The Dark Knight Returns: Part 2
Seriously disappointing second half of the adaptation of the great 80s comic book. The first part was awesome but this feels like they just copied and pasted most of the book. The standoffs between Batman and the hostile police are dull and cannot compare to Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm which had a far greater sense of tension. And the most gripping moments of the comic, such as Jim Gordon compelling his neighbours to maintain their values in a time of crisis, feel totally wasted here.
The only saving graces here are a wonderful score and Peter Weller as Batman.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
Acclaimed Japanese film that gets regular showings at the Prince Charles in London, where I saw it. It looks good and authentic, being set in the early 60s. It's about two next door neighbours who move into cheek by jowl apartments in town at the same time and gradually come to realise their respective spouses are both having an affair. With each other. That's the bit I couldn't go along with, though I assumed it was coincidence that the two had been having an affair already and just happened to be moving into the same rooms next door; there was a coincidence like that in Internal Affairs I think, it's too much.
It's languid and doesn't spell much out, the two cuckolds are drawn to each other out of sympathy and seem to be about to get it on, but fate keeps intervening. It's all a bit Brief Encounter, but without the chat and the two seem drawn to each other on the basis of misery likes company, like the two in the kitchen at parties who know they're not going to cop off with anyone on the dancefloor. It does go on a bit.
Behind the Candelebra
Story of Liberace, an artist with no artistic legacy to speak of, and his affair with a young guy played by Matt Damon, Michael Douglas plays the pianist who tickles more than the ivories. Though really he seems to be playing Melvyn from It Aint Half Hot Mum. When he's introduced he's just too camp, I couldn't get on with that. Otherwise it's the usual gay romance as played out on big screen, like Wilde and Bosey, not exactly a paradigm for the gay cause. The acting is very good, and the director Steven Sodenburgh doesn't put a foot wrong, but the story doesn't seem too groundbreaking and you feel you know how it's going to pan out.
It's still One of my Favourite Movies, and agree with always shaken. "Foxx and Jackson are the BIZ " I think Samuel L Jackson gives
a stunning performance, very different from his usual role.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Force 10 from Navarone (1978), both the long-delayed sequel to the classic Guns of Navarone and a film with many Bond connections. For one, it's directed by Guy Hamilton (the trailer proclaims "the director of Goldfinger and Live and Let Die!"); and in the roles played originally by Gregory Peck and David Niven are former "Red Grant" Robert Shaw and future "M" Edward Fox. Cashing-in on their recent TSWLM fame are Barbara Bach (with a gratuitous but not-unwelcome boob-flashing bathtub scene) who is billed as "the spy ANY man can love!" and Richard Kiel, alias "Richard 'Jaws' Kiel." Unfortunately, both are obviously and BADLY dubbed, with Babs sounding like Garbo's hoarse sister and Kiel made to sound like the Chechan Yosemite Sam. There's also Harrison Ford hot off his first go-round as Han Solo, and Rocky's "Apollo Creed," Carl Weathers, who apparently thought he was in a different film: Shaft Fights the Nazis, or something like that. Wow: interesting cast, good director, strong literary and film pedigree. . .what could go wrong?
. . .It's so boring I wanted to pluck my eyes out.
It's still One of my Favourite Movies, and agree with always shaken. "Foxx and Jackson are the BIZ " I think Samuel L Jackson gives
a stunning performance, very different from his usual role.
with regards to SLJ it was quit weird to see him as an old man
as id only just watched him in pulp fiction a month ago
There's a great Al Pacino film called SeaofLove, and SLJ has a tiny role in it, I'm not sure if its his first film or not, but basically he brings in a pizza or something.... And still has this brilliant screen presence. He eats up every scene in every movie he's in.
Watched a great film a couple of nights ago, "Grabbers" - basically Tremors meets FatherTed. It's hilarious. Anyone else seen it?
Annie Hall and Manhattan at Prince Charles cinema.
A double Woody! Normally I'd have to log into an internet cafe for that in an afternoon!
Anyway, good stuff, holds up well. AH is a greatest hits of gags, MH looks more beautiful. Some dodgy stuff in view of Allen's personal life, his 42 year old dating a 17 year old, yeah cos would you really try to talk her out of it in real life, eh, Mister Allen? a reference to an actor being called away from a threesome with twins 'both 16' sort of grates now, still they were different days back then, as Stuart Hall would testify. All the same, great stuff and holds up well, maybe both films go a tad flat in the final third before rallying for the finale. I think that can happen when it's all gags the whole time, the Python movies suffered in the same way I think.
Force 10 from Navarone (1978), both the long-delayed sequel to the classic Guns of Navarone and a film with many Bond connections. For one, it's directed by Guy Hamilton (the trailer proclaims "the director of Goldfinger and Live and Let Die!"); and in the roles played originally by Gregory Peck and David Niven are former "Red Grant" Robert Shaw and future "M" Edward Fox. Cashing-in on their recent TSWLM fame are Barbara Bach (with a gratuitous but not-unwelcome boob-flashing bathtub scene) who is billed as "the spy ANY man can love!" and Richard Kiel, alias "Richard 'Jaws' Kiel." Unfortunately, both are obviously and BADLY dubbed, with Babs sounding like Garbo's hoarse sister and Kiel made to sound like the Chechan Yosemite Sam. There's also Harrison Ford hot off his first go-round as Han Solo, and Rocky's "Apollo Creed," Carl Weathers, who apparently thought he was in a different film: Shaft Fights the Nazis, or something like that. Wow: interesting cast, good director, strong literary and film pedigree. . .what could go wrong?
. . .It's so boring I wanted to pluck my eyes out.
Ford seems to be one of those actors who owes a lot to Spielberg and Lucas, cos without his two iconic roles I'm not sure he'd be a star, he looks a bit gormless in other films imo, with one or two exceptions. In this he looked handsome, but not the full deck. Yet that stolid look makes the absurdities of Star Wars and Indy less obvious perhaps. Like Bruce Willis and Die Hard, there are some actors who really need their breakthrough role.
watched Indiana Jones last night (the one with the little Chinese boy in it) any way apart from Indys hat
his out fit is almost identical to the enjoying death out fit, even Indys shirt had 2, button closure breast pockets
The sequel is out soon. Silly, sub-Bond hokum yet highly watchable with a bottle of beer in your hand. Mary Louise Parker does a lot to redeem it as Willis' sarcy and scatty girlfriend; the acronyn stands for Retired:Extremely Dangerous and it's about how Willis tries to get in touch with other retired assassins when he realises someone is out to terminate him. A bit Bourne Identity, a bit Expendables, quite corny but unpretentious, a couple of surprising moments and I liked John Malkovich's Bond-style hideaway home.
That said, you have to give kudos to the recent Bond films for at least trying to have more gravitas and ambition, even if they don't always achieve it imo. Much of Red is a bit tacky, sort of shooting by numbers. It has that feel of NSNA, there's even an Algy the Armourer moment, only with the late Ernest Borgnine. When you see this kind of direction, though it ain't awful, you can see why the producers went for something different.
Snitch. The message--against mandatory sentencing for drug offenses--is a bit heavy-handed, and there's a lot of melodrama in this tale of a father (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) who goes undercover as a drug-dealer to get his kid a reduced sentence; but it's not bad at all. Very sincere and straightforward, and The Man Who Was The Rock is actually very good as a blue-collar kind of guy. Also interesting to see Susan Sarandon playing a law-and-order Republican. Worth checking out.
Man of Steel, at the Odeon Studios in Leicester Square, a nicely refurbished little cinema with black and white stills on the walls of past premieres, including a good many Bond films.
The film... well, you have to say they tried something different to the original Superman: The Movie, though when that film damn nearly nailed it, should that be a good thing? So it doesn't open with the pink candy floss Cadbury flake Krypton we saw before, but a sprawling, belching, Hiernoymous Bosch setting, the kind we have seen in films like Lord of the Rings and one of the Star Wars prequels, replete with CGI that somehow manages to be impressive and unimpressive at the same time. And here's the thing, while Man of Steel isn't much like the Richard Donner film, it is of little matter when it's so derivative of other recent movies. So you have Jor-El, Superman's dad, riding on an Avatar-style dragon, the whole intro is a bit like Excalibar (no bad thing in itself), then we have the washing line motif from Pearl Harbor, the itinerant outcast worker of Wolverine in X-Men, the whole doomed Dark Knight vibe thanks to Hans Zimmer's score and generally the whole Transformers thing of megapowerful aliens smashing up the city while the US military watches on all stern but generally impotent.
They do try to do stuff with Superman being an alien on Earth but once you explore that you do have a depressing scenario; let's face it, he can't shag anyone can he or settle down and have kids, sex is the one way many blokes can really sock it and go wild, hate to think what would happen if Kal-El did that with Lois, she'd be scraped off the bedroom floor and popped into a tiny container, you'd imagine. None of that occurs to a pre-pubescent kid who would just be thinking, wow, his powers give you a chance to fly and bash up your enemies - no downside!
Of course, in some ways Supes is like The Doctor, also the only survivor from his planet, but it's different with him because he doesn't as a rule project much sexual heat, whereas recent incarnations of Superman do, characteristically a doctor must eschew all that in a professional working relationship. No one wishes to be the Doctor quite in that narcissistic way we want to be Bond.
Cavill is not bad in the role and he does look like a young Connery, a few years before Dr No, making you think, What if? regarding Casino Royale. It really would have worked, except if you have an actor channelling another actor, you can just end up with a Brandon Routh in Superman Returns situation. Commercially Craig was the better choice.
Otherwise, Willie Garvin's recent succinct review came to mind as I watched this film. Some of it quite awful and boring, and the whole Zaphod, sorry Zod coming to Earth plot I found depressing in Superman II and it is here too; basically it's two illegal immigrants coming to Earth to fight it out, creating havoc. As Superman hasn't done much to earn plaudits in terms of heroic deeds by this point, you might think, well sod off the lot of you then.
Russell Crowe pops up a lot as the dead dad, pontificating all over the shop with dreadful exposition and that deus ex machina thing where he just solves a perilous situation for our hero. It's ripe for a Carry On send-up. A lot of this is just bad direction; it's in the details, like when they get Ma Kent to soothe the young troubled Clark while the whole class and the teacher stand outside listening, it doesn't ring true. Likewise in Superman: The Movie it seems to take years for the space bug to get to Earth, it seems a long journey, whereas here it's just round the corner, it takes longer for me to pop out to the corner shop. Amy Adams ain't bad as Lois, but there's not much time for chemistry between her and her hero, forget all that stuff about the suit; there isn't enough time to really see him much, he's moving around so fast.
I was moved at some scenes in spite of myself, mainly those involving Ma Kent (a very good Diane Lane) but I found Costner's character not very consistent. The flying scenes were impressive, especially when he is testing out his powers to see how far he can push them.
All in all this film opens a can of worms by playing it so straight, and there'll be some who will feel it did what Casino Royale threatened to do, and QoS arguably did, by taking a happy escapist entertainment and making it dead miserable. The S may stand for hope on his planet, but this film is pretty hopeless in more ways than one. I wouldn't mind a sequel, with another director, but the problem here is that Superman is so super, it seems unfair to see him taking on human villains. But once you introduce alien villains, well, it becomes a bit sci-fi and you don't relate to Superman so much: watching two aliens bash each other up is like watching two footie teams of a foreign league take each other on.
Gonna watch HEAT tonight ,staring ,De Niro, Pachino, John Voight Tom Sizemore ,Val KILMER, and the guy who played Bubba in Forrest Gump, Mykelti Williamson,one of the best urban gun battles ever filmed ,
apparently, all the Hollywood guys where trained by Andy Mcnab of SAS fame, the cast reads like a whos who
and the production facts are a wow factor, watch it in surround sound with the volume full up in the gun battle
scene (a must for ASP 9MM to watch)
I finally saw The Wolverine and was surprised by how much I liked it. It's very story-driven and has a good sense of place, and best of all it makes the characters real and believable. Some kick-tail action doesn't hurt things, either. Bond fans may feel a particular "Bond vibe" to it: the Tokyo setting, the ninjas, a scene where Logan is scrubbed down by a couple of geishas, and the super-efficient girl zipping through the streets in her car really bring to mind You Only Live Twice; and the movie COMPLETELY LIFTS the "I didn't know there was a pool down there" gag from Diamonds Are Forever!
A spanking new print at the Prince Charles cinema, London.
It's regarded as Hitchcock's masterpiece, and it kind of is, despite a diabolical plothole which I wont reveal cos of spoilers.
Otherwise, I main objection is a tad superficial sounding; James Stewart is really too old for the main leading lady Kim Novak; he seems to be pushing 60 and at times in the films she seems in her 20s. And Stewart is v much the older generation; brown hat and brown suit, ricketty gait, like Flanders and Allen, he seems to have not just lived through World War II but seen the horrors of the Great War as well. How they can make out that he and Midge (his bespectacled female friend played by Barbara Bell Geddes - later Dallas' Miss Ellie) were college contemporaries I've no idea, she looks late 30s.
As I get older I seem more down on this kind of discrepancy; when I saw it as a teen with my Mum at a screening one summer during a Hitchcock season at a now long gone cinema on Tottenham Court Road, none of this occurred to me at all. Then again, Roger Moore was supposed to be a virile action hero despite being mid 50s back then.
The music is superb and of course Stewart puts in a great performance, superb. Still, he really is getting on a bit and that can't help but put a different complexion on it for me, some of it seems written for a guy in his early 40s tops.
The films is languid - I heard snoring from someone at points from a dozed off patron. And some of the interior decor on display is dead shabby looking, perhaps it's a 50s thing.
The whole thing is a study in neuroticism and having a festish, though that may have been lost on me at the time and that can be a problem with being influenced by these films as a teenager. In my later years I think, hmm, dunno mate, this character is in no way a role model...
Sinbad the 1973 version with a buxom, more puppy fat Caroline Munro.
John Philip Law looks the part but has no charimsa, the Ray Hausseman effects are clunky and no more advanced that 15 years earlier, it's sort of esapism but it's Tom Baker who steals the show as the villainous, Bernard Bresslaw type villain in pursuit of the third part of a golden necklace that will give ultimate power.
It's a bit sub Indianan Jones and the Temple of Doom, but seems to be going through the motions a bit with no real wit to speak of.
Comments
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
Seriously disappointing second half of the adaptation of the great 80s comic book. The first part was awesome but this feels like they just copied and pasted most of the book. The standoffs between Batman and the hostile police are dull and cannot compare to Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm which had a far greater sense of tension. And the most gripping moments of the comic, such as Jim Gordon compelling his neighbours to maintain their values in a time of crisis, feel totally wasted here.
The only saving graces here are a wonderful score and Peter Weller as Batman.
Acclaimed Japanese film that gets regular showings at the Prince Charles in London, where I saw it. It looks good and authentic, being set in the early 60s. It's about two next door neighbours who move into cheek by jowl apartments in town at the same time and gradually come to realise their respective spouses are both having an affair. With each other. That's the bit I couldn't go along with, though I assumed it was coincidence that the two had been having an affair already and just happened to be moving into the same rooms next door; there was a coincidence like that in Internal Affairs I think, it's too much.
It's languid and doesn't spell much out, the two cuckolds are drawn to each other out of sympathy and seem to be about to get it on, but fate keeps intervening. It's all a bit Brief Encounter, but without the chat and the two seem drawn to each other on the basis of misery likes company, like the two in the kitchen at parties who know they're not going to cop off with anyone on the dancefloor. It does go on a bit.
Behind the Candelebra
Story of Liberace, an artist with no artistic legacy to speak of, and his affair with a young guy played by Matt Damon, Michael Douglas plays the pianist who tickles more than the ivories. Though really he seems to be playing Melvyn from It Aint Half Hot Mum. When he's introduced he's just too camp, I couldn't get on with that. Otherwise it's the usual gay romance as played out on big screen, like Wilde and Bosey, not exactly a paradigm for the gay cause. The acting is very good, and the director Steven Sodenburgh doesn't put a foot wrong, but the story doesn't seem too groundbreaking and you feel you know how it's going to pan out.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Foxx and Jackson are the BIZ
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
I don't remember seeing any spiders
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
"Foxx and Jackson are the BIZ " I think Samuel L Jackson gives
a stunning performance, very different from his usual role.
. . .It's so boring I wanted to pluck my eyes out.
with regards to SLJ it was quit weird to see him as an old man
as id only just watched him in pulp fiction a month ago
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
Watched a great film a couple of nights ago, "Grabbers" - basically Tremors meets Father Ted. It's hilarious. Anyone else seen it?
A double Woody! Normally I'd have to log into an internet cafe for that in an afternoon!
Anyway, good stuff, holds up well. AH is a greatest hits of gags, MH looks more beautiful. Some dodgy stuff in view of Allen's personal life, his 42 year old dating a 17 year old, yeah cos would you really try to talk her out of it in real life, eh, Mister Allen? a reference to an actor being called away from a threesome with twins 'both 16' sort of grates now, still they were different days back then, as Stuart Hall would testify. All the same, great stuff and holds up well, maybe both films go a tad flat in the final third before rallying for the finale. I think that can happen when it's all gags the whole time, the Python movies suffered in the same way I think.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Ford seems to be one of those actors who owes a lot to Spielberg and Lucas, cos without his two iconic roles I'm not sure he'd be a star, he looks a bit gormless in other films imo, with one or two exceptions. In this he looked handsome, but not the full deck. Yet that stolid look makes the absurdities of Star Wars and Indy less obvious perhaps. Like Bruce Willis and Die Hard, there are some actors who really need their breakthrough role.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
his out fit is almost identical to the enjoying death out fit, even Indys shirt had 2, button closure breast pockets
The sequel is out soon. Silly, sub-Bond hokum yet highly watchable with a bottle of beer in your hand. Mary Louise Parker does a lot to redeem it as Willis' sarcy and scatty girlfriend; the acronyn stands for Retired:Extremely Dangerous and it's about how Willis tries to get in touch with other retired assassins when he realises someone is out to terminate him. A bit Bourne Identity, a bit Expendables, quite corny but unpretentious, a couple of surprising moments and I liked John Malkovich's Bond-style hideaway home.
That said, you have to give kudos to the recent Bond films for at least trying to have more gravitas and ambition, even if they don't always achieve it imo. Much of Red is a bit tacky, sort of shooting by numbers. It has that feel of NSNA, there's even an Algy the Armourer moment, only with the late Ernest Borgnine. When you see this kind of direction, though it ain't awful, you can see why the producers went for something different.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The film... well, you have to say they tried something different to the original Superman: The Movie, though when that film damn nearly nailed it, should that be a good thing? So it doesn't open with the pink candy floss Cadbury flake Krypton we saw before, but a sprawling, belching, Hiernoymous Bosch setting, the kind we have seen in films like Lord of the Rings and one of the Star Wars prequels, replete with CGI that somehow manages to be impressive and unimpressive at the same time. And here's the thing, while Man of Steel isn't much like the Richard Donner film, it is of little matter when it's so derivative of other recent movies. So you have Jor-El, Superman's dad, riding on an Avatar-style dragon, the whole intro is a bit like Excalibar (no bad thing in itself), then we have the washing line motif from Pearl Harbor, the itinerant outcast worker of Wolverine in X-Men, the whole doomed Dark Knight vibe thanks to Hans Zimmer's score and generally the whole Transformers thing of megapowerful aliens smashing up the city while the US military watches on all stern but generally impotent.
They do try to do stuff with Superman being an alien on Earth but once you explore that you do have a depressing scenario; let's face it, he can't shag anyone can he or settle down and have kids, sex is the one way many blokes can really sock it and go wild, hate to think what would happen if Kal-El did that with Lois, she'd be scraped off the bedroom floor and popped into a tiny container, you'd imagine. None of that occurs to a pre-pubescent kid who would just be thinking, wow, his powers give you a chance to fly and bash up your enemies - no downside!
Of course, in some ways Supes is like The Doctor, also the only survivor from his planet, but it's different with him because he doesn't as a rule project much sexual heat, whereas recent incarnations of Superman do, characteristically a doctor must eschew all that in a professional working relationship. No one wishes to be the Doctor quite in that narcissistic way we want to be Bond.
Cavill is not bad in the role and he does look like a young Connery, a few years before Dr No, making you think, What if? regarding Casino Royale. It really would have worked, except if you have an actor channelling another actor, you can just end up with a Brandon Routh in Superman Returns situation. Commercially Craig was the better choice.
Otherwise, Willie Garvin's recent succinct review came to mind as I watched this film. Some of it quite awful and boring, and the whole Zaphod, sorry Zod coming to Earth plot I found depressing in Superman II and it is here too; basically it's two illegal immigrants coming to Earth to fight it out, creating havoc. As Superman hasn't done much to earn plaudits in terms of heroic deeds by this point, you might think, well sod off the lot of you then.
Russell Crowe pops up a lot as the dead dad, pontificating all over the shop with dreadful exposition and that deus ex machina thing where he just solves a perilous situation for our hero. It's ripe for a Carry On send-up. A lot of this is just bad direction; it's in the details, like when they get Ma Kent to soothe the young troubled Clark while the whole class and the teacher stand outside listening, it doesn't ring true. Likewise in Superman: The Movie it seems to take years for the space bug to get to Earth, it seems a long journey, whereas here it's just round the corner, it takes longer for me to pop out to the corner shop. Amy Adams ain't bad as Lois, but there's not much time for chemistry between her and her hero, forget all that stuff about the suit; there isn't enough time to really see him much, he's moving around so fast.
I was moved at some scenes in spite of myself, mainly those involving Ma Kent (a very good Diane Lane) but I found Costner's character not very consistent. The flying scenes were impressive, especially when he is testing out his powers to see how far he can push them.
All in all this film opens a can of worms by playing it so straight, and there'll be some who will feel it did what Casino Royale threatened to do, and QoS arguably did, by taking a happy escapist entertainment and making it dead miserable. The S may stand for hope on his planet, but this film is pretty hopeless in more ways than one. I wouldn't mind a sequel, with another director, but the problem here is that Superman is so super, it seems unfair to see him taking on human villains. But once you introduce alien villains, well, it becomes a bit sci-fi and you don't relate to Superman so much: watching two aliens bash each other up is like watching two footie teams of a foreign league take each other on.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
apparently, all the Hollywood guys where trained by Andy Mcnab of SAS fame, the cast reads like a whos who
and the production facts are a wow factor, watch it in surround sound with the volume full up in the gun battle
scene (a must for ASP 9MM to watch)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A spanking new print at the Prince Charles cinema, London.
It's regarded as Hitchcock's masterpiece, and it kind of is, despite a diabolical plothole which I wont reveal cos of spoilers.
Otherwise, I main objection is a tad superficial sounding; James Stewart is really too old for the main leading lady Kim Novak; he seems to be pushing 60 and at times in the films she seems in her 20s. And Stewart is v much the older generation; brown hat and brown suit, ricketty gait, like Flanders and Allen, he seems to have not just lived through World War II but seen the horrors of the Great War as well. How they can make out that he and Midge (his bespectacled female friend played by Barbara Bell Geddes - later Dallas' Miss Ellie) were college contemporaries I've no idea, she looks late 30s.
As I get older I seem more down on this kind of discrepancy; when I saw it as a teen with my Mum at a screening one summer during a Hitchcock season at a now long gone cinema on Tottenham Court Road, none of this occurred to me at all. Then again, Roger Moore was supposed to be a virile action hero despite being mid 50s back then.
The music is superb and of course Stewart puts in a great performance, superb. Still, he really is getting on a bit and that can't help but put a different complexion on it for me, some of it seems written for a guy in his early 40s tops.
The films is languid - I heard snoring from someone at points from a dozed off patron. And some of the interior decor on display is dead shabby looking, perhaps it's a 50s thing.
The whole thing is a study in neuroticism and having a festish, though that may have been lost on me at the time and that can be a problem with being influenced by these films as a teenager. In my later years I think, hmm, dunno mate, this character is in no way a role model...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
John Philip Law looks the part but has no charimsa, the Ray Hausseman effects are clunky and no more advanced that 15 years earlier, it's sort of esapism but it's Tom Baker who steals the show as the villainous, Bernard Bresslaw type villain in pursuit of the third part of a golden necklace that will give ultimate power.
It's a bit sub Indianan Jones and the Temple of Doom, but seems to be going through the motions a bit with no real wit to speak of.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Still a great adventure/ Thriller. -{