Crowe and Washington don't have a scene together until the last 30 minutes. Their meeting (<----SPOILERS) is another great scene, and the following conversation is reminiscent of De Niro and Pacino in the coffee shop in Heat. It is scenes like this that show the potential of how good the movie should have been, but never is.

With an almost three-hour long movie, Scott fills out the ranks with a phenomenal supporting cast. Some are better than others and more than a few are left by the wayside as the story moves along, but that's almost a given with a cast list this big. Rapper RZA and John Hawkes play two members of Richie's task force, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Common, and T.I. as some of Frank's family, Ted Levine as Frank's police supervisor, and even Cuba Gooding Jr and Armand Assante as two of Frank's underworld 'contacts.' And since the movie doesn't paint Lucas as the bad guy, that part goes to Josh Brolin as the Special Investigations detective Trupo who's not too proud to take a bribe, lots of bribes.

It's disappointing writing an average review of this movie because I wanted to like it, and I was expecting a lot more. Something just doesn't click though. I won't go as far as saying it's a boring movie, but there's no heart to it, no real energy to keep things moving over an almost three hour movie. Sure, there's positives from the casting to the great 70s feel to the story, but I was expecting more. Still worth a watch though because an average movie with Crowe, Washington and Scott is still better than a ton of other new releases. Check out one of the all-time best trailers for a recent movie below.

American Gangster <----trailer (2007): **/****

Body of Lies

Ever since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the movie industry has tried to figure out how to deal with the conflicts all over the Middle East. The common link so far? No one seems to know exactly how to present the stories. That's not completely true, maybe people just aren't interested in seeing movies about U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East when memories of 9/11 are still very fresh in people's minds.

Looking at the movies that take place in/around Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries, it's a shame that several strong movies have slipped through the cracks. Ridley Scott's "Body of Lies" grossed under $40 million at the box office, but if it had been released in the late 90s, we'd be talking about a huge blockbuster. It's a timely movie detailing the CIA's efforts to smoke out and ultimately take down a terror cell planning and executing attacks all over Europe and the U.S.

Showing how technology affects what CIA agents do out in the field, the story is told through the perspective of field agent Roger Ferris, an up and coming operative assigned to find Al-Saleem, the leader of a terrorist cell that's promised to take the fight to the attackers. Ferris becomes more and more disillusioned with his job as he sees the results, sometimes extremely costly results. As Ferris, Leonardo DiCaprio again proves why he's one of the best actors of his generation. Ferris knows what's he doing, but even as a young agent, there's a weariness to him that DiCaprio brings out.

Ferris' supervisor is Ed Hoffman, a middle-aged man who keeps in constant contact with his agents by cell phone. He often talks to Ferris as he does everyday things, taking the kids to school, a soccer game, that type of stuff. At the same time, Hoffman has access to unlimited technology that allows him to track Ferris and make sure he's all right. Russell Crowe seems to be really enjoying himself in a somewhat smaller role than usual, but one that gives him chances for snappy one-liners as he verbally goes toe-to-toe with Ferris. Hoffman even says at some point "10 years ago I could have kicked your ass." He's no longer a field agent, but he's got more than enough experience to lead his division.

There weren't as many twists and turns as I thought there would be in Body. The story's pretty straightforward; the CIA trying to find and eliminate a new, deadly terrorist cell. What's interesting is how they go about accomplishing this. I won't reveal it here just because I don't want to give it away. Some good action here too in short bursts, including an early attack on a safe house by Ferris and his local source.

Director Scott doesn't disappoint here in his first movie since American Gangster. With "Departed" screenwriter William Monahan, it'd be hard to miss here. Strong performances from the two leads, a timely spy thriller that slipped through the cracks in theaters last fall, Body of Lies deserves better.